|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 13, 2014 5:17:33 GMT -5
Too much mental structure needed to converse in the manner you and others believe point to whatever it is you think is being pointed to.. it's like a word contest, trying to out think/say the other.. No there isn't. The nature of the 'relationship' (and even that isn't a correct word to use) is not conveyable because language is rational and the 'relationship' itself is not. Okay, i see how this works.. 'YES, THERE IS!! there, i said it with big letters, it must be righter than with little letters.. c'mon Andrew, relationship is conveyable with language, you do it every time you post.. what's going on here is an 'idea war'.. the words reveal the nature of the participants in relationship with what 'is' actually happening.. i.e.: the caustic arrogance of those that would taunt and ridicule others for not believing what they believe, their words reveal the nature of their relationship with existence.. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 5:21:34 GMT -5
Arrogant much?  Just got no time for your trolling is all. Then drink biotch 'cause you can't zoom a zoom.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 5:29:53 GMT -5
Yup. The general structure of the dialogs starts with figandrew attempting just that: trying to reify and codify an understanding by using the ideas that embody the pointers. Then we wade in to try to untangle and separate out the false as false and to someone who hasn't read from the start, it can get nearly impossible to untangle where the source of the foolishness was. oh dear, oh dear. You are trying to separate out the false as false, but Being is not-separate from mind, the Real is not-separate from appearances, the True is not-separate from the false. They are non-relationships. Honey-bun, you are a separatist. A fundie.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 5:32:53 GMT -5
Too much mental structure needed to converse in the manner you and others believe point to whatever it is you think is being pointed to.. it's like a word contest, trying to out think/say the other.. No there isn't. The nature of the 'relationship' (and even that isn't a correct word to use) is not conveyable because language is rational and the 'relationship' itself is not.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 5:36:01 GMT -5
 "Experience" is not "Real" .. Aces! Take that up with the face-value experiencers of "what is happening". Experiences are also not-separate from what is prior. ... you've just made a monism out of "what is prior". |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 13, 2014 6:21:52 GMT -5
Actually, I used the word 'Real' in contrast to 'appearances'. Not in what I replied to, no, you used the word "actual": what we are talking about is the actual relationship between the monitor and your face. ... you even bolded it. However, I'm not hung up on the word 'actual', we could say that the 'true' relationship between monitor and face can only be described as non-dual and non-separate. The key point here is the experiencer and experienced are not the same, but are not 'really/truly/actually' separate. Noone disagrees with that. No two appearances are the same, but are not 'really/truly/actually' separate. That's precisely where you mix contexts: the experiencer and experience are only appearances in that they appear in the expression of the pointer: "the experiencer and the experience are not two". As with every single dialog with you it comes down to this: the map is not the territory. If those words don't work for you, pick your own, it really doesn't matter, as long as what we are indicating is a non-relationship. Or just man up and admit you are wrong   I know what I said, and the use of the word 'actua' was fine given that what I said is prior is 'Real'. We can say that the experiencer is an appearance and that's fine, but then you are admitting that appearances are not-two. Being and mind are not-two, the absolute and relative are not-two, and the Real and false are not-two. You can fiddle with the words all you like, but we are always talking about not-two. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 13, 2014 6:24:00 GMT -5
No there isn't. The nature of the 'relationship' (and even that isn't a correct word to use) is not conveyable because language is rational and the 'relationship' itself is not. Okay, i see how this works.. 'YES, THERE IS!! there, i said it with big letters, it must be righter than with little letters.. c'mon Andrew, relationship is conveyable with language, you do it every time you post.. what's going on here is an 'idea war'.. the words reveal the nature of the participants in relationship with what 'is' actually happening.. i.e.: the caustic arrogance of those that would taunt and ridicule others for not believing what they believe, their words reveal the nature of their relationship with existence.. Yes, relationship is conveyable with language, but what we are talking about is not a 'relationship' exactly' What is being said is that something is not the same as something else, but that the two are also not actually separate. That's about as rational as I can say it. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 6:26:07 GMT -5
Not in what I replied to, no, you used the word "actual": ... you even bolded it. Noone disagrees with that. That's precisely where you mix contexts: the experiencer and experience are only appearances in that they appear in the expression of the pointer: "the experiencer and the experience are not two". As with every single dialog with you it comes down to this: the map is not the territory. I know what I said, and the use of the word 'actua' was fine given that what I said is prior is 'Real'. We can say that the experiencer is an appearance and that's fine, but then you are admitting that appearances are not-two. Being and mind are not-two, the absolute and relative are not-two, and the Real and false are not-two. You can fiddle with the words all you like, but we are always talking about not-two. Stop licking pointers, and stop using logic to conclude that you know what I think because you always misstate the conclusion to fit your agenda.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 13, 2014 6:26:46 GMT -5
Experiences are also not-separate from what is prior. ... you've just made a monism out of "what is prior". To speak of 'what is not prior' and 'what is prior' is to create a false monism. That's the problem with concepts. Nevertheless, within the limits of concepts, the non-relationship between 'what is not prior' and 'what is prior' is 'not-two' and 'non-separate'. You are still insistent on finding an actual separation. That's what makes you a fundie. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 13, 2014 6:28:36 GMT -5
I know what I said, and the use of the word 'actua' was fine given that what I said is prior is 'Real'. We can say that the experiencer is an appearance and that's fine, but then you are admitting that appearances are not-two. Being and mind are not-two, the absolute and relative are not-two, and the Real and false are not-two. You can fiddle with the words all you like, but we are always talking about not-two. Stop licking pointers, and stop using logic to conclude that you know what I think because you always misstate the conclusion to fit your agenda. Actually, you are massively licking a pointer when you speak of separating out the false. I am insisting on 'not-two' as opposed to 'actual separation' and you think I am licking pointers. Its quite funny. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 13, 2014 6:35:34 GMT -5
In the even broader context that is being spoken of in the other thread, non-duality and duality are indeed 2 conceptual ideas of the same coin. There is duality and there is non-duality, but the latter transcends the former, hence why we can collapse them both. There is multiplicity and there is oneness, but the latter transcends the former, hence we can collapse them both.
Then we can talk about face value experience hehehe
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 6:47:21 GMT -5
... you've just made a monism out of "what is prior". To speak of 'what is not prior' and 'what is prior' is to create a false monism. That's the problem with concepts. Incorrect. You convert the pointer of "prior-to form" to the monism of "prior-to" when you make the statement that "what is prior-to is not separate from experiences". To refer to what is separate from what is pointed to by not-two is to mix contexts and that's where your silly idea of the actuality of separation comes from: contextual confusion. "Prior-to" doesn't refer to some expansively bounded notion of some thing that encompasses every thing else, and that's what your statement "prior to is not separate from experiences" does ... turn it into exactly that kind of reference. It's clear pointer licking. Nevertheless, within the limits of concepts, the non-relationship between 'what is not prior' and 'what is prior' is 'not-two' and 'non-separate'. You are still insistent on finding an actual separation. That's what makes you a fundie. And you just kant move on, can ya'? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 6:54:27 GMT -5
Actually, you are massively licking a pointer when you speak of separating out the false. Bee specific Mr. Hamster. All I did in this dialog was to use "seeing the false as false" to define the pointer of actuality. How is that pointer-licking, precisely? You, on the other hand, dwad-up this silly notion of "actually seperate" by resorting to contextual confusion. I am insisting on 'not-two' as opposed to 'actual separation' and you think I am licking pointers. Its quite funny. No, you've imagined the idea of "actual separation" into the dialog. That idea, is yours, and yours alone. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 6:55:54 GMT -5
In the even broader context that is being spoken of in the other thread, non-duality and duality are indeed 2 conceptual ideas of the same coin. There is duality and there is non-duality, but the latter transcends the former, hence why we can collapse them both. There is multiplicity and there is oneness, but the latter transcends the former, hence we can collapse them both. Then we can talk about face value experience hehehe |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 13, 2014 7:29:33 GMT -5
To speak of 'what is not prior' and 'what is prior' is to create a false monism. That's the problem with concepts. Incorrect. You convert the pointer of "prior-to form" to the monism of "prior-to" when you make the statement that "what is prior-to is not separate from experiences". To refer to what is separate from what is pointed to by not-two is to mix contexts and that's where your silly idea of the actuality of separation comes from: contextual confusion. "Prior-to" doesn't refer to some expansively bounded notion of some thing that encompasses every thing else, and that's what your statement "prior to is not separate from experiences" does ... turn it into exactly that kind of reference. It's clear pointer licking. Nevertheless, within the limits of concepts, the non-relationship between 'what is not prior' and 'what is prior' is 'not-two' and 'non-separate'. You are still insistent on finding an actual separation. That's what makes you a fundie. And you just kant move on, can ya'? To say that experiences are not separate from 'prior to' does create a false monism, but to point in any way, shape or form to 'prior to' to create the illusion of a monism. The difference between you and me us that you see what is experienced as separate from what is prior, whereas I don't The fundamentalist error is so clear there, you are positing a true/actual/real boundary where there is none. |
|
"Experience" is not "Real" .. Aces! 