|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 8:18:15 GMT -5
If you defined yourself by your login name you wouldn't be here no more.  "The man that doesn't exist" or "TMTDE"   |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 8:22:49 GMT -5
Their unconditional compassion knows no bounds. What do you think would happen if we would say "You were right, guys. We are stuck at no-mountain. Any doing suggestions how get out of this trap again?"  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 13, 2014 8:23:46 GMT -5
No, what you said is 'separate out' the false. Oh, I see, you seek to invoke the liars paradox. There are many ways to see the false as false. One is to recognize that some ideas are obviously nonsense. For example: "The moon is made of cream cheese" is a relative falsity, while "the ratio of the diameter to the circumference of a circle is an irrational number" is a relative truth. Another way is to recognize that there is nothing that we can write or say that is not dependent on contrast, which has the subject/object split (duality) as it's basis, so that there is no way to directly state the truth that is beyond (or prior-to) concepts and expression. If pointing is done consciously -- which is to say, conscious of that recognition -- then the falsity of writing about pointers heedlessly of the recognition is seen for what it is: the falsity of pointer licking ... which is most of what you've written over the past week. And you are using that same old morphing strategy that you were using before.... I have not said that truth and falsity are the same, I am saying they are non-two.O.k. that's a fair correction, and not a dwad. ... but the way that you go on to use this idea is to introduce contextual confusion leading eventually to the silly notion of "actual separation". That idea is yours, and yours alone. No, its not. Enigma clearly stated that he sees experiences/perceptions/expressions as separate as opposed to non-separate (non-two). To make that choice is to choose 'actual separation'. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 13, 2014 8:25:29 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..  “A shadowy flight into the dangerous world of a man who does not exist. Michael Knight Tzujanli, a young old loner on a crusade, to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless. In a world of criminals who operate above the law…" |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 8:26:56 GMT -5
Oh, I see, you seek to invoke the liars paradox. There are many ways to see the false as false. One is to recognize that some ideas are obviously nonsense. For example: "The moon is made of cream cheese" is a relative falsity, while "the ratio of the diameter to the circumference of a circle is an irrational number" is a relative truth. Another way is to recognize that there is nothing that we can write or say that is not dependent on contrast, which has the subject/object split (duality) as it's basis, so that there is no way to directly state the truth that is beyond (or prior-to) concepts and expression. If pointing is done consciously -- which is to say, conscious of that recognition -- then the falsity of writing about pointers heedlessly of the recognition is seen for what it is: the falsity of pointer licking ... which is most of what you've written over the past week. O.k. that's a fair correction, and not a dwad. ... but the way that you go on to use this idea is to introduce contextual confusion leading eventually to the silly notion of "actual separation". That idea is yours, and yours alone. No, its not. Enigma clearly stated that he sees experiences/perceptions/expressions as separate as opposed to non-separate (non-two). To make that choice is to choose 'actual separation'. and stop using logic to conclude that you know what enigma thinks because you always misstate the conclusion to fit your agenda. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 13, 2014 8:27:20 GMT -5
what is realized is also not-separate to 'the false'. What is realized, is not false. The absolute and the relative are non-separate There is no statement of the absolute that is not relative, whereas "not-two" (the absence of separation) , does not point to the relative. I agree that what is realized is not false. The false is not actually separate from what is not false. They are non-separate. Non-two (and non-separate) points to the non-relationship between absolute and relative, AND the non-relationship between one relative expression and another relative expression. The only other choice is to say that either a) all expressions are the same b) all expressions are actually separate. Which is it? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 13, 2014 8:29:23 GMT -5
No, its not. Enigma clearly stated that he sees experiences/perceptions/expressions as separate as opposed to non-separate (non-two). To make that choice is to choose 'actual separation'. and stop using logic to conclude that you know what enigma thinks because you always misstate the conclusion to fit your agenda. He openly chose number 1 i.e. one expression is separate from another expression. Choice 2 was One expression is non-separate from another expression. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 13, 2014 8:31:53 GMT -5
So you disagree that we are what we seek? We are NOT the Peace, Happiness and Joy that we seek? No, the perpetugasm is not what you seek. Seeking an experience based on those pointers is a central page of the escape plan. Between you and figs there might be some hope for you though, 'cause you've actually admitted that you're still seeking. Yeah, that's interesting. F admits next to nothing, A almost anything. Two extreme ends of the identity poker stick.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 13, 2014 8:35:24 GMT -5
There are only 3 choices here
1) Expressions are separate
2) Expressions are one and the same
3) Expressions are non-separate (i.e both 1 and 2)
Enigma and Laughter have argued for number 1
I am arguing for number 3.
To argue for number 1, is to argue for 'actual' separation. If its not 'actual' separation, it has to be number 3.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 13, 2014 8:36:14 GMT -5
To deny the potential of other dimensions/realities is to misunderstand the nature of experiencing and existence. It's a silly fantasy stated using terminology cooked up by psuedoscience. There are four known dimensions, provable by observation. Even the respectable notion of extra dimensions referenced by the branch of physics known as string theory are only theoretical, and they have nothing to do with the alternate realities of the many-worlds interpretation of QM. Just because it might be possible someday to modify one of my cats brains so they could talk, doesn't mean that it will happen. There's a difference between the absence of skepticism and the presence of gullibility, and naive adherence to a structure of belief rooted in rumor and dyslexic interpretation of popularized science is a je june waste of time and energy. What's that got to do with non-duality anyway? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 13, 2014 8:36:22 GMT -5
No, the perpetugasm is not what you seek. Seeking an experience based on those pointers is a central page of the escape plan. Between you and figs there might be some hope for you though, 'cause you've actually admitted that you're still seeking. Yeah, that's interesting. F admits next to nothing, A almost anything. Two extreme ends of the identity poker stick. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 13, 2014 8:39:22 GMT -5
Sorry, Figsy is in the demanding links business, not in the delivering links business.  That's part of the "seeing what I wanna' see rather than what's there" industry.  Yeah, just interesting that she sees only poo in her discussion partners. Have you noticed? Something not quite adding up again. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 13, 2014 8:40:06 GMT -5
One's point of perception can allow anything to be . From one's perception there will be separation, oneness, individuality, sameness for everything is in the eye of the beholder through such a point .
Lee Evans is funny and not funny at the same time depending on whether one finds him funny or not .
What actually 'Is' is how one perceives it .
Is it not possible for one to see love in all expressions .
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 8:49:33 GMT -5
What is realized, is not false. There is no statement of the absolute that is not relative, whereas "not-two" (the absence of separation) , does not point to the relative. I agree that what is realized is not false. The false is not actually separate from what is not false. They are non-separate. Non-two (and non-separate) points to the non-relationship between absolute and relative, Up to here I can agree with what you've written, but only if I take what is underlined as a pointer. AND the non-relationship between one relative expression and another relative expression. The word "relative" is the root of the word "relationship".  The only other choice is to say that either a) all expressions are the same b) all expressions are actually separate. Which is it? It's a false dichotomy based on the nonsense idea that relative expressions are not relatable. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 13, 2014 9:05:38 GMT -5
One's point of perception can allow anything to be . From one's perception there will be separation, oneness, individuality, sameness for everything is in the eye of the beholder through such a point . Lee Evans is funny and not funny at the same time depending on whether one finds him funny or not . What actually 'Is' is how one perceives it . Is it not possible for one to see love in all expressions . I know that voice! Yeah I would say its possible. Just not currently very probable lol |
|
