|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 9:06:50 GMT -5
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. 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 9:07:14 GMT -5
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. Which is it? Are expressions the same? Are they separate? Or are they non-separate? (i.e separate AND the same) |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 13, 2014 9:08:00 GMT -5
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. and stop using logic to conclude that you know what enigma thinks because you always misstate the conclusion to fit your agenda. There's no mistake Enigma clearly voted for number 1.......- Expressions are separate, finite, limited and dual. If the ONLY other option had been 'expressions are all the same, infinite, unlimited and absolute', then Enigma's choice would make sense and I could have agreed that it was the closest approximation. But it wasn't the only other option. And he can always choose again. Too much pride involved through probably. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 13, 2014 9:23:56 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 Why would you say in your opinion that it is not probable . Are you saying you cannot see what is there or are you saying you only see what you see . I know that voice too  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 9:26:37 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.  Between here and here Andy admits that he is essentially seeking Self-improvement (quotiness intended). wiggles, on the other hand does a chiggy-wiggy to avoid sounding "done" while at the same time denying that she's seeking. Yes, I'd agree, opposite ends of the extreme. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 9:28:48 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. I've not written any of what you've attributed to me. That you constantly repeat the same illusions leads me to draw the conclusion that you are batsh!t crazy. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 9:29:47 GMT -5
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? Shinola.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2014 9:32:46 GMT -5
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.  Classic! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 9:32:54 GMT -5
Up to here I can agree with what you've written, but only if I take what is underlined as a pointer. The word "relative" is the root of the word "relationship". It's a false dichotomy based on the nonsense idea that relative expressions are not relatable. Which is it? Are expressions the same? Are they separate? Or are they non-separate? (i.e separate AND the same) You just let me know if you're interested in a dialog we haven't had like 43 times already? 'k? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 13, 2014 9:32:58 GMT -5
I know that voice! Yeah I would say its possible. Just not currently very probable lol Why would you say in your opinion that it is not probable . Are you saying you cannot see what is there or are you saying you only see what you see . I know that voice too Coz conditioning runs deep, life can be challenging, and because if our desire is to see love in all, we might find ways to test our willingness and capacity to do so. Good to see you on the forum |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 9:33:28 GMT -5
kant ... stop ... laughing ...... please ............... send ........................................ help |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 13, 2014 9:34:59 GMT -5
Yeah, that's interesting. F admits next to nothing, A almost anything. Two extreme ends of the identity poker stick. Between here and here Andy admits that he is essentially seeking Self-improvement (quotiness intended). wiggles, on the other hand does a chiggy-wiggy to avoid sounding "done" while at the same time denying that she's seeking. Yes, I'd agree, opposite ends of the extreme. More like Divine Compliments The Divine Masculine and Divine Feminine (and that's even if I agree with you...I'm not sure I do, but I'm happy to play along) |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 13, 2014 9:35:50 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. I've not written any of what you've attributed to me. That you constantly repeat the same illusions leads me to draw the conclusion that you are batsh!t crazy. cop out |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 9:37:03 GMT -5
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 laughter on Oct 13, 2014 9:40:52 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 . How many points of perception are they, and does what the perspective is on, differ from point to point? |
|
