|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 13, 2014 19:34:24 GMT -5
Your whole word game here is a non-starter for me. I don't have an issue with 'not separate but not the same'. It's just an artifact of distinction formation, which does not actually separate anything. Okay. Maybe we are getting somewhere here. I doubt it, but maybe. If you don't have an issue with ''appearances are not actually separate but are also not the same'', then you agree that appearances are non-separate rather than separate. Can you get on board with that? bumped for relevance factor |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 13, 2014 19:46:16 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 . That would mean everybody is right, and self deception would be impossible. No such thing as illusion. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 13, 2014 19:52:17 GMT -5
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 That's not actually self testing that happens when you try to see love in everything, and fail. It's the other end of the stick from which you can never escape. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 13, 2014 20:09:53 GMT -5
That's my point, they don't appear to be separate to begin with, so you don't have to confirm or deny that separation. First you say they are separate, and then you say they don't even appear separate! Appearances do appear to be separate, and that separation is an illusion. Appearances are non-separate i.e. no two appearances are the same, but also no two appearances are actually/truly separate. Separation is a conclusion. If you don't conclude that,then you don't have to confirm or refute that conclusion. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 13, 2014 20:13:57 GMT -5
I'd be surprised if he's just trolling. His ideas, just like Figs' ideas, all have a vector pointing to the same escape plan. It looks like he begins with a final conclusion, and then does whatever is necessary to confirm that conclusion. Hehe....Come on Man! You guys gotta get your stories straight!  .  .....you're all absolutely convinced that Andrew and I are doing something 'bad' or wrong on this forum, but you've gotta get some agreement in place on specifically what that 'bad thing' is....or it starts to look like a simple case of shooting the messengers who deliver the unpalatable messages.  You're not doing anything wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 13, 2014 20:18:52 GMT -5
Your whole word game here is a non-starter for me. I don't have an issue with 'not separate but not the same'. It's just an artifact of distinction formation, which does not actually separate anything. Okay. Maybe we are getting somewhere here. I doubt it, but maybe. If you don't have an issue with ''appearances are not actually separate but are also not the same'', then you agree that appearances are non-separate rather than separate. Can you get on board with that? I just got through telling you I'm not playing the 'non' game.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 13, 2014 20:26:01 GMT -5
Okay, same twaddle, different day. Twaddle is actually a very funny word. I quite like it, if not the actuality of what is being referenced. Me too. Twaddle is a fun word and I'm determined to use it if it's appropriate or not. WooHoo! Painting the living room today. WooHoo! |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 13, 2014 20:28:03 GMT -5
That's why the whole yin-yanginationating discussion happened. The other end of the stick even shows up here in the discussion, but she's trained herself not to see it. We can't always determine just from appearances that an actual 'other end of the stick' is showing up. I think you've even tried to relay something to that effect at one point or another. ....? Red Bull gives me second sight. WooHoo! |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 13, 2014 20:30:28 GMT -5
The problem with the positive thinking escape plan is that it's necessary to pretend the stick one is swinging around has only one end, which inevitably results in poking oneself in the eye with the invisible end. Don't think there's much chance of a I getting poked out with the thick rose glasses this crew likes to wear. Well, I hope they're safety glasses.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 13, 2014 20:34:46 GMT -5
I'd be surprised if he's just trolling. His ideas, just like Figs' ideas, all have a vector pointing to the same escape plan. It looks like he begins with a final conclusion, and then does whatever is necessary to confirm that conclusion. But since all the pointing here is at odds with the plan, the trolling just sort of happens naturally. It's not like I think that he's actually a separate volitional troll or nuhthin' That'll be my new mantra. There are no separate volitional trolls. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 13, 2014 20:38:54 GMT -5
What Figs and Andy have in common is the tendency toward confirmation bias. In Figs it takes a feeling form, (feeling how she wants to feel) and for Andy it takes a thinking form. (concluding what he wants to conclude) It's a wild ride if one endeavours to follow along the tunnels as they work their way backward. Most peeps thought processes are much more straightforward. Fewer unpleasant surprises. It takes more effort than I can muster sometimes, and I don't blame folks for not wanting to follow the conversations. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 13, 2014 22:08:37 GMT -5
That's why the whole yin-yanginationating discussion happened. The other end of the stick even shows up here in the discussion, but she's trained herself not to see it. yelps, it is as you pointed out ... the elephant in the room ... peeps never see it ..  .. never had an interest in psychology, so it was a bit of a shocker to discover this the hard way.  Yes, it really is a shock to see how intractable mind is first hand. For me, it suddenly became very clear how mind could deceive itself so thoroughly that it can go a whole lifetime missing the only thing from which nobody can ever escape. I think every seeker is convinced that if he were only clever enough, surely he could find what all the teachers are pointing to. The elephant is the punchline to that cosmic joke. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 13, 2014 22:14:28 GMT -5
Well, as long as I get the right answer, which I obviously did, what difference does it make? ur setting a bad example for all the children that are reading this! Hey kids, don't try this at home, okay?  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 13, 2014 22:42:56 GMT -5
Oh, really? Yup, perfect self-justification for maintaining a vigilant focus as an individual in absolute acceptance to ensure the perpetugasm.  You think someone who is mostly experiencing and focused on the positive side of experience would actually spew negativity all day long? Would someone who is not fighting with life anymore start a food fight wherever she goes so that almost every thread she enters ends as a train wreck? Something is not quite adding up here. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 13, 2014 22:50:43 GMT -5
You are seeing things that are not there. Yeah, and this time it ain't a pretty flower neither.  It seems that her mind tends to see more ugliness than beauty most of the time. Somehow painting ugly pictures of her debating partners comes more easily than giving them the benefit of the doubt, let alone appreciating them. |
|
. 
.....you're all absolutely convinced that Andrew and I are doing something 'bad' or wrong on this forum, but you've gotta get some agreement in place on specifically what that 'bad thing' is....or it starts to look like a simple case of shooting the messengers who deliver the unpalatable messages. 
