|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 13, 2014 22:53:57 GMT -5
What he's saying makes perfect sense, and it explains why you were so insistent that if a sense of limitation is not being experienced, that that means there is denial, detachment from, or a 'wall papering' job going on. You see limitation as actual! Seems You didn't get the non-duality memo that says; individuality does not equal actual separation/limitation...? Or, Separation/limitation are ONLY appearances...?  I think you might need to bone up on your non-duality 101 with E, who will most certainly inform you: Individuation does not equal separation. And, a sense of separation and a sense of limitation, go hand in hand. No, I do not see limitation as actual. Can you quote anything that I've written for the idea that I have? Everything else that you've written there is based on the faulty premise. Does that matter to you, that you're drawing conclusions based on a faulty premise? Have you ever seen her giving you the benefit of the doubt? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 13, 2014 23:02:14 GMT -5
It really does seem as though you see 'a sense of limitation' as being unavoidable, so long as experience is happening... that if there is no sense of limitation, there is denial happening...? Which seems to indicate that you see limitation as actual, thus, no sense of it being there, must = delusion or denial. <figgles> Define 'you'. </figgles> |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 13, 2014 23:03:55 GMT -5
There's no literalism there. Non-separate, non-dual, non-finite, non-limited All the best that can be said about the nature of appearances appearing. If I am not correct, then it means that appearances are actually separate, actually dual, actually finite, actually limited. A nonsense repeated a thousand times is still a nonsense. Not to the one who is repeating the nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 13, 2014 23:12:18 GMT -5
Actually I did, but you didn't seem to want to hear it: Figgles: A day late and a dollar short in a thread where you've been writing constantly about the notion of a complete absence of attachments. Your link doesn't put your statement in context at all, btw. What you wrote originally was this: I've described deepening of experience where the only thing being detached from, is a sense of limitation. ... and then only after it was pointed out to you what you'd written did you try to change your tune, and literally, a day after the implications of it became clear. If "full acceptance" is full detachment, then whatever is felt is detached from, including a sense of separation, if it is operative. Of course. Not what I've been talking about about at all though. In the bit you quoted, I was speaking to attachment to identity....that's what's really behind a sense of/belief in limitation in the first place. The potential quote wall available to me to contradict your statement about your own words is quite expansive, but the level of trolling you're engaged with at this point precludes any entitlement to it. What you were writing about for 200+ pages was a state of absolute acceptance absent all attachments, and what you wrote about specifically during the meltdown was the absence of attachment to a sense of separation, which, for an individual to be in that state, would of course have to be operative. If that were the case (a sense of limitation being present, but being denied), it wouldn't work to create the sense of 'perpetugasm.' The sense of well-being would be very finite....limited...short in duration as denial itself serves as a sort of barrier, buffer to feelings of well-being, peace, positivity. When denial of actual feeling/sense is present, all feelings are blunted. There is a sort of 'deadness' to the felt component of experience. There would also be a denial of what was actually felt, which is what you've been very obviously doing at certain points in this thread in several different instances and on several different levels. Haven't you been arguing with Andrew that in order for anything to appear, limitation must be the case? Well, thanks for writing that, because it points up very specifically what we mean when we tell you that you don't know what we're corresponding about to one another here. Appearances appear as the result of the illusion of limitation. In your implicit question you've demonstrated that you just don't understand how deep the rabbit hole goes. There is nothing in your field of perception that you name that isn't an appearance.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 13, 2014 23:15:46 GMT -5
Bumping this for figandrew There is this appearance of a problem: reconciling the fact of individuation with the absence of limitation/separation. As you've pointed out several times in the past, seeing this appearance as an actual problem is always expressed as the mental confusion of paradox. Andy at least is sometimes honest about that, whereas wigs often gets into one of two different conversational situations: sometimes, she just doesn't recognize the inherent contradiction underlying her expressions, and other times, she'll recognize the paradox as it's emerging and manipulate the dialog like a ventriloquist in an effort to throw the apparent confusion onto her correspondent .. exemplified by what you responded to here, or here, for instance. Andy sometimes does the ventriloquist act as well, but ya' gotta be a real dummy to let him get away with it.  They both followed each other into the deep and complex warren of this jihadaganza that has that apparent problem as the cause celebre. There is no problem. The fact of individuation is not conceptually reconcilable with the absence of limitation/separation. Reference to what is sensed, to what is experienced, always carries with it the implied reference to the limiting boundary around the one sensing or experiencing: the individuation. You both constantly spin these various hyperminded theories based on this non-problem with the agenda of maintaining the integrity of the individual while not denying the absences. Stop trying to solve the problem, because there isn't one. If there's no problem to solve, then there's no justification for the existence of the problem solver. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 13, 2014 23:18:45 GMT -5
Because it is being implied that I have said that sadness and irritation can cease to arise in this reality. I have not said that, only Katie and Tolle have said that. It hasn't been clear what your position on guru sadness has been until very recently. I believe you're the one who posted the comments from both teachers and I thought you were using them to show that sadness doesn't arise. In any event, neither you nor I seem to know what the 5th dimension has to do with this discussion, so I think it's safe to stop bringing it up now. What? You are not eager to ascend into the 5th?  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 13, 2014 23:26:49 GMT -5
YOu seriously believe I had a meltdown? What? It's in this very thread, just few pages back.  From where I sit, the silliest thing of all is to deny the obvious. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 13, 2014 23:30:41 GMT -5
That was in response to you insisting that 'detachment' was happening. No, it wasn't: I've described deepening of experience where the only thing being detached from, is a sense of limitation. You're just repeating a propaganda for the sake of appearing being right. Troll much? ... sad thing is, my guess is that you're starting to believe this yourself. Look, it's ok to love your family. You don't have to hypermind up a dwad between "attachment" and "bond", it just is what it is, and nothing is wrong about it. full acceptance/fundamental acceptance = An Absence...(an absence of a sense of limitation, absence of grasping/resistance, absence of need, all of which hinges upon an absence of attachment to a fixed, limited identity.) IN what I'm speaking of, There is no sense of limitation present, from which to become 'detached' from. there you have it. Then there is no limitation of a perspective in "full acceptance", but if you agree with that statement then you're just doing a bad E&R impression. The implication of the full acceptor dogma as it relates to the sense of limitation is just another cookie recipe that you've transcribed. But you see, the sound of a cookie jar tapped with a spoon is different if the jar is empty or full, so it doesn't make any difference how thick yer recipe book gets dear. YOu seriously believe I had a meltdown? It was documented hun'. Self-contradiction simply is, what it is, as is vitriolic spew. Now you see, I'll admit to a vitriolic tone in what I'm writing here, but that's in response to your attempt to re-write history in the midst of a full-on troll assault by yer wing martian. In contrast, at least some of the vitriol you spewed during the meltdown was a stampede of giraffes at someone approaching defenseless. So are you still standing by your assertion that appearances hinge upon actual limitation? Link or giraffe, where have I written that limitation is actual? Unlike Enigma, I have very limited patience for this foolishness. It's trolling, pure and simple hun'. If you're going to imagine sh!t up and try to figuratively put it in my mouth then I'm going to figuratively jam it back down your throat. Now that sounds all dramatic and nasty and mean, but when you repetitively assign an idea to me that is not mine, it is a form of slander, and warrants a harsh response. It's the .... ' how low can ya go game,' of using whatever amo you can to score points. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 14, 2014 0:14:49 GMT -5
It hasn't been clear what your position on guru sadness has been until very recently. I believe you're the one who posted the comments from both teachers and I thought you were using them to show that sadness doesn't arise. In any event, neither you nor I seem to know what the 5th dimension has to do with this discussion, so I think it's safe to stop bringing it up now. What? You are not eager to ascend into the 5th? I have a reservation for 2020 but I might cancel and try to get my deposit back.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 14, 2014 1:25:58 GMT -5
Read the words wiggly. The words you quote back to me express the exact opposite of: So are you still standing by your assertion that appearances hinge upon actual limitation? ... and did I mention (like a gajillion times perhaps?) that the absence of limitation is a pointer away from what is false? ... that actuality is what is not false? ... that appearances aren't actual?  Now, are you going to admit that you saw a giraffe there or not? If you remain silent, or, even worse, in denial, then I'll just conclude, once and for all (concordant with the meltdown and many of the other sub-threads of dialog here) that you are just as batsh!t crazy as andy is with his obvious repetitive trolling -- upon which the giraffe was, of course based. When we flow with life, without resistance, experience becomes a dance between thought (which is mostly all directed towards that which we appreciate about 'this') and manifestation. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 14, 2014 1:33:24 GMT -5
The way you troll is really quite fascinating. As much fun as it is poking holes in fundie no-mountain models, I think I've got to get on with stuff tomorrow. Would you like me to show you again what you saying? You are saying that separation is illusionary within appearances, and yet limitation within appearances is not an illusion.No, you're imagining that and at the basis of the imagining is the confluence of contextual confusion with agenda. Very simply: the illusion of limitation gives rise to the appearance. The absence of limitation is a pointer, and you can logitate all sorts of contradictions by licking pointers, but you have to try quite a bit harder that you have in this thread to come up with one that's not based on logical fallacy and false distinction. Fair warning to both you and figs: don't take any of these types of slanders -- specifically attributing words that have not been written -- outside of the UM. Andrew about confusion: This really doesn't make a lot of sense. Confusion is unpleasant, yes, and there are 2 basic ways of dealing with it. 1) Land on a fixed answer, and perhaps find a way to make sure that you can only ever experience fixed answers (which you have done), or 2) surrender to the confusion, allow it, embrace it. That's what I did. I don't experience confusion these days really. Mental confusion is no better than belief. It is in terms of being a doorway to the unknown. Paradox is waiting to embrace you like a long lost son Mr E. Paradox has become a pretty good indicator for mental confusion. You embrace paradox because you embrace confusion. Confusion is not your friend. Confusion isn't a pleasant experience but allowing it, embracing it, surrendering to it can be a very good thing to do. In one way, because I don't need to buy into any one side of a mental duality (I don't need to buy into the duality of truth/falsity or real/imaginary), I always reside in a state of confusion. Paradoxically though, my openness to this confusion means that confusion is not my experience. In fact, I can come across as downright certain at times. I can come across as if I am VERY bought into something.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 14, 2014 1:53:39 GMT -5
There's a strong focus on woo-woo. Which suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of what non-duality is actually about. According to Andy, duality is nondual. I'd say that shows a pretty fundamental misunderstanding too.  Yes, confusion is clarity, bondage is freedom and ignorance is strength.  |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 14, 2014 2:00:02 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? How long is a piece of string, how deep is the rabbit hole?, I would say for every moment had can potentially entertain another vantage point . As one perceives self, one can perceive self differently in each moment, point for point there can be difference in what is in reflection, there will always be change until the moment of realization, then at that point the changes don't make any difference . |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 14, 2014 2:00:59 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. This would be how you see it . The eyes of the beholder perceives things as they are in line with how they see it . Whether one perceives through a filter or not at a point there will be nothing there . Which way of seeing is more true or correct, false or illusional? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 14, 2014 2:02:59 GMT -5
Only in that she has mistaken her subjective conclusions about it for obvious fact. Seems slander serves her highest values... When we come to see that it's ALL a story, even this!, we enter into the realm where anything truly is possible..... & That's MY story and I'm stickin' to it, (because it serves my highest values of having an experience brimming with love, peace, ease, joy, beauty.).. |
|
