|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 14, 2014 2:07:58 GMT -5
Unless is hasn't!  right, there never was a war, it was all agenda and propaganda; double think, revisionism and thought crimes. but also, I was curious if Silver had ever read a book (any book) from cover to cover.  Why not? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 14, 2014 2:16:34 GMT -5
just coz you're wrong. As you would have it, separation is an illusion in the very same context that limitation and finiteness and duality are not illusion. Crazy. They are all illusion in the same context. If we then want to go ahead and say that appearances themselves are illusion, that's fine, but its a different context. 'Appearance' is a word used to try to dismiss the happenings that some people cannot reconcile with the beliefs they are attached to.. "Separation" is exactly as true as oneness is, as nonduality is.. the mental fustercluck required to think that the endless droning about separation vs oneness is anything other than the droner's admiration of their own TMT is astonishing.. Whiner. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 14, 2014 2:17:21 GMT -5
'appearance' is an unfortunate word but I am happy to go with it to illustrate a point. Separation is as true as oneness, and yet in order for that to be true, it also has to be true that oneness transcends separation! The ground out of which all of this comes has to be more fundamental than the changing expressions. Whether we want to call that ground 'energy' or 'consciousness' or whatever. The flaw is in believing that anything 'has to be true', it is simply happening.. oneness AND separation happen simultaneously, any minding beyond that experiencable actuality is Too Much Thinking... Experience is truth. Why do you question his experience? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 14, 2014 2:19:09 GMT -5
I tell ya, they've never been to no-mountain. They were just browsing thru some guidebooks and travel logs and took some ventriloquist lessons. So all those home movies about their trip to no-mountain that they made us sit through are faked?? Yes, I'm afraid so. We've been had.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 14, 2014 3:01:49 GMT -5
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? If what actually 'is', is how one perceives it, then everybody is right, self deception and illusion are impossible. There's nothing subjective about that. That's what actually 'is' regardless of what you see. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 14, 2014 3:44:47 GMT -5
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? If what actually 'is', is how one perceives it, then everybody is right, self deception and illusion are impossible. There's nothing subjective about that. That's what actually 'is' regardless of what you see. What is right is how you see it as being right . Do you see  . For everybody to be right is what you have ascertained through self evaluation / contemplation . I see it that the mind can allow one to perceive the same thing differently it only becomes a matter of being a right way or a wrong way of perceiving the same thing when one concludes as such . |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 14, 2014 4:52:03 GMT -5
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. Hey! They won't be able to resist arguing that there are! Aces! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 14, 2014 4:56:29 GMT -5
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. hear da'aat phroggy  .. can't blame folks for buyin' a paintin' or two now and then either .. the dark colors of the stuck killjoy can really accent a wall well ya' know ... |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 14, 2014 4:59:09 GMT -5
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. The cleverest of strategies of course overtly renounce all cleverness. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 14, 2014 5:10:11 GMT -5
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. It's new math ... the numbers mean just what you want them to mean.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 14, 2014 5:13:25 GMT -5
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? Nope. Not once ... and all she's gotta do to see the asymmetry is to count the times I've used a version of the word "rez" in a post to her. Lights are on, music's loud .. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 14, 2014 5:16:03 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> Hey! It's another figfight! <figgles> That's TMT, at face-circle, there is unquestionable uncertainty </figgles>  ... and it ain't like we couldn't put up quotes that would actually embody the dialog .. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 14, 2014 5:17:44 GMT -5
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. Sounds like you are now saying that to speak of the illusionary or apparent nature of 'separation' is deluded. Which is just sillyness. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 14, 2014 5:19:57 GMT -5
A nonsense repeated a thousand times is still a nonsense. Not to the one who is repeating the nonsense. Well, if all ideas are equally true/false, then what's the harm??  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 14, 2014 5:21:00 GMT -5
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.  Okay, lets stick with this. So you are done with the 'non' word, which would included 'non' duality. But based on what you said, you can get on board with 'appearances are not actually separate but are also not the same' Can you get on board with 'experiences are not actually separate but are also not the same'? Also, 'appearances/experiences are not actually dualistic but are also not absolute'? |
|
. For everybody to be right is what you have ascertained through self evaluation / contemplation . I see it that the mind can allow one to perceive the same thing differently it only becomes a matter of being a right way or a wrong way of perceiving the same thing when one concludes as such . 
.. can't blame folks for buyin' a paintin' or two now and then either .. the dark colors of the stuck killjoy can really accent a wall well ya' know ... 
... and it ain't like we couldn't put up quotes that would actually embody the dialog .. 