|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 14, 2014 5:22:34 GMT -5
Bumping this for figandrew 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. Hey! it's a guaranteed job!  Seriously speaking you can see this manifest in an office setting as the one at the center of things that has made themselves indispensable. It's really interesting to watch and always toxic to those in proximity. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 14, 2014 5:23:35 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?  Zork! Bashar will be lonely!  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 14, 2014 5:27:20 GMT -5
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.  Yes, I mean, how can anyone be confused by this?  He's very clear on his state of confusion. Simples.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 14, 2014 5:28:19 GMT -5
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.  The Brave New Spirituality in action.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 14, 2014 5:39:48 GMT -5
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?, A string with no length would either not be, or would fill all of creation, and a hole with no bottom isn't a hole, so this question has no voice. Rather than consider how many then, let's simplify: is there only one point of perception, or many? 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 . But this question: does what the perspective is on, differ from point to point? ... had nothing to do with time. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 14, 2014 5:40:34 GMT -5
<wiggedout> but why would that matter? joy is joy whether it's dream joy or otherwise </wiggedout> 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. The Happiness and Peace that Spira spoke of, the Bliss of Self that Ramana spoke of, the Peace, Joy and Love that Tolle speaks of, the causeless happiness and serene joy that Adya speaks of, the well-being that Abe speaks of, the Joy and loving contentment that Mooji spoke of.....these do not ying yang. In fact, if someone gets a promotion and is happy, and then is demoted and is sad, its the judgement and attachment causing the swing, its not the feeling itself. The only way happiness could cause sadness is if feelings exist as oppositional pairs on a see saw, in which case each pair would have to objectively exist separately from every other pair.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 14, 2014 5:46:15 GMT -5
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.  It's a gyp! I want a refund! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 14, 2014 5:49:03 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. The subjectivity trap includes falsely associating the absence of falsity with the presence of objective truth. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 14, 2014 5:56:17 GMT -5
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'? How 'bout you get on board with refraining from imagining a frog writing words that he never wrote? |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 14, 2014 6:20:20 GMT -5
How long is a piece of string, how deep is the rabbit hole?, A string with no length would either not be, or would fill all of creation, and a hole with no bottom isn't a hole, so this question has no voice. Rather than consider how many then, let's simplify: is there only one point of perception, or many? 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 . But this question: does what the perspective is on, differ from point to point? ... had nothing to do with time. But each 'point' within awareness can be measured within 'each moment' as and when one has a change in perception . This was part meaning behind my explanation of how many points of perception there are in regards to perceiving something, be it the same thing or not . The realization of what you are, is 'what you are' is all there is . If we relate what we are to such points of awareness or points of perception had then there is only what you are perceiving . The question as to whether there is 'one point' or many is likened to phroggy's conclusion as to whether or not one's perception is right or wrong . Everything that one relates to what self is, is a spin off concocted within mind from the point of one's awareness . |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 14, 2014 7:05:11 GMT -5
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'? How 'bout you get on board with refraining from imagining a frog writing words that he never wrote? ' based' on what he said, he is on board with 'appearances not actually being separate but are also not the same'. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 14, 2014 7:08:30 GMT -5
A string with no length would either not be, or would fill all of creation, and a hole with no bottom isn't a hole, so this question has no voice. Rather than consider how many then, let's simplify: is there only one point of perception, or many? But this question: ... had nothing to do with time. But each 'point' within awareness can be measured within 'each moment' as and when one has a change in perception . This was part meaning behind my explanation of how many points of perception there are in regards to perceiving something, be it the same thing or not . The realization of what you are, is 'what you are' is all there is . If we relate what we are to such points of awareness or points of perception had then there is only what you are perceiving . The question as to whether there is 'one point' or many is likened to phroggy's conclusion as to whether or not one's perception is right or wrong . Everything that one relates to what self is, is a spin off concocted within mind from the point of one's awareness .Yes |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 14, 2014 7:11:07 GMT -5
Quotes time!
Its been a few pages, some more to support the idea of a fundamental Joy, Peace, Bliss, Happiness (and also a couple that support what I've said in previous debates about the nature of love too).
Papaji
''To find permanent joy, you must look in the right direction. You will not find it in any outside object. Every object will rise, stay, and then cease. You have to look somewhere else for permanent, eternal joy. Don’t attribute joy to something else, be it a person, the sun, moon, or stars.''
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 14, 2014 7:11:29 GMT -5
Papaji
''Anything that you have imposed on yourself to be unhappy, to be bound, is a concept. It is an imaginary concept, so give it away.''
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 14, 2014 7:11:51 GMT -5
Papaji
''So first find peace within and you will see this inner peace reflected everywhere else. You are this peace! You are happiness, find out. Where else will you find peace if not within you?”
|
|
