|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 14, 2014 14:41:59 GMT -5
I do agree that as soon as an appearance is sense-perceived, or an experience experienced, it is by definition temporal, limited, finite and bound. But.....I would say that it is not JUST those thing. When I say that appearances/experiences are non-dual, it includes the dualistic aspect. It says...yes they are temporal, finite and bound but they are not just that. To me, saying that they are dual does give slightly the wrong impression, however, I can get over that, its not a big deal. To me, the core issue at stake is the one I tried to address above i.e. IF experiences can be experienced without a sense of them being 'actually' separate (and I believe they can be), then I would say there are two illusions here worth talking about. The first is the illusion of 'actual' separation. The second is the illusion of experiences themselves. So I don't really care about the labels 'duality or 'non-duality'...they are just labels. What would bother me is if it is being said that experiences cannot be experienced without the sense of 'actual' separation. And if they CAN be experienced without the sense of 'actual' separation, what is the illusion? Is the illusion what is experienced? Or is the illusion the sense of 'actual' separation? So to me, they are two slightly different contexts. Does the parabrahman abiding in nondual awareness giggle at a joke? Yawn? Cry? I'd think the answer is yes. Experiences and feelings appear and pass away. It's just that there's no struggle around them, no secondary reactions like I must be really witty, these peeps are boring, no one has ever loved me. I wouldn't like to generalize for all the parabrahams abiding in nondual awareness (the differences between UG, Katie and Tolle seem pretty big in some ways)....but yes, I don't have a problem with what you described there. I would say the similarity between all the parabrahams is that they don't experience the sense of 'actual' separation. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 14, 2014 14:46:53 GMT -5
Just dropping in for my bimonthly andrew-enigma perhaps-off-topic and perhaps-irritating comment. Ignore if you want. Andrew, what do you think of the different context caution? Last time we had an interchange it was in this very similar scenario, where you are ruminating on the meaning of appearance or experience and whether it is dual or nondual. My feeling is as soon as an appearance is sense-perceived, or an experience experienced, it is by definition temporal, having a beginning and an end, and therefore limited, bounded and not nondual. Nondual, as I understand it is a different category or context. Anything about appearances or experiences has to be not in the nondual category because there's a bit of slicing and dicing necessary, a bit of conceptualizing that has to happen. In other words, if there are concepts at play, descriptions about what is happening, we're communicating within the category of duality. Nonduality of course would encompass, or be prior to, all of that, but that's another context. So I hear you arguing that appearances are nondual because everything is nondual. But the thing is, the concept of an appearance is within the conceptual category of duality because limits are required for there to be an appearance. Even if you talk about appearance being like the quale red, there needs to be a generous amount of dual-slicing-dicing happening. Basically I feel like I understand you to be saying that nonduality is the case, and since appearances and experiences happen, they also must be nondual. The problem as I see it, however, is that the process of conceptualizing/articulating appearance/experience requires the adoption of rules dictated by duality. I do agree that as soon as an appearance is sense-perceived, or an experience experienced, it is by definition temporal, limited, finite and bound. But.....I would say that it is not JUST those thing. When I say that appearances/experiences are non-dual, it includes the dualistic aspect. It says...yes they are temporal, finite and bound but they are not just that. To me, saying that they are dual does give slightly the wrong impression, however, I can get over that, its not a big deal. To me, the core issue at stake is the one I tried to address above i.e. IF experiences can be experienced without a sense of them being 'actually' separate (and I believe they can be), then I would say there are two illusions here worth talking about. The first is the illusion of 'actual' separation. The second is the illusion of experiences themselves. So I don't really care about the labels 'duality or 'non-duality'...they are just labels. What would bother me is if it is being said that experiences cannot be experienced without the sense of 'actual' separation. And if they CAN be experienced without the sense of 'actual' separation, what is the illusion? Is the illusion what is experienced? Or is the illusion the sense of 'actual' separation? So to me, they are two slightly different contexts. The sense of actual separation IS the illusion in the experience. There aren't actually two questions and two contexts. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 14, 2014 14:54:14 GMT -5
okay, good. The confusion in our dialogue that I am seeing is this. I might say in one conversation that experiences/expressions/appearances are illusion, but then I would also say that it is an illusion that each appearance/experience is actually separate from another. To me they are slightly different illusions and contexts. Now, I would say that experiences/expressions/appearances CAN be experienced without the illusion that each expression/experience/appearances is 'actually' separate from another. That's why I say that the illusion of duality is the illusion that each experience is 'actually' separate. If I was then going to say that experiences/expressions/appearances are an illusion, then I would say that what is prior is Real. *** I'm not sure in your perspective if the 'actual separation' between expressions/experiences/appearances is the illusion, or if the experience/appearance/expression itself is the illusion. You probably meld the two together and that's okay I guess. To you its all one context. The problem I see with that though, is that it doesn't leave the potential of experiencing expressions without the illusion that each one is 'actually' separate from another, because for you, the expression and the 'actual separation' are the same illusion. Does that make sense? I tried quite hard with this message. I appreciate the effort. I don't really have a problem with any of that, and I agree that the disagreement surrounds the notion of what happens to experience when the illusion is seen through. (If you're willing to accept that phrasing) I'd say the only way the experience itself is an illusion is if the nature of appearances isn't seen. If it is, that nature is experienced for what it is. This is why I thought it made sense to focus on what the nature of appearances actually is, as that may be where we diverge. If the nature of appearances is fundamentally imagination, then seeing them for what they are leaves them in the category of imagination and never puts them in the category of fundamentally Real. I rarely use the term 'Real' to refer to that which transcends duality because there's no-thing there. Right. I tend to speak of 'nothingness' (that's the word I used in the 'simultaneity' thread) but 'Real' is sometimes a popular word here so I went with that. I would never describe experiences or appearances as 'fundamentally Real', though I might say that experiences/appearances are real, and 'actual separation' is not. The key point for me is distinguishing between direct and indirect experience, and I find the best way to talk about the difference is to say that the former is absent the experience of actual separation, whereas in the latter, there is an illusion of actual separation in the experience. I actually don't think I have a problem with what you said there. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 14, 2014 15:06:36 GMT -5
I do agree that as soon as an appearance is sense-perceived, or an experience experienced, it is by definition temporal, limited, finite and bound. But.....I would say that it is not JUST those thing. When I say that appearances/experiences are non-dual, it includes the dualistic aspect. It says...yes they are temporal, finite and bound but they are not just that. To me, saying that they are dual does give slightly the wrong impression, however, I can get over that, its not a big deal. To me, the core issue at stake is the one I tried to address above i.e. IF experiences can be experienced without a sense of them being 'actually' separate (and I believe they can be), then I would say there are two illusions here worth talking about. The first is the illusion of 'actual' separation. The second is the illusion of experiences themselves. So I don't really care about the labels 'duality or 'non-duality'...they are just labels. What would bother me is if it is being said that experiences cannot be experienced without the sense of 'actual' separation. And if they CAN be experienced without the sense of 'actual' separation, what is the illusion? Is the illusion what is experienced? Or is the illusion the sense of 'actual' separation? So to me, they are two slightly different contexts. The sense of actual separation IS the illusion in the experience. There aren't actually two questions and two contexts. Yes I agree that the sense of actual separation is the illusion in the experience, I engage with 2 slightly different contexts to illustrate that. So I say that experiences are non-dual or non-two, which means 'experiences are not actually separate but are also not the same'. Its the 'duality' aspect of experience that is the illusion, and what is experienced is not illusion (though I also wouldn't say it is fundamentally Real). |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 14, 2014 16:53:01 GMT -5
I appreciate the effort. I don't really have a problem with any of that, and I agree that the disagreement surrounds the notion of what happens to experience when the illusion is seen through. (If you're willing to accept that phrasing) I'd say the only way the experience itself is an illusion is if the nature of appearances isn't seen. If it is, that nature is experienced for what it is. This is why I thought it made sense to focus on what the nature of appearances actually is, as that may be where we diverge. If the nature of appearances is fundamentally imagination, then seeing them for what they are leaves them in the category of imagination and never puts them in the category of fundamentally Real. I rarely use the term 'Real' to refer to that which transcends duality because there's no-thing there. Right. I tend to speak of 'nothingness' (that's the word I used in the 'simultaneity' thread) but 'Real' is sometimes a popular word here so I went with that. I would never describe experiences or appearances as 'fundamentally Real', though I might say that experiences/appearances are real, and 'actual separation' is not. The key point for me is distinguishing between direct and indirect experience, and I find the best way to talk about the difference is to say that the former is absent the experience of actual separation, whereas in the latter, there is an illusion of actual separation in the experience. I actually don't think I have a problem with what you said there. I don't think I have a problem with this either. (It's nice not to be bickering like 3 year olds for a change, Hehe.) |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 14, 2014 17:07:04 GMT -5
Differential, need not implicate right or wrong. That it can, is obviously a function of perspective, which implicitly answers the question that was, in my perception, avoided. Is disagreement such a concoction? How about what precedes the disagreement? That disagreement is always opinion, is of course, a fact ..  .. and that fact alone puts falsity to the underlined. The rest, by my characterization (so yes, my perception), is simply an invitation to change the subject which I will politely decline, but the fact of the invitation is in the words themselves. From what you've written on the monism of "self", I'd wager that a consensus on that idea (the manifestation of the invitation) still wouldn't convert it to fact in your perception, and that might put you on notice of something if you don't look away. I agree differential, need not implicate right or wrong . Your agreement with that idea contradicts your prior notion that the question of whether there is one point of perception or many can be likened to the question of whether a given perception is right or wrong. What happens is that from a point of perception had differences can arise just as judgements can . Judgement wasn't the topic. The topic was disagreement. I would say one can't help what they notice or what can arise from that which is perceived . If one notices the wind blow a leaf across the meadows then one can simply watch it without thinking too much as to whether it has come from one tree or another tree or whether the tree was a tree if ever at all . Disagreement as to whether the tree is a tree or whether the leaf is separate from the tree or not, derives through the concoction that there is a leaf or a tree in the first instance .  ... yeeeeaah ... the particulars of disagreement weren't at issue, only the fact of disagreement as it pertained to the question of whether there is one point of perception or many. My perception of the "which tree" or "tree not a tree" scenarios is that either is a silly waste of time. The question of what one can help is one that involves complexity that is unreachable without common ground on the question of perspective and multiplicity. One ripple after another, a dream within a dream, whatever floats one's boat . The mind is the medium, so whatever manifests, arises or comes before or after an event is still mindful . Here again, the definition of mind isn't a simple matter, and without that common ground ... well.  My understandings of what 'one is' is not stipulating a 'one' self or many self's . What one concocts from what I say will come about from there own understandings in relation to how they perceive themselves . That's why I say, perception is in the eyes of the beholder . How things are and will ever be, within mind will be how it is through such a point . These words in this sentence are not your concoction and therein lies, yet again, the answer to the question as to whether there is one point of perception (at any given instant) or many. The question of "what 'one is'", involves a depth that neither reason nor emotion can ever reach, and the definition of mind or any notion of what one can or can't help, in relation to that question, ultimately have no bearing on that depth. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 15, 2014 2:00:32 GMT -5
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 . If I understand, what you're calling perception does not include thought? Making sense of what one perceives entertains thought . As mentioned one can simply notice a leaf being blown across a meadow without too much thought and one can associate as many thoughts that arise too it also . Perceiving in a right way or a wrong way is concluded only by the individual that entertains a right and wrong way . The man that just notices the leaf doesn't entertain the rights and the wrongs in how or what they are perceiving . Is the leaf real? Is the leaf really a leaf ? Who does that matter too ? The man that doesn't entertain the thought or the leaf that is simply being carried by the wind ? What is regarded as being right and wrong is of the beholder of such a thought . What is regarded as 'one' or many is of the beholder of such an understanding / knowing / realization . The mind allows everything to be as it is for the one that notices, concludes . etc . |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 15, 2014 2:12:25 GMT -5
If I understand, what you're calling perception does not include thought? Making sense of what one perceives entertains thought . As mentioned one can simply notice a leaf being blown across a meadow without too much thought and one can associate as many thoughts that arise too it also . Perceiving in a right way or a wrong way is concluded only by the individual that entertains a right and wrong way . The man that just notices the leaf doesn't entertain the rights and the wrongs in how or what they are perceiving . Is the leaf real? Is the leaf really a leaf ? Who does that matter too ? The man that doesn't entertain the thought or the leaf that is simply being carried by the wind ? What is regarded as being right and wrong is of the beholder of such a thought . What is regarded as 'one' or many is of the beholder of such an understanding / knowing / realization . The mind allows everything to be as it is for the one that notices, concludes . etc . So is that a 'yes' or a 'no'? |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 15, 2014 2:16:57 GMT -5
I agree differential, need not implicate right or wrong . Your agreement with that idea contradicts your prior notion that the question of whether there is one point of perception or many can be likened to the question of whether a given perception is right or wrong. What happens is that from a point of perception had differences can arise just as judgements can . Judgement wasn't the topic. The topic was disagreement. I would say one can't help what they notice or what can arise from that which is perceived . If one notices the wind blow a leaf across the meadows then one can simply watch it without thinking too much as to whether it has come from one tree or another tree or whether the tree was a tree if ever at all . Disagreement as to whether the tree is a tree or whether the leaf is separate from the tree or not, derives through the concoction that there is a leaf or a tree in the first instance . ... yeeeeaah ... the particulars of disagreement weren't at issue, only the fact of disagreement as it pertained to the question of whether there is one point of perception or many. My perception of the "which tree" or "tree not a tree" scenarios is that either is a silly waste of time. The question of what one can help is one that involves complexity that is unreachable without common ground on the question of perspective and multiplicity. One ripple after another, a dream within a dream, whatever floats one's boat . The mind is the medium, so whatever manifests, arises or comes before or after an event is still mindful . Here again, the definition of mind isn't a simple matter, and without that common ground ... well. My understandings of what 'one is' is not stipulating a 'one' self or many self's . What one concocts from what I say will come about from there own understandings in relation to how they perceive themselves . That's why I say, perception is in the eyes of the beholder . How things are and will ever be, within mind will be how it is through such a point . These words in this sentence are not your concoction and therein lies, yet again, the answer to the question as to whether there is one point of perception (at any given instant) or many. The question of "what 'one is'", involves a depth that neither reason nor emotion can ever reach, and the definition of mind or any notion of what one can or can't help, in relation to that question, ultimately have no bearing on that depth. The disagreements / any disagreements was a suggestion that entertains 'another point' in reference to the same thing . I thought we were discussing how many points there are? Mentioning phroggy's post that involved the rights and wrongs of how one perceives was just a point I was making in relation to your question . My agreements isn't tarred with the same brush as one that ascertains what is right and what is wrong . That would be like saying what resonates with me is right and what does not is wrong . The disagreements that one can have illustrates the differences in such a point of awareness had even when there is a perception had of the same thing . The tree is real or not is only silly from your point of awareness, that again is bringing home my understandings that everything is in the eyes of the beholder . I have had a few chats of late regarding wisdom . Isn't something wise only wise when someone notices it as such . To some the wise one is a nutcase . The question that keeps coming back around as to whether there is one point of perception (at any given instant) or many, I have answered in such a way where I have realized that what we are is all there is . You can make your own conclusions from that as that is all that one can do . When one realizes what they are beyond mind and then entertains a self of the mind what you are still remains to be . If there is something that one notices within mind then it is possible for one to entertain something else other than self . Beyond mind and beyond self there is no self to notice . What does that say about what one notices? |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 15, 2014 2:21:17 GMT -5
Making sense of what one perceives entertains thought . As mentioned one can simply notice a leaf being blown across a meadow without too much thought and one can associate as many thoughts that arise too it also . Perceiving in a right way or a wrong way is concluded only by the individual that entertains a right and wrong way . The man that just notices the leaf doesn't entertain the rights and the wrongs in how or what they are perceiving . Is the leaf real? Is the leaf really a leaf ? Who does that matter too ? The man that doesn't entertain the thought or the leaf that is simply being carried by the wind ? What is regarded as being right and wrong is of the beholder of such a thought . What is regarded as 'one' or many is of the beholder of such an understanding / knowing / realization . The mind allows everything to be as it is for the one that notices, concludes . etc . So is that a 'yes' or a 'no'? If one relates to perceiving that is likened to a man tasting the honey without thinking how sweet it is the perception can be without too much intellectual reasoning . If I wanted to compare the taste of honey to the taste of a melon then thought arises within the perception . It is possible to entertain thought within one's perception and it is also possible just to notice without thinking . The Yes or No question put forward doesn't within my understanding warrant just a Yes or an No answer . |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 15, 2014 5:28:04 GMT -5
now there's more than one parabrahman, each with their own private mountain in Idaho!
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 15, 2014 6:24:30 GMT -5
Your agreement with that idea contradicts your prior notion that the question of whether there is one point of perception or many can be likened to the question of whether a given perception is right or wrong. Judgement wasn't the topic. The topic was disagreement. ... yeeeeaah ... the particulars of disagreement weren't at issue, only the fact of disagreement as it pertained to the question of whether there is one point of perception or many. My perception of the "which tree" or "tree not a tree" scenarios is that either is a silly waste of time. The question of what one can help is one that involves complexity that is unreachable without common ground on the question of perspective and multiplicity. Here again, the definition of mind isn't a simple matter, and without that common ground ... well. These words in this sentence are not your concoction and therein lies, yet again, the answer to the question as to whether there is one point of perception (at any given instant) or many. The question of "what 'one is'", involves a depth that neither reason nor emotion can ever reach, and the definition of mind or any notion of what one can or can't help, in relation to that question, ultimately have no bearing on that depth. The disagreements / any disagreements was a suggestion that entertains 'another point' in reference to the same thing . I thought we were discussing how many points there are? Mentioning phroggy's post that involved the rights and wrongs of how one perceives was just a point I was making in relation to your question . In making that point, you analogized the question "is there one point of perception, or many?", to E's (supposed) "conclusion as to whether or not one's perception is right or wrong". The analogy substitutes one question for the other. Your answer to the two analogized questions is circumspect, but unmistakable. To then agree with the idea that differential (different points of perception) need not implicate right or wrong obviously contradicts the idea that there is only one point of perception, because the agreement is premised on and thereby includes acknowledgment and agreement with the contradictory idea of the multiplicity that was previously denied. My agreements isn't tarred with the same brush as one that ascertains what is right and what is wrong . That would be like saying what resonates with me is right and what does not is wrong . Self-contradiction is neither right nor wrong, it's simply either present in what one writes, or it isn't. The disagreements that one can have illustrates the differences in such a point of awareness had even when there is a perception had of the same thing . Well, one can disagree with oneself, I guess. (** muttley snicker **)The tree is real or not is only silly from your point of awareness, that again is bringing home my understandings that everything is in the eyes of the beholder . I have had a few chats of late regarding wisdom . Isn't something wise only wise when someone notices it as such . To some the wise one is a nutcase .
"There is no good nor bad but that thinking makes it so." -- Billy Shakes The question that keeps coming back around as to whether there is one point of perception (at any given instant) or many, I have answered in such a way where I have realized that what we are is all there is . Then what you have realized, is something that can be stated in such a way as to create the appearance of limitation. The question doesn't keep coming back around, it was only posed once. Your answer to it was multiplied by your analogizing, and while each was circumspect, both were unambiguous, and made the same statement that you repeat there. My opposing answer is simply re-iterated in various forms that manifest by your own expressions, and those have been gleefully and duly noted. You can make your own conclusions from that as that is all that one can do . When one realizes what they are beyond mind and then entertains a self of the mind what you are still remains to be . What I am, is not what remains to be, as being, always is. "Beyond mind" takes liberties with assumptions that this dialog is sadly lacking of foundational support. If there is something that one notices within mind then it is possible for one to entertain something else other than self . Beyond mind and beyond self there is no self to notice . What does that say about what one notices? As you've loaded the question with the word "mind" and the reference to the monism of "self", the answer would go that nothing that one notices is not self. By your own descriptions, it would seem that you take yourself to be a conglomerations of concoctions spun off from the point of awareness. By way of contrast, I would say that nothing that appears to me is what I am, but I am not separate from any of that either. I do not mistake myself to be these concoctions, yet I don't deny them or entertain the notion of escaping from them. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 15, 2014 7:16:28 GMT -5
The disagreements / any disagreements was a suggestion that entertains 'another point' in reference to the same thing . I thought we were discussing how many points there are? Mentioning phroggy's post that involved the rights and wrongs of how one perceives was just a point I was making in relation to your question . In making that point, you analogized the question "is there one point of perception, or many?", to E's (supposed) "conclusion as to whether or not one's perception is right or wrong". The analogy substitutes one question for the other. Your answer to the two analogized questions is circumspect, but unmistakable. To then agree with the idea that differential (different points of perception) need not implicate right or wrong obviously contradicts the idea that there is only one point of perception, because the agreement is premised on and thereby includes acknowledgment and agreement with the contradictory idea of the multiplicity that was previously denied. My agreements isn't tarred with the same brush as one that ascertains what is right and what is wrong . That would be like saying what resonates with me is right and what does not is wrong . Self-contradiction is neither right nor wrong, it's simply either present in what one writes, or it isn't. The disagreements that one can have illustrates the differences in such a point of awareness had even when there is a perception had of the same thing . Well, one can disagree with oneself, I guess. (** muttley snicker **)The tree is real or not is only silly from your point of awareness, that again is bringing home my understandings that everything is in the eyes of the beholder . I have had a few chats of late regarding wisdom . Isn't something wise only wise when someone notices it as such . To some the wise one is a nutcase .
"There is no good nor bad but that thinking makes it so." -- Billy Shakes The question that keeps coming back around as to whether there is one point of perception (at any given instant) or many, I have answered in such a way where I have realized that what we are is all there is . Then what you have realized, is something that can be stated in such a way as to create the appearance of limitation. The question doesn't keep coming back around, it was only posed once. Your answer to it was multiplied by your analogizing, and while each was circumspect, both were unambiguous, and made the same statement that you repeat there. My opposing answer is simply re-iterated in various forms that manifest by your own expressions, and those have been gleefully and duly noted. You can make your own conclusions from that as that is all that one can do . When one realizes what they are beyond mind and then entertains a self of the mind what you are still remains to be . What I am, is not what remains to be, as being, always is. "Beyond mind" takes liberties with assumptions that this dialog is sadly lacking of foundational support. If there is something that one notices within mind then it is possible for one to entertain something else other than self . Beyond mind and beyond self there is no self to notice . What does that say about what one notices? As you've loaded the question with the word "mind" and the reference to the monism of "self", the answer would go that nothing that one notices is not self. By your own descriptions, it would seem that you take yourself to be a conglomerations of concoctions spun off from the point of awareness. By way of contrast, I would say that nothing that appears to me is what I am, but I am not separate from any of that either. I do not mistake myself to be these concoctions, yet I don't deny them or entertain the notion of escaping from them. To agree with difference doesn't imply that difference is not same difference . To agree with different points doesn't equate to many points or one point . You are coming to your own conclusions in relation to that . Contradictions derive through your own interpretation of where I am coming from within awareness . The limitations again derive through your own evaluations . I haven't spoke of limitations but you have acknowledged them and likewise your assumptions that beyond mind sadly lacks foundational support . You still refer to the monism reference of self, this is again your interpretation . My self realization of there is only what we are present doesn't refer too many selves or one self . These spin off's of there being one or many, the rights or the wrongs, the I am being this and not that derives through what one relates to being the self and not the self . I have simply implied that what we are is all there is . |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 15, 2014 8:51:05 GMT -5
In making that point, you analogized the question "is there one point of perception, or many?", to E's (supposed) "conclusion as to whether or not one's perception is right or wrong". The analogy substitutes one question for the other. Your answer to the two analogized questions is circumspect, but unmistakable. To then agree with the idea that differential (different points of perception) need not implicate right or wrong obviously contradicts the idea that there is only one point of perception, because the agreement is premised on and thereby includes acknowledgment and agreement with the contradictory idea of the multiplicity that was previously denied. Self-contradiction is neither right nor wrong, it's simply either present in what one writes, or it isn't. Well, one can disagree with oneself, I guess. (** muttley snicker **)(** wiseas$ smile **)
"There is no good nor bad but that thinking makes it so." -- Billy Shakes Then what you have realized, is something that can be stated in such a way as to create the appearance of limitation. The question doesn't keep coming back around, it was only posed once. Your answer to it was multiplied by your analogizing, and while each was circumspect, both were unambiguous, and made the same statement that you repeat there. My opposing answer is simply re-iterated in various forms that manifest by your own expressions, and those have been gleefully and duly noted. What I am, is not what remains to be, as being, always is. "Beyond mind" takes liberties with assumptions that this dialog is sadly lacking of foundational support. As you've loaded the question with the word "mind" and the reference to the monism of "self", the answer would go that nothing that one notices is not self. By your own descriptions, it would seem that you take yourself to be a conglomerations of concoctions spun off from the point of awareness. By way of contrast, I would say that nothing that appears to me is what I am, but I am not separate from any of that either. I do not mistake myself to be these concoctions, yet I don't deny them or entertain the notion of escaping from them. To agree with difference doesn't imply that difference is not same difference . To agree with different points doesn't equate to many points or one point . The first sentence is nonsensical, and the mischaracterization of the agreement in question as "agree with difference" is the root of that. The 2nd states a distinction without a difference: inherent in the phrase "different points", is multiplicity. Such is the result of denying one's self-contradiction: further self-contradiction. The limitations again derive through your own evaluations . I haven't spoke of limitations The limitation is self-evident. Any statement of what you are, is a statement. Is it possible for a statement not to embody a boundary? You still refer to the monism reference of self, this is again your interpretation . My self realization of there is only what we are present doesn't refer too many selves or one self . It associates a word ("self") with the notion of referring to all that is. That's what a monism is. These spin off's of there being one or many, the rights or the wrongs, the I am being this and not that derives through what one relates to being the self and not the self . I have simply implied that what we are is all there is . No, not implied, directly stated. Now, it's true that your third statement in answer to the question of "one or many?" included the passive-aggressive device of contextual ambiguity, but it did so at the expense of clarifying and solidifying the definition of the monism of self. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 15, 2014 9:59:24 GMT -5
To agree with difference doesn't imply that difference is not same difference . To agree with different points doesn't equate to many points or one point . The first sentence is nonsensical, and the mischaracterization of the agreement in question as "agree with difference" is the root of that. The 2nd states a distinction without a difference: inherent in the phrase "different points", is multiplicity. Such is the result of denying one's self-contradiction: further self-contradiction. The limitations again derive through your own evaluations . I haven't spoke of limitations The limitation is self-evident. Any statement of what you are, is a statement. Is it possible for a statement not to embody a boundary? You still refer to the monism reference of self, this is again your interpretation . My self realization of there is only what we are present doesn't refer too many selves or one self . It associates a word ("self") with the notion of referring to all that is. That's what a monism is. These spin off's of there being one or many, the rights or the wrongs, the I am being this and not that derives through what one relates to being the self and not the self . I have simply implied that what we are is all there is . No, not implied, directly stated. Now, it's true that your third statement in answer to the question of "one or many?" included the passive-aggressive device of contextual ambiguity, but it did so at the expense of clarifying and solidifying the definition of the monism of self. Nonsensical in your eyes . At no point was anything mentioned of what 'difference' is or means other than referring to difference in relation to points of perception had . Same difference allows one to perceive difference although inherently what is perceived is the same . Following on from 'what we are is all there is', illustrates that in such a way where the various vantage points had that entertains difference is however perceiving the same thing . Monism doesn't allow for every permutation . My understandings that are of self or what we are allows that . There are no limitations in allowing every permutation of self perception to be had . Thats what it boils down to and that is anything goes . It won't be right or wrong, it will be how it is that is neither . |
|
.. and that fact alone puts falsity to the underlined.
... yeeeeaah ... the particulars of disagreement weren't at issue, only the fact of disagreement as it pertained to the question of whether there is one point of perception or many. 
