|
Post by enigma on Jan 19, 2015 10:31:40 GMT -5
((**wiggles fingers in front of face**) That which appearances appear to never makes an appearance. I mean to say the miracle of the human body is evidence of God.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 19, 2015 10:43:04 GMT -5
On this we disagree.. if you hadn't been conditioned by socio-religious beliefs since early childhood, it is highly unlikely that you would conjure a creator, given the observable organic processes and the evolved abilities of observation and deduction.. God is a cultural artifact from a distant past of human experience, brought forward by its usefulness for controlling believers.. I get what you are saying but I also wonder if humans, given their self-awareness, were always going to question...'why all this?'....and come up with an answer such as 'God'. Like I said, to me, when I look at the alternative answers available, they also seem unlikely. Yes, I'd say some such beliefs are inevitable even in the absence of social conditioning. In the same way, I think the conclusion of separation is inevitable. Praise be to Ra!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 19, 2015 10:52:00 GMT -5
Two different contexts. Mind invents the structure within which all ideas are placed, just as it invents the ideas, and the words to talk about those ideas. Everything floats around like some kind of super data cloud, unreferenced to anything. The reference for whatever we talk about must be supplied, and this is context. Without context, nothing makes sense. Slippery as an eel.. the fear of not being perceived as all-knowing inspires convoluted mind-play to cover the obvious contradictions.. In a way, I don't actually know anything, which is why I don't have a model.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 19, 2015 10:57:26 GMT -5
That which appearances appear to never makes an appearance. I mean to say the miracle of the human body is evidence of God. Get to see some o' them outside the window too!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 19, 2015 11:11:01 GMT -5
I mean to say the miracle of the human body is evidence of God. Get to see some o' them outside the window too! Defininitatively.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 19, 2015 11:52:22 GMT -5
I get what you are saying but I also wonder if humans, given their self-awareness, were always going to question...'why all this?'....and come up with an answer such as 'God'. Like I said, to me, when I look at the alternative answers available, they also seem unlikely. Yes, I'd say some such beliefs are inevitable even in the absence of social conditioning. In the same way, I think the conclusion of separation is inevitable. Praise be to Ra!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 19, 2015 20:35:10 GMT -5
Yes, I'd say some such beliefs are inevitable even in the absence of social conditioning. In the same way, I think the conclusion of separation is inevitable. Praise be to Ra! Now that's a practice I think I can get behind.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 19, 2015 21:31:21 GMT -5
Slippery as an eel.. the fear of not being perceived as all-knowing inspires convoluted mind-play to cover the obvious contradictions.. In a way, I don't actually know anything, which is why I don't have a model. Everybody has models, understandings of how existence functions.. it's why you don't step in front of speeding traffic, your model of reality alerts you of the probable consequences.. of course, another of your models is that it's all illusions, appearances in consciousness, but.. you still don't step in front of speeding traffic, do you?.. you realize that the 'appearances' are actually what is happening, but you can't let go of the ideology.. That's the thing, models are okay, even useful, in so much as the experiencer doesn't become attached to the model, making-up illusory explanations to add the appearance of validity to a failing model.. rather, it is my understanding that open-minded seeing, together with genuine curiosity and interest in what is actually happening, is sufficient for avoiding attachments..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 19, 2015 22:40:24 GMT -5
In a way, I don't actually know anything, which is why I don't have a model. Everybody has models, understandings of how existence functions.. it's why you don't step in front of speeding traffic, your model of reality alerts you of the probable consequences.. of course, another of your models is that it's all illusions, appearances in consciousness, but.. you still don't step in front of speeding traffic, do you?.. you realize that the 'appearances' are actually what is happening, but you can't let go of the ideology.. That's the thing, models are okay, even useful, in so much as the experiencer doesn't become attached to the model, making-up illusory explanations to add the appearance of validity to a failing model.. rather, it is my understanding that open-minded seeing, together with genuine curiosity and interest in what is actually happening, is sufficient for avoiding attachments.. Okay, so what everybody has been referring to is my model of what happens when I step into speeding traffic, and the like. Great. I am officially done talking about models.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 19, 2015 23:23:02 GMT -5
Everybody has models, understandings of how existence functions.. it's why you don't step in front of speeding traffic, your model of reality alerts you of the probable consequences.. of course, another of your models is that it's all illusions, appearances in consciousness, but.. you still don't step in front of speeding traffic, do you?.. you realize that the 'appearances' are actually what is happening, but you can't let go of the ideology.. That's the thing, models are okay, even useful, in so much as the experiencer doesn't become attached to the model, making-up illusory explanations to add the appearance of validity to a failing model.. rather, it is my understanding that open-minded seeing, together with genuine curiosity and interest in what is actually happening, is sufficient for avoiding attachments.. Okay, so what everybody has been referring to is my model of what happens when I step into speeding traffic, and the like. Great. I am officially done talking about models. And, that's your model, you back out.. no, people are trying to help you see what you won't look at..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 19, 2015 23:39:17 GMT -5
Okay, so what everybody has been referring to is my model of what happens when I step into speeding traffic, and the like. Great. I am officially done talking about models. And, that's your model, you back out.. no, people are trying to help you see what you won't look at.. And what I really need to see is that I have a model, right? And all these good folks are just doing an intervention to help me face up to it and get the help I need. Isn't there just a tiny part of you that knows how insane you sound?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 20, 2015 5:33:09 GMT -5
Everybody has models, understandings of how existence functions.. it's why you don't step in front of speeding traffic, your model of reality alerts you of the probable consequences.. of course, another of your models is that it's all illusions, appearances in consciousness, but.. you still don't step in front of speeding traffic, do you?.. you realize that the 'appearances' are actually what is happening, but you can't let go of the ideology.. That's the thing, models are okay, even useful, in so much as the experiencer doesn't become attached to the model, making-up illusory explanations to add the appearance of validity to a failing model.. rather, it is my understanding that open-minded seeing, together with genuine curiosity and interest in what is actually happening, is sufficient for avoiding attachments.. Okay, so what everybody has been referring to is my model of what happens when I step into speeding traffic, and the like. Great. I am officially done talking about models. That was the morph from like half-way through the Mooji-mind-trick thread: the dialog had been about models of reality and identity and when that reached the end of the line, suddenly it was as if it has been about all models of everything all along. The absurdity in that twist of course is that models are just abstractions of appearances, conditions and conditioning, and the conditioning you're testing by collapsing the models of identity and reality is very specific. The TMT counter-example to walking into traffic is a baby at the edge of a cliff. A model of the stock market or a mental map of where to find stuff in Home Depot is one thing, and an explanation -- rational or otherwise -- of quiescent mind, God, the absence of God, or limitlessness, quite another. Nothing wrong with those either unless the proponent has settled on one as an explanation for what can't be explained.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 20, 2015 6:08:48 GMT -5
And, that's your model, you back out.. no, people are trying to help you see what you won't look at.. And what I really need to see is that I have a model, right? And all these good folks are just doing an intervention to help me face up to it and get the help I need. Isn't there just a tiny part of you that knows how insane you sound? No, not even a tiny part.. you function under the delusion you have no models, and all you need do is see yourself honestly, with clarity to realize you do, but.. you demonstrate no willingness to see yourself clearly, so enjoy the delusion..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 20, 2015 6:16:33 GMT -5
Okay, so what everybody has been referring to is my model of what happens when I step into speeding traffic, and the like. Great. I am officially done talking about models. That was the morph from like half-way through the Mooji-mind-trick thread: the dialog had been about models of reality and identity and when that reached the end of the line, suddenly it was as if it has been about all models of everything all along. The absurdity in that twist of course is that models are just abstractions of appearances, conditions and conditioning, and the conditioning you're testing by collapsing the models of identity and reality is very specific. The TMT counter-example to walking into traffic is a baby at the edge of a cliff. A model of the stock market or a mental map of where to find stuff in Home Depot is one thing, and an explanation -- rational or otherwise -- of quiescent mind, God, the absence of God, or limitlessness, quite another. Nothing wrong with those either unless the proponent has settled on one as an explanation for what can't be explained. The consistent advocacy for nonduality/oneness is the explanation that some people have settled on for what can be explained, but the explanation is not consistent with what is actually happening.. The 'baby' example is not related to the traffic example other than the there are independently functioning experiencers involved.. the fascination with baby awareness has no actual relevance to the 'now' experience, it is a snapshot of the evolving experiencer's integration with his/her environment..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 20, 2015 6:23:46 GMT -5
That was the morph from like half-way through the Mooji-mind-trick thread: the dialog had been about models of reality and identity and when that reached the end of the line, suddenly it was as if it has been about all models of everything all along. The absurdity in that twist of course is that models are just abstractions of appearances, conditions and conditioning, and the conditioning you're testing by collapsing the models of identity and reality is very specific. The TMT counter-example to walking into traffic is a baby at the edge of a cliff. A model of the stock market or a mental map of where to find stuff in Home Depot is one thing, and an explanation -- rational or otherwise -- of quiescent mind, God, the absence of God, or limitlessness, quite another. Nothing wrong with those either unless the proponent has settled on one as an explanation for what can't be explained. The consistent advocacy for nonduality/oneness is the explanation that some people have settled on for what can be explained, but the explanation is not consistent with what is actually happening.. So the advocacy itself is some sort of explanation for the advocate? The absence of an explanation for the inexplicable is, of course, the absence also of consistency, as there's nothing to be consistent about.
|
|