|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Jul 17, 2016 20:43:31 GMT -5
And not taking responsibility for one's own contribution to crookedness could be useful to look at. Well, either some peeps are straight or not, and if not that's fine, it's a take I disagree with but can respect. If, on the other hand, one peep is crooked and the other one ain't, there's no bein' yer bro's keeper and all that ... It's a large if. If the intention is straightness, and what appears is crookedness, and there are at least two interacting, it's very unlikely that all of the blame for crookedness is due to one interactee. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Jul 17, 2016 20:46:10 GMT -5
There's a difference between 'the thought of whether the moon is there or not when you are not looking at it' and 'you can know that the moon is not there yada yada independent of your perception of it.' It's two different musings. When you assert, in effect, "You can know if the moon is not dangling in the sky as an object independent of your perception of it when you are not looking at it," it sounds like you assert a knowledge claim. When you say 'you can' are you asserting a knowledge claim, or are you doing the enlightened two step of just saying the thought doesn't come up, misconceived or something else? The knowledge in question isn't information and can't be conveyed directly, but the questioning doesn't end just because it's finally understood to be futile. That point of futility is only a starting point. It's only when things begin to get interesting. Perhaps so. But there are different contexts to how the question is answered. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2016 20:46:23 GMT -5
with a yes or no probably, and I guess I'd say "no, I'm not trying to figure out why we resist" ie. answering the question which was asked "yo, i'm woke, wanna toke?" I would have to contract my heart an cause slight pain to be noticed to deny such a generous offer. It seems that resistance contracts the life-force with regard the question. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2016 21:37:47 GMT -5
Do you have roller coaster experience in your life? Happy follows unhappy and unhappy follows happy? If you asked Carol about this, she would say, "99.9% of the time he's disgustingly happy." ha ha. The truth, however, isn't quite that disgusting, nor is it intellectually comprehensible. To understand, one would have to go find Rumi's field and see what's there. Those .1% moments causes Carols eyes to widen? You two got to be 1 after all this time. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2016 21:43:30 GMT -5
Yes, precisely. So understanding it thus, this doesn't mean there is no self. Confusing one with the other becomes a sticking point with ~modern~ non-dual teachers in relation to Buddhist teachings, many of these like to deny that Buddhism entails reincarnation, but this is just rewriting history. But all this does not mean there cannot be a dissolution of self. (Accomplishing this is getting off the the wheel of rebirth. Less, and the journey is not over. Denying that this is a necessity, is burying one's head in the sand). But then this means that Buddha's teachings are not simple. The practice is simple, understanding it-all is not simple. Are we talking at cross purposes here. Dissolution of self doesn't mean there is no personal aspect. Getting-off the wheel of rebirth ought to be investigated sdp. Just who wants to be a Leader like Buddha when Moslems wear vests these-days? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2016 21:45:25 GMT -5
Okay, maybe talk tomorrow. I just responded to your other message. Yes come back to your argument tomorrow. What is Ruby coding? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2016 21:56:08 GMT -5
Yes come back to your argument tomorrow. What is Ruby coding? Ruby is the scripting language(computer language like Java). I work here as a Ruby Coder. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2016 21:59:18 GMT -5
Here are two things that don't exist. 1. Unconsciousness or unconscious mind. 2. Split mind. Nothing exists but existence itself. (Awareness/Consciousness) Exactly, so now that you agree with me that there is no such thing as split mind perhaps you can stop talking about it as if it were real. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2016 22:01:36 GMT -5
Ruby is the scripting language(computer language like Java). I work here as a Ruby Coder. Nah, it's just a figment  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2016 22:02:19 GMT -5
Yes, Enigma imagines an I entity or Identity between those contradictory thoughts. And then a thought arises that the I entity has a mind that is split. The imagined identity is not between the thoughts, whatever that means. The identity, itself, is a complex of thoughts, and when the mind splits, there are two imagined identities. Now both identities have to be seen for what they are. Every thought arises in you. Split mind is a thought. There is only the current thought. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2016 22:04:38 GMT -5
butt don't you see by admitting that everyone can know of their own existence is admitting that you can know that everyone can know of their existence .. and yet you say that you can't know of their existence .. Doesn't add up . Gopal is clear. If you don't see it you don't see. HOWEVER, it is merely a philosophical position. Exchange posts with Gopal only when you are bored. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2016 22:05:39 GMT -5
Yes, the question is misconceived from the perspective of the conceptual self-identity. The question is for consciousness, so the answer cannot be a mental one. Mr Consciousness doesn't know anything about a 'who'. Who knows that? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2016 22:06:13 GMT -5
When the I entity, or identity is removed from thought, it's much easier to see that in which they arise. That's just a thought. Next... Next... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2016 22:10:01 GMT -5
The imagined identity is not between the thoughts, whatever that means. The identity, itself, is a complex of thoughts, and when the mind splits, there are two imagined identities. Now both identities have to be seen for what they are. Every thought arises in you. Split mind thought is a thought. There is only the current thought. It's interesting how some accuse you of being repetitive rather than acknowledging the significance of knowing there is only THIS. It's the doorway to Self that peeps are continually being dragged away from by Mr Mind. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2016 22:11:09 GMT -5
We includes the Other. How fcuked in the head do we have to become before letting-up this Non-sense and return to our Commonsense? We all have our own little pet theories that we are convinced are true. We are all "Gopals", we just haven't figured that out yet. Because they don't think that I am annoying them. |
|
