|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 27, 2016 14:21:47 GMT -5
If you meant to say the sentence in question didn't express any logic I understand, and if that's the case it's a great example of something that isn't what it seems to be. Otherwise, as you obviously don't see yourself as either a mathematician, philosopher or seeker, it seems that logical expressions apparently aren't limited to one of those three groups after all. It sure quacked like a duck to me.   |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 27, 2016 14:24:36 GMT -5
The problem is that you actually employed logic in your statement. It didn't just happen to sound logical. Yes that is a problem which is why we need to be silent. , kemosabe? |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Aug 27, 2016 14:25:36 GMT -5
So, are you just having a go in your After realization there is no likelihood whatsoever that the mind would take credit. The question could not arise because you know the mind isn't you. It was written "a realization", and not meant to denote SR. But, yeah, mind becomes a tool once it is seen. Plus, when there is total presence, what is absent? Ignorance. Most sincerely, no hay problemo. That is the function and beauty of this message board in the dreamscape. It ebbs and flows and has currents and waves. It's All Good.[/quote] For whom? And please notice that my curser is not going where I wanted it to go! Once again! [/quote] Belief in what you think you are is like a virus, of sorts. As such, like the cursor you are describing, what you think you are goes off (ignorantly searching) in directions you don't want it to go. Once again. There is a cure...and the journey need not go on forever and ever. But, yeah, It's All Good. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 27, 2016 14:34:07 GMT -5
If employing logic in a false way is avoidable (cancelling the double negative) then it is not logical to say that saying illogical things is unavoidable if the first statement is always true. TMT. To say that you are not what appears to you but not separate from that either is not logical, but there's no application of false logic involved. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Aug 27, 2016 14:38:20 GMT -5
Okay, I'll continue with my vacation now. When vacation and real life blur into one thing, you are a bum! Do you like the Beatles? I listened to Daniel for about 6 months read Tolle shortly thereafter woke up from emotions never looked back woo hoo.
Come to the islands, dude.
Daniel Johnston has had some cool songs. Did you see the documentary on him.... The Devil and Daniel Johnston? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 27, 2016 14:40:39 GMT -5
Because there is a knowing that precedes knowledge, and it's obviously not an experience.  You know there is knowing by logical inference. But I know how much you hate logic, god forbid an inference. God forbid.
If you require logic and inference then you don't know it. If you know it because it is self evident to you then there is no need of logic and inference. All one can say about transcendent awareness is that it is self evident. It cannot be objectified or described in the same way you cannot describe blue. No one who has practised meditation for any length of time would say they need logic to know awareness. For lots of peeps it starts as an inference. Setting aside mind for them to find out what is really inferred is a later step, but one that they would have appeared to have no reason to take, looking backward, but for the inference. There are as many hows, as many ways to gnosis, as there are peeps. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Aug 27, 2016 14:51:31 GMT -5
I don't agree. For example, when I grab any book here that lays around and quote like this: "The wish and the necessity to communicate, to exchange ideas and to interact across language communities in daily life is becomming increasingly urgent in today's world." - (Johann Vielberth - An idea for an international system of communication) That would be a correct quote. If I would quote: "You gotta listen to some peeps because they need to be heard." (Johann Vielberth - An idea of an international system of communication) That would be a misquote. A wrong quote. A false quote. Always interesting when that big 'ole book sounds non-dualistically oriented!  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 27, 2016 19:56:40 GMT -5
That's true, but if we define ego as a dynamic of self referential thought instead of an entity, then that set of thoughts does exist in a way that the snake does not.I agree that nothing that we refer to as the person or ego reincarnates. . In the case of the bottom sentence, does that mean that NOTHING from the "latter" incarnation has anything to do with the "former" incarnation? (And on down the chain). My sense is that an individual is made up of components that have some 'energy' in Consciousness as a whole, which might include unexplored potentials of expression, curiosities, the desire to resolve conflict and contradictions, the desire to transcend limitation, and the like. These components assemble spontaneously, and we could say they all have their origin in previous human expressions, but we can't really say a particular expression is being continued or formed primarily from the past experiences of one particular individual. To begin with, a person is not really a physical entity so much as a dynamic of specific conditioning. IOW, what makes 'me' 'me' are my personal experiences, and if those experiences reappear at all in a subsequent newborn, they are deeply hidden. If everything I experience and express changes from lifetime to lifetime, it isn't really 'me' even if it is. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 27, 2016 23:20:53 GMT -5
There's not that much going on here with the fab four gone. Why not continue it here? The fab four will be back shortly. Yes, but they will all be rehabilitated.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 27, 2016 23:25:09 GMT -5
It's logical to go to the store to buy groceries. It's not logical to kill your ego and then discover that no such thing as an ego existed. I win. Well, it was just a hypothetical example. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 27, 2016 23:30:27 GMT -5
It sounds like it lacked a good faith reading on Max's part.  Only if you premise "good faith reading" on "reading". Evil frog.  True, a good faith reading may require some reading. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2016 6:01:52 GMT -5
What I can say is that there is only Peace. I cannot describe it. I cannot use logic on it. We can have discussions about it for our amusement. Are you here for any other reason than amusement? It passes the time. That's IT? Peace is a very tiny little thing. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 28, 2016 19:32:51 GMT -5
The fab four will be back shortly. Yes, but they will all be rehabilitated. \  |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Aug 29, 2016 7:33:00 GMT -5
Be my guest, Mr. Openhearted. You're not able to give a 'good faith' reading of what I meant when I told Lolly is was effortless to make him appear ugly. Until you can, get down off your 'good faith' horse. To make that little joke all you need to read is 'you're ugly' and that that judgement was made effortlessly. Then the #funwithlogic thing follows from there. But it's a wickedly beaten old horse by this point -- apparently the target was purposely being ugly (failed mirroring perhaps), which makes the joke moot. And also there is disagreement over whether conscious rationale can be effortless. In my haughty opinion, it's not worth delving into more. But if you want me to look into your exchange with Lolly in detail give me a starting point. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Aug 29, 2016 7:34:27 GMT -5
You're going to lose with that line. Logic is something we all use to communicate. It's logical to go to the store to buy groceries. It's not logical to kill your ego and then discover that no such thing as an ego existed. I win. If folks say killing ego brings peace what's not logical about that pursuit? |
|
You know there is knowing by logical inference. But I know how much you hate logic, god forbid an inference. God forbid.
