|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2016 5:41:08 GMT -5
There's nothing wrong with confusion. Confusion blurs the boundary between conceptual polar opposites. It blurs the boundary between truth and falsity, absolute and relative, emptiness and form. There is a time to talk in such way that creates a clear distinction between them, but ultimately all conceptual boundaries have to collapse. That's where confusion comes in. It's actually a darn good thing that there is confusion because without it, folks would remain stuck in their experience of being separate. Yes, the confusion of not-knowing can become quite intense and heady, exhilarating at times, even. But it's a means to an end. Not meant as a semi-permanent state of living. I agree. Confusion becomes entirely irrelevant when attachment to (the truth of) ideas is dropped. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 5:41:46 GMT -5
How 'bout equally "Godly"? Or Divine....or equally "of God?" There's a tendency in some to see divinity or Godliness in only those things that one is deeming/judging to be wanted, good, beneficial. The place of seeing that renders all equal is one absent that judgement. There is just the seeing of the fundamental 'same Sourcedness" or "Oneness" of all that appears, unfolds, arises, happens. From that vantage point ideas like 'useful, enjoyable, beneficial, wanted' just don't arise. It's a mistake to go from 'absence of judgment' to 'equally true'. I'm sure once you explain .. well .. you know ...  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2016 5:41:52 GMT -5
There is a point directly between the relative and absolute context at which all ideas, forms and expressions become equal. The absolute context itself is absent all hierarchy, but I am also fine to talk about that in positive terms i.e it's ALL sacred, it's ALL perfect, it's ALL valid, it's ALL divine, it's ALL innocent. Consider these to be pointers if you like, I don't care. The key point is the relative is hierarchical, the absolute is not. The absolute transcends the relative, which means that...paradoxically...there is no more hierarchy between absolute and relative. Thus form is formlessness and formlessness is form. is.  Pop quiz, who said this? "Both tree and beauty are merely concepts appearing in space-like, ever present awareness. Don't settle for mere concepts. All words are merely pointers. Discard the pointers". Not sure but 'discard the pointers' is good advice. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 5:42:39 GMT -5
It's a mistake to go from 'absence of judgment' to 'equally true'. 'true' is a judgement (as is 'false'). I Relatively, one idea can be said to be more true than another but at the point at which the relative meets the absolute, all judgments are flattened, and ideas do become equally true/false. They are just 'ideas'. Is it true that you're reading this sentence?  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 5:45:04 GMT -5
It's not a debate tool.  Yes, you're right. It's just that the discussion kind of ends when it comes to "I've seen it so it's true". I'll leave it and let it die a natural death.  By the way - I've been doing some research on this objective/external world vs subjective/no-external question. The impetus being my question about how important this is in terms of non-duality, enlightenment, truth-seeking. Found out this debate has been going on for centuries in the various schools of Buddhism! This is from one interesting text: Those who refute an external reality are called Vijnanavadin Buddhists and they were correct insofar as the argument was used to refute the realist. But then the Vijnanavadin is also disputed by saying that apparent changes internally are false, that there is only one external consciousness. "Thus the Vedantin can sit back and watch his opponents defeat each other, leaving the field free for him to occupy without a struggle...By saying "Let this be so!", we simply approve the birthlessness revealed by them...we do not quarrel with them. Thus non-duality (advaita) is a philosophy without dispute (avivada)." It's also a major thread of Western Philosophical thought stretching back at least 2500 years. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2016 5:45:20 GMT -5
'true' is a judgement (as is 'false'). I Relatively, one idea can be said to be more true than another but at the point at which the relative meets the absolute, all judgments are flattened, and ideas do become equally true/false. They are just 'ideas'. Is it true that you're reading this sentence? Yes. Unless it isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 5:46:33 GMT -5
 I agree that confusion is better than attachment, and might even be a side-effect of the dissolution of attachment. Another word could be disorientation. But eventually the confusion needs to dissolve too, right? yes, the confusion is only ever a conceptual confusion, so is not a problem at all, unless we are attached to the truth of our ideas. The paradox is never resolved but it never has to be. only if you never let it sink below yer neck. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 5:49:36 GMT -5
I would suggest that either he or you have "cherry picked" the facts. From his Dozens of writing I can absolutely certain that he can never go wrong. I have never seen a single individual who has won him over the argument in history. He is the very clear and careful writer that I have ever seen. Well, he's wrong about the fact that Adolph didn't win an election, he did. It wasn't a national referendum the way we elect Presidents in the U.S., but his initial rise to power involved use of the democratic system. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2016 5:49:53 GMT -5
yes, the confusion is only ever a conceptual confusion, so is not a problem at all, unless we are attached to the truth of our ideas. The paradox is never resolved but it never has to be. only if you never let it sink below yer neck. you can't resolve paradox in a context in which there is no paradox |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 5:53:59 GMT -5
No, E is admitting there is only One context, discussing a physical context is a concession (on his part), he just admitted he considers there to be no exterior world. No exterior world, brains don't exist, then we can only discuss imaginary/illusory brains. I never said there is only one context. Discussing the physical context is not a concession for me, though I see little point in explaining that you will hurt yourself if you walk in front of a moving bus, or how babies are made or what happens when a tree falls on you, so I don't respond with 'Hmmmm, yes, good point. well said'. Those are dumb Dufus points meant to dismiss the larger context. Have you forgotten that I'm the one who spoke endlessly about context and worked feverishly to try to keep folks from hop, skipping, jumping and mixing contexts? Do you notice that I still do that? Do you notice that L and I still joke about the need for me to post my ultimate treatise on context?  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 5:57:30 GMT -5
I like your post, but your solution is to imagine a different world than that which exists. Say a single mother working three jobs with two teenagers comes to you for help because the burden of getting through another day is beginning to crush her. What do you tell her? (Meaning, do you tell her there is no external world?) I warn her that if she walks out in front of a moving bus she will get hurt, and then I explain to her how babies are made and how she should watch out for falling trees.  I'm not imagining a different world, I'm speaking in different contexts. I'll post my treatise on context soon. Be patient. Likely story! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 6:01:13 GMT -5
Yes, exactly. The biggest reason I left the Protestant (Baptist) church in my 20's, really teens (all the nonsense about original sin). A "nondualist" would say that it's not a statement about what you really are, but instead a statement about what everyone is conditioned into expressing in the course of their lives. Where did you get this idea? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 6:02:17 GMT -5
He's actually projected his experience of feeling like there's an external world onto a hypothetical baby. Aces. Yeah, same thing he does with aminals and suffering. It's interesting to see this kind of thought process in motion .. how WIBIGO is so objectively clear, but inaccessible to the thinker. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 23, 2016 6:10:58 GMT -5
Right, now you've wisely chosen to stop disagreeing with me. :) There is no context in which a guy who wants to start a race war and the guy who wrote A New Earth are equals or equal. We can continue to disagree about what perfection refers to, because there's simply no accord possible there. As far as your straw man about me not understanding you or your projection about a concrete mental divide, that's just your aggravation bleeding through in the form of textual pollution. :) Yes there is. And that's why your spirituality is bankrupt. That and the mortgage on God's House. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 6:12:30 GMT -5
The period is integral to expression of the equation.  |
|
