|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 23, 2016 6:13:05 GMT -5
Have it, read most of it, I'll browse it when I get back home. Agree, but I don't know what you are referencing by the two infinities. The two infinities are the known and the unknown. Heisenberg addresses it in terms of a fallacious interpretation of the discovery of the limits of objective physical measurement in terms of a limit on human knowledge about nature. I think Heisenberg claimed that uncertainty itself is inherent, not that it's due to a limit. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 6:25:58 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. In "my spirituality" they each are perfect, but they are, of course, quite different.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 6:28:42 GMT -5
Well, if by sacred you mean suspension of judgment you're reverting back to your position from several days ago that there's a context where the murderer and the healer are equals and equated. As I mentioned here and here, several of the ancient spiritual traditions advise cultivating non-judgment and this expresses itself in the new-age and contemporary echo-chambers for sure. This is because someone who hasn't realized what's pointed to by the unchanging absolute subject that is the perfection that they are will always have that obscured by the natural functioning of their mind. The advice is intended to invite you to a state of mental and emotional quiescence. But just because you suspend judgment of Assad doesn't magically transform him into the Buddha. That's the wishful bypassing of the Brown Bear. I've already said, if anything, the absence of judgement is suspended in order to judge. Absence of judgement is fundamental to me, my leaning is to say all human beings as equally sacred and 'of God', but I judge because it is the useful thing to do at times. 'Cultivating' non-judgement isn't what I am suggesting. I am saying that there is a natural state of no judgement. Judgment happens in the natural state. The perfection of the sacred is untouched by it. Contriving a "context" where murderous hate and nurturing love are the same and equal in the absence of judgment is the product of confusion. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 6:30:11 GMT -5
So you wouldn't have condemned Hitler as he was building the gas chambers? How about during Nuremberg? How about today?  The Christians really said it quite well, love the sinner hate the sin. That you are declaring Adolf and Charlie innocent is simple confusion between the absolute and the relative. I would have condemned him then, and now, because it is useful to do so. Judgement is a tool, it's not a reality. The reality is innocence. Yes, you're morphing your position to sound like mine when you're confronted with the absurdity of yours. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 6:35:58 GMT -5
But our discussion wasn't about our opinions of peeps like Assad, Buddha, Charlie Manson and Tolle. I wrote about that already. Twice: Our discussion was about whether or not there's a context where these these peeps are equated and equals. In the absolute context, they and everything else, are equally perfect, sacred, divine, 'of God'. Only in the relative context would I speak of one thing being more innocent or sacred than another thing. If your "absolute context" is in terms of "things" then murder weapons are sacred and genocidal maniacs are innocent. Neither is the case but there is a context available where the nature of these things becomes clear, and the sacrosanct innocence at everyones heart becomes clear. The murderer can only murder because this is not clear to him. His mind, like your "absolute context", is full of things. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2016 6:39:58 GMT -5
Yes there is. And that's why your spirituality is bankrupt. In "my spirituality" they each are perfect, but they are, of course, quite different. Same for me, but in my model, 'perfect' is literal. It means 'no mistake, no error, nothing wrong'. For you to say that they are 'perfect'...I don't know what that means because you suggested it is not associated with the common idea of 'perfect' |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2016 6:42:12 GMT -5
I've already said, if anything, the absence of judgement is suspended in order to judge. Absence of judgement is fundamental to me, my leaning is to say all human beings as equally sacred and 'of God', but I judge because it is the useful thing to do at times. 'Cultivating' non-judgement isn't what I am suggesting. I am saying that there is a natural state of no judgement. Judgment happens in the natural state. The perfection of the sacred is untouched by it. Contriving a "context" where murderous hate and nurturing love are the same and equal in the absence of judgment is the product of confusion. In my model the natural state is 'being', and judgement is a doing. However, I agree that perfection is untouched by the judgement, because the judgement stays in the relative context. In the absolute, both murderous hate and nurturing love are both equally perfect. There is no judgement in this context, so no mistake and no error. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2016 6:44:31 GMT -5
In the absolute context, they and everything else, are equally perfect, sacred, divine, 'of God'. Only in the relative context would I speak of one thing being more innocent or sacred than another thing. If your "absolute context" is in terms of "things" then murder weapons are sacred and genocidal maniacs are innocent. Neither is the case but there is a context available where the nature of these things becomes clear, and the sacrosanct innocence at everyones heart becomes clear. The murderer can only murder because this is not clear to him. His mind, like your "absolute context", is full of things. Yes in the absolute context, murder weapons are sacred and genocidal maniacs are sacrosanct and innocent. They are no more, and no less God, than kind and gentle folk that make soup for the homeless. In the relative, genocide is a product of evil, and is therefore wrong...and murder weapons are perhaps a manifestation of that evil (any hunters on the forum?  ) |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 6:45:12 GMT -5
When andy states that there is a context where they are equals he's not really stating a position based on a nondual pointer. He's making a statement from a position of confusing the relative and the absolute. To say that Charlie Manson did what he did based on delusion because the perfection of his true nature was obscured from him by personal identification, would be a nondual pointer. The relative and absolute are clearly defined differently in my understandings. I would say those words too, but to me it's not a pointer, it is literal. The literal understanding of how our nature is obscured is situational, and premised on our humanistic conditioning. We know this because murder is abhorrent to us. Recognizing that conditioning as neither good nor bad doesn't make Manson the murderer innocent. From that conditioned perspective it's easy for everyone to understand how Charlie lost himself in a deluded story, but to hold that he's innocent, literally makes no sense. To speak about the innocence of his perfection that was obscured from him, but that he never lost, even when he was plotting the murder of innocents, involves speaking about something that is true in a sense that can never be justified or explained. But it's still true nonetheless. It's just not an intellectual nor an emotional truth. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 6:47:22 GMT -5
Wise and compassionate words spoken from within the relative context. .. but there's no way to take "judgment" out of "evil". 'evil' is already a judgement. So I might say that something is evil, but its spoken from the relative. I might even say that something is 'absolute evil' lol but it is still spoken from the relative. Absolutely, evil doesn't exist. Yes, it's ok if we agree from time to time. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2016 6:48:17 GMT -5
The relative and absolute are clearly defined differently in my understandings. I would say those words too, but to me it's not a pointer, it is literal. The literal understanding of how our nature is obscured is situational, and premised on our humanistic conditioning. We know this because murder is abhorrent to us. Recognizing that conditioning as neither good nor bad doesn't make Manson the murderer innocent. From that conditioned perspective it's easy for everyone to understand how Charlie lost himself in a deluded story, but to hold that he's innocent, literally makes no sense. To speak about the innocence of his perfection that he never lost, even when he was plotting the murder of innocents, but that was obscured from him, involves speaking about something that is true in a sense that can never be justified or explained. But it's still true nonetheless. It's just not an intellectual nor an emotional truth. Manson in innocent for reasons I have explained multiple times, and it makes perfect sense to me. He is no more, and no less 'of God' than you are. In the absolute, you are not better or worse than him. Your non-dual teachings do not make you more innocent than him. You are not more sacred than him. In fact, he is a collective expression of which we both have had a role in. I don't mean this poetically or as a pointer, I mean it literally. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 6:50:10 GMT -5
There it 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". but 'discard the pointers' is good advice.
This guy.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 6:51:19 GMT -5
Mountain view can't be compared here. Because we are not standing in two difference places we are standing in the same ground. When I invalidate your view, I have some valid reason, I know that that can't be that way, that's what I am invalidating it. I never fail to find the value in the right teaching. If yours consist of some value, then I would surely pay more attention to that, but in my view, you are entirely go wrong and also you are saying I am not paying attention. I have to pay attention to say you are wrong. and you never explain HOW you know that. That is because you really do not understand it. So you simply dismiss it without any explanation. i once gave an explanation about telepathy being a much better solution to a question you had. you said nothing in return. A discussion can not be like that it is a two way street, but you want me to go your way only. I always understand what you talk, I tend to dismiss only when you provide some kind details which is completely out of scope of what I talk. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 6:53:31 GMT -5
Is it true that you're reading this sentence? Yes. Unless it isn't.  well, among other points that demonstrates that not every truth involves a judgment. The "unless it isn't" in this case is just pure silliness, because if you hadn't read it, you wouldn't know how to respond. Seriously andy, the only way for you to slow your mental spin seems to be for it to spin out of control. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 6:55:08 GMT -5
That's only if you never let it sink below yer neck. you can't resolve paradox in a context in which there is no paradox Yes, well one way to avoid "resolution" is to rest your mind and become comfy cozy with the paradox instead of checkin' in with the body to see what it's got to say. |
|
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. 
)
well, among other points that demonstrates that not every truth involves a judgment. The "unless it isn't" in this case is just pure silliness, because if you hadn't read it, you wouldn't know how to respond. Seriously andy, the only way for you to slow your mental spin seems to be for it to spin out of control.