|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 23, 2016 14:04:34 GMT -5
Yes there is a context in which it is impossible for anyone or anything, to be, or make, a mistake/error. I would say the simple seeing that no one chooses his desires/interests should bring that into clear focus. When you become an adult, with every decision you make you are choosing. Correct, we are conditioned before we are mature enough to decide about anything, but this is not an excuse for subsequent behavior. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2016 14:09:22 GMT -5
"Equally valid" has no meaning where there is no hierarchy. You're trying to equate where equating makes no sense, so you find a paradox of your own making. 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. That there is no hierarchy in the absolute context doesn't change the hierarchy in the relative context or the hierarchy of contexts overall. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Sept 23, 2016 14:18:09 GMT -5
Absolute context is an oxymoron. Depends on definition. In my definition it is basically a monism, so not an oxymoron. The way that non duality defines absolute, it may be an oxymoron.... though in non duality there probably is no such thing as context at all. So when I say...in the absolute context, I am saying....in the context of the all, as opposed to the context the part. 'The all' doesn't lie beyond the range of distinction, so it isn't a monism. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 23, 2016 14:20:18 GMT -5
You obviously didn't grow up Southern Baptist. Christianity today has become so twisted it is pretty insane. Yes, the Western church teaches we are depraved from birth (Calvin). It teaches we have in some genetic kind of sense inherited the sin of Adam and are automatically born separated from God. So yes, from the Western church perspective, Original sin is about humanity. This goes all the way back to Augustine. Augustine didn't read Greek, so he read a Latin translation of the Greek. One single word was translated wrong, and from this Augustine devised Original sin as the (Western) church teaches it. When a kid growing up I heard many times, the only place God does not exist is in the heart of a lost person. So you can see what nonsense I've had to overcome. Pelagius debated Augustine on this subject, Pelagius lost. If the church had accepted what Pelagius taught the world would be much different today. Pelagius was a Celtic Christian. The Celtic Church taught we are born innocent, but become separated from God when we sin. This is also the view of Eastern Orthodox Christianity (this is why I said the Western church above). EO theologians teach we do not inherit the guilt of Adam, but we inherit the consequences of Adan's sin. So what you say is essentially the EO church's view. (IOW, original sin, in the true sense of the Word, is in the meme sense, not the gene sense). Also, Judaism never developed Augustine's sense of Original sin. He was just flat out wrong. So Augustine developed the idea of Original sin? Yes, as the Western church now understands and uses the term. Augustine distorted certain scripture, read into it what it didn't say. I wrestled with this about 30 years ago, and came to see his error, and afterwards learned about the view of Eastern Orthodox theologians, and later learned Pelagius was a Celtic Christian. And even later learned of this one word translated incorrectly. The word the in the Vulgate (Jerome, Latin Bible) got wrong. It said, [Adam], in whom we have all sinned. But the Greek says: in that we have all sinned. (Romans 12) Augustine thus invented the idea that we all in some kind of genetic sense we all inherit the sin of Adam and thus everybody is born physically, spiritually dead. It's just nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 23, 2016 14:24:32 GMT -5
OK, I like Albert Low, he's about the most sane person I've come across. I have Iron Cow, but have not read all of it. I'll check that out, sounds interesting (and sane). (But I will not be home again until Saturday). Me thinks you can name on one hand which of your books you have read all the way to the end.  No, it numbers at least in the thousand. Do you want me to name them? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 23, 2016 14:39:10 GMT -5
The problem here is that in the Consciousness-appearance model, what you see is the snake. How can that perception (or any perception) ever be wrong? In order for the snake to actually be a rope, surely we have to jump back into the physical context and start analyzing properties of the snake/rope. Well, the problem is in the careless way in which Pilgrim defined illusion, but you raise an interesting question. If we say there is just one perceiver, then appearance and actuality are the same, but if there are multiple perceivers (which we assume there are) then there is a kind of 'consensus actuality' which a particular individuation may or may may not see as such. In that case, one may mistake a tree for a giraffe, and this would be an illusion. The world is a subjective creation, but the subject is Consciousness as a whole rather than the individual, which is one of the creations. I merely gave one example of an illusion. There are multiple other kinds of illusions. I have studied perception pretty extensively. The problem is we never see merely what's exterior. An individual brain (a person) constructs the perception. The brain is a prediction-making organ. It takes in information, and ~compares~ that information to what's already is "file". And more than that, it takes the data (bottom-up), and adds to it (top-down, info already logged in the brain from previous experience). The snake-rope is a perfect example. The brain takes in info, partial info, it is actually a stick, but the size, the way it is laying, the brain compares that info to the snake file, and the snake file adds that info to the incoming data, and the brain pictures, snake!! and one can actually see a snake, because the brain actually pictures snake, the brain makes a picture, a representation, snake. When more data is sent to the brain, it will compare this new data to stick information from previous experience, now stored. And then the brain will see stick. And then you will say, what was i thinking, it wasn't a snake after all. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 23, 2016 14:41:30 GMT -5
How can it be misconceived? ...that's what you say is happening. Because. Consciousness. Is. Not. A. Peeeeeer-son.  Are you or are you not saying, that, in a manner of speaking, people are ~made-out-of~ consciousness?  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 23, 2016 14:52:21 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?  I can go even further than that. I will make a prediction that you are reading this sentence, now.  |
|
|
|
Post by zin on Sept 23, 2016 14:59:21 GMT -5
Me thinks you can name on one hand which of your books you have read all the way to the end. No, it numbers at least in the thousand. Do you want me to name them? What was the most important one? (for me it is usually the last one!) |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2016 14:59:56 GMT -5
Random comments?? You equated oneness and validity. I'm saying they're unrelated concepts. I don't know how to simplify it more for you. They have different meaning so they're not equated. If Oneness is the case, the absolutely speaking, all is valid. I can't reverse that statement...if Validity is the case, then absolutely speaking, all is oneness......it doesn't make sense. Fine, you started with oneness and concluded equal validity. I'm saying they're unrelated concepts. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2016 15:02:49 GMT -5
Paradox is always mental confusion, and should be a clue to you to slow the orbital velocity. 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. I suggest you don't use confusion to shake up your beliefs. The truth works much betterer. Mental confusion is not your friend. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2016 15:07:15 GMT -5
These events are not equivalent to the sermon on the mount. You didn't address my first question, and you're directing your objections about this to the wrong party on the thread. OK, I don't know what you were saying in the first place. But catching some of your discussion with Andrew on Charlie and Hitler, I don't think I have a problem with your view, sdp and L are closer on this subject than andrew and sdp. yeah we're gonna have to be an odds on this one. To clarify something, aside from the fact that what I am saying makes sense to me at least, to me it is basically a kind of lifestyle choice to see individuals as fundamentally equal. I don't choose it because I can prove it to be true, I choose it because I like it and because it makes my life better, and because I believe that it is actually good for the collective for folks to hold that perspective/experience. I do judge of course, but I prefer the absence. I do experience the belief in fundamental equality to be true but that could just be confirmation bias, so the fact that I experience it to be true is sort of by the by. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 23, 2016 15:07:34 GMT -5
They have different meaning so they're not equated. If Oneness is the case, the absolutely speaking, all is valid. I can't reverse that statement...if Validity is the case, then absolutely speaking, all is oneness......it doesn't make sense. Fine, you started with oneness and concluded equal validity. I'm saying they're unrelated concepts. I mentioned previously, but here is a good place to ask directly. Then, I must have always misunderstood your greasy little spot. Is this not the meaning of your greasy little spot? IOW, does the greasy little spot make Tolle and Manson equal? If you say no then please explain the meaning of the greasy little spot. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2016 15:08:47 GMT -5
hehe 'Well, no pain no gain, right?' hehe Oh, c'mon now Doooofus everyone knows that self-improvement is absolutely necessary to realizing the truth but it's not that kind of pain they're talking about.  Wait....you mean I wasn't sposed to walk out in front of buses and walk off cliffs to see what happens?? But that's what they said to do!  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2016 15:10:02 GMT -5
One other way that evil can be seen. Those that demonstrate the most evil, and most intensity of ego-separation, are giving humanity the contrast so that we can move towards love. Another example of this... in this day and age, the exacerbation of ridiculous warfare is pushing humans to KNOW that they want peace. Sometimes intense contrast can encourage us to look closely at our values and what truly matters to us. In this sense, evil can be seen to be a gift to humanity...it says...'is this what you really want??!!' Keep that up and you might accidentally understand duality. |
|
