|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 23, 2016 15:30:45 GMT -5
The truth will also enable that (nonvolition) but I understand there's a downside to that. most days for the best part of two years in 2009/10....maybe I argue in cycles  haha.....I think I am entering back into that cycle meself here with my discussion with SDP. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 23, 2016 15:38:37 GMT -5
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. But, Even in adulthood, desires/interests are not 'chosen'. & Decisions are made according to whatever interest is stronger in any given moment. To see that clearly is to understand that you can't blame folks for what their interest are....or are not. Do you think you could make yourself 'like' your sister's incessant chatter, for example? Indeed, it may have seemed as though several routes of action were available to you in the moments that you spoke to her in a way which resulted in her crying, but wasn't the action you took the one you 'wanted' to take above all others? Even though you may have seen in that moment that snapping wasn't the 'kindest, most generous, patient' course of action, you chose it, right? In that sense, were other choices really open to you? Seeing the inherent innocence in all is not about 'excusing' bad behavior. From the place of seeing the inherent, fundamental innocence, excuses don't need to happen, as nothing is seen in need or excuse or blame. I didn't say I snapped at her, I didn't snap at her, I said I didn't discuss the issue, I merely repeated several times, I have it handled. I said it very calmly. For me, the spiritual journey is about seeing ~what-we-are~. This allows change to be possible. I realize I am conditioned, this is what makes change possible. Most people just see themselves to be what-they-are, changing isn't in the cards. I have never been satisfied with who-I-am, never hope to be. I am out of library time presently, but was going to go into this on the as above so below thread, eventually. As for the last paragraph I refer you to my last post to andrew. Tell "excuses don't need to happen" to the family of the man who was shot in Charlotte (but I think it will come out that the shooting was justified), but the more pertinent case is the man shot in Tulsa, walking away, hands up, no gun, shot by a police officer. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 23, 2016 15:40:24 GMT -5
I argued non-volition most days for the best part of two years in 2009/10....maybe I argue in cycles haha.....I think I am entering back into that cycle meself here with my discussion with SDP. ..........17...13.... |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2016 15:40:39 GMT -5
Right, so that at this point you are contradicting yourself all over the shop. I would agree that a rock has properties such that you know it is a rock, just as a human being has qualities such that you know it is a human, and a moon has qualities such that you know it is a moon. So a human being is known to have brains, eyes, liver and heart. A moon is known to be made of rock, and looks bright at night because of sunlight that is reflected off its surface. So, now where we have a moon, we also have a sun. What this means is that when we perceive a moon, it's not just the image of the moon we perceive. Unless you think the moon has no back in the same way that the andrew appearance has no as.s There is a connection between knowledge and perception that the consciousness-appearances model struggles with. The idea that everything is appearance in Consciousness does not lead to struggle. You create your own struggle with it by thinking deeply about it. It's not a struggle for me because I understand the limits of each model. When I see other people trying to squeeze what doesn't belong into a model, then it might look like I'm struggling, but really I'm just being annoying |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2016 15:43:21 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. That there is no hierarchy in the absolute context doesn't change the hierarchy in the relative context or the hierarchy of contexts overall. I fully agree. However, if the absolute context is a context that is absent of hierarchy, and it transcends the relative context, then what we have is a strange dynamic. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2016 15:46:46 GMT -5
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. yeah I had a feeling that what I said wasn't quite right, hence the word 'basically'. What I meant to convey specifically was that I'm not pointing to an absence when I speak of the absolute context, I am talking about a presence. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2016 15:48:26 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'm still not sure what words I said specifically, but if that was fine, then that's fine enough. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2016 15:51:26 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. I suggest you don't use confusion to shake up your beliefs. The truth works much betterer. Mental confusion is not your friend. Quite strongly disagree here. I'll tell you why. Truth is still one side of a mental polarity, it is a measuring stick and measurers are dualistic (false is obviously the opposite) The goal is to drop into the space prior to these measuring concepts, and we can't do that if we are aligned to one side of the polarity. Confusion has a way of blurring the boundaries and forcing us into the space. Confusion often precedes surrender. The goal is not to find the true answer. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2016 16:01:27 GMT -5
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. OK, in Charlotte, NC, where I live, right now the focus of Police shooting black men has come to my "back year". (This is a little different because a black policemen killed a black man). Tuesday afternoon about 4:00, a black man was shot and killed when the police came to the neighborhood to serve papers on another man totally unrelated to the man who was shot. There have been protests Tuesday night, Wednesday night and Thursday night, Wednesday night much violence and rioting, looting, breaking windows. The problem is more black men are shot in this manner than say white men. For you would this be a disturbing fact, or would it not matter because everyone is equal? Seriously, because you say "it is good for the collective for folks to hold that perspective/experience". A more extreme case is Tulsa, OK. Last Friday a police woman shot and killed an unarmed man walking away from her with his hands up. She has now been charged with murder, but that doesn't help the black man who was killed. It seems you live in an Ivory Tower andrew (no offense intended). For me it's a disturbing fact. As I just said, in some way I am MORE judgemental than I used to be. (see conspiracy thread for more details). Please don't assume that just because I see individuals as fundamentally equal, that I therefore superglue myself into that context. To do that would miss the point. The paradox that I have spoken of means that the relative IS as valid as the absolute, and I treat it as such. I fully engage. However, at no point am I seeing an individual as intrinsically evil or bad or less than anyone else. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 16:34:47 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? Do you want to name them? And there's no need to spin it back at me again.. as in, if you feel that you will get something out of naming all the books that you've read all the way to the end.. then I'm happy to encourage that for you. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Sept 23, 2016 16:35:57 GMT -5
'The all' doesn't lie beyond the range of distinction, so it isn't a monism. yeah I had a feeling that what I said wasn't quite right, hence the word 'basically'. What I meant to convey specifically was that I'm not pointing to an absence when I speak of the absolute context, I am talking about a presence. Okay, in that case I probably won't be able to interest you in the notion that context is effectively absence of presence, hehe.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2016 16:49:48 GMT -5
yeah I had a feeling that what I said wasn't quite right, hence the word 'basically'. What I meant to convey specifically was that I'm not pointing to an absence when I speak of the absolute context, I am talking about a presence. Okay, in that case I probably won't be able to interest you in the notion that context is effectively absence of presence, hehe. lol probably not. Maybe you mean something along the lines that context is an illusion...? |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Sept 23, 2016 17:15:55 GMT -5
Okay, in that case I probably won't be able to interest you in the notion that context is effectively absence of presence, hehe. lol probably not. Maybe you mean something along the lines that context is an illusion...? I'm saying, the presence of context is the absence of presence, surely that couldn't be clearer! I think I'll just quit while I'm behind. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 23, 2016 17:34:04 GMT -5
I didn't say I snapped at her, I didn't snap at her, I said I didn't discuss the issue, I merely repeated several times, I have it handled. I said it very calmly. Okay...sorry, IT was likely your saying she cried that led to my making that assumption. I don't think we're too far apart there. The 'never hope to be' part suggests to me your position of 'not satisfied' is more of a sense of being grounded in the seeing and thus joy and expectation that nothing stays the same, than it is a sense of not feeling good about yourself...? I would never do that to one who has just experienced such a thing and is knee deep in the sense of loss and injustice....wrong time, wrong place to start that conversation. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2016 17:50:50 GMT -5
lol probably not. Maybe you mean something along the lines that context is an illusion...? I'm saying, the presence of context is the absence of presence, surely that couldn't be clearer! I think I'll just quit while I'm behind. Oh okay, I understand. Yes, outside intellectual discussion, it's not something we really want to be thinking about a whole lot! |
|
