Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 17:59:40 GMT -5
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. There isn't anything mental about Truth. And any ideas of goals and confusion forcing an us are deception. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2016 18:05:03 GMT -5
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. There isn't anything mental about Truth. And any ideas of goals and confusion forcing an us are deception. I think you've changed context there...I'm noticing a capitalized letter, which usually means we are back in pointy land. So I'll jump context with you. 'Truth' points prior to mental polarities such as true/false. Hence, again, confusion can usefully precede Truth Realization, coz the last thing we want to happen is to land on a true answer in our search for Truth Realization. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 18:19:14 GMT -5
There isn't anything mental about Truth. And any ideas of goals and confusion forcing an us are deception. I think you've changed context there...I'm noticing a capitalized letter, which usually means we are back in pointy land. So I'll jump context with you. 'Truth' points prior to mental polarities such as true/false. Hence, again, confusion can usefully precede Truth Realization, coz the last thing we want to happen is to land on a true answer in our search for Truth Realization. If that's the best that you can write after all these years then give it up, really. Truth is Alive, and there isn't anything alive in your understanding. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2016 19:49:14 GMT -5
Half the members here bluntly equate their experience with truth, perhaps not realizing it. Sasquatch, Gopal, Tenka and Pilgrim (just to mention four) have referred to their experience to back up truth statements made in the largest context. There is a sharp difference between equating the experience with truth and Observing the greater movement of universe. Not if it's a conclusion drawn from your experience. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2016 20:34:15 GMT -5
Well this might be a context issue (heh heh), but I see confusion as causing all sorts of problems. Like - it's the main culprit. Not that it has to be demonized, but it's not a good place to stay. I see confusion as one idea that is true in one context contradicting another idea that is true in another context. When there is attachment to ideas, then confusion is a problem because there is a dizzying sense of trying to figure out what idea is actually true, a sense of needing to get to the bottom of all of our ideas to find the absolutely true idea. This can be a pain for sure. When the attachment has gone (understanding context can be helpful perhaps in this), it's all just more playful, there's no need to dig, no need to get to find the absolutely true idea, no need to get to the final answer. We are more free to respond in one moment with one idea, and the next moment with another idea...depending on the situation obviously. These contradictions are never resolved as such, but they also don't have to be a problem. For example, the contradiction of enlightenment is never resolved, but also doesn't have to be a problem. All contradictions can be resolved, though perhaps not with the mind alone. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2016 20:49:53 GMT -5
Appearance is mere image. Image can't have anything within itself. Problem is, that an image is known by the qualities it has, and the ones it doesn't have. Without that, there is no image basically. Another problem is that an appearance is not generally just a two dimensional image, as the mirror analogy implies. We interact with appearances as they appear to all of the senses. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2016 20:56:02 GMT -5
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha I can absolutely feel why you feel that way because I too feel the same way! And it is very efficient for the post-count. Which is always intimidating for newcomers. Which ,no doubt is as is intended. WHo would E be, with 351 posts? a complete nobody. which is why this site is such a farce. You think a high post count is very intimidating? Based on the degrading comments I receive about it, I think it mostly discredits me, but I've been here many years and I don't really think it says much of anything about me. One thing is clear; I don't have the time to keep up with this one thread. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2016 21:05:41 GMT -5
It's a mistake to go from 'absence of judgment' to 'equally true'. A 'mistake' that will set you free...?  Adyashanti explains it very well; “ Ultimately what we come to see is that all beliefs are of equal value. It’s just as equal value that somebody should have done something as somebody shouldn’t have done something. Right and wrong have ultimately an equal value. What I think somebody should have done or shouldn’t have done has no value. What they did is as equal value of what I think they should have done. And when we see that all of our thoughts about everything, all of our judgements about everything, all of our opinions about everything, the opposite of the opinions we hold, the opposite of the judgements we have, are equally true.Only then are the polarity of thoughts balanced and we see if the opposing thought is just as true as the thought I believe, then the whole structure of thought collapses. It all falls away. If an opinion that is totally different than mine has just as much right to exist as mine does, then it is impossible to say which opinion is real or true, because they are both real or not real. When we see this there is a balancing internally of the opposites. There is a balancing of the polarizing nature of thought and only when thought is balanced in this way, that one story is no more valid than another story, do all stories collapse.The whole polarizing and dualistic structure of thinking start to collapse. We start to see that there is no validity in it." To say that beliefs, judgments and opinions are ultimately equally true is not the same as saying everything is equally true because all is one. Facts are not beliefs, judgments or opinions. Some things are true and some are false. The clarity from which Adya speaks is not belief, judgment or opinion. (If it were, his words would be meaningless) Somebody important said 'All opinions are vanity'. I don't have a problem with that, but not everything said is an opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2016 21:16:06 GMT -5
The idea that brain waves makes the dream physical avoids the point that it's all happening in the mind (or brain if you prefer). You can say that when you don't think brains exist in the first place? I didn't say brains don't exist. As Tenka would say, brains appear when brains appear, though I define existence differently than you. Also, mind is defined as the movement of thought. Thought obviously moves. (The brain comment was a concession to your way of seeing. I won't make that mistake again) |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2016 21:35:36 GMT -5
I am not googling anything, I follows the writings of Tim'O Neil, he has the excellent knowledge in history of Jews,Romans and many. So one of his writings he has written this. OK, then you don't care what the truth is? You know he didn't say or imply that. Rather the opposite.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2016 21:37:52 GMT -5
Once again, Consciousness is not a person. The question is misconceived. I don't know how I did any of that. All those things happen in Consciousness. If individuations don't come from Consciousness, then where do they come from? Or at what point does Consciousness become individuation? Individuations appear in Consciousness. Are you following along,like, at all? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2016 21:49:22 GMT -5
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? I suggest you are making an error somewhere. If you don't consider there to be a physical world, it is useless to discuss a physical world, period. This would be like me saying, I'm now going to talk in the context of Alice and Wonderland. Okay, then I WILL explain that you will hurt yourself if you walk in front of a moving bus, so discussion in the physical context is appropriate for when one is doing things like walking in front of buses. Your Alice in Wonderland context comparison would be appropriate if you had to wander around Wonderland. My guess is you won't. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2016 21:58:27 GMT -5
Enigma clearly knows this truth. No, he is disagreeing with you right now, in my last post I'm trying to point this out. The appearance of a person does not include a brain unless the person has his brains hanging out. What you conclude or assume about the appearance is not actually appearing, except as a thought about the appearance. Why do such simple statements made by Gopal turn into month long discussions? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2016 22:03:50 GMT -5
It's actually true that Consciousness(singular) is the same Consciousness as the Consciousness in the individual. That doesn't make it divided, rather it makes it one. The individual is Consciousness expressed. So 'my consciousness' (which is already a poor use of language) is the expression of Consciousness. To locate your individual consciousness at the 'level' of Consciousness itself, is to divide Consciousness. I really don't think you want to do that. In order for you to be able to attend the non-dual awards this year and be in with a chance of an appearing prize, you have to see Consciousness as undivided and undifferentiated. I don't know what that means or how it divides Consciousness. I'm just saying personal consciousness and impersonal consciousness are not two consciousnessesses. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2016 22:06:18 GMT -5
There is relative appearance. There is relative experience. There is no external world. There is no inside/outside. This is why there is nothing separate from Consciousness. No-separation is a radical thing. It doesn't mean physical matter is somehow infused with consciousness or that everything is connected in various ways. It means everything IS Consciousness. There is only Consciousness. You are THAT! (For Andrew) So is Consciousness ~responsible~ for everything that happens? The question is misconceived because... Consciousness. is. not. a. person. We can say Consciousness is the only cause. |
|
