|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 24, 2016 2:31:22 GMT -5
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. No they can't. In the context that there are contradictions (mind), they are not resolved. In the context of no contradictions (being) there there is nothing to be resolved. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 24, 2016 2:35:06 GMT -5
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. To say that they are ultimately equally true is the same as saying that in the absolute context they are equally true. The reason they are equally true is because oneness (in that context) is because oneness transcends difference. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 24, 2016 2:37:31 GMT -5
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. You're right, they are not, but it would also be a mistake to say that they are the same, and if you pay attention to gopals writing you will see that to him they are the same. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 24, 2016 2:40:18 GMT -5
If Consciousness is the expression, I don't get how the expressions could not be a viewpoint, but I'm not going to lose sleep over that. I'm more likely to lose sleep if you locate viewpoint/s at the level of 'the undivided'. A rock is also an expression of consciousness, but surely you can see it is not a 'viewpoint'. Debatable. Not obviously so, at least. Its more obvious that sentient beings can have a viewpoint. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 24, 2016 2:42:20 GMT -5
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. Interesting, But the entire drama is happening in our nightly dream as well, we are seeing an object and mistaken for something else but when we have a closer look we start to identify the correct Object, right? But you know in dream we are not receiving the data through our eye but still all these things continue to happen. The brain is pretty clever eh. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 24, 2016 2:46:47 GMT -5
Does appear mean the same as comes from? Words are like cards in a card game. There are ace-words which trump the rest. Different social contexts are like different card games, but basically, regardless of the game, people play to win. In the spiritual teachers social context 'consciousness' is an ace-word, and 'appearance' is also a very strong suit. The winning hand, therefore, is like, 'appearance in consciousness'. However, that is only in one game. In another social context (another game), that same hand would be a losing one. Lol yeah, sometimes I feel a little like I am playing a card game here. The game as.hole used to be a favourite, the idea was that someone would lay a low card and then you would go round the group building on that until you get to the king which was the highest card. Whoever laid that tben got to lay their lowest card. First person to clear their cards was winner, but here on the forum we never run out of cards. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2016 2:49:03 GMT -5
Interesting, But the entire drama is happening in our nightly dream as well, we are seeing an object and mistaken for something else but when we have a closer look we start to identify the correct Object, right? But you know in dream we are not receiving the data through our eye but still all these things continue to happen. The brain is pretty clever eh. Why brain is clever ? The analogy shows that we do not have to receive the data from outer world. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 24, 2016 3:03:04 GMT -5
The brain is pretty clever eh. Why brain is clever ? The analogy shows that we do not have to receive the data from outer world. Brain is clever because we can see images when sleeping with eyes shut. Brain is clever such that we can also use imagination too. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 24, 2016 3:47:22 GMT -5
Words are like cards in a card game. There are ace-words which trump the rest. Different social contexts are like different card games, but basically, regardless of the game, people play to win. In the spiritual teachers social context 'consciousness' is an ace-word, and 'appearance' is also a very strong suit. The winning hand, therefore, is like, 'appearance in consciousness'. However, that is only in one game. In another social context (another game), that same hand would be a losing one. Lol yeah, sometimes I feel a little like I am playing a card game here. The game as.hole used to be a favourite, the idea was that someone would lay a low card and then you would go round the group building on that until you get to the king which was the highest card. Whoever laid that tben got to lay their lowest card. First person to clear their cards was winner, but here on the forum we never run out of cards. One of the great skills is the bluff, too, so one doesn't need a good hand to win. For example just say this was a game of fish, and you asked me, 'do you have an ace', and then I responded, 'yes I do, unless I don't'. hahaha. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2016 3:54:10 GMT -5
Why brain is clever ? The analogy shows that we do not have to receive the data from outer world. Brain is clever because we can see images when sleeping with eyes shut. Brain is clever such that we can also use imagination too. It doesn't even think it imagines inside , it really think it perceives until you wake up. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 24, 2016 3:59:06 GMT -5
Brain is clever because we can see images when sleeping with eyes shut. Brain is clever such that we can also use imagination too. It doesn't even think it imagines inside , it really think it perceives until you wake up. Not quite following your use of language on this one...I think the word 'it' is confusing me lol |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2016 4:12:11 GMT -5
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. And as I've said,my impression when you speak, is that you are trying to speak with an authentic voice, and it comes across to me as somewhat....precocious...like a kid trying to be a grown up. You speak of spontaneity but i find little that is spontaneous about your expression. To say Truth is alive is yet another cliche basically. Truth is not alive, its a conceptual pointer. Life is alive, and that's self evident. I didn't write of spontaneity. I wrote of Truth. It's alive, and there are a few grown men that I've stood next to that bring it to life. You are not one of them. I do hope I've made my point clear this time. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2016 4:16:49 GMT -5
It doesn't even think it imagines inside , it really think it perceives until you wake up. Not quite following your use of language on this one...I think the word 'it' is confusing me lol Brain |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 24, 2016 4:23:44 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. Absolute context is an oxymoron. Do you recognize that you've stated a self-referential paradox?  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 24, 2016 4:26:22 GMT -5
I think Heisenberg claimed that uncertainty itself is inherent, not that it's due to a limit. Correct. Well the inherent limitation embodied by the principle is quite clear. |
|
