|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 24, 2018 19:08:52 GMT -5
Lol.. I'll find it when I can be bothered. Transcendent does not mean special. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 24, 2018 19:11:01 GMT -5
I'm saying it's not a relative truth! I knew that if I occupied the space that said it was only a relative truth, that that would force you to answer his question. (I'll keep the laughter to myself this time) Good, because you're starting to sound a little crazy. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 24, 2018 19:22:06 GMT -5
Proclaiming there is no person isn't something I tend to do. I HAVE said there is no separate volitional person, and I have 'proclaimed' there are individuations, assuming there is a point of perception present. They are no different from me. Should I not engage them for some reason? How is this process of assuming taking place? Is an assumption, really a mental processing happening because a point of perception engages you first? Or is an assumption being made prior to any mental processing i.e. do you feel it in your gut whether an appearance has a Godly point of perception in it. Or is it just totally dependent on your direct perception? An assumption is an assumption.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 24, 2018 19:27:34 GMT -5
I said that Consciousness is unconscious? If so, that would be a careless thing for me to say, but I'd like to see a real quote. In any event, my position is that Consciousness is not conscious. Is that still "the glitch in my paradigm"? Sorry, yea, you said consciousness is not conscious (which {still} seems pretty like to me an oxymoron). I still don't get it. (C)onsciousness is not personal, and therefore not a conscious entity. (It's a pointer) |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 24, 2018 19:32:04 GMT -5
E discounts the value of CC experiences...because he considers ND experiences to be in the same category of dualistic experiences... I didn't mean to say you discount the value of experiences, period (duality in relation to duality). How can there be a non-dual experience? Experience is all about duality. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 24, 2018 19:50:08 GMT -5
What does that have to do with my question? Why are you making this so hard? You said ZD's explanation is correct. What explanation? What does ZD even have to do with this discussion? Are you doing this on purpose? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 24, 2018 20:03:00 GMT -5
Watch Pilgrim, Gopal, Tenka and the C/C, Kensho club just for starters. Well, I see folks confirming truths (in experience), but not 'Truth'. Do you take it as true that you are conscious, alive, sentient and experiencing, or do you take it as 'True'? I take that to be a transcendent Truth, yes. ZD says those experiences reveal what IS so. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 24, 2018 20:06:21 GMT -5
I'm saying it's not a relative truth! So you were stating 'Truth'? How can 'Truth' be stated? This is what I don't understand. It seems like you have another category that I don't have. Maybe you see 'transcendent Truths' as different to both relative truths and Truth? Oneness is the Truth. There, I just stated a Truth. You're parsing words again, and I don't really have the patience for it. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 24, 2018 20:12:03 GMT -5
It's irritating because I have to then repeat myself! You absolutely do not have to repeat yourself. I don't respond for a reason. Don't make me ignore it again. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 24, 2018 20:19:38 GMT -5
Well, when you say that you know that you are alive, sentient, experiencing, perceiving, conscious...but you don't know if others are, then I would guess that you would say that this is known beyond experience, and that's why you don't question it. Whereas I would say that any knowing that applies only to myself, and which discounts others, is a knowing IN experience and is questionable. It's not some truth that lies either in experience or beyond, nor is it a knowing. It's simply obvious that neither one of us knows. Don't waste your time questioning whether in fact you really don't know something. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 24, 2018 20:21:51 GMT -5
That's what makes your concern insincere; expressing concern without being concerned.  It's quite possible that I might have been secretly celebrating sN being out of sorts! I guess I'm pleased to see that you at least think that I would be the concerned type. There WAS an expression of concern. Do I need to quote you again? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 24, 2018 20:26:12 GMT -5
Okay, so are you okay when others offer conclusions based on their realizations? Everybody does if they're going to talk about it at all. Often, mind doesn't get informed properly, and their conclusion is wrong. That's when it gets really messy. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 24, 2018 20:32:08 GMT -5
You mean the 'A' word? Yes. lol I meant 'tnemgif' (I put it in almost unbreakable code). Oh, the 'f' word. No, I told you I won't own that word, and I explained why. Remember? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 24, 2018 20:39:32 GMT -5
Not if they disagree with his. haha yes I think I was having a similar thought. Well, when it comes down to my conclusion about my realization vs somebody else's conclusion about their realization, yeah mine will likely win. Are you telling me you would be different?... What about you, Pilgrim?....Anybody?.... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 25, 2018 3:23:57 GMT -5
How is this process of assuming taking place? Is an assumption, really a mental processing happening because a point of perception engages you first? Or is an assumption being made prior to any mental processing i.e. do you feel it in your gut whether an appearance has a Godly point of perception in it. Or is it just totally dependent on your direct perception? An assumption is an assumption. Yeah, I thought so. |
|
