|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 2, 2023 10:00:53 GMT -5
There seems to me to be 2 questions we are all addressing 1) Where does maya begin and end. 2) What aspect of maya causes human difficulties, and how do we spiritually address/resolve those difficulties. I'm not saying this to you specifically, it's just that your message prompted that thought. I think. I think, one is saying Maya is (conceptual) separation, but not distinguishing between objects (part of perception). While the other is saying Maya is both. What I'm trying to figure out is whether agreeing with either will make you any less "pillocky."
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jun 2, 2023 10:05:14 GMT -5
Sounds as though ChatGPT is a brown-bear. Curiosity, interest, suspicions and intuitings that another might not be telling the truth, all of that continues on post awakening. Realzing there is not two does not mean the end of experience and all it's myriad of facets.
Sure. But here you're justifying fantasy with high falutin non-dual language. Best of luck with that. I think the figgles persona was a debate champion. Winning is ingrained and goes quite deep. Bulldog tenacity, I'd say.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jun 2, 2023 10:16:15 GMT -5
Sure. But here you're justifying fantasy with high falutin non-dual language. Best of luck with that. I think the figgles persona was a debate champion. Winning is ingrained and goes quite deep. Bulldog tenacity, I'd say. Nothing wrong with that per se. Problems arise when there is unresolved issues resulting in an inability to “come empty” to a discussion.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 2, 2023 10:40:49 GMT -5
Sure. But here you're justifying fantasy with high falutin non-dual language. Best of luck with that. I think the figgles persona was a debate champion. Winning is ingrained and goes quite deep. Bulldog tenacity, I'd say. I think that this is a gross understatement! That's why I rarely interacted. No matter what one posts in response it will always be untruthful, shallow, misguided, stupid, deluded, etc. I've seen enough straw men in the past to stay out of the hayfield.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 2, 2023 10:43:00 GMT -5
What is "it"? The question was, what is distinct, from what? C.T.Joe would say "my hand, from the tub". So we agree that "cold" is a process, but your answer here is unclear. Yes, the mental overlays are only at the surface. We're at or close to a point of agreeing to disagree. I've already acknowledged the difference between physical and mental distinctions. There is a difference between distinguishing between the hand and the tub, on one hand, and Monday and Tuesday, on the other, no doubt. I can understand how what I've written about unusual experiences might ultimately be a condescension, but that just is what it is. "Not two" is really, quite the deep rabbit hole. And also the existential truth. Ultimately, I can only say the question is misconceived. Which also might seem condescending but I'm sure neither of us will take offence. So let's go with agree to disagree, on the basis we at least have a fair idea where the other is coming from by now. Which of the two bolded questions are you saying is misconceived? No I don't find that condescending.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 2, 2023 11:22:45 GMT -5
Ultimately, I can only say the question is misconceived. Which also might seem condescending but I'm sure neither of us will take offence. So let's go with agree to disagree, on the basis we at least have a fair idea where the other is coming from by now. Which of the two bolded questions are you saying is misconceived? No I don't find that condescending. Both. 'What's and 'it's' are problematic, unless they are employed as concessions referring to what is essentially a transient and ultimately empty of inherency, 'condition'. In scientific terms, condition would be synonymous with event, even though we might talk in terms of conditions comprising the event. Therefore, condition or event is merely a more third mountain way of conceiving of conventional 'what's' and it's'. But not in any ultimate sense, where as you well know, 'stuff' merges into ineffability.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jun 2, 2023 13:14:43 GMT -5
ZD said: “I've seen enough straw men in the past to stay out of the hayfield.” This made me laugh out loud. Did you just make that up? Lol.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 2, 2023 13:51:37 GMT -5
ZD said: “I've seen enough straw men in the past to stay out of the hayfield.” This made me laugh out loud. Did you just make that up? Lol. No, because this issue has been discussed a lot in the past. A common response to what someone posts is often an erroneous interpretation of what was posted, which is then used like a "straw man" that's easy to knock down. If the straw man is pointed out, a new straw man gets posited, and the process continues ad infinitum. The best solution is to walk off the battlefield/hayfield and go find somewhere else to play.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jun 2, 2023 13:51:59 GMT -5
.. That's all we can do, so what I said above stands . Speaking about identifying oneself as unlimited and unbounded has to filter through what that means to oneself. In reflection of what one believes themselves to be . That is identifying through self association . Again, it's all mindful . There is no super trump identifying thingy going on .. it's just one form of identification that reflects something different from what someone else believes to be true in regards to what they think they are . It's what I call identity poker. It's the self (SVP) masquerading as Self (the Infinite). And that doesn't work, of course. It will end in a conceptual pretzel at some point, because at the core the perspective is still one of separation (SVP). This has been shown repeatedly in the other perceivers and aliveness discussions. Well there was simply no answer for it .. I don't mind peeps arguing there point, butt it's odd to do so when there is no addressing the actuality of what identification is . I have heard it many times before from a manner of all peeps, speaking about non identification and then head straight for the gents . The conversations of late are meant to reflect the self realised . If any neutral peep was observing they probably busted their gut laughing .
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jun 2, 2023 19:46:41 GMT -5
ZD said: “I've seen enough straw men in the past to stay out of the hayfield.” This made me laugh out loud. Did you just make that up? Lol. No, because this issue has been discussed a lot in the past. A common response to what someone posts is often an erroneous interpretation of what was posted, which is then used like a "straw man" that's easy to knock down. If the straw man is pointed out, a new straw man gets posited, and the process continues ad infinitum. The best solution is to walk off the battlefield/hayfield and go find somewhere else to play. lol, Yes, I understand what the strawman is but I hadn't hear it the way you put it. I think the light-heartedness with which you posted it is what made me laugh when I read it,
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 3, 2023 2:21:16 GMT -5
Which of the two bolded questions are you saying is misconceived? No I don't find that condescending. Both. 'What's and 'it's' are problematic, unless they are employed as concessions referring to what is essentially a transient and ultimately empty of inherency, 'condition'. In scientific terms, condition would be synonymous with event, even though we might talk in terms of conditions comprising the event. Therefore, condition or event is merely a more third mountain way of conceiving of conventional 'what's' and it's'. But not in any ultimate sense, where as you well know, 'stuff' merges into ineffability. Yes, of course, I have no problem with the distinction between "hand" and "tub". But I assign no existential significance to the distinction. The only ultimate relevance it has to any sort of existential inquiry is to recognize that the question is happening. I agree that the first question you bolded, <what is "it"?> is misconceived. It's self-inquiry, and, self-inquiry is only ever THIS seeking THIS. It also just happens to be the most important question a human being can ever ask. The second question, "what, is distinct from what?" derives directly from your construction that "cold" is a distinction prior-to mental overlays. So you see, the misconception in this instance is not mine. It is yours.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 3, 2023 5:15:48 GMT -5
Both. 'What's and 'it's' are problematic, unless they are employed as concessions referring to what is essentially a transient and ultimately empty of inherency, 'condition'. In scientific terms, condition would be synonymous with event, even though we might talk in terms of conditions comprising the event. Therefore, condition or event is merely a more third mountain way of conceiving of conventional 'what's' and it's'. But not in any ultimate sense, where as you well know, 'stuff' merges into ineffability. Yes, of course, I have no problem with the distinction between "hand" and "tub". But I assign no existential significance to the distinction. The only ultimate relevance it has to any sort of existential inquiry is to recognize that the question is happening. I agree that the first question you bolded, <what is "it"?> is misconceived. It's self-inquiry, and, self-inquiry is only ever THIS seeking THIS. It also just happens to be the most important question a human being can ever ask. The second question, "what, is distinct from what?" derives directly from your construction that "cold" is a distinction prior-to mental overlays. So you see, the misconception in this instance is not mine. It is yours. I talked in terms of cold ness being distinct ive prior to mental overlays. Maybe you think that’s a dwad. I don't.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 3, 2023 5:31:47 GMT -5
There seems to me to be 2 questions we are all addressing 1) Where does maya begin and end. 2) What aspect of maya causes human difficulties, and how do we spiritually address/resolve those difficulties. I'm not saying this to you specifically, it's just that your message prompted that thought. **Bump with edit**Yes, I'd say that's a decent association to make. The notion of Maya comes up in many of the variations of traditions we utilise here on the forums, and certainly in both Advaita and Buddhism for example. Often in the context of 'illusion' although it's interpretive. For general consideration, here is a sutta which I gather might be associated with the Theravada conception of maya. It's not too laborious, and I'm guessing folks from both sides of this particular debate might be able to relate to at least aspects of it. It's basically pointing to emptiness, in the way I conceive of it. Again, it's interpretive but a couple of quick thoughts from myself.
Firstly, it's essentially applying emptiness to both mental and material (mind and form) instances. So broadly. Secondly, towards the end it talks about what I'm going to call 'the culmination of the process [of cessation through clarity]' in terms of 'the discarding of the body', and associates that particular deccurrence with three things 'being given up'. Namely, "vitality, warmth and consciousness". Incidentally, that last one being vinnana, the third of the 12 nidanas. Anyway, the point I wanted to make with this 2nd one is to associate it with paranibbana. Edit. I originally said vinnana (consciousnes) was the first of the 12 nidanas. It's actually the third, avijja (ignorance) being the first. Very sloppy of me!!
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 3, 2023 5:33:43 GMT -5
There seems to me to be 2 questions we are all addressing 1) Where does maya begin and end. 2) What aspect of maya causes human difficulties, and how do we spiritually address/resolve those difficulties. I'm not saying this to you specifically, it's just that your message prompted that thought. I think. I think, one is saying Maya is (conceptual) separation, but not distinguishing between objects (part of perception). While the other is saying Maya is both. What I'm trying to figure out is whether agreeing with either will make you any less "pillocky." Today's case in point. Lack of understanding doesn't cause Zaz to be pillocky. It's merely a condition …. of that particular condition. (That's actually quite a profound josh).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2023 8:58:41 GMT -5
I actually didn't want to go there, but it seems circumstances force me to address this matter anyway, because there is some moderator action required. I just haven't made up my mind yet what it will be. For those who don't know what's going on here, the chronological sequence of events: 1) Nancy: Many years ago Figgles claimed someone who knew Reefs from the Abeforum with the name Nancy contacted her and told her all kinds of personal details about Reefs. But truth is, I never knew any Nancy on the Abeforum, let alone discussed personal details there with anybody. Figgles never accepted that. 2) Sharon: Next Figgles started claiming that Sharon and Reefs are actually one and the same person, using different accounts simultaneously. She came to that conclusion because Reefs and Sharon seemed to have identical interests in music, namely dubstep. Truth is, while I like electronic music, I hate dubstep. Another similarity she noticed was the shared interest in the Seth books. Figgles even went so far to hunt down Sharon on facebook based on these two data points. However, Peter clarified that based on login details that it was virtually impossible that Sharon could actually be Reefs. Figgles never accepted that. 3) She: The next step on the escalation escalator was Figgles' claim that Reefs has been lying about his gender all along, his marital status and children, that he was actually a she instead of a he, single and had no children. I corrected her on that. Figgles never accepted that. 4) Tegan: The latest now is Reefs being a woman named Tegan who allegedly posted on reddit (?) all kinds of sad details about her sad life. And these personal details, Figgles seems to now have incorporated into her latest straw Reefs version. So this saga is getting crazier and crazier by the year and facts to the contrary don't seem to matter to Figgles. It almost seems as if she has lost control of her own story and her story has a life of its own now and actually dictates what Figgles thinks and does. Now, looking at this as a moderator, Figgles' unusual behavior poses an interesting dilemma from a game theory perspective. Because the question I need to find an answer to in order to make the next mod decision is this: Is there a rationale behind what Figgles does? Or to put it more bluntly: Is Figgles just acting crazy or is she actually crazy? The answer to that question will determine my next mod move. If she only acts crazy, then she can be reasoned with and I can rely on her word and there's a chance that she will adjust her behavior in order to fit in here. If she actually is crazy, then she cannot be reasoned with and her word I cannot rely on and there's no chance that she can adjust her behavior so that she fits in here, because she is not in control of her thoughts, words and actions. So her good will and assurances wouldn't mean anything. =========== So, open question to the forum. What do you guys think I should do? 1) Should I read Figgles the riot act again in hope that she may finally come to her senses and actually makes an effort to fit in here? 2) Or should I just ban her like any other malicious troll, because she can't be reasoned with anyway and apparently isn't in control of her own thoughts and behavior either? I am leaning towards a permanent ban, because I see zero interest on her part to fit in. It is only going to get worse from here on. She'll paint herself as an innocent victim of an evil moderator crew. Let me know what you think. I will consider all your input in my final decision. Thank you. ============ I'll save you the trouble, Teegs. Thanks to all who openly engaged me.....it truly was a pleasure chatting with you and sharing/comparing ideas. Feel free to drop by Gab if you feel so inclined. The freedom of speech has been diminished within this forum! However, it's important to acknowledge that overall movement of the universe is unfolding this way. Reefs has been acting as a good vessel for this movement.
|
|