Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 12:50:46 GMT -5
Yes, As I see it, the imagined entity, the mind invoked intermediary, is what causes all the problems in the first place.
In SR, it's that imagined entity that gets seen through and in that, it becomes crystal clear just how unnecessary an intermediary ever was.
Reef's assertion almost reads to me as though he is saying that functionality requires one to continue to imagine that separation is the case...?.....which would be very strange. Anyway, I look forward to hearing more from him on this.
Not to speak for Reefs here, but I took what he wrote to mean that as we interact with other's we project an image, nothing more, nothing less. That's interesting that you'd take 'intermediary/imagined entity' to mean 'projected image,' but...ok. 
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 12:56:41 GMT -5
What conclusion are you speaking of? The stumbled bit?
When I talk about this stuff I'm speaking from realization which is very different from an arrived at conclusion. But if you can specify what you're talking about, I can likely better address.
Who are you talking about this stuff to? What I said there about stumbling, was in response to the folks who are insisting upon a particular term that denotes property, quality, in reference to 'fundamental nature,' of all that is.
And it's not an intellectual conclusion as you seem to be indicating. "All we can do is point," has realization at it's basis and means that if we've arrived at a particular property, quality, and we're holding to that as Truth, we've fallen into delusion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 13:05:40 GMT -5
Who are you talking about this stuff to? What I said there about stumbling, was in response to the folks who are insisting upon a particular term that denotes property, quality, in reference to 'fundamental nature,' of all that is.
And it's not an intellectual conclusion as you seem to be indicating. "All we can do it point," has realization at it's basis and means that if we've arrived at a particular property, quality, and we're holding to that as Truth, we've fallen into delusion.
Is this an aspect of talking about SR that you've only recently started exploring? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 12, 2019 13:12:35 GMT -5
Not to speak for Reefs here, but I took what he wrote to mean that as we interact with other's we project an image, nothing more, nothing less. That's interesting that you'd take 'intermediary/imagined entity' to mean 'projected image,' but...ok.  The notion of "social roles" follows from the fact of the projection, and at that point, involvement of mental abstractions are inevitable. That process of abstraction might lead to TMT, but it doesn't have to. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 13:25:24 GMT -5
That's interesting that you'd take 'intermediary/imagined entity' to mean 'projected image,' but...ok. The notion of "social roles" follows from the fact of the projection, and at that point, involvement of mental abstractions are inevitable. That process of abstraction might lead to TMT, but it doesn't have to. Bringing "projected image" into this conversation is problematic because it assumes 'a projector.'
All I really know in terms of you or anyone else who appears to me is that I perceive an image that is comprised of what you say, how you say it, pics that have appeared on forum, etc. That there is actual 'projecting' going on behind that image, pure conjecture. But this is a digression from the original convo.
Reefs was not talking about donning/playing out social roles, rather he was talking about being functional in society as being dependent upon the presence of an intermediary/imagined entity. Two very different things.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 13:30:26 GMT -5
What I said there about stumbling, was in response to the folks who are insisting upon a particular term that denotes property, quality, in reference to 'fundamental nature,' of all that is.
And it's not an intellectual conclusion as you seem to be indicating. "All we can do it point," has realization at it's basis and means that if we've arrived at a particular property, quality, and we're holding to that as Truth, we've fallen into delusion.
Is this an aspect of talking about SR that you've only recently started exploring? What ' aspect of talking about SR' are you specifically referencing? If you're referring to talk of pointing vs. intellectual concluding/conceptualizing, no, not so recent. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 12, 2019 13:38:36 GMT -5
The notion of "social roles" follows from the fact of the projection, and at that point, involvement of mental abstractions are inevitable. That process of abstraction might lead to TMT, but it doesn't have to. Bringing "projected image" into this conversation is problematic because it assumes 'a projector.'
All I really know in terms of you or anyone else who appears to me is that I perceive an image that is comprised of what you say, how you say it, pics that have appeared on forum, etc. That there is actual 'projecting' going on behind that image, pure conjecture. But this is a digression from the original convo.
Reefs was not talking about donning/playing out social roles, rather he was talking about being functional in society as being dependent upon the presence of an intermediary/imagined entity. Two very different things.
, no, but I do concede your point about how the notion of the projection naturally leads to the question of the source of it. So instead, you can think of what I meant as "an image appears", and that the appearance is the inevitability of the interaction. "What is the source of the image?", is a version of the existential question. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 13:44:45 GMT -5
Bringing "projected image" into this conversation is problematic because it assumes 'a projector.'
All I really know in terms of you or anyone else who appears to me is that I perceive an image that is comprised of what you say, how you say it, pics that have appeared on forum, etc. That there is actual 'projecting' going on behind that image, pure conjecture. But this is a digression from the original convo.
Reefs was not talking about donning/playing out social roles, rather he was talking about being functional in society as being dependent upon the presence of an intermediary/imagined entity. Two very different things.
, no, but I do concede your point about how the notion of the projection naturally leads to the question of the source of it. So instead, you can think of what I meant as "an image appears", and that the appearance is the inevitability of the interaction. "What is the source of the image?", is a version of the existential question. Okay.
But, the fact that when/if another engages me, he forms an image in his mind really has nothing at all to do with me. It most certainly does not require me to imagine an entity or intermediary. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 12, 2019 13:47:58 GMT -5
Not necessarily, no, but I do concede your point about how the notion of the projection naturally leads to the question of the source of it. So instead, you can think of what I meant as "an image appears", and that the appearance is the inevitability of the interaction. "What is the source of the image?", is a version of the existential question. Okay.
But, the fact that when/if another engages me, he forms an image in his mind really has nothing at all to do with me. It most certainly does not require me to imagine an entity or intermediary. An image also appears, to you, and that two-sided coin, is, essentially, what I took that to mean. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 14:05:28 GMT -5
Okay.
But, the fact that when/if another engages me, he forms an image in his mind really has nothing at all to do with me. It most certainly does not require me to imagine an entity or intermediary. An image also appears, to you, and that two-sided coin, is, essentially, what I took that to mean. Yes, an image appears....in that the body/mind and all facet of that is an 'appearance/image' within/to Being. Again, an intermediary, an imagined entity if it's in play, would be a mental overlay upon that. Not necessary at all. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 12, 2019 14:24:55 GMT -5
An image also appears, to you, and that two-sided coin, is, essentially, what I took that to mean. Yes, an image appears....in that the body/mind and all facet of that is an 'appearance/image' within/to Being. Again, an intermediary, an imagined entity if it's in play, would be a mental overlay upon that. Not necessary at all. And to reiterate, this is just a way of describing what's undeniably happening when " functioning in society": a pair of mutually interdependent appearances.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 15:06:50 GMT -5
Is this an aspect of talking about SR that you've only recently started exploring? What ' aspect of talking about SR' are you specifically referencing? If you're referring to talk of pointing vs. intellectual concluding/conceptualizing, no, not so recent. This aspect that let's you cover up your own advice to yourself by permitting your use of the pronoun 'we'. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 15:13:21 GMT -5
Yes, an image appears....in that the body/mind and all facet of that is an 'appearance/image' within/to Being. Again, an intermediary, an imagined entity if it's in play, would be a mental overlay upon that. Not necessary at all. And to reiterate, this is just a way of describing what's undeniably happening when " functioning in society": a pair of mutually interdependent appearances. "Undeniably" happening? So you too see that functioning necessitates an intermediary/imagined entity? 
In one who is SR, functioning simply happens absent any imagined entity, absent the intermediary. That's a pretty basic point inherent in nonduality teachings, isn't it?
And furthermore, an appearing body/mind is not 'imagined' or 'mistaken' into the equation in the way an 'entity' or an 'intermediary' is imagined into the equation. In fact an 'entity' by definition is not merely imagined into the equation but rather, it's deemed central/source to the 'functioning.' Which is flat out, a delusion.
Post realization plain and simply there is no longer a 'thing with distinct and independent existence' that gets imagined. The 'entity' one imagined himself to be, has been seen through entirely.
en·ti·ty
/ˈen(t)ədē/
noun
noun: entity; plural noun: entities
a thing with distinct and independent existence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 15:24:48 GMT -5
What ' aspect of talking about SR' are you specifically referencing? If you're referring to talk of pointing vs. intellectual concluding/conceptualizing, no, not so recent. This aspect that let's you cover up your own advice to yourself by permitting your use of the pronoun 'we'. My use of the term "we" is nothing more than indicator that I engage with that which appears. You expect something different?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 15:28:14 GMT -5
This aspect that let's you cover up your own advice to yourself by permitting your use of the pronoun 'we'. My use of the term "we" is nothing more than indicator that I engage with that which appears. You expect something different?
My post makes much more sense to me than yours does. Let's leave it there yeah? |
|
The notion of "social roles" follows from the fact of the projection, and at that point, involvement of mental abstractions are inevitable. That process of abstraction might lead to TMT, but it doesn't have to.