|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 12, 2019 15:37:58 GMT -5
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.
Do you have social interaction? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 16:27:19 GMT -5
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? Seeing the inherent emptiness of all that appears is not about 'making sense' of stuff...it has to be realized. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 16:29:05 GMT -5
"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.
Do you have social interaction? Of coure, I'm interacting socially right now, and I just finished conversing with my daughter over lunch....neither involved an imagined entity. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 17:10:28 GMT -5
My post makes much more sense to me than yours does. Let's leave it there yeah? Seeing the inherent emptiness of all that appears is not about 'making sense' of stuff...it has to be realized. I'd love to say that this post has cleared things up, but unfortunately I can't. Let's leave things here shall we? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 18:42:21 GMT -5
Seeing the inherent emptiness of all that appears is not about 'making sense' of stuff...it has to be realized. I'd love to say that this post has cleared things up, but unfortunately I can't. Let's leave things here shall we? I didn't expect it would make what I was saying clear, was just trying to explain why it likely wouldn't. Realization lies beyond 'making sense of stuff.'
But sure let's leave it there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 12, 2019 19:32:46 GMT -5
Ha! Interesting. Let me get back to this later. I'm out of time. But just something to ponder: Does this imagined entity have such power? See ya! The imagined entity is not an actual thing....thus, no, 'it' has no creative power.....but delusions obscure the Truth, and when that happens, the waters can get pretty muddy.
I'll turn the question back on you: Does the imagined entity have the power to enact functionality within society?
It's just a tool. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 12, 2019 19:39:58 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. Correct. Interestingly, in law, there's a similar distinction between natural person and legal/artificial person. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 12, 2019 19:52:05 GMT -5
Do you have social interaction? Of coure, I'm interacting socially right now, and I just finished conversing with my daughter over lunch....neither involved an imagined entity. There you go. You're just not aware of it.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 21:51:21 GMT -5
The imagined entity is not an actual thing....thus, no, 'it' has no creative power.....but delusions obscure the Truth, and when that happens, the waters can get pretty muddy.
I'll turn the question back on you: Does the imagined entity have the power to enact functionality within society?
It's just a tool. An 'imaginary' tool? I don't get how a delusion can be helpful. Can you explain that more? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 21:58:01 GMT -5
Of coure, I'm interacting socially right now, and I just finished conversing with my daughter over lunch....neither involved an imagined entity. There you go. You're just not aware of it. What do you mean 'there you go'?
I can't talk about 'my daughter' without necessarily invoking an intermediary....imagining an entity?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 23:50:39 GMT -5
I can agree about the personal plans and controlling behavior and such but I would like to point out that functioning in society requires an intermediary, an imaginary entity. You used to speak much differently about an 'intermediary' and 'entity.' Has a major shift in seeing happened since then? Totally agree with what you say there; "The intermediary goes which means the very basis, the source of beliefs and attachment does." |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 13, 2019 3:03:20 GMT -5
An 'imaginary' tool? I don't get how a delusion can be helpful. Can you explain that more? I'll try to explain using Seth's model. In the same way that the ego (or outer self) is a tool of the inner self, so is the image you project in social interactions a tool of the ego. And in the same way that the inner self uses numerous egos, so does the ego project numerous such images. Just watch yourself when you go thru your day. What do you mean 'there you go'?
I can't talk about 'my daughter' without necessarily invoking an intermediary....imagining an entity?
Well, you can, of course. But then the person you are talking to wouldn't register in your mind as 'my daughter'. In fact, you wouldn't see a person at all, you would just see ________. Only when you start objectifying you start to see persons and things. And once you're in that mode, you usually start to categorize further. And then you get such statements like 'my daughter' which automatically means your perspective is 'I am her mother'. It's not rocket science. It's basic psychology, actually. We all do it. The difference though is that some define and limit themselves by those images, some don't. You used to speak much differently about an 'intermediary' and 'entity.' Has a major shift in seeing happened since then? * litigation text wall * Seriously, a bunch of posts from 5-6 years ago? Is that your idea of not falling back into old habits?  Faye, I really don't understand your obsession with finding 'major shifts' in other peeps' perspectives. You just tried that with ZD and now you try this with me again. As far as I can tell, the only one here who did a total 180 and had a major shift compared to 5-6 years ago is you. So I think most of the time you are just projecting your own issue onto others. It's really difficult to have an open honest sincere discussion with you when you always seem to engage with that kind of agenda in mind. This makes conversations with you very cumbersome because you usually don't even understand half of what has actually been said. Your cup is always full. You are not really paying attention. And so people have to clarify endlessly until they just had enough and walk away. I think the main problem here is your purely intellectual approach which leads to extreme literal-mindedness. You are stuck with exact words all the time because you look at everything thru this narrow mental word-comparing/parsing filter. And so you regularly miss where the words are pointing to because you are not aware of context. I bet 99% of our misunderstandings with you are just context issues. Context issues can be resolved very easily. All it takes is paying a little attention. Parsing words can be helpful at times, but if you keep parsing words without paying attention to context, it just gets silly. And judging from your last post, it seems the silliness has already started again. And I have no interest in that. Have a nice day! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 13, 2019 3:39:01 GMT -5
Do you have social interaction? I'm interacting socially right now, and I just finished conversing with my daughter over lunch....neither involved an imagined entity. is what I'm saying is undeniable, see how you didn't deny it? Up front: there is no actual seperation between you and the ones you're socializing with, and all of the worldly context the socialization happens within is a creation of mind. What's undeniable is that there's something happening, and we use the language of the dream with terms like "functioning socially", to describe it. To see how I interpreted this notion of the "imagined intermediary", have you ever bought a car? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 13, 2019 4:02:57 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. Correct. Interestingly, in law, there's a similar distinction between natural person and legal/artificial person. A plaintiff that wants to recover from the previous owners of a defunct business entity has to "pierce the corporate veil". Woo-hoo! Legal enlightenment! |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 13, 2019 7:02:07 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. Correct. Interestingly, in law, there's a similar distinction between natural person and legal/artificial person. Yes! I discovered this a couple of years ago. You know what the legal/artificial entity is popularly called? The 'strawman'. So when a natural person goes to court, they unwittingly agree to represent the strawman. If there is a conviction, the natural person chooses to represent the strawman...in jail. Lol. From what I understand, the strawman is also a tradeable entity, and IS traded. This all relates to how the system perpetuates unconsciousness... the 'natural person' is 'hidden' beneath the legal, fictitious person. It begins with the birth certificate. Common law and legality are quite different. One pertains to the natural person, and the natural person is still subject to laws such as 'do no harm' or 'what you reap, you sew'. Whereas legality pertains to all institutional, bureaucratic and abstract laws. The legal fictitious person...the straw man...only exists as an abstraction itself. Sorry, I just got a little excited that you knew this. |
|
