|
Post by zendancer on Oct 13, 2021 8:39:19 GMT -5
Good questions, are all non-duelists neigh-sayers, sobjectively speaking? "Just say no. To thoughts about reality". And "yes" to "what is."
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2021 8:54:26 GMT -5
"Just say no. To thoughts about reality". And "yes" to "what is." There's certainly no denying the self-evident.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 13, 2021 10:19:44 GMT -5
And "yes" to "what is." There's certainly no denying the self-evident. Indeed. I like this quote from Jacobsen: "Whatever has happened in the past was God's Will. Whatever is happening now is God's Will. Whatever happens in the future will be God's Will." Whoever can fully accept/internalize what these words are pointing to will not object to whatever is happening at Point A. As Jacobsen also noted: "There is no journey. There is no destination. You are here."
|
|
|
Post by etolle on Oct 13, 2021 12:39:26 GMT -5
the way it seems to me is that reality is something we cant talk about..if i try to describe it,that means its an interpretation ...iow,an interpretation of what is cant be what is because an interpretation is not direct...its filtered...i know what reality is but i cant tell you about it.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Oct 13, 2021 13:26:28 GMT -5
the way it seems to me is that reality is something we cant talk about..if i try to describe it,that means its an interpretation ...iow,an interpretation of what is cant be what is because an interpretation is not direct...its filtered... i know what reality is but i cant tell you about it. "Your interpretation" is "what is important" to you. Everything has multi-layers of symbolism, and the interpretation right for you differs from the interpretation right for me. Even for the same person there are multiple interpretations, with different levels of depth. If you don't interpret it, you just waste the opportunity. There is a fitting joke: What do dogs and engineers have in common? Both have intelligent eyes, but they can't express themselves.By the way, I love dogs, and I was an engineer.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 13, 2021 13:47:08 GMT -5
the way it seems to me is that reality is something we cant talk about..if i try to describe it,that means its an interpretation ...iow,an interpretation of what is cant be what is because an interpretation is not direct...its filtered...i know what reality is but i cant tell you about it. True enough, and that's why we use words only as pointers in the realm of the non-dual. For example, one of the biggest realizations people have on the pathless path is that reality is NOT what they thought it was, and that what it IS is beyond the capability of thought to grasp. In fact, anything symbolic is an imaginary meta-reality, and quite other than what Jesus called "the living truth." The living truth is absolute, and any interpretation must always be one step removed from the actuality. Tyler Tarrant recently gave a talk in which he divided the path into three imaginary stages--having, doing, and being. What we are can only BE, and after there is unity consciousness (no divided mind), all seeming separation falls away.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2021 15:47:37 GMT -5
the way it seems to me is that reality is something we cant talk about..if i try to describe it,that means its an interpretation ...iow,an interpretation of what is cant be what is because an interpretation is not direct...its filtered... i know what reality is but i cant tell you about it. "Your interpretation" is "what is important" to you. Everything has multi-layers of symbolism, and the interpretation right for you differs from the interpretation right for me. Even for the same person there are multiple interpretations, with different levels of depth. If you don't interpret it, you just waste the opportunity. There is a fitting joke: What do dogs and engineers have in common? Both have intelligent eyes, but they can't express themselves.By the way, I love dogs, and I was an engineer. Symbolism is always a secondary overlay, and a creation of mind.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Oct 13, 2021 16:26:06 GMT -5
"Your interpretation" is "what is important" to you. Everything has multi-layers of symbolism, and the interpretation right for you differs from the interpretation right for me. Even for the same person there are multiple interpretations, with different levels of depth. If you don't interpret it, you just waste the opportunity. There is a fitting joke: What do dogs and engineers have in common? Both have intelligent eyes, but they can't express themselves.By the way, I love dogs, and I was an engineer. Symbolism is always a secondary overlay, and a creation of mind. The symbolism I was talking about is the way our inner guidance teaches and trains us. There is also the symbolism through which we express our thoughts at subconscious level, and whatever others perceive about us. Your statement makes no sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 14, 2021 3:18:21 GMT -5
Symbolism is always a secondary overlay, and a creation of mind. Your statement makes no sense to me. That's because Laughter is pointing to the territory rather than the map. Symbols represent the territory exactly like a map, but the territory, itself, is beyond symbols. No amount of thinking will reveal the territory. To understand the difference between the map and the territory, an insight must occur.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 14, 2021 11:21:03 GMT -5
Symbolism is always a secondary overlay, and a creation of mind. The symbolism I was talking about is the way our inner guidance teaches and trains us. There is also the symbolism through which we express our thoughts at subconscious level, and whatever others perceive about us. Your statement makes no sense to me. Are you familiar with The Treachery of Images? You wrote "Every thing has multi-layers of symbolism". A fundamental facet of the consensus trance is the conditioned tendency to look at the world and see objects. All object boundaries - all things - are actually fictitious and ultimately arbitrary creations of mind. The meaning of what they represent is even further removed, based on relationships between the objects.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Oct 14, 2021 14:06:24 GMT -5
The symbolism I was talking about is the way our inner guidance teaches and trains us. There is also the symbolism through which we express our thoughts at subconscious level, and whatever others perceive about us. Your statement makes no sense to me. Are you familiar with The Treachery of Images? You wrote "Every thing has multi-layers of symbolism". A fundamental facet of the consensus trance is the conditioned tendency to look at the world and see objects. All object boundaries - all things - are actually fictitious and ultimately arbitrary creations of mind. The meaning of what they represent is even further removed, based on relationships between the objects. From my perspective, you have a fundamentally erroneous understanding of reality. There is no basis to discuss these, as it is like the vax controversy where any argumentation is futile. So, take care ...
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Oct 14, 2021 14:18:16 GMT -5
Your statement makes no sense to me. That's because Laughter is pointing to the territory rather than the map. Symbols represent the territory exactly like a map, but the territory, itself, is beyond symbols. No amount of thinking will reveal the territory. To understand the difference between the map and the territory, an insight must occur. I disagree with the map vs. territory comparison. It is just verbiage. You misunderstand what I say because you rely on a reference that in my view is mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 15, 2021 12:07:42 GMT -5
Are you familiar with The Treachery of Images? You wrote "Every thing has multi-layers of symbolism". A fundamental facet of the consensus trance is the conditioned tendency to look at the world and see objects. All object boundaries - all things - are actually fictitious and ultimately arbitrary creations of mind. The meaning of what they represent is even further removed, based on relationships between the objects. From my perspective, you have a fundamentally erroneous understanding of reality. There is no basis to discuss these, as it is like the vax controversy where any argumentation is futile. So, take care ... Sure. I understand how it seems that way, to you. At this time.
|
|