|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 2, 2016 12:05:08 GMT -5
They are equal because (From the vantage point I'm speaking of/from) there is no judgement whatsoever arising re: the particulars of the behaviors. All you are looking at/seeing is the commonality...all simply, fundamentally expressions of the same source. All are equally rendered down to the common ground of "expressions of One Source." There is no 'judge' arising to say, "oh but, killing is mean and handing out shoes in kind." This isn't about judgment of behaviors. Are all of your actions equal just because they are your actions? They are equally divine, equally innocent, because they are of God. When the focus is squarely upon that inherent 'Godliness,' there is nothing that would divide them or give heirarchy to one as being better or worse than the other. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 2, 2016 11:47:42 GMT -5
Nope. It's been said again and again; Equally without blame, equally of God, Equally divine, Equally innocent. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat the morph that I agree with, I still don't agree with the original statement that all expressions/appearances are equal because they are all God. Manson and Tolle are not equal, Vomit and creme brulee are not equal. Hmmm.....The particulars of the original statement have been clarified and re-explained over and over. You keep going back to the original statement, as though you haven't read the clarifying explanations to say 'that is not so' and even calling the posts that clarify 'a morph.' We're telling you what we meant with the original, and that has not changed, just been elaborated upon, so I don't see where you get 'morph' from. Anyway... What you are saying here is that you agree that Manson and Tolle are equally without blame, equally of God, equally divine, equally innocent, but then you go on to insist, Manson and Tolle are not equal. Seems you are dividing Manson and Tolle as expression from the actions of Manson and Tolle......or dividing the expression from that which gives rise to it? Either way, Seems odd for a guy who insists there are no separate volitional persons....not two.  |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 2, 2016 11:28:15 GMT -5
Enigma does not want to see that all ideas and contexts are equally illusionary, or equally true (or equally false). He is constantly in possession of a 'more true' idea...at no point are all ideas just seen as...ideas. The context in which ideas are seen as just ideas is a relatively small one, but some ideas can refer, or point, to various areas of nonconceptual clarity (insight). Others do not, and some point to deeper illusions. Ideas never become equal because there IS an actuality behind the illusion. The context in which ideas are seen as just ideas is not a 'small one'. I would call it a fundamental one, and thusly, it underscores all the other contexts, mitigating any attachment that might otherwise arise in tandem with those extra 'truthy' seeming ones. Ideas do become equal in the context of seeing all ideas as emptiness appearing... They are all 'that', and from that perspective, no one any 'more or less' true or false than any other, because of course, true vs. false have also been seen for the empty ideas they are too. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 2, 2016 11:24:13 GMT -5
Yes the larger trumps the smaller BUT the larger does something odd and neutralizes all ideas and contexts. If it didn't do that, contexts would be real, they would be objective (as would ideas). Let me put it this way. It can be seen that ALL context is an illusion, and this is useful to see. Now would you agree that it doesn't matter what size the contexts are, they are both equally illusion? Without the equalizing, we wouldn't be able to see context as illusion. One would be more objectively true than the other. One IS more objectively true than the other. No, they are not all equally illusion. What's seen from the largest context is that there is a hierarchy of contexts. (That larger contexts Donald Trump the smaller contexts.) There isn't a larger context in which all contexts become equal. That's just you trying to assassinate contexts. Well, if you haven't seen it, you simply haven't seen it. But there is a larger context than the one you're speaking of (where you say it's seen that there is a heirarchy of contexts.) I would say It's just prior to the collapse of all contexts, all ideation, but could even be said to go hand in hand with it. This is interesting to get down to the brunt of where you're hangin' on, just short of that collapse. From the vantage point of looking at the inherent emptiness of ideas, Can you see that true vs. false is also an 'just an idea'? If ALL ideas are empty, how does that leave one 'largest context' a little bit more true than any other? you've rendered all ideas 'but one' down to empty. When that goes, there is nothing to hang your hat on. And you might even find (for a while anyway) that your interest in talking about this stuff might wane or even disappear when you see it). From that point of seeing, there really is nothing to say....nothing that can be said. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 2, 2016 11:16:05 GMT -5
They are in some senses, for example they are equally innocent. Well, sure. They are also equal in that they both have 10 fingers. So what? There are some sense in which they are not equal, so they are not equal expressions. Context dude, context. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 2, 2016 11:11:36 GMT -5
The ideas that Adya offered, were offered as relative/contextual truths. He was very clear that there is a point at which all ideas become equally true/false, that is how I know he is offering a relative/contextual truth, not an objective/absolute truth.There's only 2 possibilities. Either one thinks they are offering relative/contextual truths, or one thinks they are offering absolute/objective truths. It implies the opposite to me, though I also believe he's not talking about all ideas. Why would it just be some of 'em? The whole point is the collapse of conceptualization/ideation when it comes to all this. So long as you are standing upon the truthiness of ideas (even one very, very special idea) as true, the idea machine has not collapsed. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 2, 2016 11:07:13 GMT -5
Right, that would been a second layer of belief....'he got it wrong and he should have done better'. No idea is absolutely/ultimately true, means that ideas can only be contextually true, so the first layer of belief still belongs in the relative too. Did it make you squirm a little bit when you noticed Fig's error? Am I gonna have to explain context to you E? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 2, 2016 11:05:12 GMT -5
In absolute context all actions are equally of God, divine etc (I don't understand why you keep changing your mind on this).In relative context we start looking at where actions are coming from more locally, for example, are they actions coming from ego or not. I don't recall commenting on it much less changing my mind. I may have implied that it's too obvious to discuss. C'mon E. You asked this: "So why are actions equal just because they are expressions of the same source? That's what Andy is saying when he says 'oneness, therefore equal'. Are all of your actions equal just because they are all your actions?" Why would you do that if it was so obvious to you? Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/4132/world?page=5621#ixzz4Lwc0xU2k |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 1, 2016 15:33:48 GMT -5
I don't know how to reply to this, but I have a sense it is incorrect. I could go into this in great depth, but enigmas most true idea, his highest idea, is that no idea is ultimately true. Its subtle but it means that the idea of the ultimate itself is not collapsed, and therefore there is an objective hierarchy of ideas. In non duality, every idea has to be seen as....just an idea. No idea is more true or false than any other idea, because true and false are ideas too.
YES! |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 1, 2016 15:20:43 GMT -5
To me, that borders on abuse, and is clearly worse than Bakk's comment to Sunny. It doesn't seem that way to you because you see it as true, but of course it's just your opinion. Yep. There's no reason to personalise Bakk at all when talking about the ethical concerns regarding mental health disclosures, and assertions, in the STF context. There is good reason not to, and I already gave reason before, but now the current discourse illustrates as an example the reasons I gave. When there's only a handful of folks arguing against another's mental health disclosure, whether I mention names outright or not, it's obvious who is being targeted in my post. For example, Just because you have not mentioned me by name there, does not mean I don't know you're talking about me. What you're suggesting to be good form is really nothing more than a little game of 'if I leave out the name, no one will know exactly who I'm talking about, thus, I can pretend it's a blanket assertion that applies to all.' I'd far rather one be direct, so that I then have the opportunity to directly respond to the assertion being made about me. The way you're suggesting, involves a mamby-pamby, passive aggressive sort of vagueness. Next to outright meanness on a forum, that's a close 2nd in terms of 'yuck' behaviors in my book. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 30, 2016 23:42:03 GMT -5
How much do you want the living of those characteristics in me to regularly be true though? Go on be honest.. Every day, every hour? At least 14 times a month? I don't ever enjoy seeing you engage Sunshine the way you did or engaging Andrew the way you sometimes do, or the way you engage a few other here whom you take a certain nasty (imo) tact with. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 30, 2016 23:32:23 GMT -5
The equality being referenced is not dependent upon distinctions. Rather, It's based upon seeing sameness. Not even sameness can be known without distinction. What can be samed together without, distinction? You're missing the point and getting Dufussy. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 30, 2016 23:29:32 GMT -5
But, I do not deny the context where a murder is bad/unwanted and charity is good/preferrred. Where did you get that idea? Do you need someone to explain context to you? Can you respect that you're making it the primary context, just a little too much even, for your own good? I can respect that you see it that way. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 30, 2016 23:22:07 GMT -5
Emptying the glasses means the contents are left behind and that there's nothing wrong with that.  Ah yeah, though emptying the red hot moment, takes a lot more than patience. If you are truly 'right here, right now, entirely present', there is nothing to empty.  |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 30, 2016 23:18:30 GMT -5
Yeah well....you don't know for certain that the sun is going to rise tomorrow either, but I'm bettin' you make plans based upon the fact that it will. Do you 'know for certain'? Well, you can't, as tomorrow is not yet immediately appearing before you, but you'd likely bet your life on it. There is a kind of 'knowing' in that, no? Yes, that's the point. As Tenka would say, what is appearing is appearing. What is not appearing is not appearing. Yes. But the point is that even those whose see that, do not live from that seeing. You may not know for absolute certain that the sun is going to rise tomorrow, but you still do 'expect' it will, 'to the degree' that you plan for it....even count on it. There is a degree of 'knowing' in that. |
|
