Ges
-
Posts
221 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Ges
-
-
@Mandy Join us, seriously. It's super fun doing it collectively.
-
2 minutes ago, Phil said:
The assumption that there are two points of view is not vital or useful, it’s ignorance. Suffering.
Well, I can't speak for you. I can only speak for myself, and there's absolutely no suffering from assuming two points of view.
Whether it's ignorance or not is a matter of opinion, and I respectfully disagree.
-
35 minutes ago, Mandy said:
Is there willingness to investigate the I that has no problem with the I, or the other "I" that might not like this? That investigation is what the forum is here for
I am investigating with Phil. Join us if you like.
35 minutes ago, Mandy said:if you're sure you already know how it is, I'm not really sure what you're getting out of it.
That's like saying if you're really fit and healthy, I'm not really sure what you're getting out of going to the gym. If you're fit and healthy, go away, avoid gyms at all costs and everyone/everything that reminds you of them, eat junk food, then go fall off a cliff, maybe have a car accident, whatever, be creative, just don't be here.
Is this your message, Mandy?
-
14 minutes ago, Phil said:
That there are two points of view is an assumption.
A very vital, and useful one, too.
As well, that there is an assumption, is also an assumption.
-
Just now, Phil said:
What are ‘two points of view’?
All questions that start with "what are" have the same ultimate/rock-bottom answer. Same as above. Another linguistic convention/expression.
-
20 minutes ago, Phil said:
What’s an I which understands?
One of those ‘two points of view’?
No.
An "I" is also a linguistic convention/expression for ease of communication between two points of view.
I'll save us both some time and say in advance that all questions that start with "what is" have the same ultimate/rock-bottom answer, grounded in language, which is just a bunch/web of self-referential conventions/expressions, which equals groundlessness.
What is language?
Just another linguistic convention that points to itself.
Self-reference. Groundlessness.
20 minutes ago, Phil said:The contingency was ‘if you are’.
The question was, ‘what’s a you’.
Now the question is, ‘ can you clarify’.
I don't understand what you are trying to say.
-
9 minutes ago, Phil said:
How’s a you relevant?
Can you clarify this question? About what context in particular are you asking? If any.
-
17 minutes ago, Phil said:
Often referred to as emotions, veiled (suppressed) only by conceptualizations of.
I don't understand this part.
17 minutes ago, Phil said:What’s a you?
A linguistic convention/expression for ease of communication between two points of view (or two points of you, if I may add this pun).
-
1 hour ago, Phil said:
That there is any thing negating things - isn’t the message.
The message is there aren’t things and never were.
I remember back in the day when smart phones first became popular, and we would send SMSs back and forth between each other. It was fun back in the day, except every time we received the text: "Partially missing text".
I don't disagree with the message. I'm just saying it's not complete. And if it's not complete, then it's not perfectly reliable for further use/distribution. And it might be worth it to entertain the suggested missing part.
The thing is in real life we don't get that same text to let us know the message is partially missing. Or don't we? That's exactly what I'm here for.
I'm ready to dissect if you are.
-
39 minutes ago, Mandy said:
Thanks, I'm doing good, how are you?
Everything's great!
39 minutes ago, Mandy said:Rather than framing it as "my attitude", just think of it as the attitude of the comment itself. It's not something you carry around with you all the time, it's not like it's a personal failing.
I'm not sure I get the difference, it's just language to me. I have no problems with being a "person", if that's what being alluded to. Sometimes I make mistakes, sometimes I even fail. I'm just a man after all, and it's just natural. I don't take things personally. If there's an undesired experience for either of us (participants), I try to make it more desirable. All I need is clear communications, not necessarily in the form of guidelines or instructions (I am not a robot, I solved 4 captchas today lol), but more of something like: "I like this", "I appreciate that", "I don't like this", "I don't appreciate that", "This is okay with me", "That is not okay with me".
For example, when you said you appreciated my "thank you", I understood more deeply how much effort you're putting in here. This made me more careful with what I am saying, because I don't want to throw away what you value and cherish and deem as precious, which is your guys efforts. I became more appreciative of your efforts.
-
9 hours ago, Blessed2 said:
That's not what I mean.
I meant that conceptually/scientifically, white seems to apparently "hold" all colours, yet the actuality of white isn't a rainbow. There is no red in the actuality of white. And there is no white in a rainbow.
Oneness or unity would be like rainbow. Non-duality would be like white.
Conceptually it seems like white is the unity of all colours, but in actuality white is white and not a rainbow, nor is included in a rainbow.
I understood what you meant.
What I'm saying is that you can't really separate concepts from actuality, can you find the line between your mind and reality?
9 hours ago, Blessed2 said:Paradox is only possible in activity of thought.
Exactly, but why demonize the thought and treat it as false or irrelevant? That's what I mean by accepting the paradox. If you accept it, you'll see the paradox in actuality, otherwise known as God.
After all, it's just another thought that says to discard thoughts, so why isn't it discarding itself? You see how tastily paradoxical this is?
9 hours ago, Blessed2 said:And what precisely is "acceptance"? Ever questioned that? Who accepts or doesn't accept? What exactly, direct-experience speaking is "acceptance" or "non acceptance"? Does it have something to do with emotions, for example?
Do you mean that one should magically start feeling good about tht thought or 'paradox', or continue feeling bad about it but swallow it anyway?
Acceptance is an allowing that comes from understanding.
I can't tell anyone how they should feel. All I can do is share my perspective and hope it makes our connection stronger.
-
1 hour ago, Blessed2 said:
There are no "they" to be distinct and same at the same time. This is what non-duality points to.
Thought implies that white light includes all colours. But the actuality of white isn't a rainbow. There is no "all colours" in white. White is not the sum total of all colours, like non-duality is not the sum total of all things. White (the actuality of white) is white, like non-duality is no thing.
Well, yeah. If you remove time from the equation, there's only the color white. Like if you take a snapshot of life at a particular point where the color white is being experienced, there certainly aren't any other colors there.
BUT, in practice you can't remove time from the equation. And so here we are.
1 hour ago, Blessed2 said:When non-duality is confused as oneness/unity, it seems like for example, the so-called illusion isn't separate from truth. That the illusion of separate selvery is also included in truth, and the denial of this is "neo-advaitan" or whatever. Non-duality is mistaken to be duality, and duality is mistaken to be non-duality. This is how the dogma of absolute and relative happens. It seems like non-duality is unity of absolute & relative, and that "neo-advaitans" misses the relative and only thinks from "absolute perspective".
Truth and illusion cannot be separated. If they could, there would be separation, which defeats the entire thing. Unless you accept the paradox, then there's no problem whatsoever.
-
@Mandy Hi Mandy, it's been a long time. Hope you're doing great.
I've received similar complaints in real life as to my attitude, but they weren't very clear or helpful since the person giving the feedback wasn't very articulate. Can you elaborate on this so I can work on it on my part? Like what causes some people to get allergic to it and others not? For example, I've had a very wonderful conversation with @Jonas Long in this very thread. I've learned something from him, and I like to think he learned something from me. We don't know each other, and this is our first serious interaction. It's been a really good conversation in my opinion, even though both of our attitudes can be adjusted, as suggested before for both of us. We got along just fine; no allergies, no complaints.
Don't let Phil give me a warning for this post too lol. Let him let me breathe for a second, I'm trying to reach a resolution.
-
23 minutes ago, Phil said:
This forum isn’t really about or for arguing. Admittedly, it wouldn’t seem so as of late, and is being cleaned up.
I was hesitant about using the word "argument" at first, as I anticipated you would divert the meaning of that simple/clear statement into this. But then I decided to go with it anyway, exactly because I knew this.
I get it dude. You don't want anyone to challenge you. You must hold the absolute authority here. You're not very different from Leo in this regard.
Keep cleaning up, I will no longer stand in the way.
Anyone who wants to keep in touch can talk to me on Whatsapp or Telegram here: +—————————-. I hope that's not against the guidelines, but if so, please remove. No biggie.
Much love. Take care.
-
6 minutes ago, Jonas Long said:
Nonduality is the recognition that the neither the "parts" nor the "whole" can be separated or negated, or exist independently.
Exactly!
-
Just now, Jonas Long said:
I haven't.
There it is. Thank you.
-
1 minute ago, Phil said:
You’re most welcomed here!
Honestly, I don't feel it.
1 minute ago, Phil said:Hijacking / derailing threads is in the guidelines. You’re free to isolate, exclude, etc, but that’s not what’s being suggested.
Argument could be made that this post you've just made is a hijacking/derailing of the original thread.
Just speak your mind man. What do you want me to do/say? Maybe I won't agree and leave and that will be the end of it. Let's just keep it 100% clear. Like, seriously, bumping up? What's up with that?
-
@Jonas Long Have you received any warnings/points/restrictions in the past couple hours? I would say you've violated the guidelines way more than anyone else (lashing out at JP). We're both posting here, and I've not posted outside of this thread. So let's hear it.
-
4 minutes ago, Jonas Long said:
What "mistreatment" are you referring to?
I've received 3 warnings, one point, and a one-hour restriction, all in the past couple hours, that I think are unjustified.
-
1 hour ago, Blessed2 said:
Non-duality is not oneness or unity.
It's not a unity of separate parts, like infinity is not a infinite number of things or possibilities. Non-duality and infinity negates things and parts.
That interpretation is a (IME) a quite common misunderstanding of what non-duality is saying. Might be because there's a pre-assumption that there are separate things. And when non-duality is heard with that pre-assumption, the interpretation of it is that it means some kind of invinsible unity of those many separate things. But non-duality is actually the negation of those pre-assumed separate things.
How can anything negate things and parts? Just because we can't define clear boundaries between "parts" doesn't mean "parts" don't exist in the first place, nor that they are pre-assumed deceptions. The parts are there whether we recognize them as separate or whole. They cannot be negated. They're just there, and they are both distinct and the same, at the same time.
-
40 minutes ago, Blessed2 said:
There were lots of posts and I forgot to reply to you. Sorry about that.
Just now, Orb said:Lol dude it's just a forum chill.
I can't be more chill. I'm just asking for some more reasonable standards for communication.
-
Look guys, I love you both. I never claimed to be perfect or to be socially correct, so by all means point out where I'm being out of alignment so I can examine and fix. It's an area that I'm working on improving.
However, if you don't want me here, I'm not going to force myself on you. Just tell it to me straight, and I'll pack my stuff and be gone. It's not that big of a deal if we don't click together, not everyone clicks with everyone else.
But what you're doing, how you're treating me is unacceptable. It's the kind of behavior that I cannot allow in my life, not anymore. I've tolerated injustice based on misunderstanding for far too long, and that can't go on. So if you want me here, you're going to have to treat me differently, otherwise no hard feelings, you're still great in my eyes, and I still love you. Moreover, I've enjoyed my brief time here. So it's all a net positive for me.
Thank you for your efforts for keeping this site up.
-
This is getting ridiculous. Phil is going bananas with the warnings for whatever reason(s). I don't respect this kind of authority.
-
1 minute ago, Phil said:
This is brainwashing.
That there is brainwashing, is brainwashing.
Self absorbed
in Nonduality, Consciousness, Awakening, Enlightenment, Self-Recognition
Posted
Not "who".. but "what"
I disagree with your opinion/point of view.