The creature

[Mandy]

1 hour ago, Jonas Long said:

Isn't "drinkable water" illusion too?  And the desert? 

No, it's appearance.

[Jonas Long]

22 minutes ago, Mandy said:

No, it's appearance.

But...the mirage water is appearance too

[Jonas Long]

Is the ego illusion or appearance? 

[Mandy]

15 minutes ago, Jonas Long said:

Is the ego illusion or appearance? 

Bodies, hands, faces are apparent, belief that one is a body is an illusion. 

[Phil]

16 hours ago, fopylo said:

@Phil

Appearance being the ego and illusion being the identification with that ego/self (believing it's actually who you are)?

Appearance isn’t an ego, creature, mountains, lakes, a past in which anything was created, etc.

Appearance is just appearance. 

Not two. 

 

@Jonas Long

The vs is implied by ‘the poem’. 

Nonduality isn’t a suggestion of what is. 

[Jonas Long]

17 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

 

@Jonas Long

The vs is implied by ‘the poem’. 

Nonduality isn’t a suggestion of what is. 

So appearance & illusion is not a duality 

[Alexander]

22 minutes ago, Phil said:

Appearance isn’t an ego, creature, mountains, lakes, a past in which anything was created, etc.

Appearance is just appearance. 

Not two. 

 

@Jonas Long

The vs is implied by ‘the poem’. 

Nonduality isn’t a suggestion of what is. 

You say Infinite Being is dreaming.Other word for Infinity is God so God is dreaming my life,right.

[Phil]

5 minutes ago, Jonas Long said:

So appearance & illusion is not a duality 

 

15 hours ago, Jonas Long said:

As far as what it has to do with the poem

 

[Jonas Long]

3 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

 

So mountains and lake are appearance, ego is illusion.  You could have said that.

[Phil]

20 minutes ago, Alexander said:

You say Infinite Being is dreaming.Other word for Infinity is God so God is dreaming my life,right.

In a pointing manor, infinity is a conceptual mathematical abstraction.

 

 

Being the somewhere-sphere, there is no illusion, no appearance, no ‘somewhere-sphere’. There doesn’t seem to be something else, nor an appearance as or of something else; there doesn’t (even, if you will) seem to be experience. 

 

Being the lens-sphere… like looking through a magnifying lens there seems to be magnification… there seems to be somewhere, or, experience, and an infinite being, or, God….

 

15 minutes ago, Jonas Long said:

So mountains and lake are appearance, ego is illusion.  You could have said that.

… and a “you”… which “speaks”. 

 

The thread was prefaced only with “thoughts?”.

 

Ask & it is given. 

🤍

[Jonas Long]

6 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

 

… and a “you”… which “speaks”. 

 

The thread was prefaced only with “thoughts?”.

 

Ask & it is given. 

🤍

Just seems like when asked for clarification that would have been easier than shoehorning leo gura into the conversation for some fucking reason. 

Edited November 14, 2023 by Jonas Long

[Jonas Long]

@Phil I know you're trying to seem all zen master or whatever, but knowing the difference between "clarify" and "obfuscate" feels important to my little ego. 

[Phil]

11 minutes ago, Jonas Long said:

Just seems like when asked for clarification that would have been easier than shoehorning leo gura into the conversation for some fucking reason. 

It’s simply the best reference given frame of reference with respect to the poem. 

Not a Leo Gura - the content. There is no “Leo Gura”, thus a unicorn was not shoehorned in. 

“Leo Gura’s content” is egocentric, subjective experience based, solipsism, etc.

In so far as words can point, that content is not indicative of being transcendent of subject & object, or subjective & objective.

Whereas “Jim Newman’s content” is not egocentric, and is ‘transcendent of’ subjective misidentification / delusion, or,  put another way is nonduality, or the message. Transcendent being a fundamental misnomer, similar to becoming.

[Phil]

8 minutes ago, Jonas Long said:

@Phil I know you're trying to seem all zen master or whatever, but knowing the difference between "clarify" and "obfuscate" feels important to my little ego. 

 

20 minutes ago, Phil said:

Ask & it is given.

 

There is no knower knowing in clarity, just as there is no math or creature in reality. 

[Jonas Long]

16 minutes ago, Phil said:

It’s simply the best reference given frame of reference with respect to the poem. 

Not a Leo Gura - the content. There is no “Leo Gura”, thus a unicorn was not shoehorned in. 

“Leo Gura’s content” is egocentric, subjective experience based, solipsism, etc.

In so far as words can point, that content is not indicative of being transcendent of subject & object, or subjective & objective.

Whereas “Jim Newman’s content” is not egocentric, and is ‘transcendent of’ subjective misidentification / delusion, or,  put another way is nonduality, or the message. Transcendent being a fundamental misnomer, similar to becoming.

I know that about leo('s content), that's why I was never a member, much less a moderator for his forum.

Edited November 14, 2023 by Jonas Long

[Phil]

3 minutes ago, Jonas Long said:

I know that about leo('s content), that's why I was never a member, much less a moderator for his forum.

 

17 minutes ago, Phil said:

There is no knower knowing in clarity, just as there is no math or creature in reality. 

Stateless. 

[Jonas Long]

Blah.  Pretentious.

[Phil]

8 minutes ago, Jonas Long said:

Blah.  Pretentious.

Knowing does seem pretentious.  
Innocence is absolute. 
I-know-sense, on the seeming flip-side.

[Jonas Long]

14 minutes ago, Phil said:

Knowing does seem pretentious.  
Innocence is absolute. 
I-know-sense, on the seeming flip-side.

The insistence on innocence is beginning to smack of "thou protest too much"

[Phil]

10 minutes ago, Jonas Long said:

The insistence on innocence is beginning to smack of "thou protest too much"

The insistence is illusory yet not apparent.