Self absorbed

[Blessed2]

42 minutes ago, Ges said:

They're just there, and they are both distinct and the same, at the same time.

 

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.

 

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".

 

[Blessed2]

4 minutes ago, Ges said:

 

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: +963962414763. I hope that's not against the guidelines, but if so, please remove. No biggie.

 

Much love. Take care.

 

Aww man, I was really hoping for those lottery numbers.

 

[Phil]

8 minutes ago, Ges said:

 

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.

Please stick to the thread topics. You’re free to make new threads as well. 

 

8 minutes ago, Ges said:

 

Keep cleaning up, I will no longer stand in the way.

You aren’t in the way. Again, you’re welcome here. 

 

8 minutes ago, Ges said:

 

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.

Much love! 

[Mandy]

1 hour ago, Ges said:

@Phil @Mandy

 

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.

Love you too, and really appreciate the thank you. ❤️

 

It's not the particular language of using the word argument but rather the attitude of it that is against the guidelines and is hindering productive, insightful, fun, clarifying and satisfying conversations. THAT is what we are here for isn't it? 

[Ges]

@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.

[Ges]

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.

[Blessed2]

7 minutes ago, Ges said:

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.

 

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.

 

 

23 minutes ago, Ges said:

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.

 

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.

 

 

Paradox is only possible in activity of thought.

 

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?

 

[Phil]

Like an overcast sky and a clear sky. The clouds didn’t separate, the clouds aren’t there. It just seemed like there were clouds.

[Ges]

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.

Edited March 8 by Ges

[Mandy]

16 hours ago, Ges said:

@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?

Thanks, I'm doing good, how are you?

 

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. 

[Ges]

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.

Edited March 8 by Ges

[Phil]

19 hours ago, Ges said:

 

How can anything negate things and parts?

That there is any thing negating things - isn’t the message. 

The message is there aren’t things and never were. 

There is no thing to negate… things. 

 

19 hours ago, Ges said:

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.

That’s exactly what’s being said. Parts don’t exist in the first place. Deception doesn’t exist, as “that” would just be another ‘thing’. 

Innocence is not deceptive. 

Deception does not exist. 

Innocence can not be so called experience without overlooking its own infinitude & unconditionality. 

“Deception” is self-blasphemy. Self-denial, of self-innocence. Extreme suppression, extreme egocentrism (the so called teaching of deception is simple ostensibly common, extreme suppression). 

 

19 hours ago, Ges said:

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.

 

That’s circular logic. ‘We’ would be parts. There is no experience of ‘we’ any ‘parts’ or “both” whatsoever. 

Just the apparent thoughts. ™️ 

 

17 hours ago, Ges said:

 

they weren't very clear or helpful since the person giving the feedback wasn't very articulate.

Waking up is in a sense growing up, as in contemplation & no more projection onto “people”. Lack is a belief. 

 

17 hours ago, Ges said:

Can you elaborate on this so I can work on it on my part?

That is the separate self of thoughts. The one which could be improved / worked on. “It” does not exist. 

It’s only beliefs that are ‘triggered’. It’s beliefs which are dispelled. 

 

17 hours ago, Ges said:

Like what causes some people to get allergic to it and others not?

“Allergic” is a self-veiling smokescreen. 

 

17 hours ago, Ges said:

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.

Where is “my attitude”? Post a picture. 

Consider what’s being said about intrinsic emotional guidance. 

Emotion is felt. 

Paradigms is a thought. 

 

17 hours ago, Ges said:

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.

“Life” IS suffering. 

“Life” is self-conceptualization. 

A belief. 

Don’t listen to thoughts (a Phil). 

Listen to the intrinsic guidance Being pointed to. 

Or don't of course. Keep the guidance, the truth, suppressed. 

You’re that free. 

 

17 hours ago, Ges said:

 

BUT, in practice you can't remove time from the equation. And so here we are.

Simply notice, acknowledge, ‘time’ is the thought, ‘time’. Time isn’t some thing which can be negated or removed, exactly that same as a unicorn. 

 

17 hours ago, Ges said:

 

 

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.

The illusion is the separate self, which is of thoughts, which are apparent. 

Not. Things.

Not. Parts. 

Not “separate” - already. 

 

7 hours ago, Ges said:

I understood what you meant.

The “understander” is the illusion. 

The ‘brainwashing’ is being completely, entirely, underestimated, underrated…. While intrinsic inseparable infallible guidance is being suppressed. 

Again - you are that free. 

 

7 hours ago, Ges said:

What I'm saying is that you can't really separate concepts from actuality, can you find the line between your mind and reality?

There isn’t ’your mind’ and ‘reality’. 

There are the apparent thoughts ‘my mind’ and ‘reality’. 

 

7 hours ago, Ges said:

Exactly, but why demonize the thought and treat it as false or irrelevant?

‘False’ and ‘irrelevant’ are thoughts. 

As there is literally no one ‘here’… there is no one “demonizing thoughts”. 

‘Demonizing thoughts’… is… just a thought. ™️ 

 

7 hours ago, Ges said:

That's what I mean by accepting the paradox. If you accept it, you'll see the paradox in actuality, otherwise known as God.

That’s the separate self of thoughts… the “knower”. 

 

7 hours ago, Ges said:

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?

A thought isn’t a self. This is not paradoxical. 

 

7 hours ago, Ges said:

Acceptance is an allowing that comes from understanding.

Understanding is the thought, understanding. 

Post a pic. 

See?

 

7 hours ago, Ges said:

 

I can't tell anyone how they should feel. All I can do is share my perspective and hope it makes our connection stronger.

🤦‍♂️ 

[Ges]

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.

Edited March 8 by Ges

[Phil]

40 minutes ago, Ges said:

 

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.

Often referred to as emotions, veiled (suppressed) only by conceptualizations of. 

 

40 minutes ago, Ges said:

 

I'm ready to dissect if you are.

What’s a you? 

 

How’s a you relevant? 

[Ges]

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).

Edited March 8 by Ges

[Ges]

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.

[Phil]

34 minutes ago, Ges said:

 

I don't understand this part.

 

 

A linguistic convention/expression for ease of communication between two points of view (or two points of you, if I may add this pun).

What’s an I which understands? 

One of those ‘two points of view’? 

 

30 minutes ago, Ges said:

 

Can you clarify this question? About what context in particular are you asking? If any.

The contingency was ‘if you are’. 

The question was, ‘what’s a you’.

Now the question is, ‘ can you clarify’. 

 

[Ges]

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.

[Phil]

@Ges

What are ‘two points of view’?

 

 

[Ges]

Just now, Phil said:

@Ges

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.