Self absorbed

[Phil]

12 minutes ago, Ges said:

 

It's pretty easy to see that thought is a duality, but can you see that it's also non-duality at the same time?

Thought is not a duality. That would be secondness. Nonduality does not include duality. The very word ‘says’ not-duality. 

[Ges]

40 minutes ago, Phil said:

Thought is not a duality. That would be secondness.

 

It is both oneness and secondness at the same time. You said earlier that: { “Thoughts” would be secondness, let alone a you which thinks / a thinker, or a finite entity which could be “inside” “something”.  }.

 

Secondness and duality are synonyms.

 

40 minutes ago, Phil said:

Nonduality does not include duality.

 

Please read that statement out loud, preferably in front of some kids. They'll help you get it.

 

40 minutes ago, Phil said:

The very word ‘says’ not-duality. 

 

That's the paradox. The very word "non-duality" includes and does not include the word "duality", both at the same time. You're just way too focused on the exclusion, while we are pointing to the inclusion without denying the exclusion.

[Jonas Long]

13 minutes ago, Ges said:

 

It is both oneness and secondness at the same time. You said earlier that: { “Thoughts” would be secondness, let alone a you which thinks / a thinker, or a finite entity which could be “inside” “something”.  }.

 

Secondness and duality are synonyms.

 

 

Please read that statement out loud, preferably in front of some kids. They'll help you get it.

 

 

That's the paradox. The very word "non-duality" includes and does not include the word "duality", both at the same time. You're just way too focused on the exclusion, while we are pointing to the inclusion without denying the exclusion.

What is so hard about this? Non smoking means the lack of smoking, non duality means the lack of duality.  

[Joseph Maynor]

29 minutes ago, Ges said:

It is both oneness and secondness at the same time. You said earlier that: { “Thoughts” would be secondness, let alone a you which thinks / a thinker, or a finite entity which could be “inside” “something”.  }.

Secondness and duality are synonyms.

 

Please read that statement out loud, preferably in front of some kids. They'll help you get it.

 

That's the paradox. The very word "non-duality" includes and does not include the word "duality", both at the same time. You're just way too focused on the exclusion, while we are pointing to the inclusion without denying the exclusion.

 

I've taken the position myself that the Infinite contains all the finite.  It's two lenses that are both true.  Another way I say this is there's a wobble or interplay between the Infinite vs./and finite duality.  @Phil doesn't think the Infinite knows the finite.  I don't agree with that position.

Edited March 6 by Joseph Maynor

[Jonas Long]

1 minute ago, Joseph Maynor said:

 

I've taken the position myself that the Infinite contains all the finite.  It's two lenses that are both true.  Another way I say this is there's a wobble or interplay between the Infinite vs./and finite duality.  @Phil doesn't think the Infinite knows the finite.

Yeah, "infinite" means "not finite".  No such thing as finite.  Nothing can know finite because nothing is finite.  

[Blessed2]

Actuality of white isn't a rainbow.

[Phil]

57 minutes ago, Ges said:

That's the paradox

There’s no paradox. 

[Phil]

32 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Phil doesn't think the Infinite knows the finite

It’s not there’s a Phil which thinks or doesn’t think, it’s that Phil is as directly experienced; the thought, Phil. 

There’s literally nobody ‘here’. 

Positionlessness. 

[Joseph Maynor]

35 minutes ago, Phil said:

It’s not there’s a Phil which thinks or doesn’t think, it’s that Phil is as directly experienced; the thought, Phil. 

There’s literally nobody ‘here’. 

Positionlessness. 

Blah blah.  Blah blah?  Ba, ba ba ba?  Ba ba!  This is a deep creation scheme I've identified here.  Notice this one.

Edited March 6 by Joseph Maynor

[Jonas Long]

8 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Blah blah.  Blah blah?  Ba, ba ba ba?  Ba ba!  This is a deep creation scheme I've identified here.  Notice this one.

You don't need to act like a child every time something goes over your head.  Notice this. 

Edited March 6 by Jonas Long

[Serenity]

4 hours ago, Reborn2 said:

There's just no logic or rationality anywhere, because logic cannot be applied to spirituality due to it's nature and thus anyone can claim anything and pass it off as insight or some sort of wisdom. It's all based off of personal experiences and so you can't really prove or disprove anything. Any sort of craziness can then be thought about and taken seriously

I don't believe in avoiding directness or disregarding common sense for the sake of Absolute truth, when it's not essential.
Logic and rationality, though limited, are of use in the context described and in most of mundane life. 

Edited March 6 by Serenity

[Daniel]

9 hours ago, Phil said:

@Daniel

What about the notion that it is only beliefs which are triggered (not a self or selves)? 

And as beliefs are triggered, corresponding suppressed emotions (suppressed guidance) are therein triggered as well?

Emotions which as guidance for thoughts / beliefs, may shed empowering light on beliefs related to misidentification. 

This would imply there is not some thing in us which wants to lash out, as emotions are guidance and not things / objects. 

Sure, I wouldn't disagree with that. 

[Ges]

9 hours ago, Jonas Long said:

What is so hard about this? Non smoking means the lack of smoking, non duality means the lack of duality.  

 

But notice, when you say non-smoking, you're implicitly admitting and innocently implying that smoking exists, albeit somewhere else, namely outside the paradigm. So just because the paradigm claims that it lacks something, it doesn't mean the thing doesn't exist. Though to be fair, non-duality doesn't actually claim that, it's just a common misunderstanding among most seekers/teachers. The answer is in the question, literally, not so to speak.

 

Please take a look at the Yin-Yang symbol. The entire circle is non-duality, and the intertwined black and white inside of it are duality. You and Phil apparently have a belief of lack of duality. But it's just that, a belief.

[Ges]

8 hours ago, Phil said:

There’s no paradox. 

 

Of course. And yet, there is.

 

In Zen, this is referred to as the gateless gate. It's the final step on the path. Once you pass through it, there's no going back, because now you understand the secret of creation.

[Ges]

9 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I've taken the position myself that the Infinite contains all the finite.  It's two lenses that are both true.  Another way I say this is there's a wobble or interplay between the Infinite vs./and finite duality.  @Phil doesn't think the Infinite knows the finite.  I don't agree with that position.

 

As I think about it, I think that the content of the paradigm also affects how hard it's going to be to break out of it. So yes, like you said complexity is one factor, which is more contextual. And now I'm adding the content itself. It matters what your beliefs allow and don't allow. When I was Muslim, Heaven and Hell were the thing that kept me sucked in the most. Once I stopped fearing hell/desiring heaven, leaving Islam became as easy as cake.

Edited March 7 by Ges

[Joseph Maynor]

3 minutes ago, Ges said:

 

As I think about it, I think that the contents of the paradigm also affects how hard it's going to be to break out of it. So yes, like you said complexity is one factor, which is more contextual. And now I'm adding the content itself. It matters what your beliefs allow and don't allow. When I was Muslim, Heaven and Hell were the thing that kept me sucked in the most. Once I stopped fearing hell/desiring heaven, leaving Islam became as easy as cake.

 

I think religion and spirituality actually merge on some level.  But it requires judgment which can't be outsourced -- It can't even be insourced.  Both to get beyond any vehicle (form) and to be able to play with vehicles too is a very high state of consciousness in my opinion.  You can see the good parts of almost every idea and that almost every idea has a bad part too.  It's funny that way.  

[Phil]

7 hours ago, Ges said:

And yet, there is.

If you talk it through you’ll inevitably realize there isn’t. 

 

Infinite can not know finite. 

[Ges]

34 minutes ago, Phil said:

If you talk it through

 

That's literally what I'm doing and you're avoiding. I keep engaging with you on every point, and you just keep responding very robotically, with denial and dogmas such as below. Seriously, at this point, Chat GPT is more human-like than you.

 

34 minutes ago, Phil said:

Infinite can not know finite. 

 

It can if it wants. Do you want?

 

Edited March 7 by Ges

[Ges]

8 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I think religion and spirituality actually merge on some level.  But it requires judgment which can't be outsourced -- It can't even be insourced.  Both to get beyond any vehicle (form) and to be able to play with vehicles too is a very high state of consciousness in my opinion.  You can see the good parts of almost every idea and that almost every idea has a bad part too.  It's funny that way.  

 

I agree in part, because I don't understand this entirely. I agree to what I understand. Can you elaborate? Particularly on out/insourcing judgment.

 

Edited March 7 by Ges

[Phil]

14 minutes ago, Ges said:

 

That's literally what I'm doing and you're avoiding. I keep engaging with you on every point, and you just keep responding very robotically, with denial and dogmas such as below. Seriously, at this point, Chat GPT is more human-like than you.

Articulate it (the paradox) then. Let’s discuss. 

 

14 minutes ago, Ges said:

It can if it wants. Do you want?

Articulate what a you is as well. Let’s discuss.