Jonas Long Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 9 hours ago, Ges said: 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. Can you name an object or thing that can be isolated from all other things and exist on its own independently? Quote Mention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Maynor Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ges said: 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. Sometimes I say the best judgments come from nothing. They’re received, channeled, and then presented in communication as insights. Edited March 7 by Joseph Maynor Quote Mention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ges Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 11 minutes ago, Jonas Long said: Can you name an object or thing that can be isolated from all other things and exist on its own independently? I can't. See, the point you're making is that there's no duality without non-duality. And I'm not disagreeing with that at all. All I'm saying is that there's no non-duality without duality. You literally can't say non-duality without saying duality. That's the paradox. Non-duality both includes and transcends duality. It does not exclude it. The whole contains the parts, and the parts form the whole. Non-duality is just the first ever glimpse of the whole. Quote Mention Have faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Maynor Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 (edited) 18 hours 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. There’s a Phil that gave me a warning this morning for "too much personalizing, stay on topic". But there's nobody here. Come on man. I got a warning point for talking about persons. But who have me the warning point? No one! Edited March 7 by Joseph Maynor Quote Mention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonas Long Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 1 minute ago, Ges said: I can't. See, the point you're making is that there's no duality without non-duality. And I'm not disagreeing with that at all. All I'm saying is that there's no non-duality without duality. You literally can't say non-duality without saying duality. That's the paradox. Non-duality both includes and transcends duality. It does not exclude it. The whole contains the parts, and the parts form the whole. Non-duality is just the first ever glimpse of the whole. If it transcends duality, what does that say about duality? Quote Mention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ges Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 @Phil I've already laid it out a couple of times. Feel free to ask if you feel there's unclarity in my communications. Quote Mention Have faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonas Long Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Ges said: @Phil I've already laid it out a couple of times. Feel free to ask if you feel there's unclarity in my communications. What happens to mistaken concepts when they are realized as mistakes? They are apparently "transcended" right? The mistaken notion doesn't cease to exist, it never existed in the first place. Edited March 7 by Jonas Long Quote Mention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ges Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 2 minutes ago, Jonas Long said: If it transcends duality, what does that say about duality? Just so that we're on the same page: Transcendence. Quote Transcendence is the act of rising above something to a superior state. If you were at a concert where the rock star jumped into the audience, the concert (and audience) may have achieved a state of transcendence. Transcendence comes from the Latin prefix trans-, meaning "beyond," and the word scandare, meaning "to climb." When you achieve transcendence, you have gone beyond ordinary limitations. The word is often used to describe a spiritual or religious state, or a condition of moving beyond physical needs and realities. One way to achieve transcendence spiritually might be to fast for a long time. If you have trouble letting go of material needs, then you will have a difficult time achieving transcendence. Quote Definitions of transcendence noun the state of excelling or surpassing or going beyond usual limits synonyms:superiority, transcendency noun a state of being or existence above and beyond the limits of material experience synonyms:transcendency So when duality is transcended, it doesn't magically disappear or go away. It just gets recontextualized into the bigger picture of oneness, which is otherwise known as non-duality. It's an enhanced version of duality so to speak because it takes context into consideration. With this recognition comes context-awareness, which is a special trait that only tier 2 people possess. Quote Mention Have faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonas Long Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 Just now, Ges said: So when duality is transcended, it doesn't magically disappear or go away. It just gets recontextualized into the bigger picture of oneness, which is otherwise known as non-duality. It's an enhanced version of duality so to speak because it takes context into consideration. With this recognition comes context-awareness, which is a special trait that only tier 2 people possess. Oooh "special tier 2 people"... Cult shit. Quote Mention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Maynor Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 (edited) Infinity knows the finite. This is obvious to me. The finite knows the Infinite too. Edited March 7 by Joseph Maynor Quote Mention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonas Long Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 2 minutes ago, Ges said: Just so that we're on the same page: Transcendence. So when duality is transcended, it doesn't magically disappear or go away. No, it is understood to never have existed. it doesn't disappear. Flying spaghetti monster doesn't "dissappear" when you realize you've imagined it. It never appeared except as a thought. Quote Mention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonas Long Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 4 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said: Infinity knows the finite. This is obvious to me. The finite knows the Infinite too. What is finite? Name a "finite" thing. Quote Mention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Maynor Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 Just now, Jonas Long said: What is finite? Name a "finite" thing. What is what is? Quote Mention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonas Long Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 Just now, Joseph Maynor said: What is what is? What is, is. Quote Mention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Maynor Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Jonas Long said: What is, is. What is? is an interrogative use of language. Edited March 7 by Joseph Maynor Quote Mention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonas Long Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 2 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said: What is? is an interrogative use of language. Name something finite. Quote Mention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Maynor Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Jonas Long said: Name something finite. Persons are finite although I won't want Phil to give me another warning point for talking about persons too much. Egos are finite. The finite reflect the Infinite and the Infinite reflects the finite. Edited March 7 by Joseph Maynor Quote Mention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonas Long Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 3 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said: Persons are finite although I won't want Phil to give me another warning point for talking about persons too much. Egos are finite. The finite reflect the Infinite and the Infinite reflects the finite. So there isn't really a separation between what appears finite and infinite? Quote Mention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Maynor Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 Just now, Jonas Long said: So there isn't really a separation between what appears finite and infinite? They're 2 sides of the same coin. There's a little bit of the finite in the Infinite and a little bit of the Infinite in the finite. Quote Mention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonas Long Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 Just now, Joseph Maynor said: They're 2 sides of the same coin. There's a little bit of the finite in the Infinite and a little bit of the Infinite in the finite. So, 1 coin. Quote Mention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.