Is it not time to make the two one?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: Is it not time to make the two one?

Post by Kunga »

Cahoot wrote:“Conflict does produce a certain result by the use of the will, but conflict never is creative.”

- Jiddu Krishnamurti

True

(I read this chapter on conflict/desire...thanks again Cahoot :) )


I can relate to that.. looking at my own lack of creativity, when there is no peace in my life & vice versa...
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Is it not time to make the two one?

Post by Dennis Mahar »

When you say:
'I am that'

the actual position is 'I am that that I am that''
a declaration.
meaning 'held'.
ground to stand in.

imputed,
what's the base of designation.

Will/conflict brouhaha is a straw man thrown in for distraction.
Those are conditional designators out of a point of view.
How can there be conflict out of what isn't broken.

You weren't always the position 'I am that that I am that'.
You read it in a book and took it on for suitability.
A nominal description.
You had to be prior to putting on the dress for dress up.
causes/conditions.

I did it!
I did it!
geddit?
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Is it not time to make the two one?

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Cahoot,
“Conflict does produce a certain result by the use of the will, but conflict never is creative.”
For conflict to exist there has to be causes/conditions.
dependent arising.

nothing exists absolutely.
if it depends, it's empty and meaningless, an appearance, nothing.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Is it not time to make the two one?

Post by Cahoot »

Nothing is Emptiness and Emptiness is Nothing.

(Scratch that.)

"Form is Emptiness and Emptiness is Form.
The same is true for Feelings,
Perceptions, Volitions and Consciousness."

http://path.homestead.com/heartsutra.html

*

Shunyata is infinite form (etc.), unmanifested.

Manifestation of particular form, depends.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Is it not time to make the two one?

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Nothing indicates not finite.
a quality not a quantity,
empty of inherent existence.

conflict is point of view dependent, imputed.
point of view is empty.

Emptiness is a point of view,
emptiness is empty.

Consciousness is caused.
contents are void.
there are no 'the answers'.
ineffable silence.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Is it not time to make the two one?

Post by Cahoot »

Shunyata is infinite properties (qualities), unmanifested.

Manifestation of particular quality, depends.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Is it not time to make the two one?

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Imputing mind.
we are tools.
tool-being.
generators.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Is it not time to make the two one?

Post by Cahoot »

Such a mind is called sems.

Nature of mind is called sems nyid.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Is it not time to make the two one?

Post by Cahoot »

Kunga wrote:
Cahoot wrote:“Conflict does produce a certain result by the use of the will, but conflict never is creative.”

- Jiddu Krishnamurti

True

(I read this chapter on conflict/desire...thanks again Cahoot :) )


I can relate to that.. looking at my own lack of creativity, when there is no peace in my life & vice versa...
I think that what we know of Jiddu Krishnamurti are merely tracks of a great conduit of energy that transcends duality in the sense that it transcends time to exist in mind, that ports of awareness can access.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Is it not time to make the two one?

Post by Dennis Mahar »

You've just described machinery.
what is it that you think needs to be transcended?
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Is it not time to make the two one?

Post by Pam Seeback »

Dennis Mahar: When you say:
'I am that'

the actual position is 'I am that that I am that''
a declaration.
meaning 'held'.
ground to stand in.

imputed,
what's the base of designation.
I am That is sufficient to indicate one's absolute nature. Subject-object unification. A declaration of certainty as to position of being unmoving-mover. Knowing Self rather than believing something of self. All relative positions dropped.
Will/conflict brouhaha is a straw man thrown in for distraction.
Those are conditional designators out of a point of view.
How can there be conflict out of what isn't broken.
On the road to realizing one's absolute nature, will-as-if-in-conflict is the sword that cuts through the doubt cloud of relativity. Having said this, the absolute position is "I will" rather than "perhaps."
You weren't always the position 'I am that that I am that'.
You read it in a book and took it on for suitability.
A nominal description.
You had to be prior to putting on the dress for dress up.
causes/conditions.

I did it!
I did it!
geddit?
I was always the position of I am That but not consciously. Generations of inherited crap blocking the view of my single eye. It's being conscious of absoluteness that is game changer. I am it. I say it. I said it. I do it. I did it. I know it. I knew it. With the biggest game changer being the realization that not only is the object 'that' an it, but that the subject 'I' is also an It.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Is it not time to make the two one?

Post by Dennis Mahar »

what are you protecting?

a she-wolf with a cub.
script.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Is it not time to make the two one?

Post by Cahoot »

The perpetual knowing of the absolute, which must be as effortless as a heartbeat in order to be perpetual, makes the conditional separatist identity of I absolutely fluid, when not obscured by the relative, transitory, impermanent psychological afflictions everyone recognizes.

Considering that in the absolute sense all questions addressed to simulacra and their imagined qualities are actually addressed to singular undivided Self, then the answers to questions are liable to appear in an unanticipated form of the one Self. Examples abound: the benzene ring, the structure of DNA strands, not to mention answers born of synchronicity or serendipity.

When the questioner ceases to obscure answers with the limitations of arrogance or whatever, i.e., in the relative sense pay attention, the answer reveals in proportion to the sincerity of the question, unbound by former limitations.

Ask, and it shall be given, sometimes in ways unanticipated by limitations of the known.

The machinery to unobscure?
It’s rumored that Buddha only succeeded in offering just eighty-four thousand of them.
By which one can impute, a whole lota imputin goin on, like JK, a jnani.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Is it not time to make the two one?

Post by Dennis Mahar »

absolute means 'set free, disengaged, detached, loosened up.
absolved of, acquitted.
an action.

to have it as a 'noun thingy' like a king set apart from his loyal subjects and they relative nonentities 'in respect to' doesn't work out.
that is a conceptual thingy and what is to be freed of.
the imputing mind generates environment, bodies, pleasures, sorrows, activities in order to.
always figuring out a new angle to come from.
setting up winning formulas.
oh well, back to the drawing board.

to talk of 'my absolute nature' and 'my relative nature' as thingies?

nouns like transcendent, immanent, absolute, relative look like characters in a saloon drinkin' whisky.
an argument about bragging rights in respect to pecking order
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Is it not time to make the two one?

Post by Cahoot »

The machinery of impudent imputing I rises in self-protection to bind the absolute with limitations of needs and not. ;)
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Is it not time to make the two one?

Post by Dennis Mahar »

;)
touchdown!

me and the other guy are 'on the bus'
what's the point of prejudice, preference, aversion?
no true rank.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Is it not time to make the two one?

Post by Cahoot »

Yes Dennis, as you so often intimate, what we know of the phenomenal world beyond direct sensory experience is always a chain of inferences. Each link in the chain is a probability.

This is easily proven by entering an empty room and closing the door. Mind assigns varying probabilities to what lies beyond the door. Some of those probabilities are so high that they are erroneously called certainties. Some possibilities are definitely low probability. Attention and distraction influence the mind that assigns these probabilities, and as Heisenberg discovered, intent can influence phenomena in ways that also affects probabilities.

The chain of inference also applies to the world of direct sensory experience, though that world is so habitual that experiencing the world as a construct of probabilities is a more subtle affair.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Is it not time to make the two one?

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Intent is interesting.

when a tree is looked at summarily, it's characteristics, properties and functions look 'real' and it stands out as it's own thing.
Under a forensic analysis it isn't that way at all.

The conventional mode of apprehending the tree in it's own thing is valid and not crazy.
for instance, the eye sees a cup and the cup is picked up in the hand from where the cup is seen to be, it isn't a mirage like heat haze in the distance looks like water.
and yet the cup isn't its own thing.

The causes/conditions that contributed to it's appearance are invisible to the conventional mode.

The 'conventional mode of appearing function' is mistaken under analysis.

Where the tree appears to be in it's ownness there's actually clear space, nothing there at all.
WTF?
The tree in its owness looks like a trick.

The 'conventional mode of appearing function' or imputing mind looks like a tool to get things going aka belief.
The intent of that mind is to make it real come what may.

Accepting both conditions,
the thing's mode of appearing and the thing's actual mode of existing gets an access to being in command of the situation somewhat for dasein.
the other guys thingness and emptiness operating simultaneously.

What's the intent now?
Did Heisenborg provide a clue to deal with it?
What do you do?
Throw your hands up in the air in consternation?
Oh well, back to the drawing board.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Is it not time to make the two one?

Post by Cahoot »

What's the intent now?
Did Heisenborg provide a clue to deal with it?
What do you do?
Throw your hands up in the air in consternation?
Oh well, back to the drawing board.
That’s just conditioned intent.

Unconditioned intent is manifested in the elemental balancing forces that hold the tree, and everything else, in dynamic stillness.

All unconditioned movement is a movement to balance.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Is it not time to make the two one?

Post by Dennis Mahar »

You're suggesting a mood there.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Is it not time to make the two one?

Post by Pam Seeback »

When one is absolute, they are without conceptual doubt. Subject-object union. The script goes out the window.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Is it not time to make the two one?

Post by Dennis Mahar »

The script goes out the window.
When one is absolute, they are without conceptual doubt. Subject-object union.
That is a script.

You ARE that you are absolute.
A declaration.

Subject-object union implies relativity.

without conceptual doubt implies relativity.

When one is absolute implies relativity.

moodedness.
brooding.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Is it not time to make the two one?

Post by Pam Seeback »

Dennis, subject-object union does not imply relativity. Nor is it a script. Nor is it a declaration. Subject-object union is consciousness aware of something. Not things in relation to other things, not subject in relation to object, but subject analyzing this thing.

Methinks your bliss is blocking your insight.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Is it not time to make the two one?

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Look at an object for 10 minutes and then descibe it.

to say I am absolute is to say I am a category.
or
I am that I am categorical in relation to another category.
script
words
concepts
User avatar
Urizen
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 11:03 am

Re: Is it not time to make the two one?

Post by Urizen »

Jesus speaks of the transcendence of male / female, not the annihilation thereof. The Absolute transcends duality, it does not negate it or reconcile it This is a very important distinction: the transcendence of dualism vs the nullification of dualism. Anyone who tells you that transcendence is nullification of good / evil, or male/female, or positive / negative, is a false prophet, a charlatan, or an ignoramus. The New Age movement appears to be primarily responsible for propagating this lie. No, to transcend is to rise above into a higher unity. The Absoute stands above all dualism, not because it nullifies or reconciles male and female, but because it is the higher unity that created all dualism. Male is still male, and female is still female. The good is still the enemy of evil. To destroy dualism is to destroy existence.

This is why Christ said, Love thy enemy, and not: Thy enemy is thy friend. The enemy is still the enemy. Love transcends, not annihilates dualism. It is also why he said: I came not to bring peace, but to bring a sword. He came to set good and evil against each other.

The conflation of transcendence with nullification is serpentine deception. The hermaphrodite is the demonic imposture of the Divine Androgyne; the bastard progeny of hydraheaded Mother Chaos. It is not the Heavenly Father, much less the Divine Androgyne. Whispers from the abyss can destroy the soul.
Locked