Post Reply
Page 2 of 10  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10 Next
Switch to Forum Live View The Illusion Confusion
5 years ago  ::  Jun 18, 2009 - 4:12PM #11
williejhonlo
Posts: 3,670

Jun 17, 2009 -- 6:14PM, Neomonist wrote:


williejhonlo


>This or that are just two words that describe something. you say the world being transitory as well as it being permanent are both illusory, then my friend Neo just what is the nature of the world? outside of describing something ( this or that ) as temporary or permanent in nature how would you describe it?


The descriptions are our ideas about what the nature of the world is and it is these ideas that are illusory. Neither ‘temporary’ nor ‘permanent’, in and of themselves, is Truth - they are interdependent truths and cannot exist apart.- I believe there are facts as well, the pavement is hard, and one day we will expire  from this earth, these are facts. Also you can't have adjectives without nouns ( and since you can't have a "this without a "that" ) the descriptions are one with the objects, objects have shape, without shape objects cannot exist, but  shape is not a idea but the intrinsic aspect of an object.


es in each of "us", since this represents knowledge, how are we to understand it if we have no ego!! If the false ego ( body ) is illusory or unreal then just what is the "us" the divine is incarnating in since both soul and body are both unreal.


The idea there is an us the Divine incarnates in is illusory - it is an idea there is an ‘us’ and a ‘Divine’ as two separate and independent realities. williejhonlo and Neo are masks -O- (My spelling of "God") wears in the Cosmic Drama. Neo and -O- are interdependent as is williejhonlo and -O-.-I believe like you said there is an interdependence because without energy the absolute would be incomplete, but since the absolute ( energetic ) is the controlling principle and since "I" am the controlled principle their is difference as well. just like theirs difference between you and me ( because we may possess different faiths )


The Emptiness one can wrap their mind around is not true Emptiness - the Suchness one can wrap their mind around is not true Suchness. True Emptiness and True Suchness are experiences, not theories.- Not all experiences are ideas though.


student - "The Buddha is a Manifestation of Dharma, is he not?"


teacher - "Yes, but it is a shame to say so."


Neos' comment - The student is attempting to paint a red rose red.



Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 18, 2009 - 5:54PM #12
Neomonist
Posts: 2,705

williejhonlo


>you can't have adjectives without nouns ( and since you can't have a "this without a "that" ) the descriptions are one with the objects, objects have shape, without shape objects cannot exist, but  shape is not a idea but the intrinsic aspect of an object.


I have a round rock and a flat rock, which is 'rock'?


>I believe like you said there is an interdependence because without energy the absolute would be incomplete, but since the absolute ( energetic ) is the controlling principle and since "I" am the controlled principle their is difference as well.


Controlling and controlled are like the two sides of a coin.


>Not all experiences are ideas though.


We do not have experiences without having ideas about them. My idea of a cold day is different than my girlfriend's.

Standard Disclaimer: This is just my 2cents worth.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 18, 2009 - 10:11PM #13
williejhonlo
Posts: 3,670

Jun 18, 2009 -- 5:54PM, Neomonist wrote:


williejhonlo


>you can't have adjectives without nouns ( and since you can't have a "this without a "that" ) the descriptions are one with the objects, objects have shape, without shape objects cannot exist, but  shape is not a idea but the intrinsic aspect of an object.


I have a round rock and a flat rock, which is 'rock'?


>I believe like you said there is an interdependence because without energy the absolute would be incomplete, but since the absolute ( energetic ) is the controlling principle and since "I" am the controlled principle their is difference as well.


Controlling and controlled are like the two sides of a coin.


>Not all experiences are ideas though.


We do not have experiences without having ideas about them. My idea of a cold day is different than my girlfriend's.



Hi neo, in my opinion both are rocks since you have described them as such. Agreed, controlling and controlled are like two sides of a coin, but still, lets not forget that currency does control things and we control currency ( since we make it ). As far as your idea of what a cold day is compared to your girlfriends I'm quite sure its only in matter of degrees, but i would not call that an idea, i would rather say its just something relative that might exist between you due to conditioning.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 19, 2009 - 9:28AM #14
Neomonist
Posts: 2,705

williejhonlo


>Hi neo,


Hi willie (Is OK to call you that?)


>Agreed, controlling and controlled are like two sides of a coin, but still, lets not forget that currency does control things and we control currency ( since we make it ).


Neither side in 'In Control'.


>As far as your idea of what a cold day is compared to your girlfriends I'm quite sure its only in matter of degrees, but i would not call that an idea, i would rather say its just something relative that might exist between you due to conditioning.


It is relative to our conditioning and is why I used it as an example. Thinking that my idea of 'what a cold day is' be the truth for everyone is illusory thinking.


 

Standard Disclaimer: This is just my 2cents worth.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 19, 2009 - 9:46PM #15
williejhonlo
Posts: 3,670

Jun 19, 2009 -- 9:28AM, Neomonist wrote:


williejhonlo


>Hi neo,


Hi willie (Is OK to call you that?)


>Agreed, controlling and controlled are like two sides of a coin, but still, lets not forget that currency does control things and we control currency ( since we make it ).


Neither side in 'In Control'.- True, nothing inanimate can control, but we can let it control our lives. Like in the way we let televisions and computers control our lives. Control or even having knowledge of something being able to control seems to always depend on a conscious agent.


>As far as your idea of what a cold day is compared to your girlfriends I'm quite sure its only in matter of degrees, but i would not call that an idea, i would rather say its just something relative that might exist between you due to conditioning.


It is relative to our conditioning and is why I used it as an example. Thinking that my idea of 'what a cold day is' be the truth for everyone is illusory thinking.- Yes,its relative but not illusory, for everyone  knows what "cold" is because we experience it. You see, conditioning may make it relative, but conditioning per se is not an idea, but just something that happens.


 



Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 19, 2009 - 10:23PM #16
Neomonist
Posts: 2,705

 


williejhonlo


>>Neither side in 'In Control'.


>True, nothing inanimate can control, but we can let it control our lives. Like in the way we let televisions and computers control our lives. Control or even having knowledge of something being able to control seems to always depend on a conscious agent.


Controlled and Controller are not separate, they are a dynamic unity.


>>As far as your idea of what a cold day is compared to your girlfriends I'm quite sure its only in matter of degrees, but i would not call that an idea, i would rather say its just something relative that might exist between you due to conditioning.


>>It is relative to our conditioning and is why I used it as an example. Thinking that my idea of 'what a cold day is' be the truth for everyone is illusory thinking.


>Yes, its relative but not illusory, for everyone  knows what "cold" is because we experience it.


The relativity indicates the illusory aspect of our ideas. A long time ago, I was in the Navy, stationed in Hawaii. One day it got down to 62 - the people who had been there for years were wearing heavy jackets and sweaters. I was running around in tank top, shorts and sandals.

Standard Disclaimer: This is just my 2cents worth.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 20, 2009 - 8:29PM #17
williejhonlo
Posts: 3,670

Jun 19, 2009 -- 10:23PM, Neomonist wrote:


 


williejhonlo


>>Neither side in 'In Control'.


>True, nothing inanimate can control, but we can let it control our lives. Like in the way we let televisions and computers control our lives. Control or even having knowledge of something being able to control seems to always depend on a conscious agent.


Controlled and Controller are not separate, they are a dynamic unity. -True, but their constitutional positions are different. We can have no concept of unity if their is no difference in constitutional position of agents involved.


>>As far as your idea of what a cold day is compared to your girlfriends I'm quite sure its only in matter of degrees, but i would not call that an idea, i would rather say its just something relative that might exist between you due to conditioning.


>>It is relative to our conditioning and is why I used it as an example. Thinking that my idea of 'what a cold day is' be the truth for everyone is illusory thinking.


>Yes, its relative but not illusory, for everyone  knows what "cold" is because we experience it.


The relativity indicates the illusory aspect of our ideas. A long time ago, I was in the Navy, stationed in Hawaii. One day it got down to 62 - the people who had been there for years were wearing heavy jackets and sweaters. I was running around in tank top, shorts and sandals. - This is why i say it depends on conditioning. The experience of coldness is not an idea but an experience, but the level of degree of how that coldness affects us is dependent on conditioning as you have perfectly stated. 62 degrees where i live is spring. its all about climate conditioning.




Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 20, 2009 - 8:56PM #18
Neomonist
Posts: 2,705

williejhonlo


>>Controlled and Controller are not separate, they are a dynamic unity.


>True, but their constitutional positions are different. We can have no concept of unity if their is no difference in constitutional position of agents involved.


These positions are mutually dependent. Can we have a point A without a corresponding point B and are the points not mutually dependent on the 'space' between them?


>>The relativity indicates the illusory aspect of our ideas. A long time ago, I was in the Navy, stationed in Hawaii. One day it got down to 62 - the people who had been there for years were wearing heavy jackets and sweaters. I was running around in tank top, shorts and sandals.


>This is why i say it depends on conditioning. The experience of coldness is not an idea but an experience, but the level of degree of how that coldness affects us is dependent on conditioning as you have perfectly stated. 62 degrees where i live is spring. its all about climate conditioning.


I'm not saying the experience is illusory, I'm saying our ideas about the experience are illusory. Compared to the surface of the Sun, 62 is real cold but compared to the vastness of Space, 62 is quite hot. As Alan Watts once said "Even a short piece of wood is three inches long."


 

Standard Disclaimer: This is just my 2cents worth.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 21, 2009 - 11:55AM #19
williejhonlo
Posts: 3,670

Jun 20, 2009 -- 8:56PM, Neomonist wrote:


williejhonlo


>>Controlled and Controller are not separate, they are a dynamic unity.


>True, but their constitutional positions are different. We can have no concept of unity if their is no difference in constitutional position of agents involved.


These positions are mutually dependent. Can we have a point A without a corresponding point B and are the points not mutually dependent on the 'space' between them?-True, you can't have an absolute without an relative, and you can't have a relative without an absolute, they explain each others position. Still, the relative by definition is dependent on the absolute for its maintenance. Just like our bodies are dependent on our consciousness for its maintenance. The relative in my opinion is just the absolute in action, they are intimately related but not absolutely one.


>>The relativity indicates the illusory aspect of our ideas. A long time ago, I was in the Navy, stationed in Hawaii. One day it got down to 62 - the people who had been there for years were wearing heavy jackets and sweaters. I was running around in tank top, shorts and sandals.


>This is why i say it depends on conditioning. The experience of coldness is not an idea but an experience, but the level of degree of how that coldness affects us is dependent on conditioning as you have perfectly stated. 62 degrees where i live is spring. its all about climate conditioning.


I'm not saying the experience is illusory, I'm saying our ideas about the experience are illusory. Compared to the surface of the Sun, 62 is real cold but compared to the vastness of Space, 62 is quite hot. As Alan Watts once said "Even a short piece of wood is three inches long." -In my opinion illusory means something thats not quite true, but all these things seem to me at least to explain relativity. Did you know that some species of insects are born at night and die before sunrise. To them their is no sun, but we know that their is because our life span is much longer.


 




Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 21, 2009 - 12:13PM #20
Neomonist
Posts: 2,705

williejhonlo


>>These positions are mutually dependent. Can we have a point A without a corresponding point B and are the points not mutually dependent on the 'space' between them?


>True, you can't have an absolute without an relative, and you can't have a relative without an absolute, they explain each others position. Still, the relative by definition is dependent on the absolute for its maintenance. Just like our bodies are dependent on our consciousness for its maintenance. The relative in my opinion is just the absolute in action, they are intimately related but not absolutely one.


In my opinion, the relative and the absolute are a paradoxical oneness.


>In my opinion illusory means something thats not quite true...


My expansion to the above includes 'and something that's not quite false.'

Standard Disclaimer: This is just my 2cents worth.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 10  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook