It's time to wake up!

originally posted by: Andy1144
By suffering I mean mental suffering. Suffering that is rooted in the sense that this moment could be different. In other words thoughts about the experience, not just experience. Sometimes our thougthts about what we experience are worse then the actual raw direct experience. I am not saying seeing the illusion makes pain go away. It makes non accepting attitude go away.

It is not just that this moment could be different - it is the idea that 'I' could have done it differently - what happened, happened - just like this moment is just happening.
No one is doing now and no one did the past.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Indeed, I just took that reason as an example.

a reply to: Andy1144

"Not concerned" and "Find it helpful" in that post are in direct opposition to each other.

I find it more accurate to say that the purpose of life is just to live it, with whatever it brings, even if it isn't what you are.

Keeps me from having to mince things like "suffering" and "sadness" so that they don't cancel out the original claim.

All experience is direct.

Correct, all experience is being directly experienced. This is ultimately true.
And I say this a lot, but on a relative level we can still divide direct experience not direct experience as a tool. For example, if a guide says, "look into DE, enough assumption" He is saying look into your DE instead of assuming what is true about it.
If someone wants to see through the illusion and you say, "There is no illusion, you are already awake." This wont really help him too much. You still need a relative method which he can use in order to see it.
On an absolute level there is no method needed because there is no where to get, on the relative you need a method (or it can be spontenous) in order to see past the self although it isn't really there on an absolute level.

a reply to: daskakik

"Not concerned" and "Find it helpful" in that post are in direct opposition to each other.

Not concerned on the absolute level. "PREFER" on the relative level.

I find it more accurate to say that the purpose of life is just to live it, with whatever it brings, even if it isn't what you are.

You finding certain language more accurate then others doesn't prove a counter argument for what I've said. And besides, maybe my style of wording things isn't so accurate for you, but may resonate more with others.

I find my style more complete because it addresses both the relative and the absolute. Yours, only deals with the absolute and that perspective alone doesn't include the full picture. It only does on the absolute level.

originally posted by: Andy1144
Not concerned on the absolute level. "PREFER" on the relative level.

Too much to have to keep clearing up.

You finding certain language more accurate then others doesn't prove a counter argument for what I've said. And besides, maybe my style of wording things isn't so accurate for you, but may resonate more with others.

No, what you said is flawed and you need to play with language to make it right.

Other peoples warm fuzzies don't make things true.

I find my style more complete because it addresses both the relative and the absolute. Yours, only deals with the absolute and that perspective alone doesn't include the full picture. It only does on the absolute level.

I haven't even really shared mine but hey, snipe away.

a reply to: daskakik

Too much to have to keep clearing up.

Same.

No, what you said is flawed and you need to play with language to make it right.
Other peoples warm fuzzies don't make things true.

And I agree, it doesn't make anything true on the absolute level. I've said this more times then I can remember.
For example, responsibility is an illusion. It doesn't mean we deny it, we just pretend as if it is real because it its useful inside this dualistic world, not outside of it.

I haven't even really shared mine

The perspective you focus in conversation is a certain method or way of talking about something. We both focus on different perspectives in our talk, and it can seem like things contradict. But I am saying I agree with everything you are saying, but you are presenting on one side of it.
For example, you only focus on the absolute. Like, "responsability doesn't matter because it is an illusion" And that is true, but we need this illusion to function in a dualistic world. That's what I am saying.

"Not concerned" and "Find it helpful" in that post are in direct opposition to each other.

Again, yes I agree they are. There is no one having desires, but desires still happen. That's it.

originally posted by: Andy1144
And I agree, it doesn't make anything true on the absolute level.

I'm not talking about the absolute. I'm talking about people shooting ideas in the here and now.

The perspective you focus in conversation is a certain method or way of talking about something. We both focus on different perspectives in our talk, and it can seem like things contradict. But I am saying I agree with everything you are saying, but you are presenting on one side of it.

Nice try but, no

For example, you only focus on the absolute. Like, "responsability doesn't matter because it is an illusion" And that is true, but we need this illusion to function in a dualistic world. That's what I am saying.

I'm pointing out where DE logic reaches its limit. If that limit is at the absolute then that is where the discussion will lead.

Ok lets take a different look on this.
You say nothing matters because it is an illusion. If so, why help your friend up when he falls down and he needs your hand to get up, or your assistance to put a bandage on him or whatever? Why help the person?
According to you, it does't matter whether you help him or not but you still do. Why then do it?

As I've put it, there is no one making desires, yet they are still happening. Does this contradict to you?

originally posted by: Andy1144
You say nothing matters because it is an illusion.

No, you say it's an illusion. I'm saying that if this is true then it shouldn't matter.

As I've put it, there is no one making desires, yet they are still happening. Does this contradict to you?

This is an example of vague catch phrases that I like to keep away from.

a reply to: daskakik

No, you say it's an illusion. I'm saying that if this is true then it shouldn't matter.

This is what it all boils down to.
It shouldn't matter only from the absolute perspective. But it still matters on some level because the experience of the illusion is real.
You are only half right.
100% right from the Abs. and 100% wrong from the rel.

This is an example of vague catch phrases that I like to keep away from.

If you were familiar with enlightenment, no self, and all of this, you'd know perfectly what this means. But you don't.
It basically means there is no self projecting desires. Desires simply arise spontaneously by themselves. There is no one separate from experience making them happen.

originally posted by: Andy1144
This is what it all boils down to.

More absolute/relative wiggling.

It doesn't matter if it is in the abs or the rel. I'm looking at your claim objectively, free from an individual perspective. If true then it has to be true in either case.

Besides, we are talking peer to peer.

If you were familiar with enlightenment, no self, and all of this, you'd know perfectly what this means. But you don't.

Actually, I do, but if I was a person who is about to end it, you would expect me to research all this so that I can understand what you mean by DE?

So, yes I am nitpicking the choice of words.

It basically means there is no self projecting desires. Desires simply arise spontaneously by themselves. There is no one separate from experience making them happen.

Here is the kicker, just because I know what it means doesn't mean that I believe it.

a reply to: daskakik

It doesn't matter if it is in the abs or the rel. I'm looking at your claim objectively, free from an individual perspective. If true then it has to be true in either case.

Besides, we are talking peer to peer.

It is true in either case. That truth cannot change. I agree Ok. When I say, I want to help others, it is not true that I do. It's just a relative illusion needed to function within duality.
Experience is real. The objects of experience aren't real in the sense that they don't exist beyond consciousness. Experience within is real however. Even they "seem" real is again a real experience.
"This is the paradox. The illusion is NOT real, but it is a REAL illusion"

What does talking peer to peer mean again?

It is true the illusion is an illusion. This cannot change, but the illusion is a real illusion as it has been quoted. Simple logic.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: EternalFire

We all have a "mind" for a reason and you're naive if you think there's ever going to be a time on this earth where there's enough "collective thought" to put an end to wars against one another. Your age is showing.

So long as there are people who think like you, there never will be that time.

originally posted by: Andy1144
It is true in either case. That truth cannot change. I agree Ok. When I say, I want to help others, it is not true that I do. It's just a relative illusion needed to function within duality.

Not directly related to your desire to help others. It is related to you making a big deal about it. I knew this was the case way back in the thread where you started going on about compassion.

"This is the paradox. The illusion is NOT real, but it is a REAL illusion"

The real crux of the problem. How about actually figuring out and sharing the truth instead of just falling back on the paradox crutch?

If it isn't known yet then, how about accepting that, instead of telling others that they just don't get it when they ask questions that you can't answer?

What does talking peer to peer mean again?

It means that I know what you mean even if I don't agree. You have yet to post something that I have not seen before and, more importantly, that I have not experienced.

a reply to: daskakik

Not directly related to your desire to help others. It is related to you making a big deal about it. I knew this was the case way back in the thread where you started going on about compassion.

What did I say about compassion?

The real crux of the problem. How about actually figuring out and sharing the truth instead of just falling back on the paradox crutch?
If it isn't known yet then, how about accepting that, instead of telling others that they just don't get it when they ask questions that you can't answer?

I have figured out what I know through personal experience and logic. I do share with people as you can see. The paradox is a part of the truth, I am not doing this because I want people to agree with me to make me feel connected or some BS egoic ideas like that.

The truth about our direct experience can be known. I know there is no self. And I ask others to see it if they are willing.

The main reason this conversation isn't progessing is because you believe that stating a truth can't have a contradiction in order for it to be true.

Everything is an illusion. This can imply to you that, if everything is an illusion, then experience isn't real.
But that is not how it is meant. Experience is real. This is simple logic, and it is a contradiction, but it is the part you aren't getting.

originally posted by: Andy1144
What did I say about compassion?

Don't recall now but I remember seeing it and thinking here we go.

I have figured out what I know through personal experience and logic. I do share with people as you can see. The paradox is a part of the truth, I am not doing this because I want people to agree with me to make me feel connected or some BS egoic ideas like that.

The paradox is your version of the god of the gaps.

The main reason this conversation isn't progessing is because you believe that stating a truth can't have a contradiction in order for it to be true.

Maybe I know something you don't?

Everything is an illusion. This can imply to you that, if everything is an illusion, then experience isn't real.
But that is not how it is meant. Experience is real. This is simple logic, and it is a contradiction, but it is the part you aren't getting.

Calling something logic doesn't mean that it is in fact logical.

Your going to fall back on blaming me for seeing flaws that you can't explain away?

a reply to: daskakik

Calling something logic doesn't mean that it is in fact logical.

Your going to fall back on blaming me for seeing flaws that you can't explain away?

Yes, if you're not getting then I have to blame you. But at this moment, our conversation was such a mess, I forget what your counter arguments to my writings were. In fact I'm not sure I ever did know.