There's only one right perspective...

reply to post by Angle


It's not figuring it out, it's realising it. You can't discover that sort of thing.

And to consider things 'freaky' for having the perception of sides, well...

what an odd 'angle' that is.

Originally posted by Angle
Every river has two banks,

Except where it has an island in the river, or where a stream or tributory joins it, then it has 3.

every coin has two side.

4 actually, the head side, the tails side, the edge side and the outside.

Duality is more than just two perspectives really. It's more than one perspective.

Aha, makes me come to a very peculiar insight. We cannot kill ego, for it has its throne in the spiritual realm. We can only resist it, and that way it becomes uninterested in us and leaves us alone. Please consider these words, it is ultimate truth. Ego will keep on existing, but therefore it's not the case it bothering you.

Superb. I needed you guys to gain this insight, and I shared it with you. You guys deserve eternal life!

reply to post by Angle



If your goal is to get to a location as fast as possible then anything that promotes that goal is good.

If your goal is to get hit by a train then anything that prevents the accomplishment of that goal is bad.

If your goal is to eat as much carrots as you can then anything which allows that goal to be reached is good.

What is your goal? Is it the best possible goal? Is it a goal supported by evidence?

Duality only exists in a world with goals.

reply to post by Wertdagf


Reading your first sentence made me sense, very humble: "Outstanding".

All this duality stuff is relative and depends on who's perspective is considered

Originally posted by Wertdagf
If your goal is to get to a location as fast as possible then anything that promotes that goal is good.

Unless I am coming to beat you with a length of iron bar, in which case YOUR pespective would maybe be that the goal is bad.

If your goal is to get hit by a train then anything that prevents the accomplishment of that goal is bad.

Unless I am coming to hit you with an iron bar.

Duality is dualistic.

reply to post by nerbot


You adding "unless" is lame

Me not describing what temperature it was outside or what planet it was on is purposeful.

Do you even lift?

Very good OP. From all good there is some bad and from all bad there is some good.

What is good for you is often bad for someone else. If you find a twenty dollar bill on the floor in the store that is good....for you...but not for the person who lost it.

We tend to think something that benefits mankind is good, ignoring the problems it creates. We need to start analyzing the bad that occurs and ponder on whether the good is actually good. The right perspective can only be found by standing back and comparing our actions against the big picture. The present trend ignores that comparison in the industrialized world. Economy takes precedence over rationality.

Our desire to be on top often causes harm on a massive scale, it has destroyed empires in the past. There is no such thing as right or wrong many times. It is better to judge by rationality in many cases. Trouble is that this new world lacks rationality, it is based on getting ahead in the world. If we step ahead, someone always gets left behind. The people who get ahead often condemn those who are pushed back because of their advancement. This is done to shed our personal feeling of guilt many times and to.reinforce our belief that we are righteous.

Seems like I am over-analyzing things again

reply to post by Wertdagf


Being obtrusive and obscure does you no favors.

Up and down? Are those the only directions one can travel? There might perhaps be an infinite amount of directions one can take.

Two sides to a coin? How many sides to a circle?

Hot and cold? Is there no temperature in between?

Black and white? What of the other colors?

Limiting oneself to two directions is dualism. Limiting oneself to polar extremes is dualism. Forgetting the gradient in between—dualism.

reply to post by Angle


Everything is in a state of neutrality, until acted upon by external forces. It is neither good, nor evil, until someone with a mind comes along and interprets it as so. Everything just "is" when left to its own devices. Good and evil are states of mind, not states of being.

~ Wandering Scribe

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Up and down? Are those the only directions one can travel? There might perhaps be an infinite amount of directions one can take.

Two sides to a coin? How many sides to a circle?

inside and outside

Hot and cold? Is there no temperature in between?
hot for one can be cold to another, it is not a certainty, it depends on the receiver... What's the word for that now..

Black and white? What of the other colors?

white is not a color; white could be resembled as self

Limiting oneself to two directions is dualism. Limiting oneself to polar extremes is dualism. Forgetting the gradient in between—dualism.

Dualistic is what everything is from perspective of the self, and the self cannot observe itself. That way there is not inbetween. The self does not need selfobservation for the self is eternaly perfect in itself. A dualistic perspective is the only, natural and complete perspective.

We are the universe and the universe is us. We see the universe, but not ourselves unless we see the universe as ourselves. To look inward to yourself is to lose awareness of what is outward. To look outward to a concept of other is to lose awareness of what is inward.

Look outward to yourself. You become aware of unity. You find fulfillment. You find wisdom. Duality will no longer exist. You will become aware that there is only one thing that exists and it is you.

reply to post by smithjustinb


Outstanding, for it makes complete sense to me now. Seems like I am able to follow ATS for a big part now.

an excercise (spelling?)

When your eyes are open and you view the world, think of that as if you are looking within your heart, and looking within your heart creates is making you view what you see.

reply to post by Angle


So what you're saying is that there is only 1 right perspective and that is yours......

Wrong.

reply to post by arpgme


I can't stop laughing. You may as well give up on him, he clearly doesn't realize that bitter taste in his mouth is his own foot. For all the "lose your ego" talk he's spouting, he sure likes to identify himself singularly and worries way too much about how we are apparently "misunderstanding" him. Everything he says can be identified as ego, and yet he claims that we're the ones with the ego.

He needs to go back to psychology class and, this time, pay attention. Been there, done that, one of the easiest classes I took. And I'm telling everyone on this thread that this guy has a very poor grasp on the concept of ego.

reply to post by Angle

Dualistic is what everything is from perspective of the self, and the self cannot observe itself.

Really? So I cannot observe myself reading and interpreting your sentence, formulating a somewhat bemused response, and typing it in this little box?

Strange. I must be schizophrenic then. But wait! If I post this, come back in an hour, and see this same exact response sitting here as testament to the impression I had of processing your post, that eliminates the possibility of schizophrenia or any other type of delusion. All that's left is...

I observed myself. Which means you're wrong.

That way there is not inbetween. The self does not need selfobservation for the self is eternaly perfect in itself.

How does an imperfect being know anything about perfect? Define perfect, if you would. What exactly is perfect?

A dualistic perspective is the only, natural and complete perspective.

There's your ego talking again. You believe that YOU alone are right.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Show me one post wherein I claimed you had ego? All I did was bringing the disguises of ego to light. I never accused. Ego must have such a huge grip on yourself "wondering"

I managed to control ego instead of making it control me.

Whatever.

Every river has two banks.
How many rivers are within those two banks?