It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A new intelligence is in town

page: 8
20
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Serdgiam

Itisnowagain
Emptiness is form - form is emptiness.
No thingness is everything.


What if emptiness is co-dependently arising with form?

What if nothingness is co-dependently arising with everything?

That would satisfy the non-dualistic tenet of "This, That, Both, and Neither."

I have never seen 'this, that, both and neither' used as a non dualistic tenet. Can you provide a source?

You may be interested in this video (or not?)




posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Itisnowagain
I have never seen 'this, that, both and neither' used as a non dualistic tenet. Can you provide a source?


The source is me
Though, it was told to me by someone who never wrote books. Take that as you will..


You may be interested in this video (or not?)


Im glad to see you caught the test.
Its more of a measuring stick than a religious tenet. If one can not describe something in terms of "this, that, both, and neither," then they just might be trapped in their own mind. When that which arises, arises codependently, one can not point at it being just "This," or just "That," or both, or flat out denying it all. This, that, both, and neither arise codependently. Apply to dualistic topic of choice.

Incredible how many "Zen Masters" there are isnt it?



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Serdgiam
This, that, both, and neither arise codependently. Apply to dualistic topic of choice.

But there is only ever this.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Itisnowagain

Serdgiam
This, that, both, and neither arise codependently. Apply to dualistic topic of choice.

But there is only ever this.


So, it is *not* that?

When we claim there is only "this," or there is only "that," then we are talking about a dualistic proposal.

By saying it is *not* "that," we limit What Is based solely on our own limited perception. By saying it is *not* "this," we segregate our own perspective from What Is. The Truth is beyond both, and contains both unconditionally. Or else, dualism is all there ever was and will be.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Serdgiam

Itisnowagain

Serdgiam
This, that, both, and neither arise codependently. Apply to dualistic topic of choice.

But there is only ever this.


So, it is *not* that?

This is all there is.

Edit:
Non duality means not two (one without a second).


edit on 1-2-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Itisnowagain
This is all there is.


But "This," to you, is limited entirely by your perspective. So, by saying "This is all there is," you are in effect saying that your perspective is all there is. In "this" context, "that" (the things which you do not perceive, or what you might perceive as no-thing) is no-thing universally. Do you feel this to be true?


Edit:
Non duality means not two (one without a second).


Non-duality can mean a plethora of different things in actual composition, it only states that the sum of everything is null. This approach, however, doesnt even touch on the process of summation. Science points in the same direction too, but also includes exploration of the process.

So, when you say nothing IS everything, thats one way to rationalize an irrational process. If we say nothing defines everything, or emptiness defines form, then we get the same result of a singular process. However, the different perspectives can differ even more greatly, yet they define each other! In that way, your claim of form as emptiness ("this") gives definition to the other claim that emptiness is actually form ("that"). The ability for both of these to arise is innate to the idea that what arises, arises unconditionally. Both "this" and "that" are codependently arising, making them different parts of the same overall process.

We can also look at it from the viewpoint of perspectives. We could label your perspective "this," and my perspective "that." You are not aware of my perspective anymore than I share it, and then you have to do your own interpretation on what is being said. If I was not on this board, then my perspective would be as no-thing to you. If we had never had any interaction, what you perceive to be "this" would not include me ("that") as anything other than nothing.

And yet, even if "this" does not include "that," I am still here doing what I am doing. If what you perceive as "this" is All There Is, then how do you view this to happen?
edit on 1-2-2014 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Serdgiam
 


Is there anything other than what is happening?
If a thought arises - that is what is happening.
If reading is happening - that is what is happening.

There is never anything other than what is happening - it is always this - and this constantly appears different.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   

edit on 1-2-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Itisnowagain
reply to post by Serdgiam
 


Is there anything other than what is happening?
If a thought arises - that is what is happening.
If reading is happening - that is what is happening.


I would agree with that.


There is never anything other than what is happening - it is always this - and this constantly appears different.


Do you feel that what you perceive as "this" is the totality of what is happening?



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Serdgiam
Do you feel that what you perceive as "this" is the totality of what is happening?

The perceiver and perceived are one.
Is the dreamer separate from the dream?



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Serdgiam
I would agree with that.

Is there anything other than what is actually happening?



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Itisnowagain
The perceiver and perceived are one.


But, the question is how are they one?

If they are one and the same with directly equal values, then the perceiver is capable of perceiving all there is to be perceived. Do you feel this is how it works?

There is also the option of the perceiver being a part of what is being perceived. In this, they are both still "one" but the relationship, the "how," is different. This (the perceiver), that (the perceived), both (as one), and neither (defined by no-thing, null summation).
edit on 1-2-2014 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 02:02 PM
link   
OP!

That was the Best way to word it! I hear you and know this to be true, in my way! Yet some will continue to Try to break this down, find something to Lock On and go from there. Little do we know about Intelligence and why Man continues to hold on thinking we are the only one's with it!

My problem is, Why the waiting game? So we have New Players, why not get On with it already! Waking Up should not have to be forced upon Man, yet for some reason it is There. One would have thought people would start seeing this, for its not a Game anymore!

Yet I've felt it was more like evolving, the do or die end of the road for Man. The World shall never end, people will live through the worst hell and still come out on top! Very sad part is Only a few will make it. Hopefully then will Man learn something far Greater then Ourelves is Out there waiting for Us to catch Up!

Who Knew?

Peace



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by infoseeker26754
 


there is nothing 'waiting'

perhaps the confusion is that at the end sits an eventuality that always was malleable as it may be

but our only mode of seeing it is by traveling the train tracks of linear space-time, so it is 'waiting'

dont you see the very seeds of it where there from the very beginning?

a note plays, and it unfurls into the highs and lows, repeats, meshes, plays with variations of itself in relationship to what began, draws us through and through, and comes crashing down at the finale, its all music, and an end only provokes a beginning



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Bluesma

Itisnowagain
What 'knowledge' are you referring to? Are you seeking something that you can use? If so, for what purpose?



I refered to the knowledge that nothing exists.

At this moment, I am not seeking anything in particular.

Yet according to the moment, I do occasionally seek, and find, ways of thought and perspective which enable me to respond to things like desire, discomfort, suffering of my physical body.

Consciousness doesn't have any need of anything, so it is only the physical form that can have needs to be addressed.
It gives consciousness something to "do".


how does nothing exist per se? shouldn't it be by definition nonexistence?
i was just caught off guard by your statement

i understand what you're saying, but if it exists, then it is something, not nothing.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Jarring

Bluesma

Itisnowagain
What 'knowledge' are you referring to? Are you seeking something that you can use? If so, for what purpose?



I refered to the knowledge that nothing exists.

At this moment, I am not seeking anything in particular.

Yet according to the moment, I do occasionally seek, and find, ways of thought and perspective which enable me to respond to things like desire, discomfort, suffering of my physical body.

Consciousness doesn't have any need of anything, so it is only the physical form that can have needs to be addressed.
It gives consciousness something to "do".



how does nothing exist per se? shouldn't it be by definition nonexistence?
i was just caught off guard by your statement

i understand what you're saying, but if it exists, then it is something, not nothing.


Yes, my words confuse the concept itself. I think there are others here that are better at it, that at least have more ways of getting close to communicating the idea.
But my personal stance is that it is not possible with linear language.
That when I tap into that consciousness, trying to express it in words brings me out of it, and linear language itself breaks it down and separates. A timeless whole becomes strung out into time (with words coming before or after each other), with subjects, objects, verbs, etc.

My objection has always been that this cannot be communicated with language from one person to another.
But some feel differently.....



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Serdgiam

Itisnowagain
The perceiver and perceived are one.


But, the question is how are they one?
Is the dream ever separate from the dreamer?


If they are one and the same with directly equal values, then the perceiver is capable of perceiving all there is to be perceived. Do you feel this is how it works?
The dreamer dreams the dream. The dreamer sees the dream.
Until it is apparent in the dream it does not appear to exist.


There is also the option of the perceiver being a part of what is being perceived. In this, they are both still "one" but the relationship, the "how," is different. This (the perceiver), that (the perceived), both (as one), and neither (defined by no-thing, null summation).
It seems that you are determined to make the 'this, that, both and neither' fit in. What else did this person who never wrote a book tell you about non duality?

Have you ever heard the phrase 'the father and son are one'? The father is the source of the son and the son cannot 'be' unless there is the father. Through the son the father can be found. The son is the present appearance and the father sees the present appearance - is there anything other?
The thoughts that arise presently will tell you there is 'other' but the thought is the son (the present appearance) - no thing can appear outside presence - there is only presence.
Presence is not a thing (no-thing) - it is all there is (everything).
edit on 2-2-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Bluesma
My objection has always been that this cannot be communicated with language from one person to another.

Agreed.


edit on 2-2-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


This is why I always wonder why anyone would bother trying to express this in words to others; in person or even in writing?

It obviously can give others the idea that you are someone who has ascended above and beyond them- make them feel you are "wiser" or something (or even an extraterrestrial intelligence, LOL)... but how is that beneficial for them?

Wouldn't it be better to point them towards practices that might be conducive to discovery of this state and truth?

Partly because, if they form an idea of what they shall find and experience, (based upon your words) they may have misunderstood some things... and that idea could actually block out the expansion. Expectations can get in the way, and make their own blinders.

I am not expecting you to answer this question, because it would mean communicating with me as a normal individual human, that exists, and moves in a world of duality, self and others, and you have the habit of hiding that person here....
But perhaps someone else here has thoughts on the subject?



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Bluesma
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


This is why I always wonder why anyone would bother trying to express this in words to others; in person or even in writing?

It obviously can give others the idea that you are someone who has ascended above and beyond them- make them feel you are "wiser" or something (or even an extraterrestrial intelligence, LOL)... but how is that beneficial for them?
Expression happens - writing happens - who knows why? It is not done to benefit anyone else, or anyone at all.


Wouldn't it be better to point them towards practices that might be conducive to discovery of this state and truth?
What practice would get one to where/what they already are? Do you have any suggestions?

The mind leads one astray - the mind has to seen for what it is - and it does happen. Thought is the present appearance - it speaks of other times always presently.
edit on 2-2-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join