'ISness"

[quote=xxheatherxx]

Originally Posted by Phroggy

The original post is clear - by following what you are 'seeing' you miss the point.

The point above is simple...but what you are seeing is that there is more there. This is your story....read it, but don't believe it to be true.

Sorry, I can't read your mind.
It's okay. Never mind.

[Gem]

[quote=Phroggy][quote][quote=Gem]

The distinction is the same as the differentiation. It's all subjective.

Yeah one might say it's all subjective... but 'all' implies it is infinitely so, which is kinda paradoxial

Whenever somebody tries to characterize me as enlightened, I feel obliged to slap them upside the head. Hold still...........:::::SLAP!:::::

brbrbrbrbrbrbrbr... I needed that

Other than what?

The other stuff silly.

[quote][quote=Gem][quote=Phroggy][quote]

Originally Posted by Gem

Yeah one might say it's all subjective... but 'all' implies it is infinitely so, which is kinda paradoxial

It implies radical subjectivity, which is oneness, which isn't a paradox.

brbrbrbrbrbrbrbr... I needed that

Whew!....It was pretty good for me too. Hehe.

The other stuff silly.

..........Oh.

Greetings..

There is no division of essence in reality itself. Words/thought place arbitrary labels on aspects of reality. Therefore the division between an apple and a chair and I (not the words but the reality towards which these words point) is not really present in reality itself, but only in thought. The essence which is manifest as apple chair and I is understood as essence rather the shapes and actions of its manifestations.. This could lead me to say that there is no 'I' but it could likewise lead me to say that there is no apple and no chair. There is just the essence of reality, which is everything. But the experience is happening from a certain point of view which is always the same point of view. 'I'/me/we refers to this point of view. There is no experience as a flower, there is only experience of a flower. There is only ever an experience as the awareness from this point of view of everything else. So, although in reality itself, everything may be one, the experience of reality is always as something, 'I', of itself and of everything else. 'I' refers to that consistent, unique, localised experience of reality.

Be well..

[Gem]

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

Greetings..

There is no division of essence in reality itself. Words/thought place arbitrary labels on aspects of reality. Therefore the division between an apple and a chair and I (not the words but the reality towards which these words point) is not really present in reality itself, but only in thought. The essence which is manifest as apple chair and I is understood as essence rather the shapes and actions of its manifestations.. This could lead me to say that there is no 'I' but it could likewise lead me to say that there is no apple and no chair. There is just the essence of reality, which is everything. But the experience is happening from a certain point of view which is always the same point of view. 'I'/me/we refers to this point of view. There is no experience as a flower, there is only experience of a flower. There is only ever an experience as the awareness from this point of view of everything else. So, although in reality itself, everything may be one, the experience of reality is always as something, 'I', of itself and of everything else. 'I' refers to that consistent, unique, localised experience of reality.

Be well..

It certainly seems experience is individualized and of a common universe and it transpires through the awareness of thoughts.

To say there is an entity which experiences is a bit obscure because where is the limit of self definition?

One can say form is subjective and I agree, but then it is infinitely defined in relation to all things and exists on subtler and subtler levels of relationship, and ones state of being defines the state of that relationship thus the state of form.

This absolute subjectivity is also an absolute surity because of the nature of infinity, one distinction is a dual comparison... and emptiness, for no thing and one thought and the interactive duality is not a differentiation.

It still is the awareness of a thought though.

Originally Posted by Gem

It certainly seems experience is individualized and of a common universe and it transpires through the awareness of thoughts.

To say there is an entity which experiences is a bit obscure because where is the limit of self definition?
The identity that distinguishes its perspective from other perspectives sets its limites of understanding..

One can say form is subjective and I agree, but then it is infinitely defined in relation to all things and exists on subtler and subtler levels of relationship, and ones state of being defines the state of that relationship thus the state of form.
Yes, the range of potential is infinite..

This absolute subjectivity is also an absolute surity because of the nature of infinity, one distinction is a dual comparison... and emptiness, for no thing and one thought and the interactive duality is not a differentiation.
Neither the thought, nor that which is thinking, nor that which is revealed through thought, is absolute.. even as you describe it, it is relative and dynamic, and there is no boundary between subjectivity and not..

It still is the awareness of a thought though.

Thanks for the clarity in your response.. this is very subtle stuff..

Be well..

Greetings..

It occurs to me, as people compare interpretations of 'words', that 'ISness' might offer some rest from the misinterpretations.. often, as we describe and compare what a word or phrase means to us, we begin to find common understandings.. sometimes, as in the word 'detachment', i listen to my understanding and compare it to others, then.. i see that we are differing more in the feeling about the word than the understanding..

What i am suggesting, as an exploratory exercise, is, that we ask the poster what their understanding of a word or phrase 'is'.. ask the poster to try to suspend their feelings about the word or phrase, and describe the 'isness' of the subject that we 'feel' compelled to comment about or criticize, or even compliment.. i have been lurking for a while, just watching and occasionally instigating some lively dialogue.. i have noticed that often 'words and phrases' used by one poster, then commented or criticized by another poster, inspires a defensive mechanism by the original poster, and.. that defensiveness interferes with open and honest exploration of the subject..

I don't want to start another discussion on 'detachment', but as an example we might ask another poster, "Would you mind completing the sentence: Detachment is ___________ "? this way, we might find that the 'isness' of someone's understanding is much more coherent with our own understandings than a 'word' or phrase implies..

Anyway, it seems like a worthwhile experiment or exercize..

Be well..

[Lynn]

Hello


Detachement is the way I walk through this life, not in the cold way that may sound but in the way I can embrace I have ( for the most part ) left personal judgement calls behind.



Lynn

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

Greetings..

It occurs to me, as people compare interpretations of 'words', that 'ISness' might offer some rest from the misinterpretations.. often, as we describe and compare what a word or phrase means to us, we begin to find common understandings.. sometimes, as in the word 'detachment', i listen to my understanding and compare it to others, then.. i see that we are differing more in the feeling about the word than the understanding..

What i am suggesting, as an exploratory exercise, is, that we ask the poster what their understanding of a word or phrase 'is'.. ask the poster to try to suspend their feelings about the word or phrase, and describe the 'isness' of the subject that we 'feel' compelled to comment about or criticize, or even compliment.. i have been lurking for a while, just watching and occasionally instigating some lively dialogue.. i have noticed that often 'words and phrases' used by one poster, then commented or criticized by another poster, inspires a defensive mechanism by the original poster, and.. that defensiveness interferes with open and honest exploration of the subject..

I don't want to start another discussion on 'detachment', but as an example we might ask another poster, "Would you mind completing the sentence: Detachment is ___________ "? this way, we might find that the 'isness' of someone's understanding is much more coherent with our own understandings than a 'word' or phrase implies..

Anyway, it seems like a worthwhile experiment or exercize..

Be well..

Detachment is a tricky word and one that I dont often use because it seems to mean many different things to different people. When it comes to describing the nature of 'peace', I tend to use the word 'non-attachment'.

I might advocate a detaching from our beliefs about Life but not detaching from Life itself. Having said that I think I understand what Lynn said above, and resonate with it, which just goes to show its a tricky word

Peace is....

Edit: I just saw Phroggy's avatar and words at the top of the page and for a brief moment I thought he was posting again. I miss that Phrog. If you happen to be reading this Phroggy, thanks again for the role you played here.

[chadley]

The moment I start to describe "isness" I just isn'tness no mow.

Can you pimp my isntness, mofo?