'ISness"

Originally Posted by hybrid

and by a single twitch of our awareness, all appears again. gosh, it must be real slippery frictionless stuff.

Nice, Hybrid. Except it's not our awareness.

[hybrid]

Originally Posted by Portto

Nice, Hybrid. Except it's not our awareness.

well if it's nobody's or no-one's awareness its might just as well be everybody's or anybody's.

[quote]

Originally Posted by hybrid

when porto asked who is watching the play? andrew said there is something "prior". which to me is meaningful to say. and as you said somewhere else here, the problem arise when the question of who is watching the play is answered definitively, meaning to say the definitive answer becomes a part of the play.

Very insightful response.
I also talk about something prior, which is a good pointer away from mind/body identification, but what does it really mean? To talk about prior to creation is to say prior to the idea of separation/distinction, which means nothing is really being pointed to; nothing separate or distinct. If one were to actually find what is being pointed to, it couldn't possibly be it, and one cannot point to the pointing itself without putting a finger out of joint.

We can talk about source, oneness, beingness, isness, Self,
God, whatever, but are we saying something meaningful about 'it' or are we trying to say something meaningful about the (in)validity of our beliefs within the context of creation?

so the infinite regressing nature of the play ensure that the "stage" is tightly closed so as to make the play truly realistic. the same way a theater is sound proof and silence is maintained at all times as to avoid distraction and maintain the illusion of the undergoing drama on stage.


to me this is an incomplete description of what's going on. there is a reality beyond the play. it's not outside as you have said and it was prior according to andrew. and porto is right on spot to imply that there must be a watcher of the play.

So how do you know there is a watcher of the play unless you can see the play being watched? You are aware that there is an audience to the play, and so the audience must also be part of the play. At this point we can say there is 'something' prior to the audience, but again have we said something meaningful?

i placed this thing that is pointed out - beneath or under- all the play and drama that is happening. this is what i refer to as the absolute truth, relative truth being on the surface. i see reality as a balloon-like movement. at the core is a singularity that expands outward in all direction.

imagine that two points in the surface of the balloon will move away from each other as the balloon expands. this is how separation and multiplicity happens. but at the core of the balloon, this two points are originally and of the same thing. the core is the stillness while the entire balloon is the ishness. awareness of the surface only see the relatively of all (the surface only) but the awareness of the core see the entire balloon.

It's a good analogy. Everything in the analogy has a correlate in the play. Now we know what 'absolute' and 'relative' and 'singularity' and 'multiplicity' mean, but we've succeeded only in defining the words we use in pointing beyond the play to a reality defined in illusory terms from within the play. It is not more real.

What makes reality more real than the play when it is devoid of any distinction at all 'by definition'? The definition of 'everything' unravels itself in the defining and nothing meaningful has been said.

As they say, how far down the rabbit hole to you wanna go? When it all collapses into here/now, just how flat does it all become? How close is it really? How immediate? How intimate? All the words would have us go somewhere, look somewhere, understand something. That which would go look is already the looking, and cannot see itself. What to do?

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

Hi Portto: What?? help me understand how speculation and ultimate truth are related in the manner used in the quote.. yes, Phroggy has made reference to no ultimate truth and he has made reference to ultimate Truth, which is your favor? when dealing in theoretical concepts, oneness or no-persons, both based on 'if/then' speculation, there is no accountability for 'inaccurate.. and, somehow, it becomes acceptable to say (and, i am paraphrasing with 'poetic license' for effect) "i said it, it can't be proven, there is no evidence, so it must be right".. similar to the "realize there are no persons and suffering ends" claim.. i am requesting a 'return to sanity', through something as simple as 'isness'.. where people are encouraged to 'see for themselves', to set up the conditions most likely to reveal what 'is' and just see 'it' as what 'it is'.. and, it is my experienced opinion that 'stillness' is the best condition for clarity to see 'what is', and i am open for sincere dialogue if there are contrary opinions regarding better conditions.. what is easily observable is the continual rhetoric and instructing of what is or isn't so, such that the result is similar to indoctrination and conditioning..

There's no ultimate truth, so everything we can say is speculation. If Phroggy mentioned both of those, then 'no ultimate' takes precedence. Without reference to anyone on the board, if someone tells me he's a liar and knows the truth, it's obvious what I go with.

Instead of truth/false or real/illusion, maybe it's better to talk about asleep/awake or unconscious/conscious. Phroggy almost exclusively talks about awakening from the dream.
Stillness is definitely an excellent approach, but we can't always go for it.

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

You are correct. So, why is it necessary to go on and on about it.. rather, help people get to the conditions that allow for the realization of those self-evident understandings.. that IS the issue, that people want to be the guru that 'tells it like it is', which ironically, robs the experiencer of their own 'authentic' realization.. if we can help people to the place where they discover these understandings for themselves, it becomes 'real' and i mean real as in self-evident.. but the myriads of explanations and descriptions and expectations and the "no, you're wrong"s just trivialize what would have been a realization of epic proportions, to a 'whatever' entry in mind's so-and-so told me that.. even when so-and-so is Buddha, Jesus, McKenna, Katie, Tolle, and JT, the pimp.. because the 'You' is always a guru, and the you is always being 'told'.. or, more simply, seeing IS believing..

You know there's no single answer. We could say that relative answers keep coming as long as questions are asked.

I wouldn't say that there is a 'watcher' (watcher implies an activity) of the play, I would say that the platform/stage on which the play is playing out is the stillness of Pure Awareness/Consciousness. The stillness is not the active component (movement) of the play, but it remains a silent and inseparable aspect of it.

[hybrid]

Originally Posted by Phroggy

Very insightful response.
I also talk about something prior, which is a good pointer away from mind/body identification, but what does it really mean? To talk about prior to creation is to say prior to the idea of separation/distinction, which means nothing is really being pointed to; nothing separate or distinct. If one were to actually find what is being pointed to, it couldn't possibly be it, and one cannot point to the pointing itself without putting a finger out of joint.

We can talk about source, oneness, beingness, isness, Self,
God, whatever, but are we saying something meaningful about 'it' or are we trying to say something meaningful about the (in)validity of our beliefs within the context of creation?



So how do you know there is a watcher of the play unless you can see the play being watched? You are aware that there is an audience to the play, and so the audience must also be part of the play. At this point we can say there is 'something' prior to the audience, but again have we said something meaningful?




It's a good analogy. Everything in the analogy has a correlate in the play. Now we know what 'absolute' and 'relative' and 'singularity' and 'multiplicity' mean, but we've succeeded only in defining the words we use in pointing beyond the play to a reality defined in illusory terms from within the play. It is not more real.

What makes reality more real than the play when it is devoid of any distinction at all 'by definition'? The definition of 'everything' unravels itself in the defining and nothing meaningful has been said.

As they say, how far down the rabbit hole to you wanna go? When it all collapses into here/now, just how flat does it all become? How close is it really? How immediate? How intimate? All the words would have us go somewhere, look somewhere, understand something. That which would go look is already the looking, and cannot see itself. What to do?

are you saying it is pointless to point away from the entire play because there is really nothing at all but the play.

if there is nothing else but the play, it is meaningless to say just the same.
all you have demonstrated is a firm grasp for the obvious and have spoken a lot of things without really saying anything.

and how do know that the meaning of - "there is nothing but this" is the same as "there is nothing but the play"? i dont think they are the same.

just because you cannot see yourself doesn't mean you don't exist.
you are just invisible,

.
.

hybrid... just because you cannot see yourself doesn't mean you don't exist.
you are just invisible,

That makes sense to me hybrid... also, if you're both invisible and motionless, that too doesn't mean that you're inexistent.

In other words, the stage that the play of Life plays out on is invisible and motionless, but it still exists.

Originally Posted by hybrid

are you saying it is pointless to point away from the entire play because there is really nothing at all but the play.

if there is nothing else but this, it is meaningless to say just the same.
all you have demonstrated is a firm grasp for the obvious and have spoken a lot of things with really saying anything.

.
.

It's not pointless to point away from the play. I'm saying what is being pointed to cannot be found, and the point is not to find it. There's no need to find what one already is, but there is a need to stop imagining one is something else.

Remember, before misidentification happened, there was no problem, right? So, what if it is seen for what it is? What if that whole structure collapses and one is left with nothing, as nothing, or as everything, which is the same? Is something more needed?

[

QUOTE=hybrid]
just because you cannot see yourself doesn't mean you don't exist.

I didn't mean to say anything about existence or nonexistence.

you are just invisible,

You mean like a ghosty or sumthin?!

[hybrid]

Originally Posted by Wind of Grace

That makes sense to me hybrid... also, if you're both invisible and motionless, that too doesn't mean that you're inexistent.

In other words, the stage that the play of Life plays out on is invisible and motionless, but it still exists.

yes of course, stillness refers to a "quality" of existence.

yes as a background, although i say it lies underneath to suggest that this background is bottomless. which is why you cannot say something absolute about it. and that's the absolute truth, hehe

.