What Is.

[hybrid]

Originally Posted by Gem

It depends if reality is used to define what is imaginary, and since each individual has a different experience one could say it is all imaginary, but because the creation of one thing results in the occurance of its contrast, what is just remains a balance of interdefinition.

The thing that people like to imagine is duality in contrast to oneness, but that is a distinction between states.

The rightousness is rearing it's clown head pretty quickly as the 'not true' and 'bulldust' appear in the face of what I'm saying, but what is presented by these sayers is a state of duality and a differing state beyond it.

I'm only saying there is a state of interbeing and it appears as interdefining things, and the whole shibang rests on a distinction which procures this differentiation.

Nondualism’s “false claim” argument challenges dualism’s claim to correctly represent reality. Dualism claims to be a view about how things really are, but when the view and its presuppositions are looked into, they are found not to be in accord with our experience. Our experience, say nondualists, is truly without borders, edges or separation. Therefore, the notion that the world is made up of divisions between self and other, good and bad, here and there, past and future, does not make sense. We only seem to experience these divisions. These divisions do not really exist, so we do not really experience them. Nondualism, it is argued, can correct the misinterpretation of our experience and restore our original wholeness. - g goode

[Gem]

Originally Posted by hybrid

Nondualism’s “false claim” argument challenges dualism’s claim to correctly represent reality. Dualism claims to be a view about how things really are, but when the view and its presuppositions are looked into, they are found not to be in accord with our experience. Our experience, say nondualists, is truly without borders, edges or separation. Therefore, the notion that the world is made up of divisions between self and other, good and bad, here and there, past and future, does not make sense. We only seem to experience these divisions. These divisions do not really exist, so we do not really experience them. Nondualism, it is argued, can correct the misinterpretation of our experience and restore our original wholeness. - g goode

There isn't any seperation involved at all... so I'm sticking to the JC thing where you make two into one.

From my perspective 'dualism' and 'non-dualism' are the same, so I can speak of distinction, interdefinition, and what just is without classifying it into conflicting states.

The ones who are 'not true' and 'bulldust' can create seperate conflicting states and pretend that's what I'm saying, but I didn't advocate any ideal did I?

[hybrid]

Originally Posted by Gem

No this is incorrect.

There isn't any seperation involved at all... so I'm sticking to the JC thing where you make two into one.

From my perspective 'dualism' and 'non-dualism' are the same, so I can speak of distinction, interdefinition, and what just is without classifying it into conflicting states.

well, you impress me as saying that oneness and multiplicity is a duality, so that duality represent what is and therefore t he fundamental state of reality. which to me is wrong. if this is not your stand then i apologized for my misunderstanding.

when two becomes one, this means that duality was borne out of oneness, so this is very different from the case above that oneness and multiplicity is duality.

yin and yang are not the complete description of what is, yin and yang are inscribed in a circle, the circle represent the underlying oneness reality from which yin yang exists.

The ones who are 'not true' and 'bulldust' can create seperate conflicting states and pretend that's what I'm saying, but I didn't advocate any ideal did I?

i don't know what you mean,
you mention this twice already.
it sounds like an insult to me.

.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by hybrid

well, you impress as saying that oneness and multiplicity is a duality, which to me is wrong. if this is not your stand then i apologize for my misunderstanding.

No, In previous posts I refuted the states of duality and the state beyond it.

when two becomes one, this means that duality was borne at of oneness, so this very different from the case above that oneness and multiplicity is duality.

Oneness is what I might call 'between' and remains constant.

yin and yang are not the complete description of what is, yin and yang are in a circle, the circle represent the underlying oneness reality from which yin yang exists.

Yin/yang are portrayed as opposite things, which isn't really accurate... and aren't removed from the circle itself... but I guess the yin/yang things are the expression of the circle, not two things and a circle. It's one mathematical principle... so totally dude... underlying oneness.

i don't know what you mean, it sounds like an insult to me.

.

Others said those things I quoted, but really it's just a refusal to understand.

[hybrid]

Originally Posted by Gem

No, In previous posts I refuted the states of duality and the state beyond it.



Oneness is what I might call 'between' and remains constant.



Yin/yang are portrayed as opposite things, which isn't really accurate... and aren't removed from the circle itself... but I guess the yin/yang things are the expression of the circle, not two things and a circle. It's one mathematical principle... so totally dude... underlying oneness.




Others said those things I quoted, but really it's just a refusal to understand.

okay i understand now.
not a bad take at all
we're clear hehe
.

[Gem]

At the primary level awareness is of a thought and a thought is a distinction 'between'.

Thought creates dual aspects of inner and/or outer space, the primary balance of a relative universe, which remains apparent as inner and outer experiences.

There is no structure prior to thought space but something is noticed as not thought, and IT's probably only noticable as 'not space.'

It can't be said this prior thingy is the sourse of thought, and wherest cometh thought is only a facet of a complete inability to differentiate between no thing, one thought and inner and outer facets.

The interesting thing is not the awareness of this thought, but the awareness of what lies prior to it, that which is prior to awareness itself, yet can only be realised by awareness.

One would be tempted to say I am that prior thingy, but I am not, I am not the emptiness of inner/outer space, I am not the universe which is seen and returns to emptiness, I'm like the nowhere man the Beatles sing about.

Too freaky?