AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:10 am
Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 03, 2021 9:41 am
By the way, you appear to be MISUNDERSTANDING what I am meaning.
I think the misunderstanding is bidirectional - seems to be a common thread in most of your communications with "us human beings"
Some people accuse me of not understanding them, sometimes, however, if examples are not given, then we can NOT look at NOR discuss what the actual "accusation" is of, EXACTLY.
AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:10 am
Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 03, 2021 9:41 am
And, AGAIN, WHY do 'you', human beings, BELIEVE ANY 'thing'?
And, again, "belief" is just a word, like "perspective" is just a word
What do you mean by, "just a word"?
Do words have meaning/s? Are words given meaning/s, by 'you', human beings?
AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:10 am
- both point to a conceptual framework that is, at least for some time, considered to be true and correct. Thats all.
So, when 'you' use the words, "I believe ...", then do 'you', at that moment, BELIEVE 'that thing' to be true or correct, or not?
Also your use of the "at least for some time" is the VERY REASON WHY I used the word 'whilst' in my CLAIM that 'whilst 'you' are BELIEVING some 'thing' to be true, then 'you' are NOT Truly OPEN to ANY thing opposing NOR contrary to that 'thing'.
Really, is there ANY thing that 'you' are 'trying to' dispute or refute in what I have just said, and meant, here?
AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:10 am
There is no need to get all worked up about the apparent difference between belief and perspective
I have NEVER got "all worked up" about even the actual difference between belief and perspective let alone EVER getting "all worked up" about the "apparent difference" between those two words.
The FACT IS there is a difference. End of story.
AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:10 am
- condemning one and accepting the other is just a play with words
I have NEVER "condemned" one. I ACCEPT them BOTH for how they are defined and what they ACTUALLY mean.
AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:10 am
(and a sad attempt of justifying your own, made up belief of: "I don't believe anything")
Take about "one attempting to justify their own BELIEF" here.
And, I do NOT have a BELIEF that I believe anything.
I just NEITHER believe NOR disbelieve ANY thing. Again, this is just a FACT, which can NOT be refuted.
Is it really that HARD for 'you' to contemplate and consider that just maybe NOT ALL BELIEVE things.
Is it really IMPOSSIBLE for you to consider that one does NOT 'have to' BELIEVE things?
AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:10 am
Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 03, 2021 9:41 am
Does *no wind on skin* have an opposite?
You asking this questions makes it perfectly clear that you have not understood what has been said...
Could it have been asked in ANY other way?
AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:10 am
Is it so hard to see that every experience, wind or no wind on skin, is perfectly unique and without opposite?
Is it so hard to see that what 'you' ARE is SOLELY due to the FACT that EVERY experience that that body has experienced is what has caused and CREATED 'you'? Thus, this is WHY 'you' are an unique and individual person?
AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:10 am
Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 03, 2021 9:41 am
Also, if you just expressed what is "always absolutely true" through and with and by 'conceptual language', then HOW and WHY do you express that 'conceptual language' can NEVER express 'absolute truths'?
Isn't it obvious that no conceptual description of the directly experienced *wind on skin* can ever be equally true/real than actual reality itself?
But NOTHING can be equally true/real with SOME 'thing' nor with ANY 'thing' else. The word 'else' here makes this VERY CLEAR and OBVIOUS. That is; if there is SOME 'thing' or ANY 'thing' 'else', then that are NOT the SAME 'thing', and therefore could NEVER be equally true NOR real.
However, in expressing this CLEARLY OBVIOUS FACT a 'conceptual description' is as close as one can get, and, in fact, IS the ONLY True and REAL way to CLEARLY EXPRESS ANY and EVERY experience, on the body.
Conceptual descriptions, by the way, can and does CLEARLY EXPRESS thee ACTUAL Truth of things.
AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:10 am
What one directly experiences is actually real, while any "conceptual interpretation" of an experience is only a pointer to a certain part of this directly experienced reality.
OF COURSE, WHY would 'you' even think otherwise?
A 'conceptual interpretation' can also express thee ACTUAL Truth of things.
Also, are 'you' able to express CLEARLY who and/or what this 'one' here IS that supposedly 'directly experiences', which 'you' are referring to?
AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:10 am
The concept is an abstraction, the experience is reality itself - now please tell me: How could an abstraction ever be absolutely true?
How an 'abstraction' could ever be and IS ALWAYS absolutely true is when the abstraction is expressing an absolute Truth.
If one is NOT lying AT ALL, and is therefore EXPRESS thee Truth, thee WHOLE Truth, and NOTHING but thee Truth, then how could 'that', which is being expressed, by ANY thing other than thee 'absolutely true'?
AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:10 am
It actually cannot be true/real - simply because only reality is real (which is the same as: absolutely true).
Here is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of BELIEF at work.
You ask "another" to tell you, HOW something could happen/take place, but you go straight into "it can NOT even happen/take place' NEVER response, without EVER listening to "another" let alone even give the "other" a chance to talk. Which CLEARLY SHOWS 'your' OWN strongly held onto and maintained BELIEF, which CLEARLY STOPS 'you' from being able to learn and SEE more nor anew, or even thee ACTUAL Truth of things, here.
But what 'you' are doing here is PROVING what I have been saying and CLAIMING. So, thank you.
AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:10 am
A quick formula to simplify things:
Direct experience = Reality = Absolute Truth
Conceptual thought = Abstraction/Interpretation = Relative Truth
If you say and BELIEVE so, then this is what and how 'things' are, to you.
Also, and remember, that EVERY thing you say is NOT ACTUALLY True but is rather just a 'relative truth', to 'you' ONLY.
AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:10 am
The absolute is primary, the relative is a thought up dimension existing within the absolute (the relative cannot exist on its own - is as such not real -, while the absolute does not require the relative)
Any attempt to define absolute truth within the relative is deemed to fail as the "framework" itself is only a relativistic abstraction of reality, but not reality itself.
Have 'you' FORGOTTEN ALREADY that 'we' HAVE ALREADY AGREED on this?
LOOK, what I am saying, and MEANING, will NEVER be understood by 'you', whilst 'you' continue to ASSUME and BELIEVE the things that you are here. Which, MOST OF, has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with what I have been saying, AND MEANING.
AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:10 am
I will try to also explain in a slightly different way:
What is 'it', EXACTLY, which you think or believe I DO NOT UNDERSTAND?
AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:10 am
When people talk about "infinity" they often think about it as a very, very large number, even in mathematics certain functions f(x) are defined with the limit of f, as x approaches infinity, being a certain number L.
Now, while this seems to "work" in mathematics and people are happy to think of infinity as a really huge number, both interpretations are actually quite inaccurate.
OF COURSE, 'infinite', by definition, is INFINITE, which MEANS NO number NOR NO amount NO matter how "huge", nor "small".
AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:10 am
Why? Simply because infinity is not a very large number, it is no number at all.
You have gone SO FAR OFF TRACK now.
MANY people say MANY different things, but SO WHAT?
AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:10 am
If at all, one could state that zero (no number at all) = infinity
Its the same with conceptual interpretations and reality itself - no matter how "accurate" the description might be (how huge the number), it will never reach or even be infinity. Reality = no interpretation at all (just like infinity = zero (no number at all))
THEREFORE, YOUR INTERPRETATION here IS NOT, and WILL NEVER BE, REAL NOR True either, CORRECT?
Your Truly Honest answer WILL BE MUCH APPRECIATED.
AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:10 am
This is also why in Advaita ("Brahman" alone is ultimately real, the phenomenal world is an illusory appearance - maya - of Brahman) or Non-Duality the phrase "not two" is used (instead of ONE) - it points to the idea that one can only state what reality is not, but never what reality actually is (it is not two, but also not one, neither yellow nor not yellow, neither long nor short etc etc...)
BUT, there is EVER ONLY One, which is "separated" ONLY by 'you', which is just 'conceptual thoughts'.
Truth, and Reality, REALLY is this SIMPLE and this EASY to UNDERSTAND, FULLY.
AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:10 am
Huang-Po (Zen master, died 850 AD) once said (who expressed this very well):
But NOT "well enough" to reach thee Truth of things correct?
If yes, therefore what that one expressed is NOT thee ACTUAL Truth of things. So, it does NOT matter how well or how bad 'you', human beings, express things, they will ALWAYS NEVER be thee ACTUAL Truth of things.
So, WHY are 'you' ALL wasting your time here 'trying' to tell each "other" what the truth is?
AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:10 am
Buddhas and sentient beings both grow out of One Mind, and there is no other reality than this Mind. It has been in existence since the beginningless past; it knows neither birth nor death; it is neither blue nor yellow; it has neither shape nor form; it is beyond the category of being and non-being; it is not to be measured by age, old or new; it is neither long nor short; it is neither large nor small; for it transcends all limits, words, traces, and opposites. It must be taken just as it is in itself; when an attempt is made on our part to grasp it in our thoughts, it eludes. It is like space whose boundaries are altogether beyond measurement; no concepts are applicable here.
This is OBVIOUSLY NOT True AT ALL, and thus False, well according to 'your' OWN relative truth and "logic" that is.