tsuki

What is the difference between arguing and sharing?

@Rilles @MarkusSweden @Nahm It is not an argument! It is the forum doing its self-inquiry! Asking itself: what am I?

Well, if it seems like arguing to you then at least I'm constructively answering the original question. It would be a disaster if this thread got derailed now, wouldn't it? Or are these the rules of Zen monastery that you so desperately try to obey? Perhaps this place is simply a hoax to lure in stupid people so that they become enlightened by observing their own stupidity? I have nothing to teach. I am asking questions to deepen my ignorance. I actually hope that you will teach me what is the difference between argument and sharing. We're doing wonderful I think.

I swear, like a second ago you said yourself that the teaching that you already know is useless. What we are doing here is practice. What do you think is the point of a forum about enlightenment? Why are you wasting your time here? Telling everybody what enlightenment is, or isn't. Maybe you were an unstoppable force trying to find an immovable object? To practice with?

Let me try to put it this way: Everything is an interpretation. I am your interpretation. The whole 100% me. Even if you saw me in flesh, I would still be 100% your interpretation. There is no difference between me and you. I am you. Ring any bells? Enlightenment? Nonduality?

Boom, and you're back. I'm sorry man. Good luck! That's predicated on your notion of what enlightenment is. See the self-reference? You reject what does not fit your agenda. It's okay.

Nothing! I was playing a mirror for you so that you know yourself! This it the illusion of time/cause and effect @Faceless always talks about!

What I was trying to say is that it is inherently impossible to use interpretation for any benefit. To use is to evaluate. Interpretation is an evaluation. To use an interpretation is to evaluate evaluation. That is an evaluation in itself. It is an illusion of control to say that one can choose how to interpret things. There is no meta-morality to defer the evaluation to, as the meta-morality is a matter of amoral choice that does not depend on reason (evaluation). The link that I posted referred to the second paragraph where you proposed difficulty in communication because of written language. It is not any more difficult. The idea is critiqued by Derrida and the link contains it. Not that I'm pointing any errors in your post though. It's up to you what you do with the knowledge I directed you towards.

It does. You are always arguing and measuring yourself when you miss the fact that you interpret other people's behavior.

That is precisely what I'm trying to say.

Is it then fair to say that you are always arguing with yourself when you argue with other people? That you miss the point that you always respond to your own interpretation of other people's words? This is self-reference at its prime. You are not talking to me, but to an image of me that you formed. There is no inherent, transmittable meaning in my words. You make the meaning up as you read these words. To say that you are arguing about anything, or that you measure other people's enlightenment is an absurdity. You are always the other people. Just as there is no me. There is a monitor, pixels and breath. You made me up.

And what is thought, exactly? @Truth I'll get back to you bro, just hang on .

Tell me then. I would very much like to know, as I don't know myself . Isn't it the root cause of your distress about other people lying though? That you think that you know what enlightenment is? That you measure other people's enlightenment through your personal interpretation of it? Isn't that what all arguments are about? Trying to establish definitions? That my cake is better because it has strawberries?

@Truth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonocentrism To control your own interpretation you have to interpret it. How do you interpret interpretation of interpretation? Can you control that? What are qualities of a good interpretation of an interpretation? @Outer So - your choice of enlightened masters is dependent on your understanding of what enlightenment is? You seek enlightenment because you don't know what it is and yet - you predicate your path on your lacking understanding?

@Outer And why an enlightened master would want to prove his enlightenment to you? Would you tell a Zen master to waltz into an fmri scanner for you? I think that you're being unreasonable. How many enlightened masters have done that?

And what if they actually are as enlightened as they think? Do you think that you are capable of recognizing an enlightened master? Isn't that an expression of your assumption that you are wiser than others?

@Outer How do you expect to put people on a path you don't understand? Not only you are trying to be wiser than others, but you also think that you outsmarted yourself. Isn't that a bit narcissistic?

Bingo.

That's how they fuck with you. They teach you where following the rules of society will lead you if you try to consistently follow them. They will have all sorts of absurd rules for you to follow and expect you to show them your true self while doing it. That is the point of zen. It's a joke you make of yourself while trying to become enlightened. Is actualized.org a zen monastery? What are the useful truths of a zen monastery?

Am I fucking around? Are you fucking around by not seeing me fucking around? Have you ever read any Zen koans? Zen masters are the ones that fuck around the most. Zen monastery is a place of seclusion of outcasts. It's a black hole of society. They outcast the so-called 'normal' people that may see through them.

All things are obvious as long as you're not looking hard enough. Even obviousness is obvious. Have you ever asked yourself what it means for something to be obvious? That thing runs deep into the root cause of arguments and Ego.

@Outer So - it is a matter of consensus to establish usability of a 'physical' truth. A person that does not follow the consensus is then ostracized to the point of exclusion and the consensus upholds itself indefinitely. Looks like science, doesn't it? How do you invalidate paradigms in this environment where everybody looks at everybody else? Society is a balanced ecosystem that incorporates outcasts. Do not outcast the outcasts.

The use of abstract spiritual terms lies first and foremost in their ability to make you look into yourself to find their meaning. Whatever you read from abstract spiritual terms is your projection upon them. They are a mirror.

@Outer Do lying imply malicious intent so that it requires 'calling out'? Even if somebody speaks invalid useful truth intentionally, they do that because of their own spiritual truth. There are people out there that ask questions to make people reflect on themselves.

How do you distinguish between saturation of the message and your interpretation of it that is dependent on your own ego doing its own thing? It is entirely possible to misinterpret two people sharing with each other and see it as an argument. To say that two people argue is to introduce the argument between them. To argue whether they argue or not.