‘the golden rule’ ~ of everything; duality does not exist!

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

How so 1, 2, 7 and 8?

Well, they're intentional.

Chris

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Well, they're intentional.

Chris

OK but how are they doing?

s.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

“To seek Mind with the discriminating mind is the greatest of all mistakes.” - Sengcan: Trust in Mind.

False.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

OK but how are they doing?

s.

Anything intentional is active. Even if one's intention is to simply allow, the intention is still active.

Chris

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

False.

A succinct rebuttal.

s.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Anything intentional is active. Even if one's intention is to simply allow, the intention is still active.

Chris

If these are doing, then all is doing.

s.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

A succinct rebuttal.

s.

Without the chatter of a monkey.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

If these are doing, then all is doing.

s.

Well, I dunno. Tell me what you think.

I was thinking that one has to float all eight boats at once. In that sense the really active things like right livelihood have to keep up with the more contemplative things. Or something...

Chris

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Well, I dunno. Tell me what you think. I was thinking that one has to float all eight boats at once.

Yes I agree; “path” is a bit of a misnomer in that the factors are not generally meant to be sequential. I say “generally” because Right View has to arise first of all because without this the others cannot / will not arise (Right View being the acceptance - in the heart – of the Four Noble Truths).

In that sense the really active things like right livelihood have to keep up with the more contemplative things.

So OK, yes... keep up…not sequential. I took “doing” to mean activity, in the physical sense; hence my original comment. Maybe I was just being a bit more simplistic in my distinction; the other factors being the “more contemplative” (i.e. not involving activity) rather than the “really active” ones, to use your terms. Maybe your non-dual confused my dual.

s.

[China Cat Sunflower]

You say potato...

Chris

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

You say potato...

Chris

No I say crisps

s.

[_Z_]

oh i got replies but no email notification again ~ sorry i havent replied.

i have read through all your replies, so apart from subjective and holistic views and perceptions, are we all in agreement that duality doesn’t actually exist?

what does this mean for buddhists [nirvana must be part of a universal whole]?
what for abrahamics [ god/satan, heaven/hell, must be part of a universal whole?
for science [everything belongs to a whole inc eternity, infinity, mind {and ‘life’?}]?

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by _Z_

apart from subjective and holistic views and perceptions, are we all in agreement that duality doesn’t actually exist?

So to paraphrase...are you saying: apart from those who don't agree, are we all in agreement?

If so, I think the answer must be a resounding yes!

s.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

So to paraphrase...are you saying: apart from those who don't agree, are we all in agreement?

If so, I think the answer must be a resounding yes!

s.

I was wondering, is it called selective reading?

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by wil

I ring, call elective din?

Probably

s.