|
Post by Beingist on Jun 17, 2013 21:21:56 GMT -5
I'm not cherishing them for myself. I've only been saying all along that there is a need to seek before one can discover (or realize) that there's nothing to seek. You're making the assumption that I'm holding on to seeking, when, in fact, I'm speaking up for the right, nay the need, for any spiritual seeker to seek at all. Now, you echo E's sentiments that internal inquiry is 'misconceived'. Do you ever inquire within? Have you never asked yourself a question? So, Ramana instructed his students to ask themselves misconceived questions? You presume a lot, mister Iknoweverything. In your opinion does seeking need to be condoned to continue? No. But nor ought it be condemned, as it is around here. I don't know what you're asking, here. You speak of emptiness. Do you think internal inquiry means that one is doing so, because they're empty?
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 17, 2013 21:25:28 GMT -5
I'm not cherishing them for myself. I've only been saying all along that there is a need to seek before one can discover (or realize) that there's nothing to seek. You're making the assumption that I'm holding on to seeking, when, in fact, I'm speaking up for the right, nay the need, for any spiritual seeker to seek at all. Now, you echo E's sentiments that internal inquiry is 'misconceived'. Do you ever inquire within? Have you never asked yourself a question? So, Ramana instructed his students to ask themselves misconceived questions? You presume a lot, mister Iknoweverything. You've basically begun to shut down at this point it would seem. I'm not demonizing seeking or inquiry but I will point out how the questions are flawed so that they may fall away. Even you are stating here that the goal of the seeking is to realize there's nothing to seek. So again, I say you're gripping tightly to the seeking itself as a safety net. I'm quite sure you recognize I nor anyone else has any ability to infringe upon your right to ask yourself questions to your hearts delight. No, you're not infringing on anyone's rights, but you and others appear to be making the attempt to shame a seeker into no longer seeking. This means that they must assume that you are correct, in whatever it is that you prevent them from seeking. And, again, if the question is flawed, then why did Ramana instruct his seekers to ask it? Realizing that there's no need to ask it does not imply that the question is flawed.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 17, 2013 21:30:40 GMT -5
What was the question now? Did someone say something about questions?
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 17, 2013 21:30:48 GMT -5
You've basically begun to shut down at this point it would seem. I'm not demonizing seeking or inquiry but I will point out how the questions are flawed so that they may fall away. Even you are stating here that the goal of the seeking is to realize there's nothing to seek. So again, I say you're gripping tightly to the seeking itself as a safety net. I'm quite sure you recognize I nor anyone else has any ability to infringe upon your right to ask yourself questions to your hearts delight. No, you're not infringing on anyone's rights, but y ou and others appear to be making the attempt to shame a seeker into no longer seeking. This means that they must assume that you are correct, in whatever it is that you prevent them from seeking. And, again, if the question is flawed, then why did Ramana instruct his seekers to ask it? Realizing that there's no need to ask it does not imply that the question is flawed. What behavior of others is eliciting a feeling of shame?
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 17, 2013 21:35:04 GMT -5
No, you're not infringing on anyone's rights, but y ou and others appear to be making the attempt to shame a seeker into no longer seeking. This means that they must assume that you are correct, in whatever it is that you prevent them from seeking. And, again, if the question is flawed, then why did Ramana instruct his seekers to ask it? Realizing that there's no need to ask it does not imply that the question is flawed. What behavior of others is eliciting a feeling of shame? Your question is misconceived, Top.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jun 17, 2013 21:53:27 GMT -5
In your opinion does seeking need to be condoned to continue? No. But nor ought it be condemned, as it is around here. I don't know what you're asking, here. You speak of emptiness. Do you think internal inquiry means that one is doing so, because they're empty? It is actually condoned as a way of searching, but the woweezowee is to watch the search ultimately fail. That often happens when someone just realizes the futility of grasping and/or, in your case in this discussion, the sanctifying of that grasping. It seems the inquiry goes on and on and on until It realizes the futility of seeking an answer which is not already present (prior to the question). That is, mind, by its very nature, creates an assumed separation from which all else is also assumed. In your case, you think the assumed separate self should be free to assume away and be able to do what it wants (but the separate self ain't actually doing anything, nor does it 'actually' exist. It's just an appearance that is happening, but your assumed separate self assumes other assumed separate selves need to be stuck up for, to be championed, to be condoned so they continue their search. Here, there's no doubt (i.e., there's a certainty) that all will happen as is perfectly so, but the mind will usually find a reason and a doubt. The full on woweezowee realization of the futility of searching with the mind leaves the mind winged, baffled and secondary, at best, and thinking itself an object/movement in awareness. You're all the way back, and it is all out front.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 17, 2013 21:54:04 GMT -5
What behavior of others is eliciting a feeling of shame? Your question is misconceived, Top. Then help clarify what you're seeing as shaming.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jun 17, 2013 21:56:04 GMT -5
You've basically begun to shut down at this point it would seem. I'm not demonizing seeking or inquiry but I will point out how the questions are flawed so that they may fall away. Even you are stating here that the goal of the seeking is to realize there's nothing to seek. So again, I say you're gripping tightly to the seeking itself as a safety net. I'm quite sure you recognize I nor anyone else has any ability to infringe upon your right to ask yourself questions to your hearts delight. No, you're not infringing on anyone's rights, but you and others appear to be making the attempt to shame a seeker into no longer seeking. This means that they must assume that you are correct, in whatever it is that you prevent them from seeking. And, again, if the question is flawed, then why did Ramana instruct his seekers to ask it? Realizing that there's no need to ask it does not imply that the question is flawed. He was running them off the cliff. Hard to turn back at some point. I reckon you're past it; might as well get'er over with! hehe
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 17, 2013 22:00:00 GMT -5
No. But nor ought it be condemned, as it is around here. I don't know what you're asking, here. You speak of emptiness. Do you think internal inquiry means that one is doing so, because they're empty? It is actually condoned as a way of searching, but the woweezowee is to watch the search ultimately fail. That often happens when someone just realizes the futility of grasping and/or, in your case in this discussion, the sanctifying of that grasping. It seems the inquiry goes on and on and on until It realizes the futility of seeking an answer which is not already present (prior to the question). That is, mind, by its very nature, creates an assumed separation from which all else is also assumed. In your case, you think the assumed separate self should be free to assume away and be able to do what it wants (but the separate self ain't actually doing anything, nor does it 'actually' exist. It's just an appearance that is happening, but your assumed separate self assumes other assumed separate selves need to be stuck up for, to be championed, to be condoned so they continue their search. There's no doubt (i.e., there's a certainty) that all will happen as is perfectly so, but the mind will usually find a reason and a doubt. The full on woweezowee realization of the futility of searching with the mind leaves the mind winged, baffled and secondary, at best, and thinking itself an object/movement in awareness. You're all the way back, and it is all out front. Um. No. I think you're reading a lot into what I'm saying, sN. I'm not condoning seeking. I'm condemning those who would shame the seeker into not seeking by trying to convince them that their search is 'misconceived'.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 17, 2013 22:00:59 GMT -5
Your question is misconceived, Top. Then help clarify what you're seeing as shaming. Your search for an answer is misconceived, top.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jun 17, 2013 22:14:49 GMT -5
It is actually condoned as a way of searching, but the woweezowee is to watch the search ultimately fail. That often happens when someone just realizes the futility of grasping and/or, in your case in this discussion, the sanctifying of that grasping. It seems the inquiry goes on and on and on until It realizes the futility of seeking an answer which is not already present (prior to the question). That is, mind, by its very nature, creates an assumed separation from which all else is also assumed. In your case, you think the assumed separate self should be free to assume away and be able to do what it wants (but the separate self ain't actually doing anything, nor does it 'actually' exist. It's just an appearance that is happening, but your assumed separate self assumes other assumed separate selves need to be stuck up for, to be championed, to be condoned so they continue their search. There's no doubt (i.e., there's a certainty) that all will happen as is perfectly so, but the mind will usually find a reason and a doubt. The full on woweezowee realization of the futility of searching with the mind leaves the mind winged, baffled and secondary, at best, and thinking itself an object/movement in awareness. You're all the way back, and it is all out front. Um. No. I think you're reading a lot into what I'm saying, sN. I'm not condoning seeking. I'm condemning those who would shame the seeker into not seeking by trying to convince them that their search is 'misconceived'. OK, what is a better word for something that is based on a falsely acknowledged presupposition (i.e., 'misconceived')? What could possibly be true if there is nothing from which to gauge it? When it gets down to the nitty gritty, which is likely on a message board of this nature, what line are you going to draw with your words, which are dual in nature. Do you go with, "Let it all ride, come what may" (and don't deceive yourself here...let it ALL ride), or "It's necessary to take sides for the betterment of the quality of argument". At one point, in some previous conversation, you seemed very willing and interested in watching/helping the boat sink, but now you want to see it kept afloat. Take a look around; this is a vast ocean of no answers. Even if there is some beacon, some vestige of hope to hold on to, the ocean is no less vast. Deal with it.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 17, 2013 22:18:52 GMT -5
Um. No. I think you're reading a lot into what I'm saying, sN. I'm not condoning seeking. I'm condemning those who would shame the seeker into not seeking by trying to convince them that their search is 'misconceived'. OK, what is a better word for something that is based on a falsely acknowledged presupposition (i.e., 'misconceived')? What could possibly be true if there is nothing from which to gauge it? When it gets down to the nitty gritty, which is likely on a message board of this nature, what line are you going to draw with your words, which are dual in nature. Do you go with, "Let it all ride, come what may" (and don't deceive yourself here...let it ALL ride), or "It's necessary to take sides for the betterment of the quality of argument". At one point, in some previous conversation, you seemed very willing and interested in watching/helping the boat sink, but now you want to see it kept afloat. Take a look around; this is a vast ocean of no answers. Even if there is some beacon, some vestige of hope to hold on to, the ocean is no less vast. Deal with it. You're just not gettin' it, sN. No shame in that, though. I appreciate your response. Would you be surprised if I told you that I AM 'letting it ALL ride'?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 17, 2013 22:21:07 GMT -5
I don't know how else pointing out that your questions are misconceived becomes dismissal to you unless the seeking itself is being cherished and held onto. I'm not cherishing them for myself. I've only been saying all along that there is a need to seek before one can discover (or realize) that there's nothing to seek. You're making the assumption that I'm holding on to seeking, when, in fact, I'm speaking up for the right, nay the need, for any spiritual seeker to seek at all. Now, you echo E's sentiments that internal inquiry is 'misconceived'. Do you ever inquire within? Have you never asked yourself a question? So, Ramana instructed his students to ask themselves misconceived questions? You presume a lot, mister Iknoweverything. Well do you think that Ramana ever expected his students to find an answer to the question? There might be a tough-guy act goin' on but calling the question misconceived is actually a show of compassion in a way. The way I'd express it is that the question was never meant to be answered collectively, with finality for once and for all, but to be asked individually for as long as there are people to ask it.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jun 17, 2013 22:25:59 GMT -5
OK, what is a better word for something that is based on a falsely acknowledged presupposition (i.e., 'misconceived')? What could possibly be true if there is nothing from which to gauge it? When it gets down to the nitty gritty, which is likely on a message board of this nature, what line are you going to draw with your words, which are dual in nature. Do you go with, "Let it all ride, come what may" (and don't deceive yourself here...let it ALL ride), or "It's necessary to take sides for the betterment of the quality of argument". At one point, in some previous conversation, you seemed very willing and interested in watching/helping the boat sink, but now you want to see it kept afloat. Take a look around; this is a vast ocean of no answers. Even if there is some beacon, some vestige of hope to hold on to, the ocean is no less vast. Deal with it. You're just not gettin' it, sN. No shame in that, though. I appreciate your response. Would you be surprised if I told you that I AM 'letting it ALL ride'? Good. Then what are you imagining?
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 17, 2013 22:31:02 GMT -5
You're just not gettin' it, sN. No shame in that, though. I appreciate your response. Would you be surprised if I told you that I AM 'letting it ALL ride'? Good. Then what are you imagining? Your question is misconceived, sN. (Or, I don't understand what you're asking--perhaps I misconstrued what you meant by 'letting it ALL ride').
|
|