|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 18, 2013 5:25:15 GMT -5
Greetings..
The difference, between questioning and curiosity, is important.. the question is 'about something', curiosity is 'about everything and nothing'.. it's amazing what can be seen/experienced when we're not looking 'for something'..
Be well..
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 18, 2013 7:29:20 GMT -5
There's a problem right there then, you have not yet apprehended the nature of ideas/things. You assume that there necessarily IS something 'prior', or 'beyond', and this assumption is still in the realm of ideas/things. You might then say 'well, its all imaginary', but this too assumes a prior imaginer. As a pointer it may have some value, but its B.S really. And because you assume that there necessarily is some 'ultimate' at which no ideas are true, you look at ideas/things and posit 'context' (or 'structure') in an objective way that enables you to say that something ' really is true' within the realm of ideas. Its a crock. Andrew, you seem really invested in making Enigma wrong. Is it not obvious that because an idea/thing can be absent while awareness remains that your own awareness is more fundamental and prior to ideas/things?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 18, 2013 8:36:52 GMT -5
There's a problem right there then, you have not yet apprehended the nature of ideas/things. You assume that there necessarily IS something 'prior', or 'beyond', and this assumption is still in the realm of ideas/things. You might then say 'well, its all imaginary', but this too assumes a prior imaginer. As a pointer it may have some value, but its B.S really. And because you assume that there necessarily is some 'ultimate' at which no ideas are true, you look at ideas/things and posit 'context' (or 'structure') in an objective way that enables you to say that something ' really is true' within the realm of ideas. Its a crock. Andrew, you seem really invested in making Enigma wrong. Is it not obvious that because an idea/thing can be absent while awareness remains that your own awareness is more fundamental and prior to ideas/things? There's a hell of an assumption in there being believed to be true (and I'm not referring to the first one).
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 18, 2013 8:47:36 GMT -5
A more useful exploration may be to look inside at what YOU can know or not know, versus looking at others to see what is knowable. Can YOU know anything? If not, why keep exploring? Exploring happens. But the questions asked in that exploration are ... misconceived.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 18, 2013 8:49:18 GMT -5
Obviously, you guys just don't get it. I've already said a gazillion times that I don't know jack. But, that doesn't mean that there's no longer questions. But, according to E, that's some sort of wrong. Like he shoots you right out of the gate--your question is obviously misconceived. I'm likely to quote these words of his, the very next time he asks a question, himself. Payback time? In part, yes. In another way, it will serve to dish out to him the nonsense he dishes out, himself. Perhaps then, he will clarify or qualify his comments.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 18, 2013 8:51:32 GMT -5
Indeed, I can see that anyone asking a question around here (because it's 'misconceived'), or anyone even remotely resembling that of a 'seeker' is unwelcome here.
I get the hint.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2013 8:53:13 GMT -5
But the questions asked in that exploration are ... misconceived. B, it seems like you've taken the comments about the act of questioning personally or something? As I read it, no one's saying questions are bad or anything. They're what you do when you are curious to know more about something. To say a question is misconceived is just to say that they are no longer relevant. For example, maybe someone says: "What should I do to become enlightened?" It's a valid and natural question but I'm guessing you see all sorts of misconceptions going on. Are you thinking that there is a disdain for questioning?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2013 9:20:42 GMT -5
Indeed, I can see that anyone asking a question around here (because it's 'misconceived'), or anyone even remotely resembling that of a 'seeker' is unwelcome here. I get the hint. I like your approach, b. You're diligent. We're all explorers. There are no finished products. No beginning. No end. Movement.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 18, 2013 9:41:07 GMT -5
We could say that the "real you" is asking the question. We can observe the content (questions/thoughts) but not the context (observer/consciousness/awareness). We can't turn the "real me" into observable content-only stuff. There's always going to be something missing. Well, we could, but I don't. The 'real me' (i.e., what I am) doesn't ask questions. It just IS. The disagreement is the direct result of the imagined distinction created between the real me and the fake me. Once the distinction is made between formless and form, then certain attributes are assigned to each arbitrarily according to perspective. 'We could say' since there is only you, you obviously are asking the questions, or since you are not form, we could say what you are just is. We make all this up as we go along.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 18, 2013 9:55:51 GMT -5
B' FWIW I still practice and I don't take what you're referring to as dismissal these days. The question will be there until it ain't and there's no shame in it either way ... even say, in the case of someone denying and suppressing the question when it's still there. It's not a question of betterer or worstest but maybe a question of trust. Agreed, no shame either way, which is why it is appalling that some around here make attempts to shame anyone who has a question. Seriously, it makes me wonder if it would be best to bail from this place. Your last sentence, I simply don't understand. Trust? Whom to trust? ... at the risk of getting flak for asking the question, of course. Shame on you for thinking somebody did that.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 18, 2013 10:15:23 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. Now seeking is being outright condemned here? You're letting your imagination run away with you.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jun 18, 2013 10:20:49 GMT -5
No. But nor ought it be condemned, as it is around here. Now seeking is being outright condemned here? You're letting your imagination run away with you. There is a bit of truth to that. It's not always easy to take what rezzes and ignore the rest - because there's so much of 'the rest'. Like looking for a needle in a haystack - or OJ's knife in a landfill type-o-thing - not pleasant, in any event...so put on your haz-mat gear...
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 18, 2013 10:22:30 GMT -5
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 topology on Jun 18, 2013 10:25:28 GMT -5
Andrew, you seem really invested in making Enigma wrong. Is it not obvious that because an idea/thing can be absent while awareness remains that your own awareness is more fundamental and prior to ideas/things? There's a hell of an assumption in there being believed to be true (and I'm not referring to the first one). What's the assumption you see?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 18, 2013 10:26:04 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'. To notice that the questions are misconceived is to unknow. This is the goal of the seeking.
|
|