Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2013 13:42:07 GMT -5
Here's a counter-quote calling into question virtual friend locations: ~David Foster Wallace <RIP -- perhaps he could've used more screen time??>I know if I had a like group of face-to-face folks to hang out with, I'd probably participate less here. But so far I haven't found such a group in this little town. Plus, there's something about the virtual enviro that allows for more candor. In the same way folks feel allowed to flip off into road rage with their little bubble of car around them. In some ways it's unfortunate; if articulated and reflected on, it can be useful (that's the theory anyhow). What's unfortunate? I'm thinking of how the little bit of anonymity a car affords or an avatar on a forum seems to break down all restraints in some cases. In the road rage example, sometimes this sort of thing escalates into actual physical violence. I bet it's extremely rare for someone to reflect on it. Same here at the forum -- there's often a lot of rage expressed but the recalcitrant ones rarely reflect on it. Folks witnessing it from afar can see the drama at play but not so much the participants. Sometimes, though, if there's an openness to reflect on how oneself reacted, some cool stuff can happen.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 28, 2013 13:46:45 GMT -5
Here's a counter-quote calling into question virtual friend locations: ~David Foster Wallace <RIP -- perhaps he could've used more screen time??>I know if I had a like group of face-to-face folks to hang out with, I'd probably participate less here. But so far I haven't found such a group in this little town. Plus, there's something about the virtual enviro that allows for more candor. In the same way folks feel allowed to flip off into road rage with their little bubble of car around them. In some ways it's unfortunate; if articulated and reflected on, it can be useful (that's the theory anyhow). Marie has a severe hearing loss, which makes social situations difficult at times, and group meetings impossible. She often talks about what a blessing the internet is for her, and in fact we met 11 years ago online.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Aug 28, 2013 14:09:46 GMT -5
Serially, though, I understand your point. Such statements are often used to dismiss an argument or to take the nondual high road and win. All nondual pointers are twisted in every which way by somebody to serve that which they are meat to point away from. Of course, that doesn't mean they aren't valid pointers and they do have their place. Yes, that's it. Not saying they're not valid, but I think it would be the rare case where they're helpful. Gonna use an analogy here - don't shoot me It's like there's a closed door and someone has a burning desire to open it up and see what's inside. They're really sure that what they need is behind that door. And they get told, "There's nothing in that room. It's the wrong direction to go." They might turn away and not open the door, but I'll betcha that desire is still there. Best to just say, "Try not to spend too much time in there". Or even, "Yeah, take a look and see for yourself".
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 28, 2013 14:26:53 GMT -5
Serially, though, I understand your point. Such statements are often used to dismiss an argument or to take the nondual high road and win. All nondual pointers are twisted in every which way by somebody to serve that which they are meat to point away from. Of course, that doesn't mean they aren't valid pointers and they do have their place. Yes, that's it. Not saying they're not valid, but I think it would be the rare case where they're helpful. Gonna use an analogy here - don't shoot me It's like there's a closed door and someone has a burning desire to open it up and see what's inside. They're really sure that what they need is behind that door. And they get told, "There's nothing in that room. It's the wrong direction to go." They might turn away and not open the door, but I'll betcha that desire is still there. Best to just say, "Try not to spend too much time in there". Or even, "Yeah, take a look and see for yourself". Yes, the only time I see it appropriate to say things like 'there is nothing to do, nothing to learn, nowhere to go, no path, no enlightened people, etc, is if I see or sense that one has been spinning his wheels long enough to potentially see what's being pointed at. Otherwise, I'm happy to explore the concepts or work with folks on self growth or whatever they bring to the table. I do find that the idea of 'no separate volitional person' is appropriate and fundamental for most serious seekers, and so I say that a lot. 'There is no me' is something I never say.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Aug 28, 2013 14:38:00 GMT -5
I do find that the idea of 'no separate volitional person' is appropriate and fundamental for most serious seekers, and so I say that a lot. 'There is no me' is something I never say. Hallelujah!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 28, 2013 15:23:53 GMT -5
hmmmm ... inviting someone who thinks that they can do something and get enlightened to reconsider that idea isn't relevant to where the question of "what can I do to become an enlightened person?" is coming from? (** muttley snicker **) You think that hasn't been considered, ad nauseam? To shut down a path by calling it pathless, or avenues of inquiry by saying nothing-to-be-done, etc. etc. is to invite denial & suppression. Truly, no one knows how enlightenment happens. Is it by meditating? Or losing interest in thoughts? Or digging through underlying beliefs? Or turning attention to the present? Or resting in awareness? Or is it possible that each unique individual has a path that, if paid attention to, will lead them where they need to go. Sweeping statements don't address any of that. And they shut down communication. I've got no problem discussing the boundaries of each of those practices, but I disagree with saying they're pointless. Hey, as someone who witnesses several of what some would characterize as self-deluded mind-split thingies on an ongoing basis, including the occasional bout of ATA and a sitting practice, I'd invite you to consider that your aim (in terms of who this is directed at) is just a bit off here. You think that hasn't been considered, ad nauseam? To shut down a path by calling it pathless, or avenues of inquiry by saying nothing-to-be-done, etc. etc. is to invite denial & suppression. I look at the "ad nauseam" aspect of what you've said this way: there are some questions that come to mind that can and have been considered collectively and can even be answered with finality. There's no point in debating the orientation of the Earth's movement relative to the Sun or what causes a common cold. The question "What am I", though, is one that will be asked for as long as there are people to ask it. Now this brings me directly back to Shaun's question on the value of the conversation here. At the point I arrived I'd come to the conclusion that any practice that was worth doing was worth doing in any instant that it would occur to do it, and further it was crystal clear that although there were obvious health benefits to those practices, that on one hand those benefits weren't the goal of them, but on the other hand they might as well be. While the point of paradox on the question of enlightenment (once "enlightened", there is no longer anyone who is enlightened) was clear, I had a genuine and light curiosity as to what the whole hub-bub was about denying the reality of personality. I see that curiosity on the nature of personality as tangled-up with your observations on the ideas of paths and practices, and the conversation here has had the appearance of a significant impact on what I see (or, imagine) as mine. Truly, no one knows how enlightenment happens. Is it by meditating? Or losing interest in thoughts? Or digging through underlying beliefs? Or turning attention to the present? Or resting in awareness? Or is it possible that each unique individual has a path that, if paid attention to, will lead them where they need to go. These questions can all be characterized as flowing from that root inquiry, "what am I?". Now I've offered my personal take that this inquiry is something that's gonna happen (or at least, for the sake of neo-ad correctness, "to appear to happen") for everyone regardless of whether the inquiry is conscious or not, and that practices like meditation or sincerely exploring certain conceptual structures, if nothing else, appear to garner the conscious attention of the body/mind so engaged toward the inquiry. That much I knew before I got here. Sweeping statements don't address any of that. And they shut down communication. I've got no problem discussing the boundaries of each of those practices, but I disagree with saying they're pointless. I've found being confronted with the idea of the pointlessness of practice to be quite a profound consideration. The story that I tell about this is that the suggestion seemed instrumental in facilitating the observation that any instant of practice that isn't in fact effortless really isn't worthy of the term "practice". For example, when watching a thought, it is only by the absence of effort that attention remains as the thought dissolves. When attending the actual, there is a shift away from effort and toward flow. At this point, I'd refer to following pointers as the imperative futility of effortless determination, or some other such paramigudoxical expression. Quinn, who is it that hears this viewpoint that all stories are just stories, and that any doing is waste of time, and based on hearing that viewpoint shuts down communication, or even stops practicing for that matter? Seems to me that's a worthy inquiry in and of itself. Also seems to me that it's one that'll continue to present itself for as long as there are people practicing. And btw, and I don't mean this with any disrespect toward you, but "Sweeping statements don't address any of that" is a sweeping statement.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Aug 28, 2013 16:37:00 GMT -5
hmmmm ... inviting someone who thinks that they can do something and get enlightened to reconsider that idea isn't relevant to where the question of "what can I do to become an enlightened person?" is coming from? (** muttley snicker **) You think that hasn't been considered, ad nauseam? To shut down a path by calling it pathless, or avenues of inquiry by saying nothing-to-be-done, etc. etc. is to invite denial & suppression. Truly, no one knows how enlightenment happens. Is it by meditating? Or losing interest in thoughts? Or digging through underlying beliefs? Or turning attention to the present? Or resting in awareness? Or is it possible that each unique individual has a path that, if paid attention to, will lead them where they need to go. Sweeping statements don't address any of that. And they shut down communication. I've got no problem discussing the boundaries of each of those practices, but I disagree with saying they're pointless. My interest is usually in separating these practices from the normalized terminology and talk about what the hell someone is actually doing any why. I mean, seriously, what is prompting someone to embark on "spiritual practices" and what does that even mean. Aside from day dreaming about something called enlightenment and reading accounts of others, what is someone doing when they say they're "resting in awareness"? Is the body feeling like it needs to meditate or is someone spending most of their day exhausting themselves mentally just so they can still their mind later on and call it meditating and derive all sorts of importance from this short span of time?
|
|
|
Post by serpentqueen on Aug 28, 2013 18:17:24 GMT -5
You think that hasn't been considered, ad nauseam? To shut down a path by calling it pathless, or avenues of inquiry by saying nothing-to-be-done, etc. etc. is to invite denial & suppression. Truly, no one knows how enlightenment happens. Is it by meditating? Or losing interest in thoughts? Or digging through underlying beliefs? Or turning attention to the present? Or resting in awareness? Or is it possible that each unique individual has a path that, if paid attention to, will lead them where they need to go. Sweeping statements don't address any of that. And they shut down communication. I've got no problem discussing the boundaries of each of those practices, but I disagree with saying they're pointless. Hey, as someone who witnesses several of what some would characterize as self-deluded mind-split thingies on an ongoing basis, including the occasional bout of ATA and a sitting practice, I'd invite you to consider that your aim (in terms of who this is directed at) is just a bit off here. You think that hasn't been considered, ad nauseam? To shut down a path by calling it pathless, or avenues of inquiry by saying nothing-to-be-done, etc. etc. is to invite denial & suppression. I look at the "ad nauseam" aspect of what you've said this way: there are some questions that come to mind that can and have been considered collectively and can even be answered with finality. There's no point in debating the orientation of the Earth's movement relative to the Sun or what causes a common cold. The question "What am I", though, is one that will be asked for as long as there are people to ask it. Now this brings me directly back to Shaun's question on the value of the conversation here. At the point I arrived I'd come to the conclusion that any practice that was worth doing was worth doing in any instant that it would occur to do it, and further it was crystal clear that although there were obvious health benefits to those practices, that on one hand those benefits weren't the goal of them, but on the other hand they might as well be. While the point of paradox on the question of enlightenment (once "enlightened", there is no longer anyone who is enlightened) was clear, I had a genuine and light curiosity as to what the whole hub-bub was about denying the reality of personality. I see that curiosity on the nature of personality as tangled-up with your observations on the ideas of paths and practices, and the conversation here has had the appearance of a significant impact on what I see (or, imagine) as mine. Truly, no one knows how enlightenment happens. Is it by meditating? Or losing interest in thoughts? Or digging through underlying beliefs? Or turning attention to the present? Or resting in awareness? Or is it possible that each unique individual has a path that, if paid attention to, will lead them where they need to go. These questions can all be characterized as flowing from that root inquiry, "what am I?". Now I've offered my personal take that this inquiry is something that's gonna happen (or at least, for the sake of neo-ad correctness, "to appear to happen") for everyone regardless of whether the inquiry is conscious or not, and that practices like meditation or sincerely exploring certain conceptual structures, if nothing else, appear to garner the conscious attention of the body/mind so engaged toward the inquiry. That much I knew before I got here. Sweeping statements don't address any of that. And they shut down communication. I've got no problem discussing the boundaries of each of those practices, but I disagree with saying they're pointless. I've found being confronted with the idea of the pointlessness of practice to be quite a profound consideration. The story that I tell about this is that the suggestion seemed instrumental in facilitating the observation that any instant of practice that isn't in fact effortless really isn't worthy of the term "practice". For example, when watching a thought, it is only by the absence of effort that attention remains as the thought dissolves. When attending the actual, there is a shift away from effort and toward flow. At this point, I'd refer to following pointers as the imperative futility of effortless determination, or some other such paramigudoxical expression. Quinn, who is it that hears this viewpoint that all stories are just stories, and that any doing is waste of time, and based on hearing that viewpoint shuts down communication, or even stops practicing for that matter? Seems to me that's a worthy inquiry in and of itself. Also seems to me that it's one that'll continue to present itself for as long as there are people practicing. And btw, and I don't mean this with any disrespect toward you, but "Sweeping statements don't address any of that" is a sweeping statement. I was never confronted with the idea of its pointlessness, but the first time I encountered a gentle suggestion that practice wasn't necessary (an article on Unmani's site) there was such... relief... and a recognition that, somehow, I instinctively knew this all along. But then thought kicked in and said, "you are just looking for a way to justify your inconsistency and laziness".. hee hee.. so it took awhile to circle back around and settle in there. I may have misunderstood what you mean by "confronted" though. I may be reading that as "directly challenged" which is different than gently suggesting.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 28, 2013 19:20:27 GMT -5
Sometimes when I look at the boards, I think "What have I done?" This line, and the title of this thread, still makes me think of the following movie. Though a veritable train wreck, Historically speaking, this is still one of my favorites, especially for this clip-- .. also contains my favorite line: "Madness!"
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Aug 28, 2013 19:42:46 GMT -5
Hey, as someone who witnesses several of what some would characterize as self-deluded mind-split thingies on an ongoing basis, including the occasional bout of ATA and a sitting practice, I'd invite you to consider that your aim (in terms of who this is directed at) is just a bit off here. The aim was directed at the contents of your post. Nothing poisonal. (personal or poison-al ) You have a point about "the pointlessness of practice" being a "profound consideration". But isn't asking What Am I a practice? How about ATA? Or Noticing? Really the important subtlety is how the practice is done. How it's framed. If there's a goal, if there's a sense of what's-in-it-for-me, if there's a monitoring of stages....these are the types of things I meant when I said I have no problem discussing the boundaries of practice. If you said something else in there, I didn't get it. I sometimes get dazzled by the complexity of your word usage. Like that sentence. [edit: just realized that could be taken two ways. What I meant was, I don't understand that sentence either.] Nother good point. No disrespect taken. You're right, it is a sweeping statement. My actual point is about dealing with each unique person from the perspective of where their question/comment is coming from. As opposed to using sweeping non-dual lingo.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Aug 28, 2013 19:45:44 GMT -5
My interest is usually in separating these practices from the normalized terminology and talk about what the hell someone is actually doing any why. I mean, seriously, what is prompting someone to embark on "spiritual practices" and what does that even mean. Aside from day dreaming about something called enlightenment and reading accounts of others, what is someone doing when they say they're "resting in awareness"? Is the body feeling like it needs to meditate or is someone spending most of their day exhausting themselves mentally just so they can still their mind later on and call it meditating and derive all sorts of importance from this short span of time? Yes, exactly. That's what I'm talking about.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 28, 2013 19:54:22 GMT -5
I was never confronted with the idea of its pointlessness, but the first time I encountered a gentle suggestion that practice wasn't necessary (an article on Unmani's site) there was such... relief... and a recognition that, somehow, I instinctively knew this all along. But then thought kicked in and said, "you are just looking for a way to justify your inconsistency and laziness".. hee hee.. so it took awhile to circle back around and settle in there. I may have misunderstood what you mean by "confronted" though. I may be reading that as "directly challenged" which is different than gently suggesting. Yeah, didn't mean to get all dramatic with the use of the word confronted. I'd agree that a gentle invitation is better than a blunt confrontation but in the final analysis that's just style. That idea that "well ... isn't that convenient ha! ha! ha! you lazy punk!", saw that one come and go for sure! The thing that eventually quelled the doubt about the laziness was like I said: I still meditate both sitting and moment-to-moment but it's just something that happens and when it doesn't just happen it just doesn't seem to me to be anything worth bothering with. It's paradox rearing it's head again SQ: imperative futility. This sort of poignant contradiction extends to the fact that some of the voices that have caught my attention most raptly, like ZD and a couple of guys from the Tolle board, were long-time and intense meditator's who eventually concluded that it wasn't through practice itself that they had the most profound self-realization.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 28, 2013 20:06:56 GMT -5
You have a point about "the pointlessness of practice" being a "profound consideration". But isn't asking What Am I a practice? How about ATA? Or Noticing? Really the important subtlety is how the practice is done. How it's framed. If there's a goal, if there's a sense of what's-in-it-for-me, if there's a monitoring of stages....these are the types of things I meant when I said I have no problem discussing the boundaries of practice. If you said something else in there, I didn't get it. I sometimes get dazzled by the complexity of your word usage. Like that sentence. [edit: just realized that could be taken two ways. What I meant was, I don't understand that sentence either.] Sometimes I feel this imperative to get what I'm saying across and sometimes that includes packing lots of ideas into less text, but in this case, what I'm doing is stating what looks to me as a paradox, and that's my guess as to why it's so opaque: yes, all those things are practices and they are futile and they are imperative. The paradox goes away if we say there's no separate individual practicing, just the appearance of one. No disrespect taken. You're right, it is a sweeping statement. My actual point is about dealing with each unique person from the perspective of where their question/comment is coming from. As opposed to using sweeping non-dual lingo. I'd agree with you that meeting people where they are kicks up less unnecessary dust and short-circuits wasteful drama. On the other hand, if a truthful statement is written on a fortune cookie it doesn't make it any less truthful.
|
|
|
Post by serpentqueen on Aug 28, 2013 20:09:34 GMT -5
I was never confronted with the idea of its pointlessness, but the first time I encountered a gentle suggestion that practice wasn't necessary (an article on Unmani's site) there was such... relief... and a recognition that, somehow, I instinctively knew this all along. But then thought kicked in and said, "you are just looking for a way to justify your inconsistency and laziness".. hee hee.. so it took awhile to circle back around and settle in there. I may have misunderstood what you mean by "confronted" though. I may be reading that as "directly challenged" which is different than gently suggesting. Yeah, didn't mean to get all dramatic with the use of the word confronted. I'd agree that a gentle invitation is better than a blunt confrontation but in the final analysis that's just style. That idea that "well ... isn't that convenient ha! ha! ha! you lazy punk!", saw that one come and go for sure! The thing that eventually quelled the doubt about the laziness was like I said: I still meditate both sitting and moment-to-moment but it's just something that happens and when it doesn't just happen it just doesn't seem to me to be anything worth bothering with. It's paradox rearing it's head again SQ: imperative futility. This sort of poignant contradiction extends to the fact that some of the voices that have caught my attention most raptly, like ZD and a couple of guys from the Tolle board, were long-time and intense meditator's who eventually concluded that it wasn't through practice itself that they had the most profound self-realization. Re: imperative futility: Sometimes you've got to beat your head against the brick wall repeatedly, before you finally realize it just isn't going to go anywhere. I get the sense this is what Quinn is saying, but she can correct me if I'm wrong. I never did any consistent "spiritual practice" whatsoever, but I did my fair share of endlessly beating my head against different sorts of brick walls.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 28, 2013 20:15:56 GMT -5
Yeah, didn't mean to get all dramatic with the use of the word confronted. I'd agree that a gentle invitation is better than a blunt confrontation but in the final analysis that's just style. That idea that "well ... isn't that convenient ha! ha! ha! you lazy punk!", saw that one come and go for sure! The thing that eventually quelled the doubt about the laziness was like I said: I still meditate both sitting and moment-to-moment but it's just something that happens and when it doesn't just happen it just doesn't seem to me to be anything worth bothering with. It's paradox rearing it's head again SQ: imperative futility. This sort of poignant contradiction extends to the fact that some of the voices that have caught my attention most raptly, like ZD and a couple of guys from the Tolle board, were long-time and intense meditator's who eventually concluded that it wasn't through practice itself that they had the most profound self-realization. Re: imperative futility: Sometimes you've got to beat your head against the brick wall repeatedly, before you finally realize it just isn't going to go anywhere. I get the sense this is what Quinn is saying, but she can correct me if I'm wrong. I never did any consistent "spiritual practice" whatsoever, but I did my fair share of endlessly beating my head against different sorts of brick walls. Nah ... what I heard her say is that interruptin' the head-banger with a "hey, yer gonna' get a headache!" made her nauseous.
|
|