|
Post by silver on Oct 11, 2013 12:06:32 GMT -5
You don't suppose that he believes that those who maintain a philosophy that tends towards a sort of apathy is something that we all should be aware / wary of? Yes maybe that is what he believes. And, of course that would be something to be wary of. You'd have to pin apathy to that philosophy, though. My readings have shown such folks to continually bend over backwards showing how apathy is not the case. Au contraire, being aware of one's surroundings and acting appropriately and accordingly seems more the case. The ability-to-respond becomes more finely tuned and elegant. Nicely put, and well said, thanks Max. If only the frog could be that succinct.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2013 12:15:27 GMT -5
Greetings.. A classic example to me would be an actual person who encounters an actual suffering child and walks by or does nothing or maybe blissfully smiles at them and then justifies there actions with (a characterization of) nondualism. So has Enigma confessed to you in the past as having done that too? Have you witnessed something like that? If you don't have an actual case in mind where you've witnessed mr. E committing this type of crime, then you are imagining it. You are creating a long drama around it. I am relating a relatively intense discussion had at SF where E said that the child doesn't 'really' suffer because there's no one there to suffer.. i can only surmise that it's an imagined belief and that in 'reality' he wouldn't actually do such a thing.. Be well.. He's pointing to suffering as the buddha meant it and many others. It's unnecessary mind-fabricated suffering. When folks say something about 'there is no one to suffer' it's not like they're saying that the suffering child over there is invisible. They're pointing to fact that suffering, in this particular sense, is a function of an internal struggle over rejecting what is happening. Still the mind, let go of beliefs, be what is happening. The reason that is good advice is that it sidesteps the struggle with what is. The tools of the struggle are beliefs and desires. In nondual theory, as you must know, identifying as an individual person is one of the prime beliefs in that struggle with what is. Hold on! On the same hand, there isn't a denial of the person. There is no need to assert that there is a person, there is a wave, yada yada. The point is that if someone is identified as a person there will be suffering. That's why the ocean is emphasized over and over and over. It's about relieving (unnecessary mind-fabricated) suffering. One final thing. Why is the child suffering? Lots of folks are pointing to a society built on keeping people self-absorbed. Pull suffering out at the roots by addressing self-absorption. Yada yada.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 11, 2013 12:25:20 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. I am relating a relatively intense discussion had at SF where E said that the child doesn't 'really' suffer because there's no one there to suffer.. i can only surmise that it's an imagined belief and that in 'reality' he wouldn't actually do such a thing.. Be well.. He's pointing to suffering as the buddha meant it and many others. It's unnecessary mind-fabricated suffering. When folks say something about 'there is no one to suffer' it's not like they're saying that the suffering child over there is invisible. They're pointing to fact that suffering, in this particular sense, is a function of an internal struggle over rejecting what is happening. Still the mind, let go of beliefs, be what is happening. The reason that is good advice is that it sidesteps the struggle with what is. The tools of the struggle are beliefs and desires. In nondual theory, as you must know, identifying as an individual person is one of the prime beliefs in that struggle with what is. Hold on! On the same hand, there isn't a denial of the person. There is no need to assert that there is a person, there is a wave, yada yada. The point is that if someone is identified as a person there will be suffering. That's why the ocean is emphasized over and over and over. It's about relieving (unnecessary mind-fabricated) suffering. One final thing. Why is the child suffering? Lots of folks are pointing to a society built on keeping people self-absorbed. Pull suffering out at the roots by addressing self-absorption. Yada yada. So we arrive at point zero, again.. when you go to the child and say: 'if you stop identifying with the 'person' that you aren't, the suffering will end", the innocence of the child sees through the BS.. these are adult stories for active adult 'minds', the still mind and the child's mind sees what 'is', not what Buddha's story or non-dual theory projects onto the 'isness'.. Be well..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2013 12:51:13 GMT -5
Greetings.. He's pointing to suffering as the buddha meant it and many others. It's unnecessary mind-fabricated suffering. When folks say something about 'there is no one to suffer' it's not like they're saying that the suffering child over there is invisible. They're pointing to fact that suffering, in this particular sense, is a function of an internal struggle over rejecting what is happening. Still the mind, let go of beliefs, be what is happening. The reason that is good advice is that it sidesteps the struggle with what is. The tools of the struggle are beliefs and desires. In nondual theory, as you must know, identifying as an individual person is one of the prime beliefs in that struggle with what is. Hold on! On the same hand, there isn't a denial of the person. There is no need to assert that there is a person, there is a wave, yada yada. The point is that if someone is identified as a person there will be suffering. That's why the ocean is emphasized over and over and over. It's about relieving (unnecessary mind-fabricated) suffering. One final thing. Why is the child suffering? Lots of folks are pointing to a society built on keeping people self-absorbed. Pull suffering out at the roots by addressing self-absorption. Yada yada. So we arrive at point zero, again.. when you go to the child and say: 'if you stop identifying with the 'person' that you aren't, the suffering will end", the innocence of the child sees through the BS.. these are adult stories for active adult 'minds', the still mind and the child's mind sees what 'is', not what Buddha's story or non-dual theory projects onto the 'isness'.. Be well.. Wow. Okay this is a good education for me. I'm feeling my 'nah' filter forming but I'll try and squeeze out one last reply. No. In this hypothetical situation you go to the child and ask them what is wrong, pat their back, ask them where there parents are, help them feel better in whatever way is possible, blah blah -- do what anyone who is tuned into the situation and has any modicum of empathy would do. Easy. Most likely this will not include any theory. I took some effort to put the adjectives 'unnecessary mind-fabricated' before 'suffering' to help clarify what kind of situation we're talking about. You don't fix a skinned knee by discussing annata and dukkha, you find a band-aid, preferably with Buzz Lightyear or Dora the Explorer on it. You pat them on the back, etc. Listen. I've got tons of experience with this, believe me. On a forum dedicated to discussing matters related to spiritual inquiry -- this forum in particular is interested in a subset of that discussion around this concept of nondualism -- the term 'suffering' takes on a more particular meaning than the one commonly used when discussing skinned knees or famine, etc. This is about self discovery (ironic), looking within, knowing thyself. I'm sure you know all of this and appreciate it. I don't really understand why you can't hear what I'm saying. The only thing I can come up with is that you are more interested in maintaining a fight.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 11, 2013 13:02:55 GMT -5
Greetings.. So we arrive at point zero, again.. when you go to the child and say: 'if you stop identifying with the 'person' that you aren't, the suffering will end", the innocence of the child sees through the BS.. these are adult stories for active adult 'minds', the still mind and the child's mind sees what 'is', not what Buddha's story or non-dual theory projects onto the 'isness'.. Be well.. Wow. Okay this is a good education for me. I'm feeling my 'nah' filter forming but I'll try and squeeze out one last reply. No. In this hypothetical situation you go to the child and ask them what is wrong, pat their back, ask them where there parents are, help them feel better in whatever way is possible, blah blah -- do what anyone who is tuned into the situation and has any modicum of empathy would do. Easy. Most likely this will not include any theory. I took some effort to put the adjectives 'unnecessary mind-fabricated' before 'suffering' to help clarify what kind of situation we're talking about. You don't fix a skinned knee by discussing annata and dukkha, you find a band-aid, preferably with Buzz Lightyear or Dora the Explorer on it. You pat them on the back, etc. Listen. I've got tons of experience with this, believe me. On a forum dedicated to discussing matters related to spiritual inquiry -- this forum in particular is interested in a subset of that discussion around this concept of nondualism -- the term 'suffering' takes on a more particular meaning than the one commonly used when discussing skinned knees or famine, etc. This is about self discovery (ironic), looking within, knowing thyself. I'm sure you know all of this and appreciate it. I don't really understand why you can't hear what I'm saying. The only thing I can come up with is that you are more interested in maintaining a fight.Ditto.. Be well..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2013 13:15:49 GMT -5
Wow. Okay this is a good education for me. I'm feeling my 'nah' filter forming but I'll try and squeeze out one last reply. No. In this hypothetical situation you go to the child and ask them what is wrong, pat their back, ask them where there parents are, help them feel better in whatever way is possible, blah blah -- do what anyone who is tuned into the situation and has any modicum of empathy would do. Easy. Most likely this will not include any theory. I took some effort to put the adjectives 'unnecessary mind-fabricated' before 'suffering' to help clarify what kind of situation we're talking about. You don't fix a skinned knee by discussing annata and dukkha, you find a band-aid, preferably with Buzz Lightyear or Dora the Explorer on it. You pat them on the back, etc. Listen. I've got tons of experience with this, believe me. On a forum dedicated to discussing matters related to spiritual inquiry -- this forum in particular is interested in a subset of that discussion around this concept of nondualism -- the term 'suffering' takes on a more particular meaning than the one commonly used when discussing skinned knees or famine, etc. This is about self discovery (ironic), looking within, knowing thyself. I'm sure you know all of this and appreciate it. I don't really understand why you can't hear what I'm saying. The only thing I can come up with is that you are more interested in maintaining a fight.Ditto.. Be well.. Tzu, that's disrespectful. I wrote a long response to you trying to describe what I thought the differences were and you just highlight one thing and say ditto? And by the way, to clarify, when I said that you seemed to want to maintain a fight, I didn't mean with me. I haven't really had a problem with how we interact. (a) You are pointing to real actual suffering. Suffering related to physical and emotional pain. Perhaps suffering caused by external situations like lack of food, housing, reliable infrastructure. I get it. No misunderstanding there. It's a VERY important topic. (b)I am pointing to suffering that is a result of an internal struggle. I think you understand that. But still you go back to just talking about (a) and charging Enigma as turning a blind eye to it. That's how it looks to me.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 11, 2013 13:50:19 GMT -5
Greetings.. Tzu, that's disrespectful. I wrote a long response to you trying to describe what I thought the differences were and you just highlight one thing and say ditto? And by the way, to clarify, when I said that you seemed to want to maintain a fight, I didn't mean with me. I haven't really had a problem with how we interact. (a) You are pointing to real actual suffering. Suffering related to physical and emotional pain. Perhaps suffering caused by external situations like lack of food, housing, reliable infrastructure. I get it. No misunderstanding there. It's a VERY important topic. (b)I am pointing to suffering that is a result of an internal struggle. I think you understand that. But still you go back to just talking about (a) and charging Enigma as turning a blind eye to it. That's how it looks to me. I DO understand that.. i just don't see one as separate from the other.. there is a disposition of dismissing the physical from the spiritual on this forum, and i am interested in unity.. Be well..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2013 14:05:49 GMT -5
Greetings.. Tzu, that's disrespectful. I wrote a long response to you trying to describe what I thought the differences were and you just highlight one thing and say ditto? And by the way, to clarify, when I said that you seemed to want to maintain a fight, I didn't mean with me. I haven't really had a problem with how we interact. (a) You are pointing to real actual suffering. Suffering related to physical and emotional pain. Perhaps suffering caused by external situations like lack of food, housing, reliable infrastructure. I get it. No misunderstanding there. It's a VERY important topic. (b)I am pointing to suffering that is a result of an internal struggle. I think you understand that. But still you go back to just talking about (a) and charging Enigma as turning a blind eye to it. That's how it looks to me. I DO understand that.. i just don't see one as separate from the other.. there is a disposition of dismissing the physical from the spiritual on this forum, and i am interested in unity.. Be well.. How would you go about uniting the two opposing thoughts that someone is suffering and someone is not suffering, regardless of physicality/spirituality...?!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2013 14:20:27 GMT -5
Greetings.. Tzu, that's disrespectful. I wrote a long response to you trying to describe what I thought the differences were and you just highlight one thing and say ditto? And by the way, to clarify, when I said that you seemed to want to maintain a fight, I didn't mean with me. I haven't really had a problem with how we interact. (a) You are pointing to real actual suffering. Suffering related to physical and emotional pain. Perhaps suffering caused by external situations like lack of food, housing, reliable infrastructure. I get it. No misunderstanding there. It's a VERY important topic. (b)I am pointing to suffering that is a result of an internal struggle. I think you understand that. But still you go back to just talking about (a) and charging Enigma as turning a blind eye to it. That's how it looks to me. I DO understand that.. i just don't see one as separate from the other.. there is a disposition of dismissing the physical from the spiritual on this forum, and i am interested in unity.. Be well.. I don't get your response. When you say that you don't see 'one as separate from the other', is 'one' (a) and and 'the other' (b)? Also, why are you surprised that spiritual stuff may be an emphasis on this forum? It's funny, because I don't have any reference point for spiritual and am not really interested in that part. It's just that folks seem to talk about some of the things I'm interested in in spiritual forums. Like, for example, what is the source of suffering? There you go, unity of physical with nonphysical.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 11, 2013 14:33:24 GMT -5
Greetings.. I DO understand that.. i just don't see one as separate from the other.. there is a disposition of dismissing the physical from the spiritual on this forum, and i am interested in unity.. Be well.. How would you go about uniting the two opposing thoughts that someone is suffering and someone is not suffering, regardless of physicality/spirituality...?! I would let go of the attachment to ideas like 'opposing', as a good starting point.. see where unity is revealed.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 11, 2013 14:36:56 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. I DO understand that.. i just don't see one as separate from the other.. there is a disposition of dismissing the physical from the spiritual on this forum, and i am interested in unity.. Be well.. I don't get your response. When you say that you don't see 'one as separate from the other', is 'one' (a) and and 'the other' (b)? Also, why are you surprised that spiritual stuff may be an emphasis on this forum? It's funny, because I don't have any reference point for spiritual and am not really interested in that part. It's just that folks seem to talk about some of the things I'm interested in in spiritual forums. Like, for example, what is the source of suffering? There you go, unity of physical with nonphysical. I'm not surprised that spiritual stuff may be an emphasis on this forum.. i'm surprised that spiritual is separated from physical in such a way as to diminish the value that the physical component of 'spiritual' creates in the experience of existence.. Be well..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2013 14:50:55 GMT -5
Greetings.. I don't get your response. When you say that you don't see 'one as separate from the other', is 'one' (a) and and 'the other' (b)? Also, why are you surprised that spiritual stuff may be an emphasis on this forum? It's funny, because I don't have any reference point for spiritual and am not really interested in that part. It's just that folks seem to talk about some of the things I'm interested in in spiritual forums. Like, for example, what is the source of suffering? There you go, unity of physical with nonphysical. I'm not surprised that spiritual stuff may be an emphasis on this forum.. i'm surprised that spiritual is separated from physical in such a way as to diminish the value that the physical component of 'spiritual' creates in the experience of existence.. Be well.. Now I'm still not getting you. It's funny because I hear mostly 'no separation' here. There is no (essential, fundamental) difference between physical and nonphysical. Are you saying that, for example, folks here don't acknowledge the very real chronic pain someone might be enduring and how this effects the way they engage here, or something like that?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 11, 2013 15:01:56 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. I'm not surprised that spiritual stuff may be an emphasis on this forum.. i'm surprised that spiritual is separated from physical in such a way as to diminish the value that the physical component of 'spiritual' creates in the experience of existence.. Be well.. Now I'm still not getting you. It's funny because I hear mostly 'no separation' here. There is no (essential, fundamental) difference between physical and nonphysical. Are you saying that, for example, folks here don't acknowledge the very real chronic pain someone might be enduring and how this effects the way they engage here, or something like that? Yes.. some folks relegate the physical existence as temporary and therefore of lesser value that their spiritual understanding.. an understanding that is dependent on their physical vehicle.. The 'spiritual' understanding is a belief beyond this right here right now experience, but.. it has value when 'integrated with' the actuality we are experiencing.. Off to my 45th high school reunion.. 'parts' coming together as a 'whole', a remembrance of where we were, and a celebration of where we are.. Be well..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2013 15:19:58 GMT -5
How would you go about uniting the two opposing thoughts that someone is suffering and someone is not suffering, regardless of physicality/spirituality...?! I would let go of the attachment to ideas like 'opposing', as a good starting point.. see where unity is revealed.. Be well.. Ahh, I see what you mean...you drop the idea that the judgement of suffering is in 'opposition' to the judgement of not suffering... You believe that dropping the idea that judgements oppose each other is unity... IOW unity for you is about the unification of thought...cool.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 11, 2013 16:54:22 GMT -5
A more apt description than 'talent' would be a 'way of being.' When present moment awareness is, the thoughts that arise, do so, with a certain amount of predictability. Thoughts arise in what is akin to 'a climate.' In a climate of peace, allowance and acceptance, thoughts of that nature will generally arise, in a climate of resentment, resistance and anger, thoughts of that nature will arise. In awareness of what mind is doing, there is the experience of choice regarding where attention is placed. We can choose to follow down an angry thought with what will be the arising of another angry thought through attention to that anger, or we can 'choose' to cease the direction of those thoughts and even purposefully engage thought of a more peaceful nature. It's about being aware of what mind is doing....the awareness is the catalyst for creating 'the climate' that supports the nature of the thoughts that arise. So while there may not be absolute 'control' over the very specific thoughts that arise, through attention to where mind is going and what it's doing, there can be a sense of actively 'cultivating' a certain pattern of thought. Sure, though there's no more control over awareness, climate, cultivating, and such, than there is over the next specific thought, and so while I'm very much in favor of all that, which I call 'being conscious', I don't promote the idea that it has anything to do with being in control. The sense of control comes out of a belief in control. That's not to suggest nothing can change, just that it's a matter of clarity rather than mind learning to control mind, which is fundamentally absurd. Anyone disappointed to hear that has an opportunity -- who is it that's disappointed?
|
|