|
Post by silence on Nov 12, 2013 18:35:04 GMT -5
Greetings.. You're seriously that creepy stalker guy who both idolizes and hates the person you stalk at the same time. And, you don't notice that you are projecting your infatuation with 'Tzu', onto Tzu's effort to engage enigma in an unconditionally sincere discussion, right? Be well.. When do you plan on being unconditionally sincere?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Nov 12, 2013 20:06:34 GMT -5
Greetings.. If the question was asked, “are you coming empty to the discussion?” I think most people would say “yes!”. But then, as the conversation progresses, and there are lengthy appearances of argumentation, and perhaps even condescension; the question arises “was somebody fibbing about coming empty?” One participant might say, “I came empty, but he came with his bags packed full!” How would one know if their bags were empty, or full? What’s in the bag? Why are the contents so difficult to throw away? To come empty is to come with no agenda, and it's usually the agenda that makes one come at all. To come with curiosity, openness, interest, even to watch a mysterious dance of something unnameable, is to come empty. To 'come empty' would also be without the preconceived belief that the dance is 'mysterious or unnameable'.. empty is empty, allowing for whatever is happening to happen.. the claim, "oneness is truth", is full, allowing for nothing else to be revealed in the way of new experiences/information that would reveal a flaw in the 'oneness belief'.. 'empty' doesn't attach to beliefs, truths, knowings, and realizations, it is truly 'open'.. The 'snake' that turned out to be a rope, today.. might be the rope that turns out to be a snake when you try to pick it up, tomorrow.. openness and curiosity are 'empty', seeing neither a rope nor a snake, but seeing what is actually happening.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 12, 2013 21:25:12 GMT -5
Greetings.. To come empty is to come with no agenda, and it's usually the agenda that makes one come at all. To come with curiosity, openness, interest, even to watch a mysterious dance of something unnameable, is to come empty. To 'come empty' would also be without the preconceived belief that the dance is 'mysterious or unnameable'.. empty is empty, allowing for whatever is happening to happen.. the claim, "oneness is truth", is full, allowing for nothing else to be revealed in the way of new experiences/information that would reveal a flaw in the 'oneness belief'.. 'empty' doesn't attach to beliefs, truths, knowings, and realizations, it is truly 'open'.. As is the counter-claim. The 'snake' that turned out to be a rope, today.. might be the rope that turns out to be a snake when you try to pick it up, tomorrow.. openness and curiosity are 'empty', seeing neither a rope nor a snake, but seeing what is actually happening.. Be well.. TMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2013 21:55:04 GMT -5
To come empty is to come with no agenda, and it's usually the agenda that makes one come at all. To come with curiosity, openness, interest, even to watch a mysterious dance of something unnameable, is to come empty. what's an agenda? ha ha ha
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 13, 2013 3:34:04 GMT -5
There are good points about being empty and coming to st.org... but I think it's inevitable that each person will make sense of things by shaping it according to their world view. Not withstanding that the acceptance of a new idea has the effect of changing that view at least a little.
In a spiritual sense, we don't concern ourselves with the world view itself so much as we bring to light the very foundation of that mental framework. We become less concerned with what experience implies, and more concerned with experience in and of itself.
In this way, we speak of 'the observer'; a term which refers to the act of watching without the lens of our world view, so that the experience itself is not made sense of, or in any way questioned.
One would assume that a questioner exists since there are obviously questions that come up, aren't there? Yet can a question imply a questioner in any actual way? Surely, the question is observed as is any other passing thought, just as the thought which states a questioner exists is likewise observed.
Identity and thought are very similar, for what it identity besides what you think you are?
As has become apparent through this train of thought, the foundation that we aim to bring to light is yourself, and what you think of yourself, or what you think yourself to be, is by no means an illusion because it is a passing thought.
Many will struggle to defeat and to hinder and to belittle the identity, and as it is called 'ego' in a rather derogatory way, a hatred of this enters the heart... and if as I suppose, this ego is but a thought unto 'myself', I see not reason to despise it or enter into conflict. Conflict itself is yet another thought, quite an unpleasant one at that; however, it will pass from attention in good time as thoughts are wont to do.
In this sense, thought, and all that you think you are is best left to pass as it wills, so that the observation of them remains undisturbed.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 13, 2013 10:13:07 GMT -5
There are good points about being empty and coming to st.org... but I think it's inevitable that each person will make sense of things by shaping it according to their world view. Not withstanding that the acceptance of a new idea has the effect of changing that view at least a little. In a spiritual sense, we don't concern ourselves with the world view itself so much as we bring to light the very foundation of that mental framework. We become less concerned with what experience implies, and more concerned with experience in and of itself. In this way, we speak of 'the observer'; a term which refers to the act of watching without the lens of our world view, so that the experience itself is not made sense of, or in any way questioned. One would assume that a questioner exists since there are obviously questions that come up, aren't there? Yet can a question imply a questioner in any actual way? Surely, the question is observed as is any other passing thought, just as the thought which states a questioner exists is likewise observed. Identity and thought are very similar, for what it identity besides what you think you are? As has become apparent through this train of thought, the foundation that we aim to bring to light is yourself, and what you think of yourself, or what you think yourself to be, is by no means an illusion because it is a passing thought. Many will struggle to defeat and to hinder and to belittle the identity, and as it is called 'ego' in a rather derogatory way, a hatred of this enters the heart... and if as I suppose, this ego is but a thought unto 'myself', I see not reason to despise it or enter into conflict. Conflict itself is yet another thought, quite an unpleasant one at that; however, it will pass from attention in good time as thoughts are wont to do. In this sense, thought, and all that you think you are is best left to pass as it wills, so that the observation of them remains undisturbed. That was, in many senses, a pleasure to read lolly, thanks. In the general absence of concern there is an absence of concern over pain and pleasure -- this isn't to say that the natural push and pull based on these isn't felt or experienced and that this natural flow doesn't shape the objects and events that appear to us, just that the context for all of that is this absence. A typical description of the undisturbed observation of the questions includes expressing a lack of interest in them. This absence is truly an absence though and is distinct from the presence of a disparaging disdain -- that's a bit of accent that can only be added in by the one that had the interest to begin with. As far as defeating ego is concerned, I take your point to be expressible by the question -- how could that possibly ever be anything more than just ego?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 13, 2013 21:23:42 GMT -5
Greetings.. You're seriously that creepy stalker guy who both idolizes and hates the person you stalk at the same time. And, you don't notice that you are projecting your infatuation with 'Tzu', onto Tzu's effort to engage enigma in an unconditionally sincere discussion, right? Be well.. Dude!
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Nov 13, 2013 21:49:48 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. And, you don't notice that you are projecting your infatuation with 'Tzu', onto Tzu's effort to engage enigma in an unconditionally sincere discussion, right? Be well.. Dude! I know, right.. the guy's like way full of projecting his imagined beliefs onto that Tzu dude.. i'm like stoked that you get it, man.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 14, 2013 4:24:43 GMT -5
I have no disagreement with the implication that cults are harmful in that context. I'd say some folks are highly susceptible to having the right carrots dangled in front of them, and one way to avoid such a situation is to 'sell' the truth instead, which nobody finds particularly tasty. It's really a simple matter righteousness where a person is under the impression that what is true for himself is also true for others, what's true for me is a matter of insight and has no bearing on the insight of others. What we end up with here is 'selling the truth' replacing 'Telling the Truth'. In this case I'm hearing that 'no one finds the truth tasty' and I'm concerned about what actions you might take to make that belief seem valid, and I have seen the preachy types launch 'attacks' (which laughter is kinda into) on persons most vulnerable places... but who really has the time to listen to people and actually find out the truth as it pertains to them? So if you were to synopsize what you see me preaching in a few sentences, what would it read?
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 15, 2013 0:24:29 GMT -5
It's really a simple matter righteousness where a person is under the impression that what is true for himself is also true for others, what's true for me is a matter of insight and has no bearing on the insight of others. What we end up with here is 'selling the truth' replacing 'Telling the Truth'. In this case I'm hearing that 'no one finds the truth tasty' and I'm concerned about what actions you might take to make that belief seem valid, and I have seen the preachy types launch 'attacks' (which laughter is kinda into) on persons most vulnerable places... but who really has the time to listen to people and actually find out the truth as it pertains to them? So if you were to synopsize what you see me preaching in a few sentences, what would it read? It would entail telling people what the Truth is.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 15, 2013 1:17:42 GMT -5
So if you were to synopsize what you see me preaching in a few sentences, what would it read? It would entail telling people what the Truth is. wow! sounds like it would be righteous!
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 15, 2013 1:50:18 GMT -5
It would entail telling people what the Truth is. wow! sounds like it would be righteous! I just 'liked' your post! By accident hehehe No big deal... I just point out the pitfalls of spiritualteacherdom, hoping to save the world. LOL
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 15, 2013 2:15:27 GMT -5
wow! sounds like it would be righteous! I just 'liked' your post! By accident hehehe No big deal... I just point out the pitfalls of spiritualteacherdom, hoping to save the world. LOL Well I don't see anyone offering to teach and if you ever see me writing something to someone about something that they didn't already express an interest in, you let me know, o.k.?
|
|