|
Post by lolly on Nov 22, 2013 21:07:20 GMT -5
Mmmmm... that's a point. E says my posts are something other that exemplary and Jo said something similar, but I think I speak about things in depth, and even though little truisms like 'suffering is attachment' are really really easy to understand, and they really do sound like widom, and there is some degree of truth to it, I speak of different kinds of attachment separation anxiety, nature nurture... and condisering the detail, my posts are like totes brief... G-string even. When it came to emotions and feelings etc... I merely explained that there are natural responses (I called reflexes) and there are personal reactions... I elaborated on the nature of these to portray the difference, I also mentioned how the reflex passes quickly but people generate reaction after reaction and keep on doing it. I think what people miss is, it's not me who rabbits on for ages. I express my thoughts in one post (in response to like 10 pages of little posts on the subject (though I tend to ignore the bunny posts because motion on the page make reading more difficult). So as a little one liner "My one post is far shorter that the pages upon pages of little tiny ones" (and I think they have better quality content, but I'm biased of course, so there is no validity to this statement... hence, not worth saying really, therefore not worth deleting) hehehe I've enjoyed pretty much everything you've written, even the stuff where you sideswipe me and the girl gang. :D Do you think that everyone who used the bunny intended the exact same meaning and intended the same meaning each time they used it? Don't take it to heart. I mean I'm not cute kitty mr nice and perfect, and tend to tear out eyeballs and eat rotten fish-bones. So shoot me with a rubber-band. No of course not. The bunny was simply a communication devise that conveyed several meanings. I was verbalizing the meanings, but that's very crude and doesn't come near the crux of it. These meanings are conveyed on a implied level and received on a feel level... kinda like when someone gives you 'look' and you understand what it means. I think we understand such messages and we all use the strategy at times...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2013 21:10:39 GMT -5
There is only BEING, only WHOLENESS, so there is NO separation between perception and thoughts about perception.... Your affirming the dualistic ILLUSION of a SEPARATE me, an I, or a self, that RECOGNIZES the difference between senses HAPPENING, and thoughts about senses HAPPENING... There is no YOU in which recognizing or not recognizing the difference can lead to struggle and suffering... There is just WHAT'S HAPPENING... It's not separation, it's distinction, like the distinctions you're making in your post as well. Distinctions HAPPEN but they aren't being made by a ME, or an I, or a SELF...The SENSE that there is SOMEBODY who can CHOOSE to make distinctions is an ILLUSION.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 22, 2013 21:11:23 GMT -5
I've enjoyed pretty much everything you've written, even the stuff where you sideswipe me and the girl gang. Do you think that everyone who used the bunny intended the exact same meaning and intended the same meaning each time they used it? Don't take it to heart. I mean I'm not cute kitty mr nice and perfect, and tend to tear out eyeballs and eat rotten fish-bones. So shoot me with a rubber-band. No worries -- please don't mistake an opportunity to disagree about something as a desire to be generally disagreeable. No of course not. The bunny was simply a communication devise that conveyed several meanings. I was verbalizing the meanings, but that's very crude and doesn't come near the crux of it. These meanings are conveyed on a implied level and received on a feel level... kinda like when someone gives you 'look' and you understand what it means. I think we understand such messages and we all use the strategy at times... Then you maybe give some consideration to what E' said about what he meant by it.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Nov 22, 2013 22:18:10 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. There's a disconnect in our understandings.. no, i'm not telling 'the truth', i'm relating what is actually happening.. you din't understand the fundamental point of the 'painting' question, it's not directly related to the coin illusion.. Al i see is you firmly attached to a belief about 'direct experience', when.. as i've tried to demonstrate, direct experience has no link to the mind's coin/illusion story generating process.. and, it's just not worth the hard-feelings matters like this often end up as, so.. i'm just going to disagree, i understand the message you are conveying, and it has a useful 'point', but it is not 'reality'.. Be well.. It's possible to separate what is perceived with the senses from what is thought/assumed/concluded about that. It's not a recommendation to pretend to not know, or to ignore your past experience. The point is simply to recognize the difference between what you sense, and what you think and feel about what you sense. One reason for making that distinction is that we often come to believe that what we think and feel about what is actually happening, is objectively happening, and this can lead to struggle and suffering. I don't disagree with that understanding.. but, struggle and suffering can be found in nearly every movement toward the extreme perspective.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 23, 2013 2:32:24 GMT -5
It's not separation, it's distinction, like the distinctions you're making in your post as well. He's in full mantra mode. Best to just ignore. But there's nobody to be in mantra mode.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 23, 2013 2:37:34 GMT -5
I've enjoyed pretty much everything you've written, even the stuff where you sideswipe me and the girl gang. Do you think that everyone who used the bunny intended the exact same meaning and intended the same meaning each time they used it? Don't take it to heart. I mean I'm not cute kitty mr nice and perfect, and tend to tear out eyeballs and eat rotten fish-bones. So shoot me with a rubber-band. No of course not. The bunny was simply a communication devise that conveyed several meanings. I was verbalizing the meanings, but that's very crude and doesn't come near the crux of it. These meanings are conveyed on a implied level and received on a feel level... kinda like when someone gives you 'look' and you understand what it means. I think we understand such messages and we all use the strategy at times... Are you kidding? Some folks can't even read the words correctly, many more can't understanding the meaning. Whatever is picked up on a feeling level is most likely the reader's feeling only.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 23, 2013 2:40:15 GMT -5
It's not separation, it's distinction, like the distinctions you're making in your post as well. Distinctions HAPPEN but they aren't being made by a ME, or an I, or a SELF...The SENSE that there is SOMEBODY who can CHOOSE to make distinctions is an ILLUSION. This is what I mean. The response has nothing to do with post it's meant to respond to because the reader has his own agenda and doesn't really care what's in the post.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 23, 2013 2:41:43 GMT -5
Don't take it to heart. I mean I'm not cute kitty mr nice and perfect, and tend to tear out eyeballs and eat rotten fish-bones. So shoot me with a rubber-band. No of course not. The bunny was simply a communication devise that conveyed several meanings. I was verbalizing the meanings, but that's very crude and doesn't come near the crux of it. These meanings are conveyed on a implied level and received on a feel level... kinda like when someone gives you 'look' and you understand what it means. I think we understand such messages and we all use the strategy at times... Are you kidding? Some folks can't even read the words correctly, many more can't understanding the meaning. Whatever is picked up on a feeling level is most likely the reader's feeling only. I know the bunny tricks and I'm not the only one who does. Now it's come to the denial of what is meant, that's the last play in the game. It's now a stalemate.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 23, 2013 2:46:25 GMT -5
Greetings.. It's possible to separate what is perceived with the senses from what is thought/assumed/concluded about that. It's not a recommendation to pretend to not know, or to ignore your past experience. The point is simply to recognize the difference between what you sense, and what you think and feel about what you sense. One reason for making that distinction is that we often come to believe that what we think and feel about what is actually happening, is objectively happening, and this can lead to struggle and suffering. I don't disagree with that understanding.. but, struggle and suffering can be found in nearly every movement toward the extreme perspective.. Be well.. I don't disagree that extreme perspectives are problematic, though often what seems like an extreme perspective is just a perspective within a particular context. Talking about a chair as energy in a scientific perspective isn't extreme.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 23, 2013 2:47:56 GMT -5
Are you kidding? Some folks can't even read the words correctly, many more can't understanding the meaning. Whatever is picked up on a feeling level is most likely the reader's feeling only. I know the bunny tricks and I'm not the only one who does. Now it's come to the denial of what is meant, that's the last play in the game. It's now a stalemate. Then you know more than I do.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Nov 23, 2013 3:43:12 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. I don't disagree with that understanding.. but, struggle and suffering can be found in nearly every movement toward the extreme perspective.. Be well.. I don't disagree that extreme perspectives are problematic, though often what seems like an extreme perspective is just a perspective within a particular context. Talking about a chair as energy in a scientific perspective isn't extreme. So often, though, the scientific perspective begins talking about 'the chair' as energy, then.. the philosopher denies that 'the chair' actually exists, that it's all just energy, then.. a sub-set of philosophy claims that it's all just 'imagined', and all the while the persons choosing their perspectives while sitting in 'chairs' have forgotten about the 'chair', they have retreated into their imagination, imagining that it's all imagined.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 23, 2013 10:32:32 GMT -5
Greetings.. I don't disagree that extreme perspectives are problematic, though often what seems like an extreme perspective is just a perspective within a particular context. Talking about a chair as energy in a scientific perspective isn't extreme. So often, though, the scientific perspective begins talking about 'the chair' as energy, then.. the philosopher denies that 'the chair' actually exists, that it's all just energy, then.. a sub-set of philosophy claims that it's all just 'imagined', and all the while the persons choosing their perspectives while sitting in 'chairs' have forgotten about the 'chair', they have retreated into their imagination, imagining that it's all imagined.. Be well.. The philosophical and sub-set perspectives may be valid in those contexts. That can be discussed, but as you say, they all still know what a chair is for because they're sitting in one. Is there really a problem?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2013 14:25:36 GMT -5
Distinctions HAPPEN but they aren't being made by a ME, or an I, or a SELF...The SENSE that there is SOMEBODY who can CHOOSE to make distinctions is an ILLUSION. This is what I mean. The response has nothing to do with post it's meant to respond to because the reader has his own agenda and doesn't really care what's in the post. There is NOBODY with an agenda. Just a simple message that doesn't offer the reader ANYTHING...because there is NOBODY reading... It is the denial of a SEPARATE PERSON that has the choice to make distinctions between senses and thoughts about senses. To believe there is a PERSON who can do that, is a fundamental misconception of NON-DUALITY. What's being pointed out is the CONTRADICTION between DUALITY and NON-DUALITY in your posts.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Nov 23, 2013 20:55:00 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. So often, though, the scientific perspective begins talking about 'the chair' as energy, then.. the philosopher denies that 'the chair' actually exists, that it's all just energy, then.. a sub-set of philosophy claims that it's all just 'imagined', and all the while the persons choosing their perspectives while sitting in 'chairs' have forgotten about the 'chair', they have retreated into their imagination, imagining that it's all imagined.. Be well.. The philosophical and sub-set perspectives may be valid in those contexts. That can be discussed, but as you say, they all still know what a chair is for because they're sitting in one. Is there really a problem?When the sub-set and its context is believed to be superior to the absence of sets/sub-sets and contexts.. there really is a problem.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 23, 2013 21:04:48 GMT -5
Greetings.. The philosophical and sub-set perspectives may be valid in those contexts. That can be discussed, but as you say, they all still know what a chair is for because they're sitting in one. Is there really a problem? When the sub-set and its context is believed to be superior to the absence of sets/sub-sets and contexts.. there really is a problem.. Be well.. That there is a problem is an idea about reality.
|
|