Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2013 12:03:44 GMT -5
Enjoyed the whole post Steve, but the bolded bit really jumped out. (I often find your posts to contain these types of understated gems)....an integral point to the whole 'ideas and behaviors cannot just be dropped or released because it has been decided so' argument. Indeed, It is 'being conscious of' that renders it all akin to putty in hand. Wasn't the goal to not become conscious but to irretrievably get lost in mind? I would not say that's 'the goal' at all. If I must state a goal or purpose to my focus, it would be 'freedom.' But then I would not say either that getting immersed in mind is regarded to be problematic. So long as there's a foundation of awareness about what's happening, an understanding about the nature of mind and what mind is capable of that underscores all experience, there's no danger of ever getting 'lost' or 'bound up' by a particular thought/idea or belief. Once we've really looked at thought and have seen clearly, there's no longer any need to hold to any particular position, but rather, we're free to just flow along with experience........freedom, underscores it all....even moments of full immersion in minding.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2013 12:06:43 GMT -5
:-) I'm pretty bully on promoting alertness, its kind of a "cure all/fix all" to some extent ;-) This can be attached to. I would say that his awareness of the fact that he's 'pretty bull on promoting' it, should be your indicator that that's very unlikely. That's the point Reefs. So long as there is awareness about what mind's doing, attachment is very unlikely. We cannot both see something clearly AND at the same time, be unconscious about it.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Dec 6, 2013 13:00:38 GMT -5
Wasn't the goal to not become conscious but to irretrievably get lost in mind? I would not say that's 'the goal' at all. If I must state a goal or purpose to my focus, it would be 'freedom.' But then I would not say either that getting immersed in mind is regarded to be problematic. So long as there's a foundation of awareness about what's happening, an understanding about the nature of mind and what mind is capable of that underscores all experience, there's no danger of ever getting 'lost' or 'bound up' by a particular thought/idea or belief. Once we've really looked at thought and have seen clearly, there's no longer any need to hold to any particular position, but rather, we're free to just flow along with experience........freedom, underscores it all....even moments of full immersion in minding. Just a note that 'freedom' is often a fool's excuse for licentiousness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2013 15:16:37 GMT -5
I would not say that's 'the goal' at all. If I must state a goal or purpose to my focus, it would be 'freedom.' But then I would not say either that getting immersed in mind is regarded to be problematic. So long as there's a foundation of awareness about what's happening, an understanding about the nature of mind and what mind is capable of that underscores all experience, there's no danger of ever getting 'lost' or 'bound up' by a particular thought/idea or belief. Once we've really looked at thought and have seen clearly, there's no longer any need to hold to any particular position, but rather, we're free to just flow along with experience........freedom, underscores it all....even moments of full immersion in minding. Just a note that 'freedom' is often a fool's excuse for licentiousness. Yes, perhaps, but the truly free do not require excuses.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Dec 6, 2013 15:18:14 GMT -5
Just a note that 'freedom' is often a fool's excuse for licentiousness. Yes, perhaps, but the truly free do not require excuses.As long as they're not being licentious
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2013 15:26:37 GMT -5
Yes, perhaps, but the truly free do not require excuses.As long as they're not being licentious Doesn't the word 'licentious' refer to having no regard for accepted rules and standards? I think one can have no regard for such things and still not require an excuse for that. Someone who was brought up Catholic for example, can have little regard for the accepted rules and standards put forth by the religion, without requiring an excuse. The absence of adherence to those rules and standards can come from actually 'being free'.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Dec 6, 2013 15:32:03 GMT -5
As long as they're not being licentious Doesn't the word 'licentious' refer to having no regard for accepted rules and standards? I think one can have no regard for such things and still not require an excuse for that. Someone who was brought up Catholic for example, can have little regard for the accepted rules and standards put forth by the religion, without requiring an excuse. The absence of adherence to those rules and standards can come from actually 'being free'. I see licentiousness as something more spiteful. An example would be a Roman Catholic very publicly spitting out the Eucharistic wafer he was just given. Now, that's licentious! Otherwise, I'd agree that disregard for rules doesn't require an excuse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2013 15:43:11 GMT -5
Doesn't the word 'licentious' refer to having no regard for accepted rules and standards? I think one can have no regard for such things and still not require an excuse for that. Someone who was brought up Catholic for example, can have little regard for the accepted rules and standards put forth by the religion, without requiring an excuse. The absence of adherence to those rules and standards can come from actually 'being free'. I see licentiousness as something more spiteful. An example would be a Roman Catholic very publicly spitting out the Eucharistic wafer he was just given. Now, that's licentious! Otherwise, I'd agree that disregard for rules doesn't require an excuse. haha...oh, okay i get it. I wasn't adding in the 'spiteful' bit. Perhaps then, I'm being a teeny bit 'licentious' when I chant 'body of Christ' as I hold out a potato chip to my dog....or ask my kids if they're up for "Grilled Jesus" sandwiches for lunch...?
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Dec 6, 2013 15:56:36 GMT -5
I see licentiousness as something more spiteful. An example would be a Roman Catholic very publicly spitting out the Eucharistic wafer he was just given. Now, that's licentious! Otherwise, I'd agree that disregard for rules doesn't require an excuse. haha...oh, okay i get it. I wasn't adding in the 'spiteful' bit. Perhaps then, I'm being a teeny bit 'licentious' when I chant 'body of Christ' as I hold out a potato chip to my dog....or ask my kids if they're up for "Grilled Jesus" sandwiches for lunch...? Sorry if I gave you the impression that I was saying you were being licentious. Didn't mean to imply that. These days, I find myself landing on ... trivial little truisms. That 'freedom is often an excuse for licentiousness' is one. Another I heard recently caught my attention: 'memory is a fool's substitution for wit'. Anyway, I digress. Carry on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2013 16:01:24 GMT -5
haha...oh, okay i get it. I wasn't adding in the 'spiteful' bit. Perhaps then, I'm being a teeny bit 'licentious' when I chant 'body of Christ' as I hold out a potato chip to my dog....or ask my kids if they're up for "Grilled Jesus" sandwiches for lunch...? Sorry if I gave you the impression that I was saying you were being licentious. Didn't mean to imply that. These days, I find myself landing on ... trivial little truisms. That 'freedom is often an excuse for licentiousness' is one. Another I heard recently caught my attention: 'memory is a fool's substitution for wit'.Anyway, I digress. Carry on. No worries B. Oooh...I like that one!
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Dec 7, 2013 6:52:50 GMT -5
If what is being refered to as 'you' is a 'particular thing' (namely, a separate, limited, independently moving body/mind-based self), then no, 'you' don't exist. The reason being that there can exist no actual particular thing in reality, as real boundaries, in both expanse and duration (fundamental requirements of any actual particular thing), are not possible. What 'you' actually are, however, is another story. There is ONLY what you actually are. But 'it' isn't 'something'.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 7, 2013 9:32:14 GMT -5
If what is being refered to as 'you' is a 'particular thing' (namely, a separate, limited, independently moving body/mind-based self), then no, 'you' don't exist. The reason being that there can exist no actual particular thing in reality, as real boundaries, in both expanse and duration (fundamental requirements of any actual particular thing), are not possible. What 'you' actually are, however, is another story. There is ONLY what you actually are. But 'it' isn't 'something'. Yes. A good question that peeps can ask themselves is, "Who am I in the absence of any story and without imagining anything?" This question can stop the mind, and precipitate a state of not-knowing. If not-knowing is sustained, a direct realization can occur that will inform mind and resolve the issue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2013 10:50:23 GMT -5
If what is being refered to as 'you' is a 'particular thing' (namely, a separate, limited, independently moving body/mind-based self), then no, 'you' don't exist. The reason being that there can exist no actual particular thing in reality, as real boundaries, in both expanse and duration (fundamental requirements of any actual particular thing), are not possible. What 'you' actually are, however, is another story. There is ONLY what you actually are. But 'it' isn't 'something'. Yes. A good question that peeps can ask themselves is, "Who am I in the absence of any story and without imagining anything?" This question can stop the mind, and precipitate a state of not-knowing. If not-knowing is sustained, a direct realization can occur that will inform mind and resolve the issue. Very good Grasshoppper :-) Though...to be a bit clearer, it would be best to 'not know' and let go of the wanting to know altogether....seeking realization through 'not knowing' renders 'not knowing' as just another means to an end. 'Not knowing' is only the means of 'not knowing...'not knowing' with Alertness, just that, is enough....its the whole thing, beggining and end.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2013 12:06:09 GMT -5
If what is being refered to as 'you' is a 'particular thing' (namely, a separate, limited, independently moving body/mind-based self), then no, 'you' don't exist. The reason being that there can exist no actual particular thing in reality, as real boundaries, in both expanse and duration (fundamental requirements of any actual particular thing), are not possible. What 'you' actually are, however, is another story. There is ONLY what you actually are. But 'it' isn't 'something'. Yes. A good question that peeps can ask themselves is, "Who am I in the absence of any story and without imagining anything?" This question can stop the mind, and precipitate a state of not-knowing. If not-knowing is sustained, a direct realization can occur that will inform mind and resolve the issue. Not-Knowing is only a conceptual understanding.... How would you be aware you were in a state of not-knowing unless you were there to know?! It's like the conceptual understanding of Enlightenment, which is your absence. How can you be aware of your own absence?! It is a nonsense...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2013 12:11:25 GMT -5
Yes. A good question that peeps can ask themselves is, "Who am I in the absence of any story and without imagining anything?" This question can stop the mind, and precipitate a state of not-knowing. If not-knowing is sustained, a direct realization can occur that will inform mind and resolve the issue. Not-Knowing is only a conceptual understanding.... How would you be aware you were in a state of not-knowing unless you were there to know?! It's like the conceptual understanding of Enlightenment, which is your absence. How can you be aware of your own absence?! It is a nonsense... It's simple. Just become aware of your breathing right now...
|
|