|
Post by laughter on Jan 20, 2014 11:07:09 GMT -5
UM version of the NAT. The question I am continually posing is this: Does Self-Realization or Realization of the impersonal leave any room for choosing to be the change we would like to see? Does it leave room for preference? Does it leave room for choosing love/joy, or choosing to act with love, or choosing to be love/joy? Does it leave room for paying attention to what we are putting out there, to taking responsibility for what we are contributing/creating? Does it leave room to decide to be a bit more disciplined in our responses in terms of being more respectful? Does it leave space for us to consider what is right action, what is higher action, what is loving action? Does it leave space for us to take a more moral road at times and to consider our values? Does it leave space for paying attention to our behaviour and the results that our behaviour is producing? Does it leave space for dropping it all and stepping fully into a not-know state? Does it leave space for enthusiasm, passion, hope and faith? * Does it leave space for, and allow, the relative aspect to this experience? * IMO, part of Realization is this leaving space/room and allowing the relative aspect, and I am not speaking of 'allowing' there as a doing, though equally I would say that it does leave space to choose to allow. Here's the other thing. If there is no path to Realization, then all these talks are as useful/useless as talking about football or food or anything else. If there really is nothing that can be done to facilitate Realization, then we really might as well talk about how to be better human beings, how to have a better experience, how to release conditioned fears and limiting beliefs, how to lead more fulfilling, enriching, happier lives. Really, there is no point in even pointing out the limitations of practices, because noticing those limitations isn't any more likely to take us towards Realization than not noticing them. So we might as well talk about the benefits of meditation, ATA, yoga, EFT, NLP etc, unless we perceive a practical benefit to noticing the limitations, for example, it might reduce over-exertion or something like that. As you know, my opinion is that all that stuff I just said is relevant to Realization, but if its not, at least I am not just using energy to talk about something that I assume will make no difference. If I'm going to invest a bit of energy in something, its because I think it might make a difference. As Reefs pointed out, in what he refers to as realization, the person is untouched. What I refer to as realization is a bedrock commonality between all human beings, from the saintliest to the most low, debauched and degraded, from the rock star to the clerk, from the poor soul who is mentally handicapped thru to our most brilliant thinkers. What "is realized" is something common to the most arrogant fool alive as well as to the sweet and the meek. Noone has any claim on what I refer to as realization. It can't be given or taken away, it's not some sort of gift and it's not something earned or achieved or anything of value. Obviously the way that I'm using the word is completely unconventional, in that what's realized isn't a bit of information. "Realization", in this sense is non-conceptual. What I refer to as realization is ever one deep breath, one view of a sunset or a skyline away. What I refer to as realization happens over and over again on this good green Earth billions of times a day in a kiss, a glance, a sigh or a song. In raising the questions about leaving the space for love, joy and responsibility, you squarely locate your version of realization as something much more earthy, more visceral. What I'm talking about is prior-to these, in that without it, there is no love, joy or responsibility. The question of practice and the effect it has on the human condition is one that involves a wide range of opinion. The idea that practice is unrelated to realization is unrelated to the version of realization you've described, as you're referring to life as a process, while what I'm referring to as realization is acausal -- it has nothing to do with time, it has nothing to do with apparent causes or apparent effects. Personally, I see great value in practice, and value all views on it, including the idea that practice has nothing to do with realization. In my opinion, there's also value to be had in conversations about practice, but if these conversations are had using completely different versions of the word "realization" then they will be a practice in the absurd. To answer the question directly about choice, I'd opine that it is only in the context of what I'm referring to as realization that there is any genuine free choice -- but in this I'm not referring to the volition/destiny dichotomy, as by referring to non-conceptual realization what I've done is spin an idea around a pointer. In that, this point is nothing that I'll offer any debate on. Pointers either work for one or they don't. They are either followed or thrown away. Any conceptualization beyond the pointing is only about the concept of the pointer and is yet another practice in absurdity.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 20, 2014 12:40:14 GMT -5
UM version of the NAT. The question I am continually posing is this: Does Self-Realization or Realization of the impersonal leave any room for choosing to be the change we would like to see? Does it leave room for preference? Does it leave room for choosing love/joy, or choosing to act with love, or choosing to be love/joy? Does it leave room for paying attention to what we are putting out there, to taking responsibility for what we are contributing/creating? Does it leave room to decide to be a bit more disciplined in our responses in terms of being more respectful? Does it leave space for us to consider what is right action, what is higher action, what is loving action? Does it leave space for us to take a more moral road at times and to consider our values? Does it leave space for paying attention to our behaviour and the results that our behaviour is producing? Does it leave space for dropping it all and stepping fully into a not-know state? Does it leave space for enthusiasm, passion, hope and faith? * Does it leave space for, and allow, the relative aspect to this experience? * IMO, part of Realization is this leaving space/room and allowing the relative aspect, and I am not speaking of 'allowing' there as a doing, though equally I would say that it does leave space to choose to allow. Here's the other thing. If there is no path to Realization, then all these talks are as useful/useless as talking about football or food or anything else. If there really is nothing that can be done to facilitate Realization, then we really might as well talk about how to be better human beings, how to have a better experience, how to release conditioned fears and limiting beliefs, how to lead more fulfilling, enriching, happier lives. Really, there is no point in even pointing out the limitations of practices, because noticing those limitations isn't any more likely to take us towards Realization than not noticing them. So we might as well talk about the benefits of meditation, ATA, yoga, EFT, NLP etc, unless we perceive a practical benefit to noticing the limitations, for example, it might reduce over-exertion or something like that. As you know, my opinion is that all that stuff I just said is relevant to Realization, but if its not, at least I am not just using energy to talk about something that I assume will make no difference. If I'm going to invest a bit of energy in something, its because I think it might make a difference. As Reefs pointed out, in what he refers to as realization, the person is untouched. What I refer to as realization is a bedrock commonality between all human beings, from the saintliest to the most low, debauched and degraded, from the rock star to the clerk, from the poor soul who is mentally handicapped thru to our most brilliant thinkers. What "is realized" is something common to the most arrogant fool alive as well as to the sweet and the meek. Noone has any claim on what I refer to as realization. It can't be given or taken away, it's not some sort of gift and it's not something earned or achieved or anything of value. Obviously the way that I'm using the word is completely unconventional, in that what's realized isn't a bit of information. "Realization", in this sense is non-conceptual. What I refer to as realization is ever one deep breath, one view of a sunset or a skyline away. What I refer to as realization happens over and over again on this good green Earth billions of times a day in a kiss, a glance, a sigh or a song. In raising the questions about leaving the space for love, joy and responsibility, you squarely locate your version of realization as something much more earthy, more visceral. What I'm talking about is prior-to these, in that without it, there is no love, joy or responsibility. The question of practice and the effect it has on the human condition is one that involves a wide range of opinion. The idea that practice is unrelated to realization is unrelated to the version of realization you've described, as you're referring to life as a process, while what I'm referring to as realization is acausal -- it has nothing to do with time, it has nothing to do with apparent causes or apparent effects.Personally, I see great value in practice, and value all views on it, including the idea that practice has nothing to do with realization. In my opinion, there's also value to be had in conversations about practice, but if these conversations are had using completely different versions of the word "realization" then they will be a practice in the absurd. To answer the question directly about choice, I'd opine that it is only in the context of what I'm referring to as realization that there is any genuine free choice -- but in this I'm not referring to the volition/destiny dichotomy, as by referring to non-conceptual realization what I've done is spin an idea around a pointer. In that, this point is nothing that I'll offer any debate on. Pointers either work for one or they don't. They are either followed or thrown away. Any conceptualization beyond the pointing is only about the concept of the pointer and is yet another practice in absurdity. That's the bottom line for me. We could talk about Realization as effectively an absence as it relates to the dynamics of the person, though we could also talk about it as a presence. As such, we could say it has nothing to do with those dynamics since all the salient dynamics are in fact not happening, or we could say it has everything to do with those dynamics as it is conditional on their absence. In this way we could say realization is conditional on an absence, and we can say it is unconditional because nothing is required to be present in this absence that hasn't always been present. In this way we could say that presence is required, and we could say that which cannot be absent has no biznis being on a list of requirements to be present. So obviously (or not, depending on the position taken) any position can be taken and argued for with reasonable efficacy, and that's what happens here, and pretty much all that happens. An understanding of the limitations of language and concepts is useful here, as is a focus on looking behind and beneath them to glimpse something closer to the truth of the matter. I could spin it once more about how we could say things are both true and not true, but I'll assume the point has been made.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 20, 2014 13:19:20 GMT -5
To basically repeat what I said in the other section:
I'm not comfortable with you having turned what I said into a thread Laughter, would it be possible to take it down please? If you wish to write your own thread on the subject, that would be fine of course, or maybe just leave your response up?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 20, 2014 16:08:46 GMT -5
To basically repeat what I said in the other section: I'm not comfortable with you having turned what I said into a thread Laughter, would it be possible to take it down please? If you wish to write your own thread on the subject, that would be fine of course, or maybe just leave your response up? I'm sorry Andrew but for the moment I'm not going to do as you ask. Once we write something here and post it out in public it's there for anyone to see. I found what you wrote to be open and honest and worth discussing, and worth discussing outside of the context of where it was written. Unfortunately, my reply to you is non-sequitur without what is in reply to. What, exactly, are you uncomfortable about the fact that I've based a thread on it?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 20, 2014 16:14:45 GMT -5
To basically repeat what I said in the other section: I'm not comfortable with you having turned what I said into a thread Laughter, would it be possible to take it down please? If you wish to write your own thread on the subject, that would be fine of course, or maybe just leave your response up? I'm sorry Andrew but for the moment I'm not going to do as you ask. Once we write something here and post it out in public it's there for anyone to see. I found what you wrote to be open and honest and worth discussing, and worth discussing outside of the context of where it was written. Unfortunately, my reply to you is non-sequitur without what is in reply to. What, exactly, are you uncomfortable about the fact that I've based a thread on it? It was written as part of a one to one discussion with you (plus Tzu/Fig), I wouldn't have written it otherwise. I think its true to say that I placed a wee bit of trust in the context of the thread. My opinion is that your response would be enough to generate discussion, and of course if anyone really wanted to see what I had said, it could be read in the other thread. I'm not going to throw a tizzy if you don't take it down, but I would still prefer if you did.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 20, 2014 16:35:00 GMT -5
I'm sorry Andrew but for the moment I'm not going to do as you ask. Once we write something here and post it out in public it's there for anyone to see. I found what you wrote to be open and honest and worth discussing, and worth discussing outside of the context of where it was written. Unfortunately, my reply to you is non-sequitur without what is in reply to. What, exactly, are you uncomfortable about the fact that I've based a thread on it? It was written as part of a one to one discussion with you (plus Tzu/Fig), I wouldn't have written it otherwise. I think its true to say that I placed a wee bit of trust in the context of the thread. My opinion is that your response would be enough to generate discussion, and of course if anyone really wanted to see what I had said, it could be read in the other thread. I'm not going to throw a tizzy if you don't take it down, but I would still prefer if you did. As a compromise I replaced the quote with a link in the NAT version, but please be aware that the semi-private conversation is also semi-public and everyone can read what you're writing there.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 20, 2014 16:38:32 GMT -5
It was written as part of a one to one discussion with you (plus Tzu/Fig), I wouldn't have written it otherwise. I think its true to say that I placed a wee bit of trust in the context of the thread. My opinion is that your response would be enough to generate discussion, and of course if anyone really wanted to see what I had said, it could be read in the other thread. I'm not going to throw a tizzy if you don't take it down, but I would still prefer if you did. As a compromise I replaced the quote with a link in the NAT version, but please be aware that the semi-private conversation is also semi-public and everyone can read what you're writing there. Replacing the quote with a link is better than not doing that, so thanks. If you could do the same here, that would also be good. I understand of course that it is still public.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 20, 2014 17:29:40 GMT -5
UM version of the NAT. As Reefs pointed out, in what he refers to as realization, the person is untouched. What I refer to as realization is a bedrock commonality between all human beings, from the saintliest to the most low, debauched and degraded, from the rock star to the clerk, from the poor soul who is mentally handicapped thru to our most brilliant thinkers. What "is realized" is something common to the most arrogant fool alive as well as to the sweet and the meek. Noone has any claim on what I refer to as realization. It can't be given or taken away, it's not some sort of gift and it's not something earned or achieved or anything of value. Obviously the way that I'm using the word is completely unconventional, in that what's realized isn't a bit of information. "Realization", in this sense is non-conceptual. What I refer to as realization is ever one deep breath, one view of a sunset or a skyline away. What I refer to as realization happens over and over again on this good green Earth billions of times a day in a kiss, a glance, a sigh or a song. In raising the questions about leaving the space for love, joy and responsibility, you squarely locate your version of realization as something much more earthy, more visceral. What I'm talking about is prior-to these, in that without it, there is no love, joy or responsibility. The question of practice and the effect it has on the human condition is one that involves a wide range of opinion. The idea that practice is unrelated to realization is unrelated to the version of realization you've described, as you're referring to life as a process, while what I'm referring to as realization is acausal -- it has nothing to do with time, it has nothing to do with apparent causes or apparent effects.Personally, I see great value in practice, and value all views on it, including the idea that practice has nothing to do with realization. In my opinion, there's also value to be had in conversations about practice, but if these conversations are had using completely different versions of the word "realization" then they will be a practice in the absurd. To answer the question directly about choice, I'd opine that it is only in the context of what I'm referring to as realization that there is any genuine free choice -- but in this I'm not referring to the volition/destiny dichotomy, as by referring to non-conceptual realization what I've done is spin an idea around a pointer. In that, this point is nothing that I'll offer any debate on. Pointers either work for one or they don't. They are either followed or thrown away. Any conceptualization beyond the pointing is only about the concept of the pointer and is yet another practice in absurdity. That's the bottom line for me. We could talk about Realization as effectively an absence as it relates to the dynamics of the person, though we could also talk about it as a presence. As such, we could say it has nothing to do with those dynamics since all the salient dynamics are in fact not happening, or we could say it has everything to do with those dynamics as it is conditional on their absence. In this way we could say realization is conditional on an absence, and we can say it is unconditional because nothing is required to be present in this absence that hasn't always been present. In this way we could say that presence is required, and we could say that which cannot be absent has no biznis being on a list of requirements to be present. So obviously (or not, depending on the position taken) any position can be taken and argued for with reasonable efficacy, and that's what happens here, and pretty much all that happens. An understanding of the limitations of language and concepts is useful here, as is a focus on looking behind and beneath them to glimpse something closer to the truth of the matter. I could spin it once more about how we could say things are both true and not true, but I'll assume the point has been made. I'd say there's value to be had in embracing paradox for the mental confusion that it is just to be able to recognize when we've reached that point, because at that point, there's no mental process that's helpful, and in fact, conceptualization beyond that point can just deepen the confusion. So here we recognize a context where the conceptual duality of free will vs. destiny is simply non-operative, simply inapplicable, but in that context we can talk about making choices. To backtrack from there and re-raise the question -- "what good is it to consider the idea of making choices when there is no such thing as volition?", fails to recognize that point of paradox, and when it's combined with heavy-duty analysis, leads to an impenetrable fog of confusion that is a great example of the futility of addressing mind with mind.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 20, 2014 20:31:50 GMT -5
I'm sorry Andrew but for the moment I'm not going to do as you ask. Once we write something here and post it out in public it's there for anyone to see. I found what you wrote to be open and honest and worth discussing, and worth discussing outside of the context of where it was written. Unfortunately, my reply to you is non-sequitur without what is in reply to. What, exactly, are you uncomfortable about the fact that I've based a thread on it? It was written as part of a one to one discussion with you (plus Tzu/Fig), I wouldn't have written it otherwise. I think its true to say that I placed a wee bit of trust in the context of the thread. My opinion is that your response would be enough to generate discussion, and of course if anyone really wanted to see what I had said, it could be read in the other thread. I'm not going to throw a tizzy if you don't take it down, but I would still prefer if you did. My understanding is that the 'private' thread was not intended to give you a forum for discussing various topics without the possibility of being challenged.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jan 20, 2014 20:42:20 GMT -5
It was written as part of a one to one discussion with you (plus Tzu/Fig), I wouldn't have written it otherwise. I think its true to say that I placed a wee bit of trust in the context of the thread. My opinion is that your response would be enough to generate discussion, and of course if anyone really wanted to see what I had said, it could be read in the other thread. I'm not going to throw a tizzy if you don't take it down, but I would still prefer if you did. My understanding is that the 'private' thread was not intended to give you a forum for discussing various topics without the possibility of being challenged. But wasn't that challenge limited to the 'semi-private' thread? That was laffey's OP, not Andrew's.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 20, 2014 20:43:27 GMT -5
It was written as part of a one to one discussion with you (plus Tzu/Fig), I wouldn't have written it otherwise. I think its true to say that I placed a wee bit of trust in the context of the thread. My opinion is that your response would be enough to generate discussion, and of course if anyone really wanted to see what I had said, it could be read in the other thread. I'm not going to throw a tizzy if you don't take it down, but I would still prefer if you did. My understanding is that the 'private' thread was not intended to give you a forum for discussing various topics without the possibility of being challenged. You think that I thought that Laughter wouldn't respectfully challenge what I had said on the other thread? If so, you are mistaken. My preference WAS to have Laughter debate it with me, so that the subject could be discussed in respectful terms.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 20, 2014 20:50:23 GMT -5
That's the bottom line for me. We could talk about Realization as effectively an absence as it relates to the dynamics of the person, though we could also talk about it as a presence. As such, we could say it has nothing to do with those dynamics since all the salient dynamics are in fact not happening, or we could say it has everything to do with those dynamics as it is conditional on their absence. In this way we could say realization is conditional on an absence, and we can say it is unconditional because nothing is required to be present in this absence that hasn't always been present. In this way we could say that presence is required, and we could say that which cannot be absent has no biznis being on a list of requirements to be present. So obviously (or not, depending on the position taken) any position can be taken and argued for with reasonable efficacy, and that's what happens here, and pretty much all that happens. An understanding of the limitations of language and concepts is useful here, as is a focus on looking behind and beneath them to glimpse something closer to the truth of the matter. I could spin it once more about how we could say things are both true and not true, but I'll assume the point has been made. I'd say there's value to be had in embracing paradox for the mental confusion that it is just to be able to recognize when we've reached that point, because at that point, there's no mental process that's helpful, and in fact, conceptualization beyond that point can just deepen the confusion. Yes, I think you've referred to the appearance of paradox as a mental stop sign? It seems more appropriate than giving the paradox a big ole bear hug and continuing on undaunted as though there is no apparent contradiction. Yeah, a lot of the missteps here are about building arguments on a foundation of sand. I recommend a few cubic yards of compacted three quarter minus.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 20, 2014 20:59:54 GMT -5
My understanding is that the 'private' thread was not intended to give you a forum for discussing various topics without the possibility of being challenged. But wasn't that challenge limited to the 'semi-private' thread? That was laffey's OP, not Andrew's. I could easily be confused because I have trouble following the musical chairs game with posts here, but it looked like L took an unrelated 'private thread' post of Andy's, and started a separate 'public' thread with it, and Andy has been responding to it back on the private thread where you and I are not allowed to participate. Apparently, he's doing that specifically to avoid public discussion of it. (Of course, the only place I can talk about that is here.)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 20, 2014 21:03:00 GMT -5
My understanding is that the 'private' thread was not intended to give you a forum for discussing various topics without the possibility of being challenged. You think that I thought that Laughter wouldn't respectfully challenge what I had said on the other thread? If so, you are mistaken. My preference WAS to have Laughter debate it with me, so that the subject could be discussed in respectful terms. Umm....No, I don't think I thought you thought that.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jan 20, 2014 21:04:44 GMT -5
But wasn't that challenge limited to the 'semi-private' thread? That was laffey's OP, not Andrew's. I could easily be confused because I have trouble following the musical chairs game with posts here, but it looked like L took an unrelated 'private thread' post of Andy's, and started a separate 'public' thread with it, and Andy has been responding to it back on the private thread where you and I are not allowed to participate. Apparently, he's doing that specifically to avoid public discussion of it. (Of course, the only place I can talk about that is here.) Yes, that is my impression, as well (though calling it a 'private' thread is confusing, if it can be read by the public. Maybe we could call it the 'exclusive' thread?) In any event, if they want to hash it out on the 'exclusive' thread, I see no reason not to let them. But, if that's the case, then I can see why A wouldn't want his comments over there to go anywhere but ... over there.
|
|