|
page 72
Jul 7, 2014 20:33:49 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Jul 7, 2014 20:33:49 GMT -5
Exhibit A:With a still mind volition can be observed happening, people choosing without interference And shortly after, in the same paragraph, the contradictory Exhibit B:when the stories stop, when the mind is still, there is no volition and no non-volition.. Question: Which still mind observation is right, Exhibit A or Exhibit B? Anticipated still mind observationed answer: Both. The contradiction remains. (Advanced teacher evasion tactic #47: paradox exists due to problems with communication.) (Advanced-teacher-discussion-topic-behind-ashram-curtains #33: in the interests of removing a thorn with a thorn, we must sometimes employ contradictory falsehoods to help dislodge other conceptual falsehoods.) Finally, Exhibit C: ...non-volition is not a more accurate conclusion than volition, it's a story that is relied upon to keep conflict alive.. Humble Question: If voliton and non-volition are both stories of equal merit, and, when either is relied upon, it is being used to keep conflict alive, might Exhibit A also be deemed a method to keep conflict alive? Yes, Exhibit A 'could' also be deemed a method to keep conflict alive, if that is the intent of the SVP choosing to use Exhibit A in that way.. but, my intent is to neutralize the imbalance perpetrated with the stories of non-volition.. 'volition', as a description of what is happening, has no useful purpose except to counter the ideology of non-volition.. otherwise, we can exit the stage constructed by preachers and gurus, and get on with experiencing and sharing the awe and wonder.. Awe and wonder aren't in 'truth', or stories, or meanings, or ideologies.. awe and wonder happen when the mind lets go, when the Zen Koan causes the mind to stumble and 'let go'.. when the landscape takes your breath away and the mind falls silent in reverence.. when something goes 'bump' in the night and the mind dissolves into pure awareness.. when spontaneity turns you left instead of right, and you've never seen this place you've passed a thousand times before.. awe and wonder happen when the 9th or 10th spoon full of oatmeal is just right.. when a hummingbird lands on your knee, or an owl lands on your porch while you are sitting there.. when the jar of olives slips from your grasp and you somehow catch it before it hits the floor.. awe and wonder happen when you see the raw power of nature happen, and in the soft glistening dew on a spider's web.. when you aren't busy telling yourself or others what you think 'it' is, it will show you what 'it' really is.. and, when you look into the eyes of another and see yourself looking back, that's awe and wonder..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
page 72
Jul 7, 2014 20:56:24 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2014 20:56:24 GMT -5
He calls it wonderbeauty, others call it whatever they want. No-one can be right when theyre making it all up. What I notice is that Music seems to unite humans much better than word. Are you still on pharmaceutical medication? dropped that shit a few years back. I'm doing so well these days. I think the side effects were horriffic. Its a wonder I have survived. How about you Sharon? AND, dont forget to answer your PM,s (no or else intended)
|
|
|
page 72
Jul 7, 2014 23:56:23 GMT -5
Post by someNOTHING! on Jul 7, 2014 23:56:23 GMT -5
Yes, people are amazingly different. Some people have no curiosity at all about existence, or science, or psychology, or lots of other things, whereas some people are deeply curious. Not too many people spend time wondering, "What is a subatomic particle, really?" or "How does the macroscopic world differ from the subatomic world?" or "What could explain the observer paradoxes in every field of science?" or "What is matter composed of?" or "Is there a smallest particle of matter?" or "Is there a God? etc. etc. Meiers-Briggs, and other psychologists, have speculated that most people see the world horizontally--sort of on the surface like "what you see is what you get" whereas a smaller group of people are primarily interested in understanding the world vertically--"what explains various phenomena or why do things happen as they do or what motivates people, or what is the underlying causes of whatever is happening? etc. Meiers-Briggs speculated that the first group of people primarily relate to the world through sensing and they are termed "S," and the second group of people primarily relate to the world through intuition, and they were termed "N." I have always been amazed by people who were NOT interested in delving into the world vertically. The questions that consume N's always seemed very straight-forward, unambiguous, and simple to me. We talk about subatomic particles, but what are they, really? The double-slit experiment implies that something truly odd is going on below the surface of matter, but what is it and what can explain it? If someone reads about subatomic issues and has no curiosity about what's really going on, then they're probably more S than N. Nothing wrong with that; people are different. I know many people who have a casual interest in religion, but it's no big deal. For others its a huge deal. If someone grows up in a fundamentalist religion that teaches eternal hell or heaven after death, and doubts about this develop, then whether this is true or not, and how that truth can be discovered, is a monstrously big deal. There's nothing mysterious or ambiguous about it at all; are those truth claims valid or not? An S will generally either accept or reject the issue, but its not a big deal. For an N it's a matter of life and death importance. If I call up a person who is ultra-S and say, "Hi, what's going on in your life?" here is the kind of answer I often get: "Well, I got up this morning a little later than usual and went to the store to get some eggs. We were out of eggs. Then, I came home and cooked breakfast; I was in the mood for an omelet, but I made it a little different than usual by adding red peppers and onions. Afterwards I read the newspaper and then............" This kind of descriptive response, which may last for twenty minutes, drives an N crazy. An N is thinking, "Hey, cut to the chase. What's happening vertically in your life? What's new? What sort of important or unusual things have happened? Have you had any insights? What do you think about what's happening politically or economically and what are the implications for the future? What are your thoughts about what's going on in the world? etc" I don't know, but I suspect that most people who are drawn to this forum are on the N end of the S-N spectrum, and I suspect that they are significantly interested in existential issues and existential questions or they wouldn't be here. Then, there is the T-F spectrum (thinking versus feeling), but we won't go there for now. Ha ha! Or the O-P spectrum (optimism versus pessimism), whose differences can be amazingly funny. Or the E-I spectrum (extroversion versus introversion). Or the J-P spectrum (judging versus perceiving). Suffice it to say that human beings differ in many extraordinary ways. I find the Myers-Briggs idea compelling with respect to spiritual paths. ZD, you should do your thing and set the mind aside and let the body come up with a book for those of us still on the path. Using the Myers Briggs to Pick the Right Spiritual Path. Me, strong I, leaning N v S, middling T/F, strong P. Hope jabbering on an online forum is the most extremely direct pathless path for me! Not geared toward non-dual, except through intermittent points here and there, but you did request... Four Spiritualities
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2014 2:16:18 GMT -5
Are you still on pharmaceutical medication? dropped that nuts a few years back. I'm doing so well these days. I think the side effects were horriffic. Its a wonder I have survived. How about you Sharon? AND, dont forget to answer your PM,s (no or else intended) I have no intention of answering a private message that is such a public issue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2014 2:40:43 GMT -5
i find pessimism an unnecessary indulgence. so yeah, i err on the side of optimism. do you not see all this writing as a version of SA? I do, and I think Jed has a valid approach. The advice to keep a bucket handy for the amount of crap that's going to be coming up, is spot on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2014 3:00:19 GMT -5
dropped that nuts a few years back. I'm doing so well these days. I think the side effects were horriffic. Its a wonder I have survived. How about you Sharon? AND, dont forget to answer your PM,s (no or else intended) I have no intention of answering a private message that is such a public issue. music is so public. yes. ps, no need to respond to PM... pp found on uTube. Thanks for the orig-link.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2014 9:20:04 GMT -5
I find the Myers-Briggs idea compelling with respect to spiritual paths. ZD, you should do your thing and set the mind aside and let the body come up with a book for those of us still on the path. Using the Myers Briggs to Pick the Right Spiritual Path. Me, strong I, leaning N v S, middling T/F, strong P. Hope jabbering on an online forum is the most extremely direct pathless path for me! Not geared toward non-dual, except through intermittent points here and there, but you did request... Four SpiritualitiesOne of the comments: As an NF it suggests that maybe being ensconced in family/work/community is just the right place to be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2014 9:37:10 GMT -5
Exhibit A:And shortly after, in the same paragraph, the contradictory Exhibit B:Question: Which still mind observation is right, Exhibit A or Exhibit B? Anticipated still mind observationed answer: Both. The contradiction remains. (Advanced teacher evasion tactic #47: paradox exists due to problems with communication.) (Advanced-teacher-discussion-topic-behind-ashram-curtains #33: in the interests of removing a thorn with a thorn, we must sometimes employ contradictory falsehoods to help dislodge other conceptual falsehoods.) Finally, Exhibit C: Humble Question: If voliton and non-volition are both stories of equal merit, and, when either is relied upon, it is being used to keep conflict alive, might Exhibit A also be deemed a method to keep conflict alive? Yes, Exhibit A 'could' also be deemed a method to keep conflict alive, if that is the intent of the SVP choosing to use Exhibit A in that way.. but, my intent is to neutralize the imbalance perpetrated with the stories of non-volition.. 'volition', as a description of what is happening, has no useful purpose except to counter the ideology of non-volition.. otherwise, we can exit the stage constructed by preachers and gurus, and get on with experiencing and sharing the awe and wonder.. Seems to me the 'neutralize' objective is missed though, as it just keeps the debate alive. Far more devastating is noting that both are stories to begin with. I suspect you know this, which makes me think that you want to keep the debate alive. cheers on awe and wonder. Awe and wonder aren't in 'truth', or stories, or meanings, or ideologies.. awe and wonder happen when the mind lets go, when the Zen Koan causes the mind to stumble and 'let go'.. when the landscape takes your breath away and the mind falls silent in reverence.. when something goes 'bump' in the night and the mind dissolves into pure awareness.. when spontaneity turns you left instead of right, and you've never seen this place you've passed a thousand times before.. awe and wonder happen when the 9th or 10th spoon full of oatmeal is just right.. when a hummingbird lands on your knee, or an owl lands on your porch while you are sitting there.. when the jar of olives slips from your grasp and you somehow catch it before it hits the floor.. awe and wonder happen when you see the raw power of nature happen, and in the soft glistening dew on a spider's web.. when you aren't busy telling yourself or others what you think 'it' is, it will show you what 'it' really is.. and, when you look into the eyes of another and see yourself looking back, that's awe and wonder..
|
|
|
page 72
Jul 8, 2014 10:38:40 GMT -5
Post by someNOTHING! on Jul 8, 2014 10:38:40 GMT -5
Not geared toward non-dual, except through intermittent points here and there, but you did request... Four SpiritualitiesOne of the comments: As an NF it suggests that maybe being ensconced in family/work/community is just the right place to be. Yeah, the book seemed geared toward defining a path, so buyer beware. Mind you I just poked around on it a bit around 5-6 years ago as a curiosity. Otherwise, it does offer some perspective on how people go about seeking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
page 72
Jul 8, 2014 11:19:25 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2014 11:19:25 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2014 12:00:59 GMT -5
That tree does look kinda introverted.
|
|
|
page 72
Jul 8, 2014 20:34:55 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Jul 8, 2014 20:34:55 GMT -5
Yes, Exhibit A 'could' also be deemed a method to keep conflict alive, if that is the intent of the SVP choosing to use Exhibit A in that way.. but, my intent is to neutralize the imbalance perpetrated with the stories of non-volition.. 'volition', as a description of what is happening, has no useful purpose except to counter the ideology of non-volition.. otherwise, we can exit the stage constructed by preachers and gurus, and get on with experiencing and sharing the awe and wonder.. Seems to me the 'neutralize' objective is missed though, as it just keeps the debate alive. Far more devastating is noting that both are stories to begin with. I suspect you know this, which makes me think that you want to keep the debate alive. cheers on awe and wonder.
Awe and wonder aren't in 'truth', or stories, or meanings, or ideologies.. awe and wonder happen when the mind lets go, when the Zen Koan causes the mind to stumble and 'let go'.. when the landscape takes your breath away and the mind falls silent in reverence.. when something goes 'bump' in the night and the mind dissolves into pure awareness.. when spontaneity turns you left instead of right, and you've never seen this place you've passed a thousand times before.. awe and wonder happen when the 9th or 10th spoon full of oatmeal is just right.. when a hummingbird lands on your knee, or an owl lands on your porch while you are sitting there.. when the jar of olives slips from your grasp and you somehow catch it before it hits the floor.. awe and wonder happen when you see the raw power of nature happen, and in the soft glistening dew on a spider's web.. when you aren't busy telling yourself or others what you think 'it' is, it will show you what 'it' really is.. and, when you look into the eyes of another and see yourself looking back, that's awe and wonder.. [/quote] To the observer not aligned with either story, an unchallenged story that presents only one perspective begins to seem valid.. to 'neutralize' is not about the believer attached to their beliefs, it is about the novice observer seeing more than one biased perspective.. the debate exists because people present their preferred story while denouncing other stories.. Volition/non-volition, separate/no-separation, duality/non-duality, are opinions/beliefs/stories about what is happening.. attachment to any of those stories is a self-fulfilling prophesy: by attaching to a story, the believer rejects other information that might revise or contradict what is believed as true and looks for information that supports the belief.. I see people choosing, some people choose differently than others.. there's no value added by the introduction of ideas like volition/non-volition, separate/no-separation, duality/non-duality, people choosing is what is happening.. creating conceptual models/structures to explain the experiencer's understanding of seeing people choose, is adding complexity and distortion to the experience of people choosing..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2014 9:28:26 GMT -5
Seems to me the 'neutralize' objective is missed though, as it just keeps the debate alive. Far more devastating is noting that both are stories to begin with. I suspect you know this, which makes me think that you want to keep the debate alive. cheers on awe and wonder.
To the observer not aligned with either story, an unchallenged story that presents only one perspective begins to seem valid.. to 'neutralize' is not about the believer attached to their beliefs, it is about the novice observer seeing more than one biased perspective.. the debate exists because people present their preferred story while denouncing other stories.. Volition/non-volition, separate/no-separation, duality/non-duality, are opinions/beliefs/stories about what is happening.. attachment to any of those stories is a self-fulfilling prophesy: by attaching to a story, the believer rejects other information that might revise or contradict what is believed as true and looks for information that supports the belief..
I see people choosing, some people choose differently than others.. there's no value added by the introduction of ideas like volition/non-volition, separate/no-separation, duality/non-duality, people choosing is what is happening.. creating conceptual models/structures to explain the experiencer's understanding of seeing people choose, is adding complexity and distortion to the experience of people choosing..That is exactly my point. It seems to me that, if what you are actually concerned with, is peeps attachment to stories, you'd want to point out that stories abound on both sides of the debate. And you have done this but then you also fall back on arguing vociferously for the other side of the debate. This tactic that advanced teacher's use regarding neutralizing one conceptual falsehood with another is done with great finesse, I imagine. A moment arises for it, the opportunity taken, and then it passes. It is a temporary tactic not an overall strategy. If it is ineffective in the moment then it is discarded. Also, it requires the student to not know that the teacher is knowingly using a conceptual falsehood.
|
|
|
page 72
Jul 9, 2014 11:27:37 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Jul 9, 2014 11:27:37 GMT -5
To the observer not aligned with either story, an unchallenged story that presents only one perspective begins to seem valid.. to 'neutralize' is not about the believer attached to their beliefs, it is about the novice observer seeing more than one biased perspective.. the debate exists because people present their preferred story while denouncing other stories.. Volition/non-volition, separate/no-separation, duality/non-duality, are opinions/beliefs/stories about what is happening.. attachment to any of those stories is a self-fulfilling prophesy: by attaching to a story, the believer rejects other information that might revise or contradict what is believed as true and looks for information that supports the belief..
I see people choosing, some people choose differently than others.. there's no value added by the introduction of ideas like volition/non-volition, separate/no-separation, duality/non-duality, people choosing is what is happening.. creating conceptual models/structures to explain the experiencer's understanding of seeing people choose, is adding complexity and distortion to the experience of people choosing.. That is exactly my point. It seems to me that, if what you are actually concerned with, is peeps attachment to stories, you'd want to point out that stories abound on both sides of the debate. And you have done this but then you also fall back on arguing vociferously for the other side of the debate. This tactic that advanced teacher's use regarding neutralizing one conceptual falsehood with another is done with great finesse, I imagine. A moment arises for it, the opportunity taken, and then it passes. It is a temporary tactic not an overall strategy. If it is ineffective in the moment then it is discarded. Also, it requires the student to not know that the teacher is knowingly using a conceptual falsehood. From my perspective, all stories are not created equal in the sense that one story is as deceptive as another and is only used to shake up the first story. One might get that impression from the thorn analogy, but really it means the goal is not to acquire the best thorn but to stop sticking oneself. It's true that both volition and nonvolition are stories about a mythological separate person, and absent that separate person, there's no need for either story, but in that personal context, one of those stories is true and the other false.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
page 72
Jul 9, 2014 11:57:56 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2014 11:57:56 GMT -5
That is exactly my point. It seems to me that, if what you are actually concerned with, is peeps attachment to stories, you'd want to point out that stories abound on both sides of the debate. And you have done this but then you also fall back on arguing vociferously for the other side of the debate. This tactic that advanced teacher's use regarding neutralizing one conceptual falsehood with another is done with great finesse, I imagine. A moment arises for it, the opportunity taken, and then it passes. It is a temporary tactic not an overall strategy. If it is ineffective in the moment then it is discarded. Also, it requires the student to not know that the teacher is knowingly using a conceptual falsehood. From my perspective, all stories are not created equal in the sense that one story is as deceptive as another and is only used to shake up the first story. One might get that impression from the thorn analogy, but really it means the goal is not to acquire the best thorn but to stop sticking oneself. It's true that both volition and nonvolition are stories about a mythological separate person, and absent that separate person, there's no need for either story, but in that personal context, one of those stories is true and the other false. Are you using nonvolition to mean being a handpuppet of God, for example, or absence of volition?
|
|