|
page 72
Jul 16, 2014 7:09:25 GMT -5
Post by zendancer on Jul 16, 2014 7:09:25 GMT -5
Going anywhere or coming back from anywhere are other cognitive illusions. What I am does not come or go. How about you? nothing is fixed at all. Everything is constantly changing cept me. Agreed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
page 72
Jul 16, 2014 7:11:10 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2014 7:11:10 GMT -5
nothing is fixed at all. Everything is constantly changing cept me. Agreed. friday night @ the National.... love from us to you 2. Attachments:
|
|
|
page 72
Jul 16, 2014 7:21:32 GMT -5
Post by zendancer on Jul 16, 2014 7:21:32 GMT -5
Nice poem, and I think that's what most people on this forum are pointing to. Do you notice that some people on the forum insist that a particular language be used to point to the same thing, sometimes violently objecting to language inconsistent with the preferred words/thoughts? The words people use don't bother me, but I can see that they bother others, and its unfortunate that many people are too afraid to post here as a result. This is a dangerous lake containing many snapping turtles, but it is what it is. LOL The good news is that there is enough clarity, humor, originality, wide range of experiences and realizations, extraordinarily good writing, high intelligence, and accurate pointing that it usually makes for an interesting read.
|
|
|
page 72
Jul 16, 2014 7:53:23 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Jul 16, 2014 7:53:23 GMT -5
There is what is observed/experienced.. but most people believe that what they 'think' is what is real.. One can think it's duality or non-duality it is neither.. it 'is' itself being itself Through me through you as me as you experiencing its own existence.. Grand stories are told illusions are sold saying do this don't do that 'cause "I" have the truth people want to show what they think they know then they say it must be 'my way' or the high way Let it be what it is just look and see no words from Niz change what it is find your own words rather than joining the i'm right herds each person fabricates what they consider reality is not being Real Themselves. Therefore, so many realities and such confusion is due to ones clarity of mind as it is mind that deludes. yup
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
page 72
Jul 16, 2014 9:48:42 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2014 9:48:42 GMT -5
Nice poem, and I think that's what most people on this forum are pointing to. Do you notice that some people on the forum insist that a particular language be used to point to the same thing, sometimes violently objecting to language inconsistent with the preferred words/thoughts?In all honesty, my impression Tzu, is that you insist on not using particular language to point to the same thing. For example, here. You specifically react against certain words even if the gist of what is being said is not objectionable. Whereas your phrase "violently objecting" is overstated, IMO, I do think you come across as quite disappointed when certain words are used even if the meaning of what is being said is not really a problem. So when you charge that 'some people on the forum insist that a particular language be used' it just really is ironic, because it seems so clear that you are including yourself, unknowingly, in this very charge. Your cautions against fundamentalism and dogmatism are welcomed and shared and widely consensed upon in general. I don't really think there's much of a fight here with respect to that. The thing is, regarding dogmas and theories and ways of saying things, to be very general, is that they are usually concealing some helpful nuggets. I see a lot of the conversation here being about teasing out the nuggets, separating the wheat from the chaffe.
|
|
|
page 72
Jul 16, 2014 20:10:11 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Jul 16, 2014 20:10:11 GMT -5
Do you notice that some people on the forum insist that a particular language be used to point to the same thing, sometimes violently objecting to language inconsistent with the preferred words/thoughts? The words people use don't bother me, but I can see that they bother others, and its unfortunate that many people are too afraid to post here as a result. This is a dangerous lake containing many snapping turtles, but it is what it is. LOL The good news is that there is enough clarity, humor, originality, wide range of experiences and realizations, extraordinarily good writing, high intelligence, and accurate pointing that it usually makes for an interesting read. I agree, it is unfortunate that certain words and phrases are sanctioned and others are persecuted.. the words people use don't bother me, but the inconsistencies they reference make it difficult to understand the intended communication.. People are afraid to post here because if the forum's not too subtle agenda isn't adhered to, the offender can be subjected to abusive interrogation, ridicule, and mockery, disguised as philosophical psycho-therapy.. It begins with the proponents of specialized beliefs believing that they have had 'uncommon' experiences that require uncommon explanations.. personally, it is my experience that if you spend some time with common people you find they have the same 'uncommon experiences' but don't understand it.. their description of their uncommon experiences may not agree with another's description, only due to differences in language application.. but, y'all know my position on specialized/exclusive linguistics, i am curious as to the motivation for specialization, though.. when it is simpler and more unifying to find broadly applicable descriptions of uncommon experiences, the insistence on specialized linguistics that have a history of conflict seems inconsistent with the non-dual understanding of existence..
|
|
|
page 72
Jul 16, 2014 20:13:30 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Jul 16, 2014 20:13:30 GMT -5
Do you notice that some people on the forum insist that a particular language be used to point to the same thing, sometimes violently objecting to language inconsistent with the preferred words/thoughts? In all honesty, my impression Tzu, is that you insist on not using particular language to point to the same thing. For example, here. You specifically react against certain words even if the gist of what is being said is not objectionable. Whereas your phrase "violently objecting" is overstated, IMO, I do think you come across as quite disappointed when certain words are used even if the meaning of what is being said is not really a problem. So when you charge that 'some people on the forum insist that a particular language be used' it just really is ironic, because it seems so clear that you are including yourself, unknowingly, in this very charge. Your cautions against fundamentalism and dogmatism are welcomed and shared and widely consensed upon in general. I don't really think there's much of a fight here with respect to that. The thing is, regarding dogmas and theories and ways of saying things, to be very general, is that they are usually concealing some helpful nuggets. I see a lot of the conversation here being about teasing out the nuggets, separating the wheat from the chaffe. Hi Max: That is your opinion, but.. you've used your opinion to avoid looking at the message..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
page 72
Jul 16, 2014 21:35:18 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2014 21:35:18 GMT -5
In all honesty, my impression Tzu, is that you insist on not using particular language to point to the same thing. For example, here. You specifically react against certain words even if the gist of what is being said is not objectionable. Whereas your phrase "violently objecting" is overstated, IMO, I do think you come across as quite disappointed when certain words are used even if the meaning of what is being said is not really a problem. So when you charge that 'some people on the forum insist that a particular language be used' it just really is ironic, because it seems so clear that you are including yourself, unknowingly, in this very charge. Your cautions against fundamentalism and dogmatism are welcomed and shared and widely consensed upon in general. I don't really think there's much of a fight here with respect to that. The thing is, regarding dogmas and theories and ways of saying things, to be very general, is that they are usually concealing some helpful nuggets. I see a lot of the conversation here being about teasing out the nuggets, separating the wheat from the chaffe. Hi Max: That is your opinion, but.. you've used your opinion to avoid looking at the message.. the tendency to become attached to that which represents the knownmostly occurs through the sense of sight, then sound, I have noticed. TOUCH hides nothing. In an effort to bring light to this dilemma and possibly break-thro, I once arranged a meeting between two ppl I had shared this fascinating subject with and who didn't know each other so we arranged an experiment together. BLINDfolds were used when each came to my house(at separate times so that neither saw each other) and each was led into the living room and seated on a cushion infront of a low level dining table and the intro-took place. My Job was to stay out of it, yet attend their need for food, which had been earlier prepared and laid-out on the table. (sometimes I had two forks in my hands) They got along so well, weaving words between them; later they both agreed to bed-down for the night as they didn't wanna part, they both wanted to follow-thro with this experiment... so lights went off and into the night they sailed, neither fumbling with their separate mental conditioning and going by touch:A sweet scene to witness. In the morning, the bloke was horrified he had done it with someone he wasn't attracted to visually. "She is ugly!" he blurted-out, unable to contain himself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
page 72
Jul 17, 2014 7:26:09 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2014 7:26:09 GMT -5
In all honesty, my impression Tzu, is that you insist on not using particular language to point to the same thing. For example, here. You specifically react against certain words even if the gist of what is being said is not objectionable. Whereas your phrase "violently objecting" is overstated, IMO, I do think you come across as quite disappointed when certain words are used even if the meaning of what is being said is not really a problem. So when you charge that 'some people on the forum insist that a particular language be used' it just really is ironic, because it seems so clear that you are including yourself, unknowingly, in this very charge. Your cautions against fundamentalism and dogmatism are welcomed and shared and widely consensed upon in general. I don't really think there's much of a fight here with respect to that. The thing is, regarding dogmas and theories and ways of saying things, to be very general, is that they are usually concealing some helpful nuggets. I see a lot of the conversation here being about teasing out the nuggets, separating the wheat from the chaffe. Hi Max: That is your opinion, but.. you've used your opinion to avoid looking at the message.. Right, it's an opinion. But avoiding looking at the message is not quite correct. 1. I looked at the message: " Do you notice that some people on the forum insist that a particular language be used to point to the same thing, sometimes violently objecting to language inconsistent with the preferred words/thoughts?" 2. And I agreed with it, at least my interpretation of it (which is the best we can ever do). My interpretation is thus: some people on the forum seem to be very particular about the kinds of words that should or should not be used to convey meaning that is shared by others despite using different kinds of words. Does that seem like I'm looking at the same message? 3. Then, an association blinked in my noggin opining that this was EXACTLY the same sort of message I have been trying to convey to one particular person on this forum. Hmm...who could that be? Oh YEAH! It's you!! Wow. Bonus: Do you see how "you've used your opinion to avoid looking at the message" can be considered itself an opinion, or at least conjecture? rupa might call this 'amateur psychoanalysis.' Extra Bonus: Speaking of psychoanalysis, there's this particular concept from that body of thought, that seems very apt in this moment: "projection."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
page 72
Jul 17, 2014 7:30:36 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2014 7:30:36 GMT -5
Hi Max: That is your opinion, but.. you've used your opinion to avoid looking at the message.. the tendency to become attached to that which represents the knownmostly occurs through the sense of sight, then sound, I have noticed. TOUCH hides nothing. In an effort to bring light to this dilemma and possibly break-thro, I once arranged a meeting between two ppl I had shared this fascinating subject with and who didn't know each other so we arranged an experiment together. BLINDfolds were used when each came to my house(at separate times so that neither saw each other) and each was led into the living room and seated on a cushion infront of a low level dining table and the intro-took place. My Job was to stay out of it, yet attend their need for food, which had been earlier prepared and laid-out on the table. (sometimes I had two forks in my hands) They got along so well, weaving words between them; later they both agreed to bed-down for the night as they didn't wanna part, they both wanted to follow-thro with this experiment... so lights went off and into the night they sailed, neither fumbling with their separate mental conditioning and going by touch:A sweet scene to witness. In the morning, the bloke was horrified he had done it with someone he wasn't attracted to visually. " She is ugly!" he blurted-out, unable to contain himself. Did that end their relationship?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
page 72
Jul 17, 2014 8:06:02 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2014 8:06:02 GMT -5
The words people use don't bother me, but I can see that they bother others, and its unfortunate that many people are too afraid to post here as a result. This is a dangerous lake containing many snapping turtles, but it is what it is. LOL The good news is that there is enough clarity, humor, originality, wide range of experiences and realizations, extraordinarily good writing, high intelligence, and accurate pointing that it usually makes for an interesting read. I agree, it is unfortunate that certain words and phrases are sanctioned and others are persecuted.. the words people use don't bother me, but the inconsistencies they reference make it difficult to understand the intended communication.. People are afraid to post here because if the forum's not too subtle agenda isn't adhered to, the offender can be subjected to abusive interrogation, ridicule, and mockery, disguised as philosophical psycho-therapy.. It begins with the proponents of specialized beliefs believing that they have had 'uncommon' experiences that require uncommon explanations.. personally, it is my experience that if you spend some time with common people you find they have the same 'uncommon experiences' but don't understand it.. their description of their uncommon experiences may not agree with another's description, only due to differences in language application.. but, y'all know my position on specialized/exclusive linguistics, i am curious as to the motivation for specialization, though.. when it is simpler and more unifying to find broadly applicable descriptions of uncommon experiences, the insistence on specialized linguistics that have a history of conflict seems inconsistent with the non-dual understanding of existence.. Is the flipside of an insistence on specialized linguistics (specific words/phrases), an insistence on not using specific words/phrases? Or are these the same? Maybe the flipside is not insisting one way or the other? Have you noticed that people here discuss all sorts of different words and phrases, conversing to share understandings. For example, a popular one from way back: Be still and know... The fact that you find that certain people hold on to certain words/phrases too much has provided much valuable food for thought. And also food for seeing that thought is not necessary to see. I don't see a motivation for specialization, I see a motivation for shared understanding. Also, your association of certain words/phrases having a history of conflict is very specific to your particular experience. For example I'm thinking of 'no separation' or 'no self.' Clearly you have been embroiled in an extensive history of conflict regarding those types of terms. But that's not everyone's experience. Some people approach conversations and debates and arguments about those types of terms as chats at a campfire, others like it's a duel to the death in an arena. The fact that the person over there making a s'more is more inclined to ruminate on the meaning and implications of 'no separation' while the person several stumps over is quietly feeling at one with the fire underscores the fact that words/phrases don't actually have conflict. It's the users of the words that have conflict.
|
|
|
page 72
Jul 17, 2014 12:16:55 GMT -5
Post by zendancer on Jul 17, 2014 12:16:55 GMT -5
The words people use don't bother me, but I can see that they bother others, and its unfortunate that many people are too afraid to post here as a result. This is a dangerous lake containing many snapping turtles, but it is what it is. LOL The good news is that there is enough clarity, humor, originality, wide range of experiences and realizations, extraordinarily good writing, high intelligence, and accurate pointing that it usually makes for an interesting read. I agree, it is unfortunate that certain words and phrases are sanctioned and others are persecuted.. the words people use don't bother me, but the inconsistencies they reference make it difficult to understand the intended communication.. People are afraid to post here because if the forum's not too subtle agenda isn't adhered to, the offender can be subjected to abusive interrogation, ridicule, and mockery, disguised as philosophical psycho-therapy.. It begins with the proponents of specialized beliefs believing that they have had 'uncommon' experiences that require uncommon explanations.. personally, it is my experience that if you spend some time with common people you find they have the same 'uncommon experiences' but don't understand it.. their description of their uncommon experiences may not agree with another's description, only due to differences in language application.. but, y'all know my position on specialized/exclusive linguistics, i am curious as to the motivation for specialization, though.. when it is simpler and more unifying to find broadly applicable descriptions of uncommon experiences, the insistence on specialized linguistics that have a history of conflict seems inconsistent with the non-dual understanding of existence.. I suspect that the situation is somewhat different than what is implied by this statement, but it would be interesting to explore it further. We've talked about "woo--woo" experiences on the forum many times in the past, but I'd like to consolidate in one thread all of the experiences that I think might fall into this category. I'll title it "Uncommon Experiences." In the thread I'll catalogue the experiences I'm personally familiar with that seem uncommon to me (those that I don't think many people have had or know anything about), other people can then add experiences that they think might be considered uncommon, and then we can discuss them all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
page 72
Jul 20, 2014 4:11:42 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2014 4:11:42 GMT -5
the tendency to become attached to that which represents the knownmostly occurs through the sense of sight, then sound, I have noticed. TOUCH hides nothing. In an effort to bring light to this dilemma and possibly break-thro, I once arranged a meeting between two ppl I had shared this fascinating subject with and who didn't know each other so we arranged an experiment together. BLINDfolds were used when each came to my house(at separate times so that neither saw each other) and each was led into the living room and seated on a cushion infront of a low level dining table and the intro-took place. My Job was to stay out of it, yet attend their need for food, which had been earlier prepared and laid-out on the table. (sometimes I had two forks in my hands) They got along so well, weaving words between them; later they both agreed to bed-down for the night as they didn't wanna part, they both wanted to follow-thro with this experiment... so lights went off and into the night they sailed, neither fumbling with their separate mental conditioning and going by touch:A sweet scene to witness. In the morning, the bloke was horrified he had done it with someone he wasn't attracted to visually. " She is ugly!" he blurted-out, unable to contain himself. Did that end their relationship? absolutely
|
|