|
YES
Aug 3, 2014 17:58:40 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Aug 3, 2014 17:58:40 GMT -5
Is your attempt to sound profound consistently effortless too? Hehe. There does SEEM to be some effort involved in translating these feelings into easy to follow concepts, yes. I'm pretty sure I'm usually failing at that, too. Ultimately, though, ALL effort begins by being effortlessly allowed. In an attempt to start up an exchange on this, I'd ask you, do you disagree? If you do, why? For many people, the allowing contradicts something they are attached to, so.. before allowing happens they have to 'let go' of attachments, which may or may not be effortless.. trying to fit what is happening into ALL/NONE categories feels divisive.. IF that statement is or isn't accurate, what is happening still happens, right?.. what preferred category the happening is conceptualized into has no effect other than than more distraction/distortion.. as the preferences are debated, the ongoing process of existence happening, is happening in the absence of the debater's clarity..
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Aug 3, 2014 21:50:20 GMT -5
Hehe. There does SEEM to be some effort involved in translating these feelings into easy to follow concepts, yes. I'm pretty sure I'm usually failing at that, too. Ultimately, though, ALL effort begins by being effortlessly allowed. In an attempt to start up an exchange on this, I'd ask you, do you disagree? If you do, why? All effort begins with resistance. The notion of allowing resistance is the result of TMT. Sure, but can resistance ever not be happening?
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Aug 3, 2014 21:54:02 GMT -5
Hehe. There does SEEM to be some effort involved in translating these feelings into easy to follow concepts, yes. I'm pretty sure I'm usually failing at that, too. Ultimately, though, ALL effort begins by being effortlessly allowed. In an attempt to start up an exchange on this, I'd ask you, do you disagree? If you do, why? For many people, the allowing contradicts something they are attached to, so.. before allowing happens they have to 'let go' of attachments, which may or may not be effortless.. trying to fit what is happening into ALL/NONE categories feels divisive.. IF that statement is or isn't accurate, what is happening still happens, right?.. what preferred category the happening is conceptualized into has no effect other than than more distraction/distortion.. as the preferences are debated, the ongoing process of existence happening, is happening in the absence of the debater's clarity.. I don't disagree with that at all.
|
|
|
YES
Aug 3, 2014 22:40:06 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Aug 3, 2014 22:40:06 GMT -5
All effort begins with resistance. The notion of allowing resistance is the result of TMT. Sure, but can resistance ever not be happening? Perhaps I see your point, though I would not characterize the absence of struggle in the face of resistance as allowing resistance. I would just say resistance doesn't require an overlay of psychological struggle.
|
|
|
YES
Aug 4, 2014 3:47:07 GMT -5
Post by relinquish on Aug 4, 2014 3:47:07 GMT -5
Sure, but can resistance ever not be happening? Perhaps I see your point, though I would not characterize the absence of struggle in the face of resistance as allowing resistance. I would just say resistance doesn't require an overlay of psychological struggle. Okay, I'd accept that. Though, surely wherever such an overlay IS occurring (i.e. where the belief in separation is present), it is doing so just as naturally as the resistance that it is overlaying is occurring, no?
|
|
|
YES
Aug 4, 2014 5:51:45 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Aug 4, 2014 5:51:45 GMT -5
Perhaps I see your point, though I would not characterize the absence of struggle in the face of resistance as allowing resistance. I would just say resistance doesn't require an overlay of psychological struggle. Okay, I'd accept that. Though, surely wherever such an overlay IS occurring (i.e. where the belief in separation is present), it is doing so just as naturally as the resistance that it is overlaying is occurring, no? What you call resistance, a 'belief in separation', is a natural acknowledgment that i am not a tree, or i am not the moon, or the sun.. it is the engagement to 'thinking' that composes ideologies about oneness and non-separation.. none of which need be invoked for the actual experience to be integrated with the individual's existence experience..
|
|
|
YES
Aug 4, 2014 10:17:10 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Aug 4, 2014 10:17:10 GMT -5
Perhaps I see your point, though I would not characterize the absence of struggle in the face of resistance as allowing resistance. I would just say resistance doesn't require an overlay of psychological struggle. Okay, I'd accept that. Though, surely wherever such an overlay IS occurring (i.e. where the belief in separation is present), it is doing so just as naturally as the resistance that it is overlaying is occurring, no? Not really. Resistance is a part of all movement, from the motion of the planets to the sprouting of a blade of grass. The human body literally dances with resistance to form beauty and grace, and yet there is no inherent struggle until mind begins to orchestrate from within it's own tension, destroying the fluidity and gracefulness of the movement.
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Aug 4, 2014 16:26:16 GMT -5
Okay, I'd accept that. Though, surely wherever such an overlay IS occurring (i.e. where the belief in separation is present), it is doing so just as naturally as the resistance that it is overlaying is occurring, no? What you call resistance, a 'belief in separation', is a natural acknowledgment that i am not a tree, or i am not the moon, or the sun.. it is the engagement to 'thinking' that composes ideologies about oneness and non-separation.. none of which need be invoked for the actual experience to be integrated with the individual's existence experience.. I'm not meaning to equate 'resistance' with 'the belief in separation'. BOTH seem to happen quite naturally, being different 'apparent parts' of this forever fundamentally seamless and effortless unfolding that is apparently going on.
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Aug 4, 2014 16:32:19 GMT -5
Okay, I'd accept that. Though, surely wherever such an overlay IS occurring (i.e. where the belief in separation is present), it is doing so just as naturally as the resistance that it is overlaying is occurring, no? Not really. Resistance is a part of all movement, from the motion of the planets to the sprouting of a blade of grass. The human body literally dances with resistance to form beauty and grace, and yet there is no inherent struggle until mind begins to orchestrate from within it's own tension, destroying the fluidity and gracefulness of the movement. Again, though, aren't all the orchestrations mind, AT THEIR ULTIMATE BASIS, every bit as naturally fluid and graceful as 'all the rest' of what's going on?
|
|
|
YES
Aug 4, 2014 18:55:21 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Aug 4, 2014 18:55:21 GMT -5
Not really. Resistance is a part of all movement, from the motion of the planets to the sprouting of a blade of grass. The human body literally dances with resistance to form beauty and grace, and yet there is no inherent struggle until mind begins to orchestrate from within it's own tension, destroying the fluidity and gracefulness of the movement. Again, though, aren't all the orchestrations mind, AT THEIR ULTIMATE BASIS, every bit as naturally fluid and graceful as 'all the rest' of what's going on? Not to me. There is graceful beauty in the world, and there is morbid ugliness. One cannot be without the other. It's not satisfactory to end the unsatisfactory by nullifying it. You would not want to end beauty by dealing ugliness a death blow, so what to do? Do you know? As for mind, all orchestrations originate there, and the band plays on. Again, what to do?
|
|
|
YES
Aug 4, 2014 20:24:04 GMT -5
silver likes this
Post by silence on Aug 4, 2014 20:24:04 GMT -5
Is your attempt to sound profound consistently effortless too? Hehe. There does SEEM to be some effort involved in translating these feelings into easy to follow concepts, yes. I'm pretty sure I'm usually failing at that, too. Ultimately, though, ALL effort begins by being effortlessly allowed. In an attempt to start up an exchange on this, I'd ask you, do you disagree? If you do, why? I think the sentence " Ultimately, though, ALL effort begins by being effortlessly allowed." is the result of confusion.
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Aug 4, 2014 21:40:13 GMT -5
Again, though, aren't all the orchestrations mind, AT THEIR ULTIMATE BASIS, every bit as naturally fluid and graceful as 'all the rest' of what's going on? Not to me. There is graceful beauty in the world, and there is morbid ugliness. One cannot be without the other. It's not satisfactory to end the unsatisfactory by nullifying it. You would not want to end beauty by dealing ugliness a death blow, so what to do? Do you know? As for mind, all orchestrations originate there, and the band plays on. Again, what to do? I feel that what to do would be to realize that if (as is indeed the case) there cannot be graceful beauty in the absence of morbid ugliness, this very fact is indicative of a single seamless Reality 'underlying' BOTH of them, which is itself neither morbidly ugly nor gracefully beautiful, nor does it have any experience of either. It seems to me that THIS realization (more so than that of the mere fact that the two are inseparable) renders the ugliness a whole lot less ugly. Or am I going too far, becoming, as it were, a 'stone buddha'?
|
|
|
YES
Aug 4, 2014 23:18:09 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Aug 4, 2014 23:18:09 GMT -5
Not to me. There is graceful beauty in the world, and there is morbid ugliness. One cannot be without the other. It's not satisfactory to end the unsatisfactory by nullifying it. You would not want to end beauty by dealing ugliness a death blow, so what to do? Do you know? As for mind, all orchestrations originate there, and the band plays on. Again, what to do? I feel that what to do would be to realize that if (as is indeed the case) there cannot be graceful beauty in the absence of morbid ugliness, this very fact is indicative of a single seamless Reality 'underlying' BOTH of them, which is itself neither morbidly ugly nor gracefully beautiful, nor does it have any experience of either. It seems to me that THIS realization (more so than that of the mere fact that the two are inseparable) renders the ugliness a whole lot less ugly.Or am I going too far, becoming, as it were, a 'stone buddha'? Maybe you can help me understand how it does that.
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Aug 5, 2014 3:47:26 GMT -5
I feel that what to do would be to realize that if (as is indeed the case) there cannot be graceful beauty in the absence of morbid ugliness, this very fact is indicative of a single seamless Reality 'underlying' BOTH of them, which is itself neither morbidly ugly nor gracefully beautiful, nor does it have any experience of either. It seems to me that THIS realization (more so than that of the mere fact that the two are inseparable) renders the ugliness a whole lot less ugly.Or am I going too far, becoming, as it were, a 'stone buddha'? Maybe you can help me understand how it does that. Isn't it because, after realization, the ugliness is no longer being called 'wrong'?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
YES
Aug 5, 2014 4:25:19 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2014 4:25:19 GMT -5
Maybe you can help me understand how it does that. Isn't it because, after realization, the ugliness is no longer being called 'wrong'? ugliness remains ugly you change during realization. Unless you do something to awaken both sides to their sleep-state of murdering themselves humanity is Lost.
|
|