Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2014 8:14:15 GMT -5
The flute is both whole AND part, part of the person/flute/mind/sound collective whole that is a part of the people/instruments/music/symphony whole that is part of the part/whole happening that is Now.. And each of the flute's parts are wholes, and each of those parts is a whole...Is this an infinite regress? Where do you stop going in either direction? when a seeker is seeking clarity, and others tell the seeker that clarity must be described a very specific way and other ways are wrong, they are influencing the experiencer's option to experience clarity in ways not in alignment with their preferred specific way.. Obviously when you go on about not attaching to beliefs and ideas and letting the mind still to a point absent conceptual activity and how this approach might lend one to greater clarity you are in fact trying to influence a seeker who is seeking clarity. It's okay. Communication is about influence. The key point you are making in the above is 'must' and 'other ways are wrong.' Wouldn't you say that believing/attaching in ideology and beliefs is 'wrong' in the sense of obscuring clarity? By saying anything, in whatever style, you risk 'influencing the experiencer's option to experience clarity in ways not in alignment with their preferred specific way.' This is just more bullying charge isn't it? No, i don't think it sounds like what 'everyone' else is describing.. Umm, this: Just pay attention with unconditional sincerity, just look and appreciate what is actually happening, and get into the happening.. That's it.. This. Is. It. Understand the difference between opinion/belief/mind-play and what is actually happening, and describe the happening without the stories/opinions/beliefsYou've heard the stories/opinions/beliefs/"versions" that use the the common-sense clarity to advance the versions' agendas.. So they're just all co-opting common sense clarity to advance their agendas? While you are actually expressing genuine clarity straight up? Please clarify. That doesn't mesh with this: my intention is to demonstrate that there are equally valid understandings of what is happening besides what some people insist is the 'truth'.. 'Equally valid understandings' despite advancing their own agendas?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 31, 2014 8:37:41 GMT -5
Hey look everyone! It's fun with escalation! ... world series might be over .. but the batta's still up!
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 31, 2014 20:21:18 GMT -5
The flute is both whole AND part, part of the person/flute/mind/sound collective whole that is a part of the people/instruments/music/symphony whole that is part of the part/whole happening that is Now.. It's an infinite condition that appears to 'stop' when the experiencer attaches to ideas about the condition.. when a seeker is seeking clarity, and others tell the seeker that clarity must be described a very specific way and other ways are wrong, they are influencing the experiencer's option to experience clarity in ways not in alignment with their preferred specific way.. Obviously when you go on about not attaching to beliefs and ideas and letting the mind still to a point absent conceptual activity and how this approach might lend one to greater clarity you are in fact trying to influence a seeker who is seeking clarity. It's okay. Communication is about influence. The key point you are making in the above is 'must' and 'other ways are wrong.' Wouldn't you say that believing/attaching in ideology and beliefs is 'wrong' in the sense of obscuring clarity? By saying anything, in whatever style, you risk 'influencing the experiencer's option to experience clarity in ways not in alignment with their preferred specific way.' This is just more bullying charge isn't it? No, it's not more bullying charge.. and, it's not an attempt to influence the seeker, it's an appeal to those that insist their's is the only truth, to allow the experiencer the opportunity to experience without their insistence that it is only valid if the experiencer agrees with them.. You've heard the stories/opinions/beliefs/"versions" that use the the common-sense clarity to advance the versions' agendas.. So they're just all co-opting common sense clarity to advance their agendas? While you are actually expressing genuine clarity straight up? Please clarify. That doesn't mesh with this: my intention is to demonstrate that there are equally valid understandings of what is happening besides what some people insist is the ' truth'.. 'Equally valid understandings' despite advancing their own agendas? The intended message is that the experiencer has 'equal' opportunities for understanding.. i don't deny that non-duality/oneness is a valid understanding, i am indicating that duality/manyness is 'equally valid', and that if either duality or non-duality is invoked then both exist simultaneously.. the more productive option is to avoid invoking either duality or nonduality, and let the description of the experience itself reveal the experiencer's understanding.. words/ideas like duality and nonduality do not describe the experiences, they represent ideology related to beliefs about what is actually happening.. "Equally valid understandings" appeals to the awareness that 'truth' is a set of values unique to each individual's interpretation/understanding of what 'is' happening, rather than an unchanging condition in a cosmos of change.. there is greater likelihood for cooperation and resonant understanding through discussing the happening than there is arguing about what we think/believe/imagine about the happening..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2014 8:02:30 GMT -5
Obviously when you go on about not attaching to beliefs and ideas and letting the mind still to a point absent conceptual activity and how this approach might lend one to greater clarity you are in fact trying to influence a seeker who is seeking clarity. It's okay. Communication is about influence. The key point you are making in the above is 'must' and 'other ways are wrong.' Wouldn't you say that believing/attaching in ideology and beliefs is 'wrong' in the sense of obscuring clarity? By saying anything, in whatever style, you risk 'influencing the experiencer's option to experience clarity in ways not in alignment with their preferred specific way.' This is just more bullying charge isn't it? No, it's not more bullying charge.. and, it's not an attempt to influence the seeker, it's an appeal to those that insist their's is the only truth, to allow the experiencer the opportunity to experience without their insistence that it is only valid if the experiencer agrees with them.. Okay lets call it an 'appeal.' You feel that on this forum there are some -- lets call them soothsayers -- who insist that their's is the only truth, the only valid truth. You feel that there are readers of the forum that may be influenced by the soothsayers' insistence that their's is the only truth in such a way that it will inhibit the reader's opportunity to experience without that insistence. And you think the reader's experience will be clouded in some way by this influence. That the reader, without such exposure to the soothsayer's, will perhaps formulate their own understanding, their own explanation for what they experience. This would be an equally valid 'truth,' one that might not agree with the soothsayer's view. So that reader's view may not have been born if it weren't for tamping down the soothsayer's insistence. Is that what you are saying? You've heard the stories/opinions/beliefs/"versions" that use the the common-sense clarity to advance the versions' agendas.. So they're just all co-opting common sense clarity to advance their agendas? While you are actually expressing genuine clarity straight up? Please clarify. That doesn't mesh with this: my intention is to demonstrate that there are equally valid understandings of what is happening besides what some people insist is the ' truth'.. 'Equally valid understandings' despite advancing their own agendas? The intended message is that the experiencer has 'equal' opportunities for understanding.. i don't deny that non-duality/oneness is a valid understanding, i am indicating that duality/manyness is 'equally valid', and that if either duality or non-duality is invoked then both exist simultaneously.. the more productive option is to avoid invoking either duality or nonduality, and let the description of the experience itself reveal the experiencer's understanding.. words/ideas like duality and nonduality do not describe the experiences, they represent ideology related to beliefs about what is actually happening.. "Equally valid understandings" appeals to the awareness that 'truth' is a set of values unique to each individual's interpretation/understanding of what 'is' happening, rather than an unchanging condition in a cosmos of change.. there is greater likelihood for cooperation and resonant understanding through discussing the happening than there is arguing about what we think/believe/imagine about the happening.. See the problem is that to make a fair appeal you have to apply it to yourself as well. There are many many truth claims in your paragraph directly above. Personally I could care less about resonant understanding and cooperation. I want to see how my life is being clouded by attachments to ideas and I want to be free of that.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Nov 1, 2014 9:42:52 GMT -5
No, it's not more bullying charge.. and, it's not an attempt to influence the seeker, it's an appeal to those that insist their's is the only truth, to allow the experiencer the opportunity to experience without their insistence that it is only valid if the experiencer agrees with them.. Okay lets call it an 'appeal.' You feel that on this forum there are some -- lets call them soothsayers -- who insist that their's is the only truth, the only valid truth. You feel that there are readers of the forum that may be influenced by the soothsayers' insistence that their's is the only truth in such a way that it will inhibit the reader's opportunity to experience without that insistence. And you think the reader's experience will be clouded in some way by this influence. That the reader, without such exposure to the soothsayer's, will perhaps formulate their own understanding, their own explanation for what they experience. This would be an equally valid 'truth,' one that might not agree with the soothsayer's view. So that reader's view may not have been born if it weren't for tamping down the soothsayer's insistence. Is that what you are saying? The intended message is that the experiencer has 'equal' opportunities for understanding.. i don't deny that non-duality/oneness is a valid understanding, i am indicating that duality/manyness is 'equally valid', and that if either duality or non-duality is invoked then both exist simultaneously.. the more productive option is to avoid invoking either duality or nonduality, and let the description of the experience itself reveal the experiencer's understanding.. words/ideas like duality and nonduality do not describe the experiences, they represent ideology related to beliefs about what is actually happening.. "Equally valid understandings" appeals to the awareness that 'truth' is a set of values unique to each individual's interpretation/understanding of what 'is' happening, rather than an unchanging condition in a cosmos of change.. there is greater likelihood for cooperation and resonant understanding through discussing the happening than there is arguing about what we think/believe/imagine about the happening.. See the problem is that to make a fair appeal you have to apply it to yourself as well. There are many many truth claims in your paragraph directly above. Personally I could care less about resonant understanding and cooperation. I want to see how my life is being clouded by attachments to ideas and I want to be free of that. Cool.. Drop the drama, and let go of all beliefs and knowings.. there's no 'truth' in that suggestion, and there's no 'truth' in the result.. there is only what is happening, and absent the attachment to beliefs and knowings you may see that clearly..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2014 11:50:11 GMT -5
Okay lets call it an 'appeal.' You feel that on this forum there are some -- lets call them soothsayers -- who insist that their's is the only truth, the only valid truth. You feel that there are readers of the forum that may be influenced by the soothsayers' insistence that their's is the only truth in such a way that it will inhibit the reader's opportunity to experience without that insistence. And you think the reader's experience will be clouded in some way by this influence. That the reader, without such exposure to the soothsayer's, will perhaps formulate their own understanding, their own explanation for what they experience. This would be an equally valid 'truth,' one that might not agree with the soothsayer's view. So that reader's view may not have been born if it weren't for tamping down the soothsayer's insistence. Is that what you are saying? See the problem is that to make a fair appeal you have to apply it to yourself as well. There are many many truth claims in your paragraph directly above. Personally I could care less about resonant understanding and cooperation. I want to see how my life is being clouded by attachments to ideas and I want to be free of that. Cool.. Drop the drama, and let go of all beliefs and knowings.. there's no 'truth' in that suggestion, and there's no 'truth' in the result.. there is only what is happening, and absent the attachment to beliefs and knowings you may see that clearly.. And how do you suggest the drop actually happens? What specifically is the drama you are suggesting I drop? Here's a drama you may want to consider: Villain: so-called soothsayer -- insisting their version of the 'truth' is the only valid one. Victim: innocent truth seeker, at risk of having own valid version of 'truth' influenced by others. Savior/Hero: the appealer, making common sense reasonable appeals to let all seekers experience their own experiences and explicate their own truths without influence from those that only accept their version of the truth as valid. Sticks up for the little guy.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Nov 1, 2014 20:29:18 GMT -5
Cool.. Drop the drama, and let go of all beliefs and knowings.. there's no 'truth' in that suggestion, and there's no 'truth' in the result.. there is only what is happening, and absent the attachment to beliefs and knowings you may see that clearly.. And how do you suggest the drop actually happens? What specifically is the drama you are suggesting I drop? Here's a drama you may want to consider: Villain: so-called soothsayer -- insisting their version of the 'truth' is the only valid one. Victim: innocent truth seeker, at risk of having own valid version of 'truth' influenced by others. Savior/Hero: the appealer, making common sense reasonable appeals to let all seekers experience their own experiences and explicate their own truths without influence from those that only accept their version of the truth as valid. Sticks up for the little guy. You can just 'let go' of the drama.. drama like the one you imagined below, or this: " This is just more bullying charge isn't it?".. or this: Okay lets call it an 'appeal.' You feel that on this forum there are some -- lets call them soothsayers -- who insist that their's is the only truth, the only valid truth. You feel that there are readers of the forum that may be influenced by the soothsayers' insistence that their's is the only truth in such a way that it will inhibit the reader's opportunity to experience without that insistence. And you think the reader's experience will be clouded in some way by this influence. That the reader, without such exposure to the soothsayer's, will perhaps formulate their own understanding, their own explanation for what they experience. This would be an equally valid 'truth,' one that might not agree with the soothsayer's view. So that reader's view may not have been born if it weren't for tamping down the soothsayer's insistence. Is that what you are saying? .. One of my teachers had us carry a 25 pound bag of sand around for a day (about 10 hours), the rule was that you couldn't set it down, but you could sit with it in your lap.. when the teacher said we could set the bags down, that we were were done with the lesson, those bags were really heavy and exceptionally inconvenient.. we waited for the 'lesson', but that was it, nothing more was said.. if we didn't 'get it' we didn't get it, there would be other opportunities to get it.. there was no drama, no mystical special meaning, just reinforcing a common-sense awareness: when you're ready to let go of excess baggage, just let go.. there's no atta-boys or praise for getting it, it is its own reward, so the teacher just walked away.. and, the teacher didn't make reference to those who did or didn't get it, if the student didn't get it there would be more opportunities, and if you did get it you knew it.. When you're tired if conjuring-up dramas, just stop, just 'let go'.. just look and see what 'is'.. if you're really into paying attention to what is happening, it's likely that you will have greater opportunity to see how life is being clouded by attachments to ideas and how to be free of that, rather than imagining if/then scenarios and dramas like the victim/villan/savior one above..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2014 8:16:15 GMT -5
And how do you suggest the drop actually happens? What specifically is the drama you are suggesting I drop? Here's a drama you may want to consider: Villain: so-called soothsayer -- insisting their version of the 'truth' is the only valid one. Victim: innocent truth seeker, at risk of having own valid version of 'truth' influenced by others. Savior/Hero: the appealer, making common sense reasonable appeals to let all seekers experience their own experiences and explicate their own truths without influence from those that only accept their version of the truth as valid. Sticks up for the little guy. You can just 'let go' of the drama.. drama like the one you imagined below, or this: " This is just more bullying charge isn't it?".. or this: Okay lets call it an 'appeal.' You feel that on this forum there are some -- lets call them soothsayers -- who insist that their's is the only truth, the only valid truth. You feel that there are readers of the forum that may be influenced by the soothsayers' insistence that their's is the only truth in such a way that it will inhibit the reader's opportunity to experience without that insistence. And you think the reader's experience will be clouded in some way by this influence. That the reader, without such exposure to the soothsayer's, will perhaps formulate their own understanding, their own explanation for what they experience. This would be an equally valid 'truth,' one that might not agree with the soothsayer's view. So that reader's view may not have been born if it weren't for tamping down the soothsayer's insistence. Is that what you are saying? .. One of my teachers had us carry a 25 pound bag of sand around for a day (about 10 hours), the rule was that you couldn't set it down, but you could sit with it in your lap.. when the teacher said we could set the bags down, that we were were done with the lesson, those bags were really heavy and exceptionally inconvenient.. we waited for the 'lesson', but that was it, nothing more was said.. if we didn't 'get it' we didn't get it, there would be other opportunities to get it.. there was no drama, no mystical special meaning, just reinforcing a common-sense awareness: when you're ready to let go of excess baggage, just let go.. there's no atta-boys or praise for getting it, it is its own reward, so the teacher just walked away.. and, the teacher didn't make reference to those who did or didn't get it, if the student didn't get it there would be more opportunities, and if you did get it you knew it.. When you're tired if conjuring-up dramas, just stop, just 'let go'.. just look and see what 'is'.. if you're really into paying attention to what is happening, it's likely that you will have greater opportunity to see how life is being clouded by attachments to ideas and how to be free of that, rather than imagining if/then scenarios and dramas like the victim/villan/savior one above.. It's curious when someone retells an interesting and colorful story about dropping or letting go but then continues to use dramatic wordplay like conjuring and spinning illusions. The teacher in your story just gave the very simple instructions and left. Being tired of attaching to ideas and beliefs may lead to temporary relief like sleep or just a pause but it only lasts until one is not tired again. Picking up happens again.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Nov 2, 2014 9:15:50 GMT -5
You can just 'let go' of the drama.. drama like the one you imagined below, or this: " This is just more bullying charge isn't it?".. or this: .. One of my teachers had us carry a 25 pound bag of sand around for a day (about 10 hours), the rule was that you couldn't set it down, but you could sit with it in your lap.. when the teacher said we could set the bags down, that we were were done with the lesson, those bags were really heavy and exceptionally inconvenient.. we waited for the 'lesson', but that was it, nothing more was said.. if we didn't 'get it' we didn't get it, there would be other opportunities to get it.. there was no drama, no mystical special meaning, just reinforcing a common-sense awareness: when you're ready to let go of excess baggage, just let go.. there's no atta-boys or praise for getting it, it is its own reward, so the teacher just walked away.. and, the teacher didn't make reference to those who did or didn't get it, if the student didn't get it there would be more opportunities, and if you did get it you knew it.. When you're tired if conjuring-up dramas, just stop, just 'let go'.. just look and see what 'is'.. if you're really into paying attention to what is happening, it's likely that you will have greater opportunity to see how life is being clouded by attachments to ideas and how to be free of that, rather than imagining if/then scenarios and dramas like the victim/villan/savior one above.. It's curious when someone retells an interesting and colorful story about dropping or letting go but then continues to use dramatic wordplay like conjuring and spinning illusions. The teacher in your story just gave the very simple instructions and left. Being tired of attaching to ideas and beliefs may lead to temporary relief like sleep or just a pause but it only lasts until one is not tired again. Picking up happens again.You are allowing your own 'picking up, again', why not just pay attention and see what will happen rather than set boundaries and expectations ahead of the happening?.. The teacher in my account didn't have people wanting the lesson to be different from what it was, they weren't experiencing what was happening and trying to make it appear different from the actual happening..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 2, 2014 13:20:42 GMT -5
I want to see how my life is being clouded by attachments to ideas and I want to be free of that. Would you like a challenging and unflattering question directed your way based on that statement? The invitation is sought because there is no force here. .. my guess from corresponding with you for these past few years is that you probably don't need the question, but the statement seemed to me to be applicable to it.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 3, 2014 3:27:48 GMT -5
I want to see how my life is being clouded by attachments to ideas and I want to be free of that. Would you like a challenging and unflattering question directed your way based on that statement? The invitation is sought because there is no force here. .. my guess from corresponding with you for these past few years is that you probably don't need the question, but the statement seemed to me to be applicable to it. I'm sure he'll say no.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Nov 3, 2014 6:16:29 GMT -5
<shakes head sadly>
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2014 6:29:42 GMT -5
Sticks up for the little guy. Bump!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2014 12:07:32 GMT -5
I want to see how my life is being clouded by attachments to ideas and I want to be free of that. Would you like a challenging and unflattering question directed your way based on that statement? The invitation is sought because there is no force here. .. my guess from corresponding with you for these past few years is that you probably don't need the question, but the statement seemed to me to be applicable to it. Dude let it rip!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2014 12:10:05 GMT -5
|
|