|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 28, 2015 20:42:29 GMT -5
I've been reading this guy Peter Ralston for a couple of years. He is a "Kung Fu" teacher. He is not just a Kung Fu teacher. I'm going to put him near the top of anyone I have ever read. In his area of expertise, he is self taught. He started studying the martial arts at a young age, about fifteen I think I recall, primarily Judo in the beginning. In 1978 he won the World Championship full contact martial arts tournament held in China, the first ever non-Asian champion. He not only won the tournament, he did it with ease and grace. (East-West Journal, November 1979). After winning he said he wouldn't compete again. Why? He was a man with a plan. He planned to teach and he won the tournament to show people that he had something to teach. He calls his martial art Cheng Shin, the way of effortless power. "Cheng Shin refers to the real and absolute nature of "BEING", to move in the direction of experiencing the truth of what is occurring-in this moment or in any matter". (pages 3,4)
How did he win the tournament "with grace and ease"? He learned to see what an opponent was going to do, before they did it. When I first read that and from his descriptions, I was sure he had found a way to enter an altered state of consciousness and >see< the future. But it's probably a little simpler than that. He learned to be so tuned in to his opponent that he could see what they were going to do, before they did it. And he was sure he could teach this to other people, and he has. But in addition to teaching the actual martial art, Cheng Shin, as stated above, is related to all of life. So he has these session of talking Cheng Shin, the philosophy and ontology of Being. He is quite amazing. He and ZD would get along like true brothers. OK, all of that is sort of an introduction to the real purpose of the thread. One of his students had broken up with his girlfriend, had his heart broken and asked Peter, in a class of students, what he could do about it. Why was he suffering so. And so Peter gives an analogy of what happens, what might happen, if one doesn't get to finish their lollipop.
tbc, 2nd post
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 28, 2015 21:55:32 GMT -5
OK, I read the following this morning. I'm going to try to do this from memory. It's quite amazing. OK, sure, some of you are going to say, Duh, but it is amazing nonetheless.
Now, like ZD (&), Ralston sees self as a by-product of thought, self-referential thinking. He also adds emotion in there, but emotion is likewise a memory-abstraction, emotion being similar to thought, but not the same, it functions in the same manner. So Bob asks what's going on with all the suffering caused with his girlfriend calling it quits with him. Ralston tells the story from a Russian film he saw once. This guy's wife died, and it was just unbearable for him, therefore, so as not to forget what he was missing with his wife being gone, this guy ties her body to him and lugs her dead body around throughout the film. Why did he do this? To remind him of her absence. He is reminding himself of what he doesn't have. His suffering is tied to the past, the memory of his wife and what he no longer has. The dead body of his wife he is carrying around represents the absence of her presence. The man is suffering over a conceptual construct, something that not now is. His wife is not now.
Peter tells Bob that he is tied to his future, the future he will never have with his girlfriend. But this future doesn't exist, it is merely conceptual. Bob is suffering over something that doesn't exist in reality. So Peter tells Bob to take this lollipop. Say it has fifty licks in it. You lick the lollipop until it's gone, you no longer have the lollipop. How do you feel? Well, you feel fine, you had a lollipop, you enjoyed it, now it's gone. But say that you had a lollipop and you only got twenty licks and then someone took it away from you. How do you feel about that? How is that different from the other lollipop? Both lollipops are now gone. Why would you treat one situation differently from the other?
Now, Peter takes about 20 pages to go through all that (pages 195-214). He walks everybody (not just Bob) slowly through what psychological pain is and what suffering is. I'm not going to do that. I'm going to check my facts, for now (I think I got the main points in correctly) and maybe we can discuss what Peter is up to.
Ancient Wisdom New Spirit, Investigations Into the Nature of "Being", Peter Ralston, 1994 (excerpts from talks and discussions)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 1, 2015 2:10:44 GMT -5
OK, I read the following this morning. I'm going to try to do this from memory. It's quite amazing. OK, sure, some of you are going to say, Duh, but it is amazing nonetheless. Now, like ZD (&), Ralston sees self as a by-product of thought, self-referential thinking. He also adds emotion in there, but emotion is likewise a memory-abstraction, emotion being similar to thought, but not the same, it functions in the same manner. So Bob asks what's going on with all the suffering caused with his girlfriend calling it quits with him. Ralston tells the story from a Russian film he saw once. This guy's wife died, and it was just unbearable for him, therefore, so as not to forget what he was missing with his wife being gone, this guy ties her body to him and lugs her dead body around throughout the film. Why did he do this? To remind him of her absence. He is reminding himself of what he doesn't have. His suffering is tied to the past, the memory of his wife and what he no longer has. The dead body of his wife he is carrying around represents the absence of her presence. The man is suffering over a conceptual construct, something that not now is. His wife is not now. Peter tells Bob that he is tied to his future, the future he will never have with his girlfriend. But this future doesn't exist, it is merely conceptual. Bob is suffering over something that doesn't exist in reality. So Peter tells Bob to take this lollipop. Say it has fifty licks in it. You lick the lollipop until it's gone, you no longer have the lollipop. How do you feel? Well, you feel fine, you had a lollipop, you enjoyed it, now it's gone. But say that you had a lollipop and you only got twenty licks and then someone took it away from you. How do you feel about that? How is that different from the other lollipop? Both lollipops are now gone. Why would you treat one situation differently from the other? Now, Peter takes about 20 pages to go through all that (pages 195-214). He walks everybody (not just Bob) slowly through what psychological pain is and what suffering is. I'm not going to do that. I'm going to check my facts, for now (I think I got the main points in correctly) and maybe we can discuss what Peter is up to. Ancient Wisdom New Spirit, Investigations Into the Nature of "Being", Peter Ralston, 1994 (excerpts from talks and discussions) It's resenting the loss of what could/should have been, formed from imagination. The same effect would occur if, after enjoying the lollipop, it was discovered that you paid for a larger one than you received, or any other scenario in which something better could (or in the mind, should) have happened. It's generically the idea that something should be other than it is, which is clearly just a thought. Probably everyone can generate a little bit of suffering right now by recalling how they were cheated, mistreated, waylaid by fate, made a poor decision, etc. The suffering is genuine, but it's clearly imagination at work only.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 1, 2015 8:09:46 GMT -5
OK, I read the following this morning. I'm going to try to do this from memory. It's quite amazing. OK, sure, some of you are going to say, Duh, but it is amazing nonetheless. Now, like ZD (&), Ralston sees self as a by-product of thought, self-referential thinking. He also adds emotion in there, but emotion is likewise a memory-abstraction, emotion being similar to thought, but not the same, it functions in the same manner. So Bob asks what's going on with all the suffering caused with his girlfriend calling it quits with him. Ralston tells the story from a Russian film he saw once. This guy's wife died, and it was just unbearable for him, therefore, so as not to forget what he was missing with his wife being gone, this guy ties her body to him and lugs her dead body around throughout the film. Why did he do this? To remind him of her absence. He is reminding himself of what he doesn't have. His suffering is tied to the past, the memory of his wife and what he no longer has. The dead body of his wife he is carrying around represents the absence of her presence. The man is suffering over a conceptual construct, something that not now is. His wife is not now. Peter tells Bob that he is tied to his future, the future he will never have with his girlfriend. But this future doesn't exist, it is merely conceptual. Bob is suffering over something that doesn't exist in reality. So Peter tells Bob to take this lollipop. Say it has fifty licks in it. You lick the lollipop until it's gone, you no longer have the lollipop. How do you feel? Well, you feel fine, you had a lollipop, you enjoyed it, now it's gone. But say that you had a lollipop and you only got twenty licks and then someone took it away from you. How do you feel about that? How is that different from the other lollipop? Both lollipops are now gone. Why would you treat one situation differently from the other? Now, Peter takes about 20 pages to go through all that (pages 195-214). He walks everybody (not just Bob) slowly through what psychological pain is and what suffering is. I'm not going to do that. I'm going to check my facts, for now (I think I got the main points in correctly) and maybe we can discuss what Peter is up to. Ancient Wisdom New Spirit, Investigations Into the Nature of "Being", Peter Ralston, 1994 (excerpts from talks and discussions) It's resenting the loss of what could/should have been, formed from imagination. The same effect would occur if, after enjoying the lollipop, it was discovered that you paid for a larger one than you received, or any other scenario in which something better could (or in the mind, should) have happened. It's generically the idea that something should be other than it is, which is clearly just a thought. Probably everyone can generate a little bit of suffering right now by recalling how they were cheated, mistreated, waylaid by fate, made a poor decision, etc. The suffering is genuine, but it's clearly imagination at work only. Bingo, thanks. (And I did read back through the dialogue, got everything mostly right, except the hypothetical lollipop has 100 licks, not fifty ). The clinching point was, in the end, no lollipop, same result. Why were you happy with one result and sad with the other result? That is a powerful encapsulation of self. I would just add to, "Probably everyone can generate a little bit of suffering right now by......", anyone can lay down a lot of suffering, too. ~I~ unloaded a lot of stupid crap yesterday, it was a cool day........one by one stuff would come to memory, and just, zip-zap, gone.......... ..........
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 1, 2015 9:54:04 GMT -5
It's resenting the loss of what could/should have been, formed from imagination. The same effect would occur if, after enjoying the lollipop, it was discovered that you paid for a larger one than you received, or any other scenario in which something better could (or in the mind, should) have happened. It's generically the idea that something should be other than it is, which is clearly just a thought. Probably everyone can generate a little bit of suffering right now by recalling how they were cheated, mistreated, waylaid by fate, made a poor decision, etc. The suffering is genuine, but it's clearly imagination at work only. Bingo, thanks. (And I did read back through the dialogue, got everything mostly right, except the hypothetical lollipop has 100 licks, not fifty ). The clinching point was, in the end, no lollipop, same result. Why were you happy with one result and sad with the other result? That is a powerful encapsulation of self. I would just add to, "Probably everyone can generate a little bit of suffering right now by......", anyone can lay down a lot of suffering, too. ~I~ unloaded a lot of stupid crap yesterday, it was a cool day........one by one stuff would come to memory, and just, zip-zap, gone.......... .......... <smile> And, it's no more complicated than just letting go of it.. whether it happens gradually over years or instantly, it's just letting go..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 1, 2015 21:53:06 GMT -5
OK, I read the following this morning. I'm going to try to do this from memory. It's quite amazing. OK, sure, some of you are going to say, Duh, but it is amazing nonetheless. Now, like ZD (&), Ralston sees self as a by-product of thought, self-referential thinking. He also adds emotion in there, but emotion is likewise a memory-abstraction, emotion being similar to thought, but not the same, it functions in the same manner. So Bob asks what's going on with all the suffering caused with his girlfriend calling it quits with him. Ralston tells the story from a Russian film he saw once. This guy's wife died, and it was just unbearable for him, therefore, so as not to forget what he was missing with his wife being gone, this guy ties her body to him and lugs her dead body around throughout the film. Why did he do this? To remind him of her absence. He is reminding himself of what he doesn't have. His suffering is tied to the past, the memory of his wife and what he no longer has. The dead body of his wife he is carrying around represents the absence of her presence. The man is suffering over a conceptual construct, something that not now is. His wife is not now. Peter tells Bob that he is tied to his future, the future he will never have with his girlfriend. But this future doesn't exist, it is merely conceptual. Bob is suffering over something that doesn't exist in reality. So Peter tells Bob to take this lollipop. Say it has fifty licks in it. You lick the lollipop until it's gone, you no longer have the lollipop. How do you feel? Well, you feel fine, you had a lollipop, you enjoyed it, now it's gone. But say that you had a lollipop and you only got twenty licks and then someone took it away from you. How do you feel about that? How is that different from the other lollipop? Both lollipops are now gone. Why would you treat one situation differently from the other? Now, Peter takes about 20 pages to go through all that (pages 195-214). He walks everybody (not just Bob) slowly through what psychological pain is and what suffering is. I'm not going to do that. I'm going to check my facts, for now (I think I got the main points in correctly) and maybe we can discuss what Peter is up to. Ancient Wisdom New Spirit, Investigations Into the Nature of "Being", Peter Ralston, 1994 (excerpts from talks and discussions) It's resenting the loss of what could/should have been, formed from imagination. The same effect would occur if, after enjoying the lollipop, it was discovered that you paid for a larger one than you received, or any other scenario in which something better could (or in the mind, should) have happened. It's generically the idea that something should be other than it is, which is clearly just a thought. Probably everyone can generate a little bit of suffering right now by recalling how they were cheated, mistreated, waylaid by fate, made a poor decision, etc. The suffering is genuine, but it's clearly imagination at work only. The applicable metaphor is of course cutting or pulling a weed. The person is an endless lawn of lollipops.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 4, 2015 11:19:54 GMT -5
It's resenting the loss of what could/should have been, formed from imagination. The same effect would occur if, after enjoying the lollipop, it was discovered that you paid for a larger one than you received, or any other scenario in which something better could (or in the mind, should) have happened. It's generically the idea that something should be other than it is, which is clearly just a thought. Probably everyone can generate a little bit of suffering right now by recalling how they were cheated, mistreated, waylaid by fate, made a poor decision, etc. The suffering is genuine, but it's clearly imagination at work only. The applicable metaphor is of course cutting or pulling a weed. The person is an endless lawn of lollipops.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 4, 2015 11:31:30 GMT -5
The applicable metaphor is of course cutting or pulling a weed. The person is an endless lawn of lollipops. hey those look tasty! ... are they real or plastic??
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 4, 2015 20:27:54 GMT -5
hey those look tasty! ... are they real or plastic?? Doesn't matter.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 4, 2015 23:17:20 GMT -5
hey those look tasty! ... are they real or plastic?? Doesn't matter. guess some peeps eat with their eyes.
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Mar 5, 2015 12:38:36 GMT -5
hey those look tasty! ... are they real or plastic?? Doesn't matter. Correct. In terms of looking at them, and deriving enjoyment from what appears as bright, pretty colours and shapes, it really doesn't matter if they are real vs. plastic. Those are just labels, overlays, that actually have nothing to do with the direct, visual experience. However....."mattering" in terms of real vs. plastic , of course comes into play if you were to try to eat one.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 6, 2015 22:15:54 GMT -5
Doesn't matter. Correct. In terms of looking at them, and deriving enjoyment from what appears as bright, pretty colours and shapes, it really doesn't matter if they are real vs. plastic. Those are just labels, overlays, that actually have nothing to do with the direct, visual experience. However....."mattering" in terms of real vs. plastic , of course comes into play if you were to try to eat one. I'm not sure what a direct visual experience means. An image of a delicious looking desert, or a bottle of soda dripping with condensation, is not just about the "bright, pretty colors and shapes". Point is, whether or not the lollipops are perceived as edible does make a difference in the visual experience. I was being facetious when I said it didn't matter.
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Mar 6, 2015 22:27:09 GMT -5
Correct. In terms of looking at them, and deriving enjoyment from what appears as bright, pretty colours and shapes, it really doesn't matter if they are real vs. plastic. Those are just labels, overlays, that actually have nothing to do with the direct, visual experience. However....."mattering" in terms of real vs. plastic , of course comes into play if you were to try to eat one. I'm not sure what a direct visual experience means. An image of a delicious looking desert, or a bottle of soda dripping with condensation, is not just about the "bright, pretty colors and shapes". Point is, whether or not the lollipops are perceived as edible does make a difference in the visual experience. I was being facetious when I said it didn't matter. hehe...oh I know you were being facetious. Of course. The pure direct visual experience of those brightly colored, patterned, shiny spherical objects on a stick, that appear, sticking outta the grass, would be just that, what hits the eyes, absent thoughts about whether you can actually eat them or not. The edible or not part is not an aspect of the direct 'visual' experience. It's a thought/idea 'about' the object that appears in vision.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 8, 2015 21:03:24 GMT -5
I'm not sure what a direct visual experience means. An image of a delicious looking desert, or a bottle of soda dripping with condensation, is not just about the "bright, pretty colors and shapes". Point is, whether or not the lollipops are perceived as edible does make a difference in the visual experience. I was being facetious when I said it didn't matter. hehe...oh I know you were being facetious. Of course. The pure direct visual experience of those brightly colored, patterned, shiny spherical objects on a stick, that appear, sticking outta the grass, would be just that, what hits the eyes, absent thoughts about whether you can actually eat them or not. The edible or not part is not an aspect of the direct 'visual' experience. It's a thought/idea 'about' the object that appears in vision. That's the point. The ideas/memories/feeling recall are all part of the enjoyment of the experience.
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Mar 8, 2015 21:25:47 GMT -5
hehe...oh I know you were being facetious. Of course. The pure direct visual experience of those brightly colored, patterned, shiny spherical objects on a stick, that appear, sticking outta the grass, would be just that, what hits the eyes, absent thoughts about whether you can actually eat them or not. The edible or not part is not an aspect of the direct 'visual' experience. It's a thought/idea 'about' the object that appears in vision. That's the point. The ideas/memories/feeling recall are all part of the enjoyment of the experience. Sure, that all comes into play to some extent in terms of enjoying something seen. But, Enjoyment certainly need not hinge upon the understanding of 'real or not'. Lollipops, just like pieces of colorful plastic, can be pretty or enjoyable to look at, despite an absence of knowing about their actuality, or edibleness.
|
|