|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 10, 2015 22:24:14 GMT -5
Well .....there's the reality of whatever is, and then there's talking about whatever is. Even if one has had certain experiences or certain realizations, when you try to put that into words it doesn't mean anything except maybe to someone who has had the same experiences or realizations. I think Tzu is continually pointing out not to 'trust' hardcore conceptual fundamentalist non-dualism, the words. The words can't lead to the truth. OK, that much is not new (and that fact continually gets thrown back at Tzu). Tzu also points out that basic hardcore non-dualism teaches there isn't a self, and the only way to come to know this is to have a realization of the fact. But there isn't anything anyone can do to bring about a realization, they're acausal. So, you have a teaching, (and it is a teaching because hundreds of books have been written about it), but a teaching that can't be directly verified. So there are probably many people who have become members of the 'church of non-duality', peeps who 'believe' the lingo and hope a realization falls from the sky some day. That's just as illusory, or probably more so, than never to have ever heard of non-duality. I think Tzu is just warning not to make the leap into la-la land, into an imaginary stance of considering that self is an illusion, when that's merely a concept (unless it isn't). I posted earlier (this thread, this morning) why I consider self is real (there is a reason and a purpose for this universe, it is what it is, is what it seems to be FAIAP), so I'm in Tzu's camp on this. I'd say as long as self is real to you, you have to live as if self is real. I see no value in buying into conceptual non-dualism. I think it possible that with a lot of reading and thinking one can convince oneself of the validity of non-dualism, and get deeper into illusion instead of out of it. Sure, maybe this doesn't apply to everyone, but this is what I see as Tzu's valid message. I don't see the problem. I don't see how it can hurt. Anybody can say all day long that Tzu doesn't follow his own message. Hearing that doesn't seem to bother him........... I don't have time to reread this now, it'll be at least an hour........... Hi star, yeah, I understand what your saying. So are you agreeing with Roy's admonition? Should I leave this forum?What is your gut telling you? You are not Roy. Roy's intentions are obviously very different from most of the members here. So his doing suggestions can't really apply to most of the members here. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 10, 2015 22:26:37 GMT -5
Well .....there's the reality of whatever is, and then there's talking about whatever is. Even if one has had certain experiences or certain realizations, when you try to put that into words it doesn't mean anything except maybe to someone who has had the same experiences or realizations. I think Tzu is continually pointing out not to 'trust' hardcore conceptual fundamentalist non-dualism, the words. The words can't lead to the truth. OK, that much is not new (and that fact continually gets thrown back at Tzu). Tzu also points out that basic hardcore non-dualism teaches there isn't a self, and the only way to come to know this is to have a realization of the fact. But there isn't anything anyone can do to bring about a realization, they're acausal. So, you have a teaching, (and it is a teaching because hundreds of books have been written about it), but a teaching that can't be directly verified. So there are probably many people who have become members of the 'church of non-duality', peeps who 'believe' the lingo and hope a realization falls from the sky some day. That's just as illusory, or probably more so, than never to have ever heard of non-duality. I think Tzu is just warning not to make the leap into la-la land, into an imaginary stance of considering that self is an illusion, when that's merely a concept (unless it isn't). I posted earlier (this thread, this morning) why I consider self is real (there is a reason and a purpose for this universe, it is what it is, is what it seems to be FAIAP), so I'm in Tzu's camp on this. I'd say as long as self is real to you, you have to live as if self is real. I see no value in buying into conceptual non-dualism. I think it possible that with a lot of reading and thinking one can convince oneself of the validity of non-dualism, and get deeper into illusion instead of out of it. Sure, maybe this doesn't apply to everyone, but this is what I see as Tzu's valid message. I don't see the problem. I don't see how it can hurt. Anybody can say all day long that Tzu doesn't follow his own message. Hearing that doesn't seem to bother him........... I don't have time to reread this now, it'll be at least an hour........... Hi star, yeah, I understand what your saying. So are you agreeing with Roy's admonition? Should I leave this forum? Well ..... source, he didn't spell out exactly why, he didn't make his case.....even though we can probably surmise why and he probably thinks he made his case. So on that basis, I'll have to say no. I'm for absolute freedom. You can listen to people all you want, anybody, but in the end you have to take responsibility for your own decisions. If you take responsibility, then it's all on you. Somewhere down the road you can't say, but Roy said leave ST's forum, but ZD said this, but E said that, but sdp said the other thing, Tzu said this, Andrew said this. You can practice or not practice, but you do it because you decide, never put it off on anybody else. I understand why interior spiritual practice is necessary. It would take a lot to tell you how I got there. Reading posts and posting is not an obstruction to interior spiritual practice (for me). But I think what Roy was saying is that's it's better to spend time in practice that to fart away time, here. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2015 22:35:36 GMT -5
I was just being mischievous for no particular reason  Oneness is when there is no difference whatsoever between action and inaction.No, that's not it either. What is it then? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 10, 2015 22:37:24 GMT -5
Have you ever asked yourself honestly and point blank to what extent you participate here in order to experience the conflict that arises between members? No, not necessary. It actually makes me want to  ............. .......... .......until dry heaving .............. Negative emotion only breeds negative emotion and it eventually leads to violence.......good thing we're in a virtual world........... |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 10, 2015 22:40:24 GMT -5
It means there are unknown unknowns (potential). With presumption of 'truth' you shut the door to seeing anything unknown, a deeper ground of being can't reveal itself to ~you~ if ~you~ shut the door ~to it~, by ~thinking~ you have already ~realized~ the Whole. What Tzu says is perfectly clear. To someone looking for a fight, sure, yes, it is. I was referring to that particular post of Tzu's. (In case that wasn't clear)...... |
|
|
|
Post by onehandclapping on Mar 11, 2015 1:41:34 GMT -5
No, that's not it either. What is it then? *points at the ground* *runs over and opens the door* *types the words "types the words"* *breathes* *sips tea* *drifts off to sle.... |
|
|
|
Post by onehandclapping on Mar 11, 2015 1:52:17 GMT -5
His repetitive claim, however, that anyone who writes about oneness is attached to an idea of oneness gets a bit tiring because when he does that, he seems to be exhibiting the very thing that he complains about. This statement or a version of it has been posted so many times before it's making me feel like I'm in the movie Groundhogs Day with Bill Murray. Can I motion for a flipping of the sides by all parties? ZD and E will now argue that everyone is attached to the idea of oneness and Tzu will argue non-duality is the proper idea (although not an idea). Let's just shake it up a bit. At least that would make for some interesting reading.... |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 11, 2015 15:29:40 GMT -5
To someone looking for a fight, sure, yes, it is. I was referring to that particular post of Tzu's. (In case that wasn't clear)...... stutter much?  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 11, 2015 15:37:46 GMT -5
Have you ever asked yourself honestly and point blank to what extent you participate here in order to experience the conflict that arises between members? No, not necessary. It actually makes me want to ............. .......... .......until dry heaving .............. Negative emotion only breeds negative emotion and it eventually leads to violence.......good thing we're in a virtual world........... Yeah, uh-huh, says the guy who bumps "Shaming".  You got a walk-talk issue 'dusty, and this isn't gonna' do you any direct and immediate good because you're obviously just not conscious of the movement of your own mind in this regard, but at this point I don't care. What's going on is that there are certain ideas that you despise, such as the absence of volition, and other ideas that you value, such as the nature of causality, time, space and matter. When the one's you don't like are promoted, and the ones you do are disparaged, there's a process going on that draws you to the conflict and is the impetus behind your promotion of the conflict. The process -- if you'd take an honest look via the interior practices that you write about some times -- is one that is defensive. Your sense of identity is being undermined because it's relative to your sense of reality that in turn rests on the ideas. This is a pattern that's playing out with several of the prominent posters on the forum with a similar ongoing interest in conflict. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2015 18:03:31 GMT -5
No, not necessary. It actually makes me want to ............. .......... .......until dry heaving .............. Negative emotion only breeds negative emotion and it eventually leads to violence.......good thing we're in a virtual world........... Yeah, uh-huh, says the guy who bumps "Shaming". You got a walk-talk issue 'dusty, and this isn't gonna' do you any direct and immediate good because you're obviously just not conscious of the movement of your own mind in this regard, but at this point I don't care. What's going on is that there are certain ideas that you despise, such as the absence of volition, and other ideas that you value, such as the nature of causality, time, space and matter. When the one's you don't like are promoted, and the ones you do are disparaged, there's a process going on that draws you to the conflict and is the impetus behind your promotion of the conflict. The process -- if you'd take an honest look via the interior practices that you write about some times -- is one that is defensive. Your sense of identity is being undermined because it's relative to your sense of reality that in turn rests on the ideas. This is a pattern that's playing out with several of the prominent posters on the forum with a similar ongoing interest in conflict. laughter, what you are advocating and I agree with, is self-control. But hardly anybody knows what it means to influence our own self or control our own self psychologically, it's a nonsense most people will say. How can I control my own mind? Am I myself different from my mind? It will be tautology to speak of myself controlling myself, because the act of control requires a distinction between the controller and the controlled. Otherwise, what is control? It's much more difficult than it seems. Self-control is not something the self can 'do', it's not an action, but rather it is something that someone wakes up to, much like waking up from a dream. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 11, 2015 18:38:28 GMT -5
No, not necessary. It actually makes me want to ............. .......... .......until dry heaving .............. Negative emotion only breeds negative emotion and it eventually leads to violence.......good thing we're in a virtual world........... Yeah, uh-huh, says the guy who bumps "Shaming". You got a walk-talk issue 'dusty, and this isn't gonna' do you any direct and immediate good because you're obviously just not conscious of the movement of your own mind in this regard, but at this point I don't care. What's going on is that there are certain ideas that you despise, such as the absence of volition, and other ideas that you value, such as the nature of causality, time, space and matter. When the one's you don't like are promoted, and the ones you do are disparaged, there's a process going on that draws you to the conflict and is the impetus behind your promotion of the conflict. The process -- if you'd take an honest look via the interior practices that you write about some times -- is one that is defensive. Your sense of identity is being undermined because it's relative to your sense of reality that in turn rests on the ideas. This is a pattern that's playing out with several of the prominent posters on the forum with a similar ongoing interest in conflict. You have put me between a rock and a hard place. I will reserve comment for such a time that I get out, if I get out, a version of the famous question: Have you quit beating your wife? Oh crap........he thinks to himself, I just gave him more ammo..........I think, maybe....somehow.........  No........I basically vote for "what is"..........and let the pieces fall where they may......... But nice try.......... If you don't like it that there is a record of your past posting, you can delete them, like Steve did (I actually don't know why Steve deleted all those posts)..... That's my best Tzu impression........ (Just the last paragraph)........ |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 11, 2015 19:13:28 GMT -5
Yeah, uh-huh, says the guy who bumps "Shaming". You got a walk-talk issue 'dusty, and this isn't gonna' do you any direct and immediate good because you're obviously just not conscious of the movement of your own mind in this regard, but at this point I don't care. What's going on is that there are certain ideas that you despise, such as the absence of volition, and other ideas that you value, such as the nature of causality, time, space and matter. When the one's you don't like are promoted, and the ones you do are disparaged, there's a process going on that draws you to the conflict and is the impetus behind your promotion of the conflict. The process -- if you'd take an honest look via the interior practices that you write about some times -- is one that is defensive. Your sense of identity is being undermined because it's relative to your sense of reality that in turn rests on the ideas. This is a pattern that's playing out with several of the prominent posters on the forum with a similar ongoing interest in conflict. You have put me between a rock and a hard place. I will reserve comment for such a time that I get out, if I get out, a version of the famous question: Have you quit beating your wife? Oh crap........he thinks to himself, I just gave him more ammo..........I think, maybe....somehow......... No........I basically vote for "what is"..........and let the pieces fall where they may......... But nice try.......... If you don't like it that there is a record of your past posting, you can delete them, like Steve did (I actually don't know why Steve deleted all those posts)..... That's my best Tzu impression........ (Just the last paragraph)........ I've been wondering why did you bump 'Shaming' -- I don't think the answer is in the title, necessarily. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 11, 2015 20:02:33 GMT -5
You have put me between a rock and a hard place. I will reserve comment for such a time that I get out, if I get out, a version of the famous question: Have you quit beating your wife? Oh crap........he thinks to himself, I just gave him more ammo..........I think, maybe....somehow......... No........I basically vote for "what is"..........and let the pieces fall where they may......... But nice try.......... If you don't like it that there is a record of your past posting, you can delete them, like Steve did (I actually don't know why Steve deleted all those posts)..... That's my best Tzu impression........ (Just the last paragraph)........ I've been wondering why did you bump 'Shaming' -- I don't think the answer is in the title, necessarily. Those who do not remember the past, are condemned to repeat it. George Santayana. (That's not really the reason, but I'm not going to share the reason, presently anyway). |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 11, 2015 21:24:29 GMT -5
Yeah, uh-huh, says the guy who bumps "Shaming". You got a walk-talk issue 'dusty, and this isn't gonna' do you any direct and immediate good because you're obviously just not conscious of the movement of your own mind in this regard, but at this point I don't care. What's going on is that there are certain ideas that you despise, such as the absence of volition, and other ideas that you value, such as the nature of causality, time, space and matter. When the one's you don't like are promoted, and the ones you do are disparaged, there's a process going on that draws you to the conflict and is the impetus behind your promotion of the conflict. The process -- if you'd take an honest look via the interior practices that you write about some times -- is one that is defensive. Your sense of identity is being undermined because it's relative to your sense of reality that in turn rests on the ideas. This is a pattern that's playing out with several of the prominent posters on the forum with a similar ongoing interest in conflict. laughter, what you are advocating and I agree with, is self-control. But hardly anybody knows what it means to influence our own self or control our own self psychologically, it's a nonsense most people will say. How can I control my own mind? Am I myself different from my mind? It will be tautology to speak of myself controlling myself, because the act of control requires a distinction between the controller and the controlled. Otherwise, what is control? It's much more difficult than it seems. Self-control is not something the self can 'do', it's not an action, but rather it is something that someone wakes up to, much like waking up from a dream. Wasn't advocating self-control but instead self-knowledge. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 11, 2015 21:27:05 GMT -5
Yeah, uh-huh, says the guy who bumps "Shaming". You got a walk-talk issue 'dusty, and this isn't gonna' do you any direct and immediate good because you're obviously just not conscious of the movement of your own mind in this regard, but at this point I don't care. What's going on is that there are certain ideas that you despise, such as the absence of volition, and other ideas that you value, such as the nature of causality, time, space and matter. When the one's you don't like are promoted, and the ones you do are disparaged, there's a process going on that draws you to the conflict and is the impetus behind your promotion of the conflict. The process -- if you'd take an honest look via the interior practices that you write about some times -- is one that is defensive. Your sense of identity is being undermined because it's relative to your sense of reality that in turn rests on the ideas. This is a pattern that's playing out with several of the prominent posters on the forum with a similar ongoing interest in conflict. You have put me between a rock and a hard place. I will reserve comment for such a time that I get out, if I get out, a version of the famous question: Have you quit beating your wife? Oh crap........he thinks to himself, I just gave him more ammo..........I think, maybe....somehow......... No........I basically vote for "what is"..........and let the pieces fall where they may......... But nice try.......... If you don't like it that there is a record of your past posting, you can delete them, like Steve did (I actually don't know why Steve deleted all those posts)..... That's my best Tzu impression........ (Just the last paragraph)........ LOL ... still your mind and attend the actuality of the words on the page and let the happening reveal itself. I have no interest in smashing my David. |
|
............. 
