|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 28, 2021 8:42:48 GMT -5
We make adjustments as we go. Unreasonable fear of errors freezes us. Somebody said something like: foolish people believe that; nobody's born foolish; they're foolish because they believe that. I'd be careful applying words like foolish or confused to others, I don't think the inner guide would suggest judging or comparing or complaining sdp likes twice.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 28, 2021 8:51:46 GMT -5
I don't think the reflection cap is much different from the sage cap I think that reflection and sage are related concepts. One can be either one only, both, or none. Independent variables. What's more unfortunate is that we can't say who's sage, who's delusional, who's a snake oil salesman. That's why our inner-guidance is our only hope, in my opinion. The inner guide has a job like a parent, to work its way out of the job of being a parent, by age 18. So the purpose of the inner guide is 'get ~you~ transformed into the inner guide'. And then that inner guide has an Inner Guide. Sometimes there is a process, using a thorn to remove a thorn. All of life is a mirror.
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Mar 28, 2021 8:53:42 GMT -5
good for you. idiots get to go first. did you get the shot yet? I get a booster every year, just in case I need it, which is inevitable. (And I got my second COVID shot, too, Thursday 3-25-21). Got both of mine (covid) and wife got her first last week. She waits 3 more weeks for the next one. Hallelujah!
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 28, 2021 8:55:02 GMT -5
Doesn't even take a sage to discern that this is yet another of the myriad forms of the existential question. It's just "who/what am I?", particularized. So, "who/what am I"? (each one of us) That, is really the only question.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 28, 2021 8:58:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 28, 2021 8:59:17 GMT -5
What does your inner guidance tell you? Is this your final answer? I thought that as you bring this "existential" question so often, you have your answer. You already know my answer. Surely, I got it from my inner-guidance. Then it's second hand.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 28, 2021 9:00:35 GMT -5
No. There isn't anything of potential greater import to you than the answer to this question. "To infinity".....
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 28, 2021 9:05:34 GMT -5
No. There isn't anything of potential greater import to you than the answer to this question. For me, of greater importance was the answer to: "what am I supposed to do here?". Why? Because just knowing "who / what I am" would imply that I'd have to use my own reasoning to further find out "what I am supposed to do", which is likely to be beyond my reasoning capability. A most pertinent question, what you say "I" to.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 28, 2021 9:08:51 GMT -5
For me, of greater importance was the answer to: "what am I supposed to do here?". Why? Because just knowing "who / what I am" would imply that I'd have to use my own reasoning to further find out "what I am supposed to do", which is likely to be beyond my reasoning capability. Seems to me that it's ultimately a fine line of inquiry, and that you're doing it consciously puts you into a minority. But, how can you ever get the right answer about purpose if the inquiry is based on a faulty assumption as to what/who you are? That's not to insist or even to suggest that you're wrong on the notion of identity, just to highlight the dependence, of one question upon the other. Sometimes "a wrench in the chainsaw" shows up when we least expect it. We never think it's a good idea, at the time.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 28, 2021 9:10:17 GMT -5
No. There isn't anything of potential greater import to you than the answer to this question. For me, of greater importance was the answer to: "what am I supposed to do here?". Why? Because just knowing "who / what I am" would imply that I'd have to use my own reasoning to further find out "what I am supposed to do", which is likely to be beyond my reasoning capability. That's a gift.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 28, 2021 9:33:21 GMT -5
Seems to me that it's ultimately a fine line of inquiry, and that you're doing it consciously puts you into a minority. But, how can you ever get the right answer about purpose if the inquiry is based on a faulty assumption as to what/who you are? That's not to insist or even to suggest that you're wrong on the notion of identity, just to highlight the dependence, of one question upon the other. That would be a problem if the answer (to "what I am supposed to do") were the result of a rationalization based on assumptions. It isn't. It is based on inner-guidance, with no rationalization. That was my point: you're trying to find out the correct assumptions, and rationalize from there. I start from the postulate that my rationalization isn't reliable enough for such lofty knowledge, so instead of having a "realization" of the assumptions, I shoot directly for the "realization" of the answer: "what I am supposed to do". If I'm having a "realization", why shouldn't I have one that has a direct application, and that is also a lower hanging fruit anyway? I love two stories from the life of Alexander the Great. The first, The Gordian Knot. A story went along with the knot, whoever untied the knot would conquer the world. Many had tried and failed. AtG very quickly untied the knot. The second, when he encountered the sage Diogenes who basically homelessly lived in a pot. When the Great came up to Diogenes, his reputation proceeding, Alexander told him, ask whatever you wish and I will grant it. Diogenes told AtG to "Step aside, you're blocking my sunlight". It is said Alexander said, If I were not Alexander, I would choose to be Diogenes. And Diogenes said, If I were not Diogenes, I would choose to be Diogenes. medium.com/@ricosutioso/diogenes-the-beggar-philosopher-fdd71946f641
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 28, 2021 9:47:34 GMT -5
Right, well, as I said, and to say it another way, the question of purpose is an inquiry that's rife with opportunity. I never meant to imply that the inquiry should be done rationally or that there is a rational answer, although I can see how you might infer that from the way that question was phrased. It's not that rationality is useless in self-inquiry, it's just that there is a limit to it, beyond which requires a different way. If you're satisfied with the basis for your current inquiry, that's great, but I'll offer you the opinion that you would be done with it if you realized what you are. I know that you won't acknowledge my explanation ... Last time: knowing what you are doesn't mean that you know what you have to do. You can't know what you are, because that is infinite (the large-infinite, not the zero-infinite). But, you can know what you have to do now. I don't think that your question "who/what am I" offers an opportunity, only speculation in the framework of one's limiting beliefs. ZD and laughter are pointing out that what's most important is not what one does, but who is it that chooses what is to be done. It's basically a shortcut. Ecclesiastes is my favorite book of the Bible. Solomon was given a choice, wisdom or riches. Solomon chose wisdom. He didn't realize the consequences of his choice. He was given a pathway in life which, only *in the end* did he truly have wisdom. What did he come up with? All is vanity. From the standpoint of the ordinary self, for everything under the sun, all is vanity. Take the shortcut. (Reading Ecclesiastes is not a bad beginning).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 28, 2021 9:50:16 GMT -5
Right, well, as I said, and to say it another way, the question of purpose is an inquiry that's rife with opportunity. I never meant to imply that the inquiry should be done rationally or that there is a rational answer, although I can see how you might infer that from the way that question was phrased. It's not that rationality is useless in self-inquiry, it's just that there is a limit to it, beyond which requires a different way. If you're satisfied with the basis for your current inquiry, that's great, but I'll offer you the opinion that you would be done with it if you realized what you are. I know that you won't acknowledge my explanation ... Last time: knowing what you are doesn't mean that you know what you have to do. You can't know what you are, because that is infinite (the large-infinite, not the zero-infinite). But, you can know what you have to do now. I don't think that your question "who/what am I" offers an opportunity, only speculation in the framework of one's limiting beliefs. Take the shortcut.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 28, 2021 10:13:44 GMT -5
Yes, it can be considered insulting, but it can also be considered a form of deep play. This form of play is common in the Zen tradition, and the funnier and more ironic it is the better. If I answered your question straight, and without being playful, I would respond with something like "What I am is without limit or boundaries and cannot be imagined. What I am is beyond birth or death and includes the entire field of all being, seen or unseen. I use the word 'THIS' to point to it." Although I would appreciate much more that kind of response, I would appreciate even more being pointed toward finding it out for myself, and expressing (as a guru) his acknowledgement that this is what he believes to be the truth now, in this moment, but that he leaves room for the fact that he may be wrong, at least in some respects. By the way, it is obvious that you're experienced in dealing with doubters and nay-sayers; good table manners In my 20's my situation in life necessitated a kind of self-inquiry before I knew there was such a thing. I became paralyzed by a kind of depression which some years later upon reading St John of the Cross's The Dark Night of the Soul (he describes in the book there are 2 dark nights) I realized had been a dark night of the soul. I summed it up as 'nothing meant anything'. I had to find a point where something meant something, to proceed. I was in this state for a year, most uncomfortable. I came to see it as a process of backing up. When I thought I had found some kind of stable place within myself, I found it wasn't, so 'looked behind' to find a something behind that. I kept looking behind. J Krishnamurti had been my pathway, but I got behind where even he could help (that is, what he taught, which wasn't personal). Many days I literally could not get out of bed. The days I could get out of bed I had to force myself to get out of bed. And many times I literally had to force myself to take one more step, literally. At a point of utmost crisis (I was suicidal, for the second time, seriously, bookends of the year) I found a way to proceed further, a way of finding the who behind the who, or, observing what one says "I" to (real observation is always impartial. IOW, the observation is more-real than what-it-observes). So for me it wasn't a question of what to do. It was a question of who was doing the what. That's what ZD and laughter are pointing to. If it doesn't apply now, keep it for future reference. Yes, ZD has infinite patience. Most of us don't.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Mar 28, 2021 13:28:09 GMT -5
I browsed your replies to my posts (less and less). You're so convinced you're right, while I believe you aren't that there's no reason to further waste time.
|
|