|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 26, 2011 16:59:55 GMT -5
Im not trying to do anything with mind and there is very little tension these days. Not-knowing is very very easy. I fairly fluidly and easily shift between dichotomous perspectives because no side of the coin is attached to as absolutely true. The mind is allowed to be free. So it may not be a problem to be solved but it seems it has been pretty much solved anyway. It sounds to me as if you like the tension you describe and thats fine, but that tension is not inevitable. Dualistic experiencing is not inevitable, and is not the actuality anyway. Tension is just tension. I didn't mean to imply it was good or bad, which I had hoped to convey in those examples. I don't know how you can say there is very little tension these days when every conversation is driven by that tension. Shifting between perspectives, fluidly or not, is tension. Working on doing the right thing, and feeling good all the time, and helping your mother, is tension. Yes, I was careful not to say that I have totally let go of all tension. But to a great extent I would say I have. The potential is there to release it completely. To become conscious co-creators. A life in which there is only 'Yes'. A life in which there is only an experience of resonance. What you are also admitting to here is that we are banging heads. I agree. |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Sept 26, 2011 17:58:04 GMT -5
Im not so deep into not-knowing that there isnt an awareness and interpretation of what Im feeling. This is why it makes sense to me to say that there is still some belief in a believer lingering around. I cant honestly say that I know one way or the other, but there are clues which suggest to me that there is still some degree of belief. You sneaky sneaky you... ;D In general you don't know, and in particular you know. You basically admitted to contextual knowing. So how does "partial not-knowing" look like? Is it the same as "knowing a little bit?" We can be free of the mind and we can escape illusion, but it's not easy to do it while saying we can't. |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Sept 26, 2011 18:00:30 GMT -5
Everything would be right, and paradoxically everything would be equally wrong. Hmmmmm......... Yep, and both sides must be embraced, because otherwise they would fall apart. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 27, 2011 1:49:04 GMT -5
Im not so deep into not-knowing that there isnt an awareness and interpretation of what Im feeling. This is why it makes sense to me to say that there is still some belief in a believer lingering around. I cant honestly say that I know one way or the other, but there are clues which suggest to me that there is still some degree of belief. You sneaky sneaky you... ;D In general you don't know, and in particular you know. You basically admitted to contextual knowing. So how does "partial not-knowing" look like? Is it the same as "knowing a little bit?" We can be free of the mind and we can escape illusion, but it's not easy to do it while saying we can't. I wouldnt call it contextual knowing (because that implies that contexts can be known), but I would more say that it is more like 'knowing a little bit'. But not so much that I can honesty say that I know that I know a little bit! The knowing that happens is far more spontaneous than that. What I do is look at the clues and the evidence and say, well....given this, it seems to me that there must be some belief in a believer remaining otherwise I wouldnt be funtioning in the way I function. What I notice is that making choices happens, imagining happens, preferences happen, irritation happens....so what that says to me is that there is still some degree of belief in a believer, some need still to defend particular self-images. Im not trying to be sneaky, Im trying to present the way I interpret the clues. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 27, 2011 1:49:37 GMT -5
Everything would be right, and paradoxically everything would be equally wrong. Hmmmmm......... Yep, and both sides must be embraced, because otherwise they would fall apart. In embracing both sides (and neither and not even that!) they do fall apart. One of the things Ive been trying to do is show you guys the problem of leaning heavily towards one side of the coin because where there is a heavy leaning there must be some attachment to the absolute truth of the ideas. As a simple example, you guys might well be attached to the absolute truth of the idea that there is no free will and no volition. You may SAY that you arent attached, but.... you probably are. I obviously understand the 'no free will' thing because I supported it last year (and still do), but the other side of the coin is simple. Because our fundamental nature is absolute and prior to the universe and time and space and appearances, in this sense....we have free will. We primarily ARE free will itself. This side of the coin is useful for when we are moved to take responsibility for what we are creating. Also useful for performing miracles and moving mountains (as in the other thread). |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Sept 27, 2011 5:54:01 GMT -5
As a simple example, you guys might well be attached to the absolute truth of the idea that there is no free will and no volition. You may SAY that you arent attached, but.... you probably are. I obviously understand the 'no free will' thing because I supported it last year (and still do), but the other side of the coin is simple. Because our fundamental nature is absolute and prior to the universe and time and space and appearances, in this sense....we have free will. We primarily ARE free will itself. What I've been saying is that 'free will' is as real as 'Santa Claus.' And now you're going to say I'm attached to Santa ;D But these discussions never really go beyond having fun running in circles. In order to 'relax the poor agitated soul' we must go where no mind has gone before: outside the head! |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 27, 2011 7:07:59 GMT -5
As a simple example, you guys might well be attached to the absolute truth of the idea that there is no free will and no volition. You may SAY that you arent attached, but.... you probably are. I obviously understand the 'no free will' thing because I supported it last year (and still do), but the other side of the coin is simple. Because our fundamental nature is absolute and prior to the universe and time and space and appearances, in this sense....we have free will. We primarily ARE free will itself. What I've been saying is that 'free will' is as real as 'Santa Claus.' And now you're going to say I'm attached to Santa ;D But these discussions never really go beyond having fun running in circles. In order to 'relax the poor agitated soul' we must go where no mind has gone before: outside the head! Thats not possible. The gerbil wheel keeps turning. Minding happens. We can get off the horse and create an artificial illusion of distance, but its just a delaying strategy, one that gives us a relative relief from the pain of identification. Eventually this collapses and we have to get back on the horse, and it can be bumpy to start with. What happens is that we get back on for a while and then we need a break so we create the illusion of distance for a while. Then we get back on. And off. And on. And off. I still create the illusion of distance sometimes. To give another metaphor. If we are a swimmer in the river of life, we can either be dragged along (attachment), we can either get out of the river and stand on the bank (detachment), or we can master swimming and master the river (non-attachment). If free will is as real as santa, then no free will is also as real as santa i.e. it is equally true that there is free will as it is that there is no free will, it just depends on the angle we look from. Sometimes it is useful to take responsibility for what we are creating and for the choice we are making. When we do this, we are assuming free will. |
|
|
|
Post by ernie on Sept 27, 2011 8:34:06 GMT -5
I don't understand why getting out of the river and standing on either bank is detachment.
Flowing with the river is detachment.
Also- how does mastering swimming imply mastery of the river?
When an orchestral arrangement is being played, does the instrument play itself?
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 27, 2011 8:47:04 GMT -5
I don't understand why getting out of the river and standing on either bank is detachment. Flowing with the river is detachment. Also- how does mastering swimming imply mastery of the river? When an orchestral arrangement is being played, does the instrument play itself? Flowing with the river is what I would describe as non-attachment. It is full immersion yet without identification. What I described as detachment is when we create an artificial and illusionary boundary between what we conceptualize as a 'me' that is prior to mind, and mind itself. From this position the mind is then observed in a detached way. It is not a full immersion. In full immersion we no longer experience ourselves as separate from mind, yet neither are we attached to any thoughts as being absolutely true. Everything is then very very immediate and on a level. Very 'here and now'. Very responsive. Swimming with the river expertly, using the currents, applying different techniques and strokes is mastery as opposed to being dragged along helplessly by the river (attachment). And actually, sometimes detachment can be the most appropriate strategy to use for a while. If an instrument in an orchestra is being played, I wouldnt say it is playing itself, no. I have seen some pianos in western movies that play themselves, but I guess even they require being turned on. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 27, 2011 10:52:25 GMT -5
Yep, and both sides must be embraced, because otherwise they would fall apart. In embracing both sides (and neither and not even that!) they do fall apart. One of the things Ive been trying to do is show you guys the problem of leaning heavily towards one side of the coin because where there is a heavy leaning there must be some attachment to the absolute truth of the ideas. As a simple example, you guys might well be attached to the absolute truth of the idea that there is no free will and no volition. You may SAY that you arent attached, but.... you probably are. I obviously understand the 'no free will' thing because I supported it last year (and still do), but the other side of the coin is simple. Because our fundamental nature is absolute and prior to the universe and time and space and appearances, in this sense....we have free will. We primarily ARE free will itself. This side of the coin is useful for when we are moved to take responsibility for what we are creating. Also useful for performing miracles and moving mountains (as in the other thread). Embracing both sides of an imaginary coin just means you're twice as delusional. Hehe. This is why coins are transcended. Ultimately, there is neither free will nor 'no free will' because there isn't a person to whom that relates. The notion of free will arises from the belief in personhood. To transcend that illusion means the issue of free will doesn't arise at all. The question no longer makes sense. I don't see anybody "leaning heavily" toward any side of any coin, but I do see your coin collection.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 27, 2011 11:04:09 GMT -5
In embracing both sides (and neither and not even that!) they do fall apart. One of the things Ive been trying to do is show you guys the problem of leaning heavily towards one side of the coin because where there is a heavy leaning there must be some attachment to the absolute truth of the ideas. As a simple example, you guys might well be attached to the absolute truth of the idea that there is no free will and no volition. You may SAY that you arent attached, but.... you probably are. I obviously understand the 'no free will' thing because I supported it last year (and still do), but the other side of the coin is simple. Because our fundamental nature is absolute and prior to the universe and time and space and appearances, in this sense....we have free will. We primarily ARE free will itself. This side of the coin is useful for when we are moved to take responsibility for what we are creating. Also useful for performing miracles and moving mountains (as in the other thread). Embracing both sides of an imaginary coin just means you're twice as delusional. Hehe. This is why coins are transcended. Ultimately, there is neither free will nor 'no free will' because there isn't a person to whom that relates. The notion of free will arises from the belief in personhood. To transcend that illusion means the issue of free will doesn't arise at all. The question no longer makes sense. I don't see anybody "leaning heavily" toward any side of any coin, but I do see your coin collection. You just did it again. The idea that there is no person is just one side of a coin. Its one of the ideas you hold to be absolutely true. Its equally true that there is a person and personhood as it is that there is no person/personhood. Ideas happen. Perspectives happen. Minding happens. Releasing attachment to any one side of the dichotomous truths of the universe is helpful on our path. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 27, 2011 11:50:58 GMT -5
After lunch I suspect this body will go to the Post Office and then take a walk in the woods, but then, you never know what will happen next. An old Zen Master once said, "Every day is a good day." Eventually, this statement was turned into a koan. "What did that statement mean?"
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 27, 2011 11:54:38 GMT -5
Embracing both sides of an imaginary coin just means you're twice as delusional. Hehe. This is why coins are transcended. Ultimately, there is neither free will nor 'no free will' because there isn't a person to whom that relates. The notion of free will arises from the belief in personhood. To transcend that illusion means the issue of free will doesn't arise at all. The question no longer makes sense. I don't see anybody "leaning heavily" toward any side of any coin, but I do see your coin collection. You just did it again. The idea that there is no person is just one side of a coin. Its one of the ideas you hold to be absolutely true. Its equally true that there is a person and personhood as it is that there is no person/personhood. Ideas happen. Perspectives happen. Minding happens. Releasing attachment to any one side of the dichotomous truths of the universe is helpful on our path. The question of personhood or no personhood is irrelevant and delusional. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2011 12:00:09 GMT -5
After lunch I suspect this body will go to the Post Office and then take a walk in the woods, but then, you never know what will happen next. An old Zen Master once said, "Every day is a good day." Eventually, this statement was turned into a koan. "What did that statement mean?" an old firefighter i workout with at the gym grumbles frequently: "Every day above the grass is a plus." |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 27, 2011 12:23:48 GMT -5
You just did it again. The idea that there is no person is just one side of a coin. Its one of the ideas you hold to be absolutely true. Its equally true that there is a person and personhood as it is that there is no person/personhood. Ideas happen. Perspectives happen. Minding happens. Releasing attachment to any one side of the dichotomous truths of the universe is helpful on our path. The question of personhood or no personhood is irrelevant and delusional. Then why do you keep questioning it hehe? |
|
