|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on May 16, 2012 11:40:51 GMT -5
Hi. I´ve been working real hard on this song. I´ve done the research, considered various interpretations of the original that it´s based on, maintained the original music score, and changed the words a bit. I was only able to get the first verse before becoming exhausted, because it´s very hard to keep the same rhythm. But I think it works pretty well. Maybe other folks can help me write some more lyrics and add them to the thread. TIA! Andrew, this one´s for you.  Verse 1:Imagine there´s a heaven so you can imagine there's no heaven It's easy if you try Imagine there´s a hell below us Above us only sky Imagine all the people imagining they are living separately Imagine there are countries so you can imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Imagine there something else so you can imagine there´s something to live or die for And a bunch of religions too Imagine all the people imagining they´re searching for some peace You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one I hope you'll never wake up And your worldview can only reflect the idea that it´s one. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 16, 2012 12:24:31 GMT -5
Nice piano playing. I thought you were travelling in Central America? Where did you stumble on a piano?
If I have time later I will try and add a verse.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 16, 2012 12:35:10 GMT -5
Though on reflection, the original lyrics basically say what Im saying anyway!
|
|
|
|
Post by Portto on May 16, 2012 14:30:36 GMT -5
Excellent, someN!
I guess we could summarize as "Imagine being able to imagine!"
Andrew: I don't think it's sN playing!
|
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on May 18, 2012 12:21:19 GMT -5
Thanks Portto!
Hehe, big tongue in cheek for the most part! It takes greater effort to try to get all the words (thinking things through trying to arrive at a desired outcome) into the rhythm (What Is naturally expressing/manifesting as the larger cycle of life). And no, that´s not my piano playing.,,,bummer, hehe.
So, What Is the Source of this flow that gives rise to all this imagination?
I know the uncertainty to the mind and all the feelings of tension that arise from that uncertainty aren´t all that great in the smaller scheme of things. But that is the dream of the contextualized, finite and flatland world of the mind.
Lyrics
Miles to dawn but it feels so dark 'till then
Drowns you out but you can't be to certain
Common wants, only fill me up with need.
Everybody in this world is just like me
So why
Row on?
Sounds like fear, thinking there might be a cure
Waste your life, but you don't know what it's worth
Comb your mind for all the treasures of this earth
Too close to find anything outside yourself
So why
Row on?
(Aaaaah)
Life ain't nothin'
(la la la la-aah)
But a dream
(la la la la-aah)
Realistic
(la la la la-aah)
As it seems
(guitar solo)
Destiny's vulgar so I might as well resist
Out of the darkness and all of the secrets still exist
Finally decided, and by decide I mean accept,
I don't need all those other chances I won't get.
So I
Row on.
(Aaaaaah)
Life ain't nothin'
(la la la la-aah_
But a dream
(la la la la-aah)
Relives it
(la la la la-aah)
As it seems.
Mind is great as a tool for navigating rules, roles, and contextual considerations, but it is divisive of Truth (can´t be used usccessfuly). So, that so many give it credence is what I just tend to poke fun at. As Q has alluded to before, I am a bit immature and tend to play more than your average dream character my age, but hopefully he is just playing in his own way in how he expresses it.
The pointing being attempted is at Truth/What Is already Here. I see a lot of sincerity and thoughtfulness in your posts, so no ill intended from Here. I am just highlighting the assumption that I see emerging from the words chosen to verbally express what you are seeing as Truth, which we know cannot be stated.
So, here´s my parable for today!
The Trek
Starting or continuing the journey,
Only the necessities are needed.
What is needed?
Is this journey necessary?
Traveling lightly,
Lightening as we go.
Arriving empty,
Never having gone anywhere.
What Love this is,
That I Am.
Heading out to trek El Cocuy soon, so it seemed like something to write. Let´s see what happens!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2012 12:29:49 GMT -5
Heading out to trek El Cocuy soon is it necessary?  who cares?! enjoy. |
|
|
|
Post by question on May 18, 2012 12:31:12 GMT -5
As Q has alluded to before, I am a bit immature and tend to play more than your average dream character my age, but hopefully he is just playing in his own way in how he expresses it. No, I did not mean to say that you're 'a bit immature'. What I said was that you're a retard and I also said that what I say is never intended to be ambiguous. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 18, 2012 17:53:17 GMT -5
Good stuff, SN. "Life is a dream" is a cliche and I guess it doesn't mean much to sophisticated seekers anymore. That's a phrase Andy is willing to use, but the idea that everything is imagined somehow seems different and isn't embraced so much.
The point of the 'Imagine' song is well taken, assuming I know what it was. The absurdity of imagining there is no heaven after having imagined that there is, is the same absurdity of imagining joy/sorrow and then imagining that joy is not imagined.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 19, 2012 10:59:56 GMT -5
Good stuff, SN. "Life is a dream" is a cliche and I guess it doesn't mean much to sophisticated seekers anymore. That's a phrase Andy is willing to use, but the idea that everything is imagined somehow seems different and isn't embraced so much. The point of the 'Imagine' song is well taken, assuming I know what it was. The absurdity of imagining there is no heaven after having imagined that there is, is the same absurdity of imagining joy/sorrow and then imagining that joy is not imagined. I agree that everything is imagined, but I would not talk about imagining separation/opposites/duality in the same way that I would talk about appearances/expressions being imagined. Its two different things. It is the difference between egocentricity and mind. Mind is not separate from Being (they are not opposites/dualistic), however the labelling makes it seem as if they are, and ego would have us believe they are. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 19, 2012 11:53:18 GMT -5
Good stuff, SN. "Life is a dream" is a cliche and I guess it doesn't mean much to sophisticated seekers anymore. That's a phrase Andy is willing to use, but the idea that everything is imagined somehow seems different and isn't embraced so much. The point of the 'Imagine' song is well taken, assuming I know what it was. The absurdity of imagining there is no heaven after having imagined that there is, is the same absurdity of imagining joy/sorrow and then imagining that joy is not imagined. I agree that everything is imagined, but I would not talk about imagining separation/opposites/duality in the same way that I would talk about appearances/expressions being imagined. Its two different things. Sure, but they are what I would call imagining in different contexts because the source of both imaginings is the same. Sensory perception is the imagining of an appearance of a tree, while the thoughts about the tree are, as you say, a thought overlay of imagination. Feeling is a thought overlay expressed in terms of a bodily sense perception. Turtles all the way down. Right, nothing is separate, but when we use labels, we mean to differentiate aspects of appearances, so we can't then refer to those differentiated appearances and say there is no difference. When we say mind, we don't really mean ego or being or jelly filled donuts. We mean a thought process that contains ego that originates in being and likes jelly filled donuts. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 19, 2012 12:02:50 GMT -5
I agree that everything is imagined, but I would not talk about imagining separation/opposites/duality in the same way that I would talk about appearances/expressions being imagined. Its two different things. Sure, but they are what I would call imagining in different contexts because the source of both imaginings is the same. Sensory perception is the imagining of an appearance of a tree, while the thoughts about the tree are, as you say, a thought overlay of imagination. Feeling is a thought overlay expressed in terms of a bodily sense perception. Turtles all the way down. Right, nothing is separate, but when we use labels, we mean to differentiate aspects of appearances, so we can't then refer to those differentiated appearances and say there is no difference. When we say mind, we don't really mean ego or being or jelly filled donuts. We mean a thought process that contains ego that originates in being and likes jelly filled donuts. I agree its the same theoretical source, however, if the appearing of a tree does not require a 'thought overlay' then feelings/states do not require a 'thought overlay'. Without a thought overlay, there is still tree-ness and feeling/states. I agree that if there are appearances then difference is the case, but difference does not mean separation/oppositions/duality. It only SEEMS to mean those things because of the way that labelling works, and because ego would have us believe that difference = opposites/separation/duality. The appearance of separation/duality necessitates the appearance of appearances, but the appearance of appearances does not necessitate the appearance of separation/duality, because separation/duality is associated with the 'thought overlay'. It is just an overlay. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 19, 2012 13:12:56 GMT -5
Sure, but they are what I would call imagining in different contexts because the source of both imaginings is the same. Sensory perception is the imagining of an appearance of a tree, while the thoughts about the tree are, as you say, a thought overlay of imagination. Feeling is a thought overlay expressed in terms of a bodily sense perception. Turtles all the way down. Right, nothing is separate, but when we use labels, we mean to differentiate aspects of appearances, so we can't then refer to those differentiated appearances and say there is no difference. When we say mind, we don't really mean ego or being or jelly filled donuts. We mean a thought process that contains ego that originates in being and likes jelly filled donuts. I agree its the same theoretical source The same ACTUAL source. Feelings DO require a thought overlay. That's the whole point of why there can't be billion year joy. What we now disparagingly refer to as Peace does not require a thought overlay, and I keep looking to see if this is what you are talking about, but it's not. You are talking about a joy we all have a reference for, and Figgy is talking about a peace in which certain feelings that we all have a reference for cannot arise. Neither of those is the Peace that passes understanding. You are both still trying to understand it. There is still treeness. There are not still feelings/states. It doesn't seem that way to me at all. Labels don't confuse me, though they seem to confuse you. You assign dualistic labels (like joy) and then declare it nondual and absolute. Joy is 'just an overlay'. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 19, 2012 13:43:06 GMT -5
I agree its the same theoretical source The same ACTUAL source. Feelings DO require a thought overlay. That's the whole point of why there can't be billion year joy. What we now disparagingly refer to as Peace does not require a thought overlay, and I keep looking to see if this is what you are talking about, but it's not. You are talking about a joy we all have a reference for, and Figgy is talking about a peace in which certain feelings that we all have a reference for cannot arise. Neither of those is the Peace that passes understanding. You are both still trying to understand it. There is still treeness. There are not still feelings/states. It doesn't seem that way to me at all. Labels don't confuse me, though they seem to confuse you. You assign dualistic labels (like joy) and then declare it nondual and absolute. Joy is 'just an overlay'. It is not my experience that feelings/states require a 'thought/conceptual' overlay, any more than tree-ness requires a 'thought/conceptual' overlay. I spend much of day without thought overlay and my state/feeling is generally one of lightness and ease and flow. The overlay of thought/concept is associated (or creates) an appearance of separation/opposites/duality, but it is not associated with other appearances/expressions. Labels create an illusion of opposites because of the finite nature OF labels, but what they point to, or represent, is not finite, and not dualistic. It is an error to confuse the appearance of separation/opposites/duality with the appearance of appearances, but that error explains why you conclude that experiencing is dualistic when it is not. Figgy is correct that, by definition, in a state of peace and ease, there would be no despair and hatred (for example). Even in a state of contentment there would be no despair and hatred. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 19, 2012 14:48:56 GMT -5
The same ACTUAL source. Feelings DO require a thought overlay. That's the whole point of why there can't be billion year joy. What we now disparagingly refer to as Peace does not require a thought overlay, and I keep looking to see if this is what you are talking about, but it's not. You are talking about a joy we all have a reference for, and Figgy is talking about a peace in which certain feelings that we all have a reference for cannot arise. Neither of those is the Peace that passes understanding. You are both still trying to understand it. There is still treeness. There are not still feelings/states. It doesn't seem that way to me at all. Labels don't confuse me, though they seem to confuse you. You assign dualistic labels (like joy) and then declare it nondual and absolute. Joy is 'just an overlay'. It is not my experience that feelings/states require a 'thought/conceptual' overlay How is it that you know that? That's incredible. (As in, not credible) The issue is not whether a tree is it's label, it's whether or not feeling is driven by thought. My guess is that the sort of thought we're talking about is too subtle for you to notice. Situations result in joy. What you think about your experience results in the perception of 'ease and lightness'. Except that I'm not referring to a state. It's true that a state of figgy peace occurs in the absence of a state of turmoil 'by definition', and that's the whole point. We can say turmoil can't happen in a state of peace, but we can also say a state of peace can't happen in a state of turmoil. That's what makes it dualistic and conditional. Conditional peace is NOT what I'm talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 19, 2012 15:07:22 GMT -5
It is not my experience that feelings/states require a 'thought/conceptual' overlay How is it that you know that? That's incredible. (As in, not credible) The issue is not whether a tree is it's label, it's whether or not feeling is driven by thought. My guess is that the sort of thought we're talking about is too subtle for you to notice. Situations result in joy. What you think about your experience results in the perception of 'ease and lightness'. Except that I'm not referring to a state. It's true that a state of figgy peace occurs in the absence of a state of turmoil 'by definition', and that's the whole point. We can say turmoil can't happen in a state of peace, but we can also say a state of peace can't happen in a state of turmoil. That's what makes it dualistic and conditional. Conditional peace is NOT what I'm talking about. How do I know that? Because the ability is still there to analyze and evaluate when moved to do so. Furthermore, I remember when my experience was dominated by a thought/conceptual overlay and I am able to compare my experience 'then' to my experience 'now'. Basically, I still have a reference for positive and negative. In a state of samadhi there is no conceptual overlay, yet the experience has been described by many to be blissful, light, easy and happy. Others have described it as a state of flow. Based on my experiences of this state, I concur with this description. Its futile to pretend that you are NOT talking about a state/feeling. States are unavoidable. I can understand why peeps like to talk of stateless states or prefer to say that a particular state is not a state of mind, but this is just a pointer. The reality is that states are unavoidable. We are feeling beings. I agree that there is no despair in peace and there is no peace in despair. That doesn't make them dualistic though, it just makes them different/contrasting states! There is no duality, there is only difference. It sounds like you are talking about some kind of a state of absence in which you can still be somehow contented and peaceful (or Peaceful) yet still be in despair and hatred and helplessness at the same time. Doesn't sound all that good to me. I think I prefer lightness, ease and peace which doesn't come with despair, hatred and helplessness by definition. It also sounds like you are now creating a false divide between conditional and unconditional, which is no different to the false divide you were creating between dual and non-dual. |
|
