|
Post by laughter on Apr 13, 2013 11:08:28 GMT -5
Greetings.. How does a still mind negate the whole process? Are you declining the proposal? I am not declining your proposal, in fact i said, "I'll go first".. What is there to analyze about a 'still mind'? Be well.. Actually, with all due respect Bob, I see you as changing the subject instead of "going first". Not to say there's anything wrong with a change in subject, it's just what I see.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 13, 2013 13:04:43 GMT -5
Greetings.. I am not declining your proposal, in fact i said, "I'll go first".. What is there to analyze about a 'still mind'? Be well.. I'm not understanding what you said about having a still mind negates the whole process. You call it psycho therapy, but asking people what they mean when there is confusion about what is said or there is ambiguity seems to be more of simply a healthy communication process. How is looking at an interaction and listening to each other's perspectives not compatible with a still mind? Help me understand that. I've been interested in seeing where this potential conversation goes, though it apparently isn't going to go. The fact that folks see things differently based on different past experiences or inclinations rarely seems to be an issue for me, especially if I can see where that perception comes from. For example, the woman who has been raped and has a strong interest in empowerment for women, and tends to be suspicious of male motivations is not only understandable, it's also a valid perspective. When I label something as a valid perspective, I realize I'm going out on a limb and implying there is such a thing as an invalid perspective, which I'm doing for the sake of bluntness to make a point. I mean to distinguish a conscious response to one's own unique experience, from an unconscious response to one's self imposed fantasy. If a black man harbors a prejudice against whites because he experiences ongoing discrimination that has made it virtually impossible to learn a trade or establish a stable career, his perspective is valid and can be understood in the context of his experience. He will have lots of opinions and attitudes that will differ from mine, but will not differ in such a way that I can legitimately challenge the reality that he experiences. I have no information to tell me that he is not conscious of what he is experiencing. In giraffe language, I can't say that he has spotted a giraffe simply because he sees things differently than I do and has different opinions and beliefs. OTOH, the lady who has learned how to manipulate others in various ways in order to get what she wants, but is not consciously aware that she is being manipulative because to be conscious of those motivations would do damage to the self image, has split her mind, and therefore split the reality that she perceives such that she is no longer experiencing a unique perspective on reality, but is instead imagining her own reality and then believing in the reality that she imagines, to the disservice of both herself and those who she draws into her reality. She is giraffe spotting and her perspective is not valid even in the context of her own experience because she is not operating in the context of her actual experience but rather her imaginary self imposed reality that is being superimposed on her actual experience.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 13, 2013 14:31:34 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. I am not declining your proposal, in fact i said, "I'll go first".. What is there to analyze about a 'still mind'? Be well.. I'm not understanding what you said about having a still mind negates the whole process. You call it psycho therapy, but asking people what they mean when there is confusion about what is said or there is ambiguity seems to be more of simply a healthy communication process. How is looking at an interaction and listening to each other's perspectives not compatible with a still mind? Help me understand that. Hi Top: I hope you will forgive the following assessment, but in light of this segment of your post: I can't help but wonder how this level of 'minding' is useful compared to the revelation apparent to the 'still mind'.. it seems we have divergent intentions, you toward more thinking, me toward less.. yes, i get that there are those interested in conditioning me to fit their image of 'right', you among them i suspect.. The 'still mind' is interested in seeing/experiencing, what you are suggesting is engaging mind in what seems to be some form of result oriented therapy.. so, what do you think of our interaction so far? are you understanding how the 'still mind' isn't even engaging in thought 'about' the process you are suggesting? Be well..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 13, 2013 14:56:31 GMT -5
Greetings.. I'm not understanding what you said about having a still mind negates the whole process. You call it psycho therapy, but asking people what they mean when there is confusion about what is said or there is ambiguity seems to be more of simply a healthy communication process. How is looking at an interaction and listening to each other's perspectives not compatible with a still mind? Help me understand that. Hi Top: I hope you will forgive the following assessment, but in light of this segment of your post: I can't help but wonder how this level of 'minding' is useful compared to the revelation apparent to the 'still mind'.. it seems we have divergent intentions, you toward more thinking, me toward less.. yes, i get that there are those interested in conditioning me to fit their image of 'right', you among them i suspect.. The 'still mind' is interested in seeing/experiencing, what you are suggesting is engaging mind in what seems to be some form of result oriented therapy.. so, what do you think of our interaction so far? are you understanding how the 'still mind' isn't even engaging in thought 'about' the process you are suggesting? Be well.. topo', FWIW what I see here is Tzu' morphing your invitation to an honest and open discussion into another battle engagement. I imagine that I can understand why that is given some of the posts to him in the thread since I dragged him back over, but once again, I'm not going to claim that I understand his subjective entirely so my imagination remains just that. Tuz', here's a fun little game-type challenge ... if you were to go back and re-read the conversation from this point and excluded this one from top and every other poster except top and I (personally, I'd also encourage you to not exclude wren, but let's make that game-optional), my question for you is: can you honestly say that your last answer to top would have been the same in that different context? ... and yes... I've read everything you said including that about about "minding", "therapy" and "still-mind" etc ...
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 13, 2013 14:58:44 GMT -5
Greetings.. Hi Wren: I'm not quite following your point, could you explain further, please? The way I understand it, a mirror wants to know what it looks like. As in, consciousness wants to see how it is in the world. Science can explain that consciousness always wants to orientate itself. As discussed in this piece.The concept of a clear mirror in forum terms, is akin to 'coming empty', and yet there is a constant request from you, for other posters to adhere to your structure of a 'still mind'. This incessant focus affords a neglect of what other posters write with equal, and less condescending, clarity. I call this a safer exploration, as the forum is an opportunity to see that clear reflection will be sullied by the intention to structure water. In so far as it creates limits and boundaries, for what can easily be, unlimited expression. To be fair, i did not write the portion underlined,[/u]." Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/114639/quote/2682?page=10#ixzz2QNIBnY2S[/quote]There is not a constant request from me that "other posters to adhere to [my] structure of a 'still mind'..".. though there is the reminder that the still mind reveals clarity.. we disagree on the clarity of what some other posters write.. Yes, there is the romantic notion that "unlimited expression" serves a higher purpose, do you believe this is accurate? keep in mind that Jihads, rape, and events like Newtown are also 'unlimited expression'.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 13, 2013 15:11:42 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. Hi Top: I hope you will forgive the following assessment, but in light of this segment of your post: I can't help but wonder how this level of 'minding' is useful compared to the revelation apparent to the 'still mind'.. it seems we have divergent intentions, you toward more thinking, me toward less.. yes, i get that there are those interested in conditioning me to fit their image of 'right', you among them i suspect.. The 'still mind' is interested in seeing/experiencing, what you are suggesting is engaging mind in what seems to be some form of result oriented therapy.. so, what do you think of our interaction so far? are you understanding how the 'still mind' isn't even engaging in thought 'about' the process you are suggesting? Be well.. topo', FWIW what I see here is Tzu' morphing your invitation to an honest and open discussion into another battle engagement. I imagine that I can understand why that is given some of the posts to him in the thread since I dragged him back over, but once again, I'm not going to claim that I understand his subjective entirely so my imagination remains just that. Tuz', here's a fun little game-type challenge ... if you were to go back and re-read the conversation from this point and excluded this one from top and every other poster except top and I (personally, I'd also encourage you to not exclude wren, but let's make that game-optional), my question for you is: can you honestly say that your last answer to top would have been the same in that different context? ... and yes... I've read everything you said including that about about "minding", "therapy" and "still-mind" etc ... LOL.. i hope you will appreciate that this is becoming too laborious for my feeble mind.. and my interest.. " do this, don't do that.. sign, sign, everywhere's a sign.." I warned Topo, "watch what happens".. and, what happens is that i'm not meeting everyone's 'expectations'.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 13, 2013 15:49:11 GMT -5
Greetings.. topo', FWIW what I see here is Tzu' morphing your invitation to an honest and open discussion into another battle engagement. I imagine that I can understand why that is given some of the posts to him in the thread since I dragged him back over, but once again, I'm not going to claim that I understand his subjective entirely so my imagination remains just that. Tuz', here's a fun little game-type challenge ... if you were to go back and re-read the conversation from this point and excluded this one from top and every other poster except top and I (personally, I'd also encourage you to not exclude wren, but let's make that game-optional), my question for you is: can you honestly say that your last answer to top would have been the same in that different context? ... and yes... I've read everything you said including that about about "minding", "therapy" and "still-mind" etc ... LOL.. i hope you will appreciate that this is becoming too laborious for my feeble mind.. and my interest.. " do this, don't do that.. sign, sign, everywhere's a sign.." I warned Topo, "watch what happens".. and, what happens is that i'm not meeting everyone's 'expectations'.. Be well.. First off, no problem! It was just an invitation to a game and if you don't want to play there's no worries either way. Now, I'm assuming that by "I'm not meeting everyone's 'expectations'" that myself, laughter, is one of those " everyone". Where do you see an expectation from me? If I look back at what you responded to, the only one that I could drum-up is that I seem to imagine that topo's invitation to you was for an open and honest discussion and I guess by expressing that I sort of did imply that I expected conformance to that perception. So here, I'll clarify: I took topo's invitation to you as an invitation to an open honest discussion so perhaps I shouldn't have told him that I saw you "morphing" his invitation ... I projected that onto what I saw, which seemed to me to be, at least superficially speaking, an initial willingness on your part to engage in that conversation on a non-combative basis, albeit with the subject changed. Perhaps the combativeness was there underneath despite that initial perception. To reiterate: it's your subjective, only you know the truth about that. You see, I've been engaging you since your return, and especially in this threaad, in the absence of expecting hostility.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 13, 2013 16:40:15 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. LOL.. i hope you will appreciate that this is becoming too laborious for my feeble mind.. and my interest.. " do this, don't do that.. sign, sign, everywhere's a sign.." I warned Topo, "watch what happens".. and, what happens is that i'm not meeting everyone's 'expectations'.. Be well.. First off, no problem! It was just an invitation to a game and if you don't want to play there's no worries either way. Now, I'm assuming that by "I'm not meeting everyone's 'expectations'" that myself, laughter, is one of those " everyone". Where do you see an expectation from me? If I look back at what you responded to, the only one that I could drum-up is that I seem to imagine that topo's invitation to you was for an open and honest discussion and I guess by expressing that I sort of did imply that I expected conformance to that perception. So here, I'll clarify: I took topo's invitation to you as an invitation to an open honest discussion so perhaps I shouldn't have told him that I saw you "morphing" his invitation ... I projected that onto what I saw, which seemed to me to be, at least superficially speaking, an initial willingness on your part to engage in that conversation on a non-combative basis, albeit with the subject changed. Perhaps the combativeness was there underneath despite that initial perception. To reiterate: it's your subjective, only you know the truth about that. You see, I've been engaging you since your return, and especially in this threaad, in the absence of expecting hostility. Fair enough, so.. i'll be clear and direct, and honest.. i'm not interested in what i perceive as more minding, that's the ruse that spoils the forum, for me.. those that speak of TMT, while thinking of ways to conceal more of their 'thinking'.. I am awed by the contradiction between what people say they believe, and the actions evident by the rest of their words.. i am caught awonder at the invitation to study motives, when i am openly singularly interested in clarity.. I am awed by the likes of wren, whose wrapped attention is captured by technical wizardry designed to fool the brain/mind, and then susceptible to whatever explanation is offered when the technical wizardry actually does what it is intended to do, it fools the brain/mind.. yes, there is a cautionary tale, there.. but, i hesitate to believe that evolution arrived here and now due to a great cosmic illusion.. So yes, you did draw me into your story, and look where it got me.. i had intended to do some sincere exploring with Top, but.. it becomes another 'Spiritual Circus', and my interest is lost.. perhaps my error was returning to this quagmire of self-interested competitive story-tellers.. My interest is with those that will share their experiences, the beliefs not so much.. i haven't yet looked at the "how did you get into' thread, yet.. i remain cautiously hopeful.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 13, 2013 17:17:52 GMT -5
Greetings.. First off, no problem! It was just an invitation to a game and if you don't want to play there's no worries either way. Now, I'm assuming that by "I'm not meeting everyone's 'expectations'" that myself, laughter, is one of those " everyone". Where do you see an expectation from me? If I look back at what you responded to, the only one that I could drum-up is that I seem to imagine that topo's invitation to you was for an open and honest discussion and I guess by expressing that I sort of did imply that I expected conformance to that perception. So here, I'll clarify: I took topo's invitation to you as an invitation to an open honest discussion so perhaps I shouldn't have told him that I saw you "morphing" his invitation ... I projected that onto what I saw, which seemed to me to be, at least superficially speaking, an initial willingness on your part to engage in that conversation on a non-combative basis, albeit with the subject changed. Perhaps the combativeness was there underneath despite that initial perception. To reiterate: it's your subjective, only you know the truth about that. You see, I've been engaging you since your return, and especially in this threaad, in the absence of expecting hostility. Fair enough, so.. i'll be clear and direct, and honest.. i'm not interested in what i perceive as more minding, that's the ruse that spoils the forum, for me.. those that speak of TMT, while thinking of ways to conceal more of their 'thinking'.. I am awed by the contradiction between what people say they believe, and the actions evident by the rest of their words.. i am caught awonder at the invitation to study motives, when i am openly singularly interested in clarity.. I am awed by the likes of wren, whose wrapped attention is captured by technical wizardry designed to fool the brain/mind, and then susceptible to whatever explanation is offered when the technical wizardry actually does what it is intended to do, it fools the brain/mind.. yes, there is a cautionary tale, there.. but, i hesitate to believe that evolution arrived here and now due to a great cosmic illusion.. So yes, you did draw me into your story, and look where it got me.. i had intended to do some sincere exploring with Top, but.. it becomes another 'Spiritual Circus', and my interest is lost.. perhaps my error was returning to this quagmire of self-interested competitive story-tellers.. My interest is with those that will share their experiences, the beliefs not so much.. i haven't yet looked at the "how did you get into' thread, yet.. i remain cautiously hopeful.. Be well.. Being open honest and penetrating in a conversation does spin a "story" so to speak, but it's one that is self-contained and laid bare for all to see clearly in a medium such as this. In the instant case, the "story" started with me asking you one question, and in answering it honestly myself. While there's certainly enough wildlife scattered about to support your perception of a "circus", do you find any potential of insult on the part of those who might read what I take as your characterization of the forum in general as a "quagmire of self-interested competitive story-tellers"? -- I honestly feel none btw. Sincerely. As far as the thought that gets applied to going over what was said in the course of a conversation and asking for clarification of a participant, at the very least this distinction applies: it is not unchecked speculation or imagination about the subjective states of the participants. In this sense, it involves far less "minding" than the content generated in the alternative. Now I have to say Bob that this really puzzles me: Now I can see how you might have taken my initial question to you as one about motive, but I can assure you that the motive was not an exploration of motive but rather a question about the quality of your experience. Even in this liberal light however, this only supports reference to motive in the singular, as when I look back at topo's invitation to you: Greetings.. Explain your motives, please?Be well.. I am hoping that by genuinely discussing individual interactions from a place of openness that we can set aside combativeness and get some understanding about what is going on. Here is the model I would like to approach our discussion through. Each of us has our own ontology. Meaning we have a limited number of buckets in our mind with labels. When we look at a situation our mind tries to categorize it and fit the situation into one of these buckets. Each person may focus on a different aspect of the interaction which results in mismatched bucket-labeling, not even taking into account the difference in ontology. What I would like us to do is look very closely at this process. Pick an interaction, a situation, and we can all (or whoever wants to participate) say what we see and explain why we see it that way. What are the buckets we have through which we are viewing the interaction, what aspects are we fixating on, why are we fixating on those aspects and not others. If two people can do this with each other it reveals the differing mental processes that are active and it makes room for mutual understanding. No one is wrong per se, no need to fight over who has the right perception, but just look at how perception works in different people. I think this suggestion is in alignment with everyone's stated intent. If we approach it as equals with the openness to hear the other person's perspective, then we might actually understand each other. It doesn't mean we have to accept another person's perception as our own. We're just too busy talking past each other to effectively communicate. I'm proposing a change in the way we are interacting as I think it will be enlightening to learn how the other person's mind operates. ... it seems to me that it was you who was the one who expressed the initial interest (at least explicitly) in motivation ... I see something completely different from topo', as I've hightlighted. His mention of "motivation" was limited to stating the assumption that an open honest discussion was in line with everyones intent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2013 18:00:24 GMT -5
To be fair, i did not write the portion underlined, Ok, I'll let go of the mirror reference. There is not a constant request from me that "other posters to adhere to [my] structure of a 'still mind'..".. though there is the reminder that the still mind reveals clarity.. we disagree on the clarity of what some other posters write.. Yes, there is the romantic notion that "unlimited expression" serves a higher purpose, do you believe this is accurate? keep in mind that Jihads, rape, and events like Newtown are also 'unlimited expression'.. 'This' is a clear expression of the value of what you are trying to say. Are Jihads, rape, Newtown and constantly being reminded that clarity can only be revealed through 'still mind' unlimited? No. They are all born out of anger and therefore are limited expressions.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 13, 2013 19:00:14 GMT -5
Greetings.. First off, no problem! It was just an invitation to a game and if you don't want to play there's no worries either way. Now, I'm assuming that by "I'm not meeting everyone's 'expectations'" that myself, laughter, is one of those " everyone". Where do you see an expectation from me? If I look back at what you responded to, the only one that I could drum-up is that I seem to imagine that topo's invitation to you was for an open and honest discussion and I guess by expressing that I sort of did imply that I expected conformance to that perception. So here, I'll clarify: I took topo's invitation to you as an invitation to an open honest discussion so perhaps I shouldn't have told him that I saw you "morphing" his invitation ... I projected that onto what I saw, which seemed to me to be, at least superficially speaking, an initial willingness on your part to engage in that conversation on a non-combative basis, albeit with the subject changed. Perhaps the combativeness was there underneath despite that initial perception. To reiterate: it's your subjective, only you know the truth about that. You see, I've been engaging you since your return, and especially in this threaad, in the absence of expecting hostility. Fair enough, so.. i'll be clear and direct, and honest.. i'm not interested in what i perceive as more minding, that's the ruse that spoils the forum, for me.. those that speak of TMT, while thinking of ways to conceal more of their 'thinking'.. I am awed by the contradiction between what people say they believe, and the actions evident by the rest of their words.. i am caught awonder at the invitation to study motives, when i am openly singularly interested in clarity.. I am awed as well by that contradiction, though I'm certain you don't see it as your contradiction. I hear repeatedly about clarity from a still mind, and I don't expect anyone to ever disagree with that approach, and yet it's followed in the same breath by giraffing stories about who's doing what and why and how wrong it is. The thing is that my clarity from my still mind reveals it all as assumption, conclusion, self deception, projection and TMT. I've long since given up trying to understand what you think clarity and a still mind are, but none of it convinces me that you can walk your talk any more than your greetings and salutations do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2013 20:04:51 GMT -5
Greetings.. Fair enough, so.. i'll be clear and direct, and honest.. i'm not interested in what i perceive as more minding, that's the ruse that spoils the forum, for me.. those that speak of TMT, while thinking of ways to conceal more of their 'thinking'.. I am awed by the contradiction between what people say they believe, and the actions evident by the rest of their words.. i am caught awonder at the invitation to study motives, when i am openly singularly interested in clarity.. I am awed as well by that contradiction, though I'm certain you don't see it as your contradiction. I hear repeatedly about clarity from a still mind, and I don't expect anyone to ever disagree with that approach, and yet it's followed in the same breath by giraffing stories about who's doing what and why and how wrong it is. The thing is that my clarity from my still mind reveals it all as assumption, conclusion, self deception, projection and TMT. I've long since given up trying to understand what you think clarity and a still mind are, but none of it convinces me that you can walk your talk any more than your greetings and salutations do. Maybe Tzu is researching his own book, "How To Assume, Conclude, Self Deceive, Project and TMT With a Clear Still Mind"...
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 13, 2013 23:14:53 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. Fair enough, so.. i'll be clear and direct, and honest.. i'm not interested in what i perceive as more minding, that's the ruse that spoils the forum, for me.. those that speak of TMT, while thinking of ways to conceal more of their 'thinking'.. I am awed by the contradiction between what people say they believe, and the actions evident by the rest of their words.. i am caught awonder at the invitation to study motives, when i am openly singularly interested in clarity.. I am awed by the likes of wren, whose wrapped attention is captured by technical wizardry designed to fool the brain/mind, and then susceptible to whatever explanation is offered when the technical wizardry actually does what it is intended to do, it fools the brain/mind.. yes, there is a cautionary tale, there.. but, i hesitate to believe that evolution arrived here and now due to a great cosmic illusion.. So yes, you did draw me into your story, and look where it got me.. i had intended to do some sincere exploring with Top, but.. it becomes another 'Spiritual Circus', and my interest is lost.. perhaps my error was returning to this quagmire of self-interested competitive story-tellers.. My interest is with those that will share their experiences, the beliefs not so much.. i haven't yet looked at the "how did you get into' thread, yet.. i remain cautiously hopeful.. Be well.. Being open honest and penetrating in a conversation does spin a "story" so to speak, but it's one that is self-contained and laid bare for all to see clearly in a medium such as this. In the instant case, the "story" started with me asking you one question, and in answering it honestly myself. While there's certainly enough wildlife scattered about to support your perception of a "circus", do you find any potential of insult on the part of those who might read what I take as your characterization of the forum in general as a "quagmire of self-interested competitive story-tellers"? -- I honestly feel none btw. Sincerely. As far as the thought that gets applied to going over what was said in the course of a conversation and asking for clarification of a participant, at the very least this distinction applies: it is not unchecked speculation or imagination about the subjective states of the participants. In this sense, it involves far less "minding" than the content generated in the alternative. Now I have to say Bob that this really puzzles me: Now I can see how you might have taken my initial question to you as one about motive, but I can assure you that the motive was not an exploration of motive but rather a question about the quality of your experience. Even in this liberal light however, this only supports reference to motive in the singular, as when I look back at topo's invitation to you: I am hoping that by genuinely discussing individual interactions from a place of openness that we can set aside combativeness and get some understanding about what is going on. Here is the model I would like to approach our discussion through. Each of us has our own ontology. Meaning we have a limited number of buckets in our mind with labels. When we look at a situation our mind tries to categorize it and fit the situation into one of these buckets. Each person may focus on a different aspect of the interaction which results in mismatched bucket-labeling, not even taking into account the difference in ontology. What I would like us to do is look very closely at this process. Pick an interaction, a situation, and we can all (or whoever wants to participate) say what we see and explain why we see it that way. What are the buckets we have through which we are viewing the interaction, what aspects are we fixating on, why are we fixating on those aspects and not others. If two people can do this with each other it reveals the differing mental processes that are active and it makes room for mutual understanding. No one is wrong per se, no need to fight over who has the right perception, but just look at how perception works in different people. I think this suggestion is in alignment with everyone's stated intent. If we approach it as equals with the openness to hear the other person's perspective, then we might actually understand each other. It doesn't mean we have to accept another person's perception as our own. We're just too busy talking past each other to effectively communicate. I'm proposing a change in the way we are interacting as I think it will be enlightening to learn how the other person's mind operates. ... it seems to me that it was you who was the one who expressed the initial interest (at least explicitly) in motivation ... I see something completely different from topo', as I've hightlighted. His mention of "motivation" was limited to stating the assumption that an open honest discussion was in line with everyones intent. Hi Laughter: "What a tangled web we weave", when from TMT there is no reprieve.. My question of motive to Top is related to the forum's mantra of 'TMT'.. in all sincerity, i am wondering if Top's motive is to dissect 'Tzu', or to find a way out of the 'minding' he and you seem so attached to. and.. i will ask you, too, what are your motives? There is a fundamental awareness among many members that 'TMT' (too much thinking) is an obstacle to clarity.. so, when i am asked to engage in a process of 'much thinking', i am curious as to the actual motives, to be informed is to be prepared.. but, i am not interested in exploring those motives, and i'm not interested in "how the other person's mind operates", those are the sort of distractions that keeps people in therapy for years.. i am interested in direct experience, clarity, and improving the human experience, collectively and individually.. naturally, the word-gamers will find fault in my resistance to more thinking, so.. i will explain my understanding.. Clarity, and the resulting awareness of what 'is', is a single sincere choice away, plain and simple.. but, helping others to find that choice for themselves is a mortal threat to the word-gamers and dream-weavers, so.. they conspire, consciously or not, to create the illusion that there is no 'choice', no 'chooser', no 'freewill' or perceivers thereof.. What 'is', is liberation from attachment to stories about beliefs, attachment to the self-image of being the best teller of those stories.. liberation from needing to check your perceptions against your beliefs to find out if you can believe what you experience.. Liberation is 'freedom from the known', from beliefs, from attachment and expectation.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 13, 2013 23:24:36 GMT -5
Greetings.. To be fair, i did not write the portion underlined, Ok, I'll let go of the mirror reference. There is not a constant request from me that "other posters to adhere to [my] structure of a 'still mind'..".. though there is the reminder that the still mind reveals clarity.. we disagree on the clarity of what some other posters write.. Yes, there is the romantic notion that "unlimited expression" serves a higher purpose, do you believe this is accurate? keep in mind that Jihads, rape, and events like Newtown are also 'unlimited expression'.. 'This' is a clear expression of the value of what you are trying to say. Are Jihads, rape, Newtown and constantly being reminded that clarity can only be revealed through 'still mind' unlimited? No. They are all born out of anger and therefore are limited expressions. Aye, not so narrowly interpreted there.. what was messaged was: that Jihads, rape, and Newtown are 'expressions' that happen in an 'unlimited' environment, and my question to you is: do you believe they serve a higher purpose? Be well..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 14, 2013 0:12:49 GMT -5
Greetings.. Being open honest and penetrating in a conversation does spin a "story" so to speak, but it's one that is self-contained and laid bare for all to see clearly in a medium such as this. In the instant case, the "story" started with me asking you one question, and in answering it honestly myself. While there's certainly enough wildlife scattered about to support your perception of a "circus", do you find any potential of insult on the part of those who might read what I take as your characterization of the forum in general as a "quagmire of self-interested competitive story-tellers"? -- I honestly feel none btw. Sincerely. As far as the thought that gets applied to going over what was said in the course of a conversation and asking for clarification of a participant, at the very least this distinction applies: it is not unchecked speculation or imagination about the subjective states of the participants. In this sense, it involves far less "minding" than the content generated in the alternative. Now I have to say Bob that this really puzzles me: Now I can see how you might have taken my initial question to you as one about motive, but I can assure you that the motive was not an exploration of motive but rather a question about the quality of your experience. Even in this liberal light however, this only supports reference to motive in the singular, as when I look back at topo's invitation to you: ... it seems to me that it was you who was the one who expressed the initial interest (at least explicitly) in motivation ... I see something completely different from topo', as I've hightlighted. His mention of "motivation" was limited to stating the assumption that an open honest discussion was in line with everyones intent. Hi Laughter: "What a tangled web we weave", when from TMT there is no reprieve.. My question of motive to Top is related to the forum's mantra of 'TMT'.. in all sincerity, i am wondering if Top's motive is to dissect 'Tzu', or to find a way out of the 'minding' he and you seem so attached to. and.. i will ask you, too, what are your motives? There is a fundamental awareness among many members that 'TMT' (too much thinking) is an obstacle to clarity.. so, when i am asked to engage in a process of 'much thinking', i am curious as to the actual motives, to be informed is to be prepared.. but, i am not interested in exploring those motives, and i'm not interested in "how the other person's mind operates", those are the sort of distractions that keeps people in therapy for years.. i am interested in direct experience, clarity, and improving the human experience, collectively and individually.. naturally, the word-gamers will find fault in my resistance to more thinking, so.. i will explain my understanding.. Clarity, and the resulting awareness of what 'is', is a single sincere choice away, plain and simple.. but, helping others to find that choice for themselves is a mortal threat to the word-gamers and dream-weavers, so.. they conspire, consciously or not, to create the illusion that there is no 'choice', no 'chooser', no 'freewill' or perceivers thereof.. What 'is', is liberation from attachment to stories about beliefs, attachment to the self-image of being the best teller of those stories.. liberation from needing to check your perceptions against your beliefs to find out if you can believe what you experience.. Liberation is 'freedom from the known', from beliefs, from attachment and expectation.. Be well.. In your mind, who wove the web, and with which thoughts that were too much?
|
|