Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2013 12:26:36 GMT -5
4) Shining the light on the someone who judges things to be disgusting... Dear Dude/Dudette, Rather unlikely for someone asleep at the wheel to have that kind of foresight. Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize Yeah, that's why there are call buttons on buses, so you don't miss your stop.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 8, 2013 13:42:15 GMT -5
Dear Dude/Dudette, Well, it's not a pleasant look and wouldn't be a good wallpaper. The message you might want to convey could be: 1) dissecting 2) looking within 3) self-inquiry Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize 4) Shining the light on the someone who judges things to be disgusting... Would you judge this to be beautiful?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 8, 2013 14:08:29 GMT -5
4) Shining the light on the someone who judges things to be disgusting... Would you judge this to be beautiful? An answer of "no" would set you up for the koan of Mu. I can't say anything about the practice of watching thought outside the context of having penetrated this one.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Apr 8, 2013 14:34:13 GMT -5
Would you judge this to be beautiful? An answer of "no" would set you up for the koan of Mu. I can't say anything about the practice of watching thought outside the context of having penetrated this one. *groans* *looks around shiftilly for Arisha or Question*
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 8, 2013 14:44:56 GMT -5
An answer of "no" would set you up for the koan of Mu. I can't say anything about the practice of watching thought outside the context of having penetrated this one. *groans* *looks around shiftilly for Arisha or Question* If you're groaning about the potential polysemantism over the word "beauty" then replace enigma's image with this one: It's the same abstract pattern. Equating "non-abidance in mind" with "avoidance of thought" could be indicative a few different conditions, none of which I would ascribe to enigma based on my 2+ year conversation with him. One of those conditions would be having not penetrated the koan of Mu. I'm playing fast and loose with a Zen construct, so in this I am of course the fool, but it's the easiest way to spin this particular gossamer bridge.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 8, 2013 15:05:34 GMT -5
Would you judge this to be beautiful? An answer of "no" would set you up for the koan of Mu. I can't say anything about the practice of watching thought outside the context of having penetrated this one. ***Hits reset button to clear memory of nondual malarky*** Just between us woodland creatures, would that image be considered beautiful?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2013 15:24:27 GMT -5
***Hits reset button to clear memory of nondual malarky*** Just between us woodland creatures, would that image be considered beautiful? the human face
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2013 15:31:40 GMT -5
An answer of "no" would set you up for the koan of Mu. I can't say anything about the practice of watching thought outside the context of having penetrated this one. ***Hits reset button to clear memory of nondual malarky*** Just between us woodland creatures, would that image be considered beautiful? the colored pixels? the hot brunette? or who the hot brunette really IS?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 8, 2013 15:31:47 GMT -5
*groans* *looks around shiftilly for Arisha or Question* If you're groaning about the potential polysemantism over the word "beauty" then replace enigma's image with this one: It's the same abstract pattern. Equating "non-abidance in mind" with "avoidance of thought" could be indicative a few different conditions, none of which I would ascribe to enigma based on my 2+ year conversation with him. One of those conditions would be having not penetrated the koan of Mu. I'm playing fast and loose with a Zen construct, so in this I am of course the fool, but it's the easiest way to spin this particular gossamer bridge. I speculate that Top is not groaning over polysemantism because I detect he is a bit closer to the ground. That is, an image may evoke a certain visceral response, and the point (to TRF) being that nowhere in the nondual manual is this disallowed. To distance oneself from the response to ugliness is to do the same for beauty, and I'll simply suggest that might be tragic. The way we steer ourselves into such tragedy is to point to the thoughts labeling ugliness and declare those thoughts a judgment with the understanding that all judgments are verboten. This may be the result of the failure to identify the precise point of suffering, which is not in the recognition of ugliness, but in what we think about that recognition.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 8, 2013 15:32:24 GMT -5
An answer of "no" would set you up for the koan of Mu. I can't say anything about the practice of watching thought outside the context of having penetrated this one. ***Hits reset button to clear memory of nondual malarky*** Just between us woodland creatures, would that image be considered beautiful? Well she looks like she's a vegan and the thought of eating a carrot out of her hand conjures her beauty in a big way. Looking just as her eyes I answer the following way: yes, the image is beautiful and this statement is ultimately true.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 8, 2013 15:32:27 GMT -5
Ha ha. This is actually another way of posing a classic Zen koan.
An old woman heard about a monk who wanted to do a solo meditation retreat. She had a little hut in her backyard and she invited the monk to do his retreat there. Each day she carried a meal out and set it beside the door. The monk remained inside meditating like crazy. After several weeks, the woman began to wonder if the monk had had any kind of significant realization. She had a beautiful daughter, so she sent her daughter out to knock on the monk's door. When the monk opened the door, the daughter gave the monk a suggestive look and said something to him that her mother had instructed her to say. The monk remained like a robot and repeated a famous Buddhist line about how the world of form is nothing but ashes and dust and that a monk must remain unattached to anything.
The daughter returned to her mother and reported what the monk had said. After hearing what he said, her mother rushed out to the hut, and kicked the monk out. She said, in essence, "You worthless bum. You've been taking up space that someone else could put to much better use." And she beat him with a stick all the way down the road.
I've forgotten the words that the daughter said to the monk, but the koan says, "If you had been the monk how could you have satisfied the old woman?"
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 8, 2013 15:47:07 GMT -5
If you're groaning about the potential polysemantism over the word "beauty" then replace enigma's image with this one: It's the same abstract pattern. Equating "non-abidance in mind" with "avoidance of thought" could be indicative a few different conditions, none of which I would ascribe to enigma based on my 2+ year conversation with him. One of those conditions would be having not penetrated the koan of Mu. I'm playing fast and loose with a Zen construct, so in this I am of course the fool, but it's the easiest way to spin this particular gossamer bridge. I speculate that Top is not groaning over polysemantism because I detect he is a bit closer to the ground. That is, an image may evoke a certain visceral response, and the point (to TRF) being that nowhere in the nondual manual is this disallowed. To distance oneself from the response to ugliness is to do the same for beauty, and I'll simply suggest that might be tragic. The way we steer ourselves into such tragedy is to point to the thoughts labeling ugliness and declare those thoughts a judgment with the understanding that all judgments are verboten. This may be the result of the failure to identify the precise point of suffering, which is not in the recognition of ugliness, but in what we think about that recognition.The bridge between the visceral reaction and the word "ugly" is consensus, so in referencing the "recognition of ugliness" you're already well past the point of the first thought.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 8, 2013 16:09:59 GMT -5
***Hits reset button to clear memory of nondual malarky*** Just between us woodland creatures, would that image be considered beautiful? the colored pixels? the hot brunette? or who the hot brunette really IS? It's an ambiguity !
|
|
|
Post by topology on Apr 8, 2013 16:10:41 GMT -5
*groans* *looks around shiftilly for Arisha or Question* If you're groaning about the potential polysemantism over the word "beauty" then replace enigma's image with this one: It's the same abstract pattern. Equating "non-abidance in mind" with "avoidance of thought" could be indicative a few different conditions, none of which I would ascribe to enigma based on my 2+ year conversation with him. One of those conditions would be having not penetrated the koan of Mu. I'm playing fast and loose with a Zen construct, so in this I am of course the fool, but it's the easiest way to spin this particular gossamer bridge. I was groaning over the double entendre of penetration.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 8, 2013 16:16:51 GMT -5
***Hits reset button to clear memory of nondual malarky*** Just between us woodland creatures, would that image be considered beautiful? the human faceWhat I found most intriguing was the 'golden ratio' that's found everywhere in nature and is a major indicator of what we find beautiful.
|
|