|
Post by laughter on Apr 8, 2013 16:18:18 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 was groaning over the double entendre of penetration. Well I'd suggest that Lasik surgery deal (an eye job) but I don't think the issue was in the focus on the words.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 8, 2013 16:18:33 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? At what point do you feel that this became complicated for you?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2013 16:24:52 GMT -5
the colored pixels? the hot brunette? or who the hot brunette really IS? At what point do you feel that this became complicated for you? after reading this latest question
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 8, 2013 16:30:26 GMT -5
the colored pixels? the hot brunette? or who the hot brunette really IS? At what point do you feel that this became complicated for you? If farmer had asked that question on a message board devoted to discussing the need for Lasik surgery for all refs working in the lingerie football league I would have judged the origin of the complication here to be farmer but because you asked it in a thread about self-inquiry I judge it to be enigma.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2013 16:58:52 GMT -5
What I found most intriguing was the 'golden ratio' that's found everywhere in nature and is a major indicator of what we find beautiful. Yeah, the lady in your photograph looks like she got herself some good 1:1.618 1:1.618
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2013 17:25:26 GMT -5
If farmer had asked that question on a message board devoted to discussing the need for Lasik surgery for all refs working in the lingerie football league I would have judged the origin of the complication here to be farmer but because you asked it in a thread about self-inquiry I judge it to be enigma. you don't know Jack, jack
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 8, 2013 17:57:31 GMT -5
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. The point is 'the first thought' is not a problemo. The recognition of ugliness is no more problematic than the recognition of beauty.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 8, 2013 18:33:30 GMT -5
At what point do you feel that this became complicated for you? If farmer had asked that question on a message board devoted to discussing the need for Lasik surgery for all refs working in the lingerie football league I would have judged the origin of the complication here to be farmer but because you asked it in a thread about self-inquiry I judge it to be enigma. I think yous guys have become accustomed to trick questions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2013 18:36:47 GMT -5
The recognition of ugliness is no more problematic than the recognition of beauty. well, that was your obvious point from the get go
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 8, 2013 18:36:51 GMT -5
What I found most intriguing was the 'golden ratio' that's found everywhere in nature and is a major indicator of what we find beautiful. Yeah, the lady in your photograph looks like she got herself some good 1:1.618 1:1.618Yes, that ratio is definitely golden.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 8, 2013 18:38:39 GMT -5
The recognition of ugliness is no more problematic than the recognition of beauty. well, that was your obvious point from the get go I thought so too.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 8, 2013 19:20:29 GMT -5
If farmer had asked that question on a message board devoted to discussing the need for Lasik surgery for all refs working in the lingerie football league I would have judged the origin of the complication here to be farmer but because you asked it in a thread about self-inquiry I judge it to be enigma. you don't know Jack, jack o well
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 8, 2013 19:21:20 GMT -5
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. The point is 'the first thought' is not a problemo. The recognition of ugliness is no more problematic than the recognition of beauty. one way to look at it I guess
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2013 19:48:01 GMT -5
you don't know Jack, jack o well I know your tricks .. this was a preemptive strike (would make no sense if my first post of the day hadn't been seen)(and maybe not even then .. hehe)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2013 20:00:05 GMT -5
I'd like to see if you can communicate on the ground level of using words. I'll pass on your game and will not bother to ask for an explanation of why you posted all this in response to my observations and queries of zendancer's post. To give a maladapted apropism, suture yourself. floor is open for anyone who wants to stab at the message. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Focusing on the parts, particular by particular, misses the essence and is gross and smells like formaldehyde.
|
|