Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2013 20:09:00 GMT -5
What is this?
via Martine Batchelor via Korean Zen.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 8, 2013 21:51:12 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?" Dear Roshi/Roshette, Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 8, 2013 21:54:54 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. Dear Dude/Dudette, There's some heavy background chattering going on in the koala's thinking melon, not very different from the ruthless self-monitoring regiment of the ease peace joy folks it seems. Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 8, 2013 22:33:41 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. Dear Dude/Dudette, There's some heavy background chattering going on in the koala's thinking melon, not very different from the ruthless self-monitoring regiment of the ease peace joy folks it seems. Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize Yes, some nondual non-chatter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2013 11:57:31 GMT -5
4) Shining the light on the someone who judges things to be disgusting... Would you judge this to be beautiful? Am I a judge??
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 9, 2013 12:31:33 GMT -5
Would you judge this to be beautiful? Am I a judge?? I can see that you don't want to be, but yes, that judgment took place whether you wanted it to or not.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 9, 2013 13:26:06 GMT -5
There's a distinction at play here between complicating the act of judgment one one hand and complicating the conception of judgment on the other.
Drink in the world with the senses, spit it out if it's poison and swallow it if it's got life. Pretty simple really.
The reference to the "world" here should be read in the context of a sort of wink ... as much as one can try to write around the subject-object split it is inherent in any representation of information.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Apr 9, 2013 14:29:05 GMT -5
Yea. I think it speaks to that sort of cognitive dissonance that many people experience where there's a great degree of clarity while simultaneously a mind unwilling to fully let go of it's nonsense and "catch up" with what's been seen. People talk about living two lives or living in two worlds. To me, it's a pointer directly to the dynamic nature of spirituality and life in general. Such that it's never solely about one thing and not another. The entire package with all the nuances that make up experience must be addressed in a way that one comes out of hiding in all areas of their life. The academic questioning process of deconstruction and other more introspective means of discovering oneself must eventually give away into a life that unfolds from realization of ones already existing freedom or else the sovereignty of that seeing has already been handed to mind and replaced with doubt and fear. Dear Dude/Dudette, The 'clarity' most are presenting here is the clarity of a psychologist. Which is okay when talking about forum dynamics and analyzing the games that are played here. But that kind of 'clarity' approach is soon exposed as a more subtle type of confusion when talking about non-duality matters should happen. That's why we have 99% talk about style and only 1% talk about content here at best. Psychological clarity is never interested in dropping the stories altogether. It's only interested in reshuffling the deck to continue the identity poker on another, more subtle level. So that's where deconstructing beliefs and questioning is recommended. The goal is basically to live according to the best concept possible. Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize[/quote] Yes, sort of like a more advanced form of therapy for people looking to disect life to figure out the best game plan rather than just letting go into it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2013 15:46:34 GMT -5
I can see that you don't want to be, but yes, that judgment took place whether you wanted it to or not. Your making a case for the Ego's dualistic judgement, good and evil, beauty and the beast etc, etc.... and I don't have a problem with that. I'm making the case for God's judgement, if everything is judged to be good, is judgement even relevant?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 9, 2013 16:35:20 GMT -5
I can see that you don't want to be, but yes, that judgment took place whether you wanted it to or not. Your making a case for the Ego's dualistic judgement, good and evil, beauty and the beast etc, etc.... and I don't have a problem with that. I'm making the case for God's judgement, if everything is judged to be good, is judgement even relevant? I'm making a case for discernment. The discernment just occurred that maybe Top was doing the same thing you do in the Satan/Pagan symbol discussion. Maybe he disabled his ability to discern the symbolism of good and evil in the name of non-judgment, and therefore became dysfunctional in his attempts to communicate what he was trying to communicate. How are you planning to divorce yourself from dualistic experience such that you don't know beauty/ugliness, joy/sorrow, wonder/banality, pleasure/pain, and why do you want to? (Now I sound like Figgy)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2013 17:57:05 GMT -5
Your making a case for the Ego's dualistic judgement, good and evil, beauty and the beast etc, etc.... and I don't have a problem with that. I'm making the case for God's judgement, if everything is judged to be good, is judgement even relevant? I'm making a case for discernment. The discernment just occurred that maybe Top was doing the same thing you do in the Satan/Pagan symbol discussion. Maybe he disabled his ability to discern the symbolism of good and evil in the name of non-judgment, and therefore became dysfunctional in his attempts to communicate what he was trying to communicate. How are you planning to divorce yourself from dualistic experience such that you don't know beauty/ugliness, joy/sorrow, wonder/banality, pleasure/pain, and why do you want to? (Now I sound like Figgy) God judging his creations as good is not non-judgement. It is making dualistic judging irrelevant. I don't have to divorce myself from dualistic experience because perceiving is not dualistic. The perceiving is the beauty, joy, wonder, and pleasure. It is the conceiving of the ugliness, sorrow, banality and pain that I need a divorce lawyer for...
|
|
|
Post by topology on Apr 9, 2013 19:32:47 GMT -5
Your making a case for the Ego's dualistic judgement, good and evil, beauty and the beast etc, etc.... and I don't have a problem with that. I'm making the case for God's judgement, if everything is judged to be good, is judgement even relevant? I'm making a case for discernment. The discernment just occurred that maybe Top was doing the same thing you do in the Satan/Pagan symbol discussion. Maybe he disabled his ability to discern the symbolism of good and evil in the name of non-judgment, and therefore became dysfunctional in his attempts to communicate what he was trying to communicate. How are you planning to divorce yourself from dualistic experience such that you don't know beauty/ugliness, joy/sorrow, wonder/banality, pleasure/pain, and why do you want to? (Now I sound like Figgy) I've never experienced anything evil. I'm not trying to deny it, I just don't recognize it. What I get upset and frustrated with is when people call something evil and I don't experience it that way. I've always been able to find a reason, mostly abuse and mistreatment, or a broken machine, such as chemical imbalance or psychological disorder. So in essence, when I love something and someone else wants to condemn it, I feel outraged.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 9, 2013 20:24:27 GMT -5
I'm making a case for discernment. The discernment just occurred that maybe Top was doing the same thing you do in the Satan/Pagan symbol discussion. Maybe he disabled his ability to discern the symbolism of good and evil in the name of non-judgment, and therefore became dysfunctional in his attempts to communicate what he was trying to communicate. How are you planning to divorce yourself from dualistic experience such that you don't know beauty/ugliness, joy/sorrow, wonder/banality, pleasure/pain, and why do you want to? (Now I sound like Figgy) God judging his creations as good is not non-judgement. It is making dualistic judging irrelevant. I don't have to divorce myself from dualistic experience because perceiving is not dualistic. The perceiving is the beauty, joy, wonder, and pleasure. It is the conceiving of the ugliness, sorrow, banality and pain that I need a divorce lawyer for... I think Quinn's 'Liberation' thread speaks to your approach in your attempt to eliminate the 'bad' end of those dualistic sticks. The moment you perceive beauty, joy, wonder and pleasure, you also pick up ugliness, sorrow, banality and pain. Marie and I were just in the park, and we were talking about a beautiful apple tree that is in full bloom. I mentioned that if all we had were apple trees in bloom, we would not be perceiving the beauty of this one. I pointed out the dead tree behind it and suggested that this tree is also part of that beauty because it too makes the apple tree beautiful. (Maybe we shoulda made a Neo-advaita youtube video of that conversation.) Hehe.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 9, 2013 20:36:26 GMT -5
I'm making a case for discernment. The discernment just occurred that maybe Top was doing the same thing you do in the Satan/Pagan symbol discussion. Maybe he disabled his ability to discern the symbolism of good and evil in the name of non-judgment, and therefore became dysfunctional in his attempts to communicate what he was trying to communicate. How are you planning to divorce yourself from dualistic experience such that you don't know beauty/ugliness, joy/sorrow, wonder/banality, pleasure/pain, and why do you want to? (Now I sound like Figgy) I've never experienced anything evil. I'm not trying to deny it, I just don't recognize it. What I get upset and frustrated with is when people call something evil and I don't experience it that way. I've always been able to find a reason, mostly abuse and mistreatment, or a broken machine, such as chemical imbalance or psychological disorder. So in essence, when I love something and someone else wants to condemn it, I feel outraged. Dear Dude/Dudette, Evil is just one extreme end of the good/bad or positive/negative stick. If we can see it that way then your statement loses its validity. Important is the first kneejerk response, not with what you come up after rationalizing it down into something that fits more your ideal self-image. Go back to your anti-adventist eruption in reply to Silver and you will see that you were far out on the extreme negative end of that positive/negative or good/bad stick for quite a while. edit: also, there seems to be much more core Christian programming running smoothly in your mental background than you might be willing to admit at the moment. It usually shows up in style discussions. Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize
|
|
|
Post by topology on Apr 9, 2013 20:56:27 GMT -5
I've never experienced anything evil. I'm not trying to deny it, I just don't recognize it. What I get upset and frustrated with is when people call something evil and I don't experience it that way. I've always been able to find a reason, mostly abuse and mistreatment, or a broken machine, such as chemical imbalance or psychological disorder. So in essence, when I love something and someone else wants to condemn it, I feel outraged. Dear Dude/Dudette, Evil is just one extreme end of the good/bad or positive/negative stick. If we can see it that way then your statement loses its validity. Important is the first kneejerk response, not with what you come up after rationalizing it down into something that fits more your ideal self-image. Go back to your anti-adventist eruption in reply to Silver and you will see that you were far out on the extreme negative end of that positive/negative or good/bad stick for quite a while. edit: also, there seems to be much more core Christian programming running smoothly in your mental background than you might be willing to admit at the moment. It usually shows up in style discussions. Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize You think I'm not conscious of my christian leanings? I talk about the Course in Miracles and I use many parables from the bible. Sorry, Evil is something more than just bad. Evil is anti-Life. There's no point to the conception or having a term if it was defined as "extremely extremely bad". So you tell me, when was the last time you called something evil and meant it with conviction in the worst sense that it entails?
|
|