Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2013 12:44:02 GMT -5
Greetings.. You can discover everlasting peace this very moment if you were to simply drop Desire completely. Or you can take several months, years or lifetimes, to drop individual Desires as they arise. It all depends on how much Desire you have to drop Desire... Clarity dissolves desire.. Be well.. So Clarity dissolves the Desire for Clarity?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 3, 2013 12:44:07 GMT -5
I don't, but it can be seen to be that way, and its a useful pointer away from the potential search for 'an ultimate realization'. I didn't want to set up that kind of search because the words are deceiving....its all far far...less grandiose than the words convey. Is the seeing prior to what is seen? Is seeing different from thinking, reasoning, concluding? Again, it can be seen to be that way, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is. The 'prior' realization is profound and useful, and it is one that is superseded, but that doesn't mean that I don't utilize the 'prior' pointer at times. It all depends on the convo. I would tend to say that seeing is different from thinking, reasoning, concluding, but I would not say its a 'true' distinction.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 3, 2013 12:45:00 GMT -5
Yes, it is that simple really. But I also understand that in the midst of attachment, its not always that easy! I went through hell in order to find a simpler and clearer way, though I understand that the way I talk probably doesn't often reflect that simplicity and clarity. IMO the search for a simpler/clearer way is justified and it seems to be just the way it is that many have to struggle to find a simpler way. You can discover everlasting peace this very moment if you were to simply drop Desire completely. Or you can take several months, years or lifetimes, to drop individual Desires as they arise. It all depends on how much Desire you have to drop Desire... yes, it all depends.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 3, 2013 12:47:37 GMT -5
Greetings.. .. in other words, to 'get it', you have to let it go.. it's as simple as that. can you elaborate further on "let it go"? my understanding is that you have to "see through it", which is more like a divine intervention, than anything one can "do". and once the falsity of whatever was seen through is recognized, it then is 'let go' or 'falls away' naturally, and without any effort. When you are carrying luggage, and your arms and back ache, just open your hand, just let go.. there's no effort, unless there's 'attachment'.. perhaps 'clarity' is what you mean by 'see through'.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 3, 2013 12:48:22 GMT -5
.. in other words, to 'get it', you have to let it go.. it's as simple as that. can you elaborate further on "let it go"? my understanding is that you have to "see through it", which is more like a divine intervention, than anything one can "do". and once the falsity of whatever was seen through is recognized, it then is 'let go' or 'falls away' naturally, and without any effort. Yes, for me the 'letting go' happened as a matter of course, 'I' didn't let go, though I would say that I found ways to facilitate the process.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 3, 2013 12:48:46 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. Clarity dissolves desire.. Be well.. So Clarity dissolves the Desire for Clarity? Yep.. think about it.. yep.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jul 3, 2013 12:51:35 GMT -5
Greetings.. So Clarity dissolves the Desire for Clarity? Yep.. think about it.. yep.. Be well.. Funny, how I get this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2013 12:54:51 GMT -5
Greetings.. can you elaborate further on "let it go"? my understanding is that you have to "see through it", which is more like a divine intervention, than anything one can "do". and once the falsity of whatever was seen through is recognized, it then is 'let go' or 'falls away' naturally, and without any effort. When you are carrying luggage, and your arms and back ache, just open your hand, just let go.. there's no effort, unless there's 'attachment'.. perhaps 'clarity' is what you mean by 'see through'.. Be well.. 'Seeing through' is seeing that you don't have to drop your luggage onto the ground just because your arms and back are aching. You see that you just drop the desire for your arms and back to be something 'other' than aching... If you dropped that desire you just might notice the luggage cart sitting beside you...
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 3, 2013 12:56:03 GMT -5
Is the seeing prior to what is seen? Is seeing different from thinking, reasoning, concluding? Again, it can be seen to be that way, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is. The 'prior' realization is profound and useful, and it is one that is superseded, but that doesn't mean that I don't utilize the 'prior' pointer at times. It all depends on the convo. I would tend to say that seeing is different from thinking, reasoning, concluding, but I would not say its a 'true' distinction. How can it be seen to be any other way?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2013 12:59:58 GMT -5
Greetings.. So Clarity dissolves the Desire for Clarity? Yep.. think about it.. yep.. Be well.. Then why would I Desire Clarity if I already had Clarity?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 3, 2013 13:08:54 GMT -5
Again, it can be seen to be that way, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is. The 'prior' realization is profound and useful, and it is one that is superseded, but that doesn't mean that I don't utilize the 'prior' pointer at times. It all depends on the convo. I would tend to say that seeing is different from thinking, reasoning, concluding, but I would not say its a 'true' distinction. How can it be seen to be any other way? It can be seen that the seer and the seen co-arise. It could also be seen that seer and seen are one. It can actually also be seen that there is only seeing. But what I assume you are talking about is a prior eternal unchanging seer, which is a useful realization but its also one to be seen through (as they all are).
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 3, 2013 13:30:12 GMT -5
Greetings.. I'll remind you that meaning is created by the reader dear sir ... ... let's see how they take it! I'll remind you, dear sir, that there is no 'meaning' until evoked by the skill, or lack thereof, of the author of words/images, and.. to balance the illusion you're attempting to create.. the author can, and occasionally does, create illusions and misrepresentations in service to the beliefs said author holds to be 'true', such as illusions/misrepresentations like this.. "meaning" is a collaboration between author and reader, the author's intention is establishes the general direction of the collaboration.. Be well.. Yes, well, just another opportunity for us to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 3, 2013 13:33:05 GMT -5
How can it be seen to be any other way? It can be seen that the seer and the seen co-arise. It could also be seen that seer and seen are one. It can actually also be seen that there is only seeing. But what I assume you are talking about is a prior eternal unchanging seer, which is a useful realization but its also one to be seen through (as they all are). There's a difference in word usage. When you say "seen" here you don't literally mean sense-perception (the lights are on and an experience is occurring). You are talking about concepts of seeing and not seeing itself. You are talking about ways of thinking about seeing, conclusions about seeing. And then when you're saying that the realization is one to be "seen through" you don't mean experiential sight, you mean "seen through" non-attachment to a conclusion. At what point do you actually engage consciousness itself instead of your thinking about consciousness for your answers? If you close your eyes and open them again, the seeing (experience happening) persists despite the content falling away or coming back. Does that not put the seeing on a more persistent (more fundamental) level than what is seen? Can you ever answer the question truthfully (honestly) "Is there an experience happening right now?" with a no?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 3, 2013 13:43:01 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. Yep.. think about it.. yep.. Be well.. Then why would I Desire Clarity if I already had Clarity? Precisely.. you didn't really ponder the relationship, did you? If you desire clarity, then get clarity... what happens to the desire? Be well..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 3, 2013 13:46:18 GMT -5
Greetings.. It can be seen that the seer and the seen co-arise. It could also be seen that seer and seen are one. It can actually also be seen that there is only seeing. But what I assume you are talking about is a prior eternal unchanging seer, which is a useful realization but its also one to be seen through (as they all are). There's a difference in word usage. When you say "seen" here you don't literally mean sense-perception (the lights are on and an experience is occurring). You are talking about concepts of seeing and not seeing itself. You are talking about ways of thinking about seeing, conclusions about seeing. And then when you're saying that the realization is one to be "seen through" you don't mean experiential sight, you mean "seen through" non-attachment to a conclusion. At what point do you actually engage consciousness itself instead of your thinking about consciousness for your answers? If you close your eyes and open them again, the seeing (experience happening) persists despite the content falling away or coming back. Does that not put the seeing on a more persistent (more fundamental) level than what is seen? Can you ever answer the question truthfully (honestly) "Is there an experience happening right now?" with a no? You're way over-baking those cookies.. and, you've added too much 'thinking' to the recipe.. can you just 'look'? Be well..
|
|