|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jun 24, 2024 7:57:08 GMT -5
I listened to this while doing some work. The practice explained may indeed lead to a hot boil of the psychological sense of self, at which point it may no longer seem advantageous to cling to it so tightly. It could almost work as an inwardly directed form of morality in which one is in a constant state of observation and discernment, whilst inviting the "Knowledge of the absence of self nature". If listened to in light of the potential for their being no inherent self, it would be understood that it is not a mental knowledge per se, which is something we've talked about (Greek: gnossis v episteme, Spanish: conocer v saber, etc). The psycho-mento-personal struggle is to take such ideas as 'fact/belief' and pursue them at all cost (to the self). Some may get a glimpse, let go of a shit ton of baggage, and think they are done, and then the mind takes over again and creates a lot of personal stories around the 'experience', maybe forms a new cult/sect/religion/path (different designer bag, same mind tricks). And maybe they even mean well. Who knows? But the true KNOWLEDGE is having been Here, being Here, and stabilized Here, which kinda brings me to the point I find a bit misleading. At around 17:00, there's a discussion about steeping on a thorn and saying 'ow', which I sense as indicative of some ignorance. I do not know of the intention of presenting that in such an exposition, but I suspect it creates confusion. Maybe I misunderstood it, but to conclude that saying 'ow' means that one is "still subject to the dualistic condition and that the absence of self nature...." seems to be indicative of having had the realization of no self, but then being attached to that Nothingness. Experiencing pain via the body is entirely within the realm of possibilities, and has very little to do with self, if ya know what I mean.  This 'attachment to Nothingness' is not uncommon with anyone who has had the realization, but in a way, it is only halfway to Here. I sometimes get the feeling that some of the push back here on the board seems to unconsciously question this, which is good. Interestingly, soon thereafter, the video goes on to address something akin to an "attachment to Freedom", which is often part of the subsequent journey to Here after Nothingness (and detachment from it) has been realized. At least that's how I would explain it away in abstractions. I'd be curious to hear others' ideas on this. In the Plotinus model, the journey to Here transcends up through the 'levels' of SVP existence, maybe gets a glimpse of Nous stuff, maybe even The One/ Here. Maybe they even understand IT deeply enough to say (i.e., with a sense of Gnossis/Knowledge) that EVERYTHING emanates from/as/within The One as THIS, right Here, right Now. Either way, to get Here, one will need to travel light. But as you stated later to SDP, same same, but different expression and/or value (and path), depending on how the mind studying/praying/meditating/etc hears it. I enjoyed the vid. It reminded me of so many things:self-inquiry, surrender, mindfulness, ATA. It reminded me of Hedderman's "living in what's not happening." I particularly liked the poison cup analogy to explain "presence." I enjoyed the vid much like I enjoy reading RM or listening to Hedderman or Tony Parsons. It's like listening to different composers. I don't agree or disagree with any of it. As to the "ow" comment. It reminded me of Thic Quang Duc. Quite a high bar huh. Freedom can be misconstrued. I have a thirteen year old granddaughter. Smart as a whip. I think I'll give it another listen soon, and with your points of attention in mind. I did the first listen passively in the backround. I do like how you mention them with a sense of detachment, which also comes through with your lovely short speerchally cynical quips that you drop here and there. Keep'em coming. Yes, the symphonic aspect of 'teachings' is something I generally approach them with, as well. I allow for a lot of it with a pretty decent degree of openness to hearing them out, and I often like the one's that challenge and/or lead into the paradoxical, where one's own mind can be seen in more granular detail if one is willing. I think the difficulty in discussions on the teacings is that thinking is highly subjective, and such nuances can be quite hard to convey and/or the other person peep's messaging or intentions not fully understood. Books/vids are interesting for the contemplation; whereas, actual discussions have value in that you get to question, respond, clarify to oneself and others via the dialectic. Different animals, as with the former, one get wander into deeper corners of the wave and/or slip into oceanic. In the latter, the meaning is constructed and conditioned in the movement of communication filtered to and fro via and engaged mind.... much more complex. Communication is often like that, and the thirteen year old's these days,,, like, wow. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jun 24, 2024 8:22:41 GMT -5
I enjoyed the vid. It reminded me of so many things:self-inquiry, surrender, mindfulness, ATA. It reminded me of Hedderman's "living in what's not happening." I particularly liked the poison cup analogy to explain "presence." I enjoyed the vid much like I enjoy reading RM or listening to Hedderman or Tony Parsons. It's like listening to different composers. I don't agree or disagree with any of it. As to the "ow" comment. It reminded me of Thic Quang Duc. Quite a high bar huh. Freedom can be misconstrued. I have a thirteen year old granddaughter. Smart as a whip. I think I'll give it another listen soon, and with your points of attention in mind. I did the first listen passively in the backround. I do like how you mention them with a sense of detachment, which also comes through with your lovely short speerchally cynical quips that you drop here and there. Keep'em coming. Yes, the symphonic aspect of 'teachings' is something I generally approach them with, as well. I allow for a lot of it with a pretty decent degree of openness to hearing them out, and I often like the one's that challenge and/or lead into the paradoxical, where one's own mind can be seen in more granular detail if one is willing. I think the difficulty in discussions on the teacings is that thinking is highly subjective, and such nuances can be quite hard to convey and/or the other person peep's messaging or intentions not fully understood. Books/vids are interesting for the contemplation; whereas, actual discussions have value in that you get to question, respond, clarify to oneself and others via the dialectic. Different animals, as with the former, one get wander into deeper corners of the wave and/or slip into oceanic. In the latter, the meaning is constructed and conditioned in the movement of communication filtered to and fro via and engaged mind.... much more complex. Communication is often like that, and the thirteen year old's these days,,, like, wow. There a very few people (hahaha) here interested in insight or discovery. Full cups all around. I like RMs approach. He offered self-inquiry only if the seeker was disastified with his or her own. It is obvious to me that some see a certain beauty, love for their version of what's real. It speaks to them.They get a dressing down here. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 24, 2024 8:28:32 GMT -5
I think I'll give it another listen soon, and with your points of attention in mind. I did the first listen passively in the backround. I do like how you mention them with a sense of detachment, which also comes through with your lovely short speerchally cynical quips that you drop here and there. Keep'em coming. Yes, the symphonic aspect of 'teachings' is something I generally approach them with, as well. I allow for a lot of it with a pretty decent degree of openness to hearing them out, and I often like the one's that challenge and/or lead into the paradoxical, where one's own mind can be seen in more granular detail if one is willing. I think the difficulty in discussions on the teacings is that thinking is highly subjective, and such nuances can be quite hard to convey and/or the other person peep's messaging or intentions not fully understood. Books/vids are interesting for the contemplation; whereas, actual discussions have value in that you get to question, respond, clarify to oneself and others via the dialectic. Different animals, as with the former, one get wander into deeper corners of the wave and/or slip into oceanic. In the latter, the meaning is constructed and conditioned in the movement of communication filtered to and fro via and engaged mind.... much more complex. Communication is often like that, and the thirteen year old's these days,,, like, wow. There a very few people (hahaha) here interested in insight or discovery. Full cups all around. I like RMs approach. He offered self-inquiry only if the seeker was disastified with his or her own. It is obvious to me that some see a certain beauty, love for their version of what's real. It speaks to them.They get a dressing down here. A "full cup" implies an acquisition of knowledge, so what I think most of us are pointing to is an "empty cup." If one's cup is empty, one lives in a not-knowing state of mind that is open and receptive to whatever is happening. It's the old Wei wu Wei thing--a sage does nothing but everything gets done.  |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jun 24, 2024 8:35:30 GMT -5
I think I'll give it another listen soon, and with your points of attention in mind. I did the first listen passively in the backround. I do like how you mention them with a sense of detachment, which also comes through with your lovely short speerchally cynical quips that you drop here and there. Keep'em coming. Yes, the symphonic aspect of 'teachings' is something I generally approach them with, as well. I allow for a lot of it with a pretty decent degree of openness to hearing them out, and I often like the one's that challenge and/or lead into the paradoxical, where one's own mind can be seen in more granular detail if one is willing. I think the difficulty in discussions on the teacings is that thinking is highly subjective, and such nuances can be quite hard to convey and/or the other person peep's messaging or intentions not fully understood. Books/vids are interesting for the contemplation; whereas, actual discussions have value in that you get to question, respond, clarify to oneself and others via the dialectic. Different animals, as with the former, one get wander into deeper corners of the wave and/or slip into oceanic. In the latter, the meaning is constructed and conditioned in the movement of communication filtered to and fro via and engaged mind.... much more complex. Communication is often like that, and the thirteen year old's these days,,, like, wow. There a very few people (hahaha) here interested in insight or discovery. Full cups all around. I like RMs approach. He offered self-inquiry only if the seeker was disastified with his or her own. It is obvious to me that some see a certain beauty, love for their version of what's real. It speaks to them.They get a dressing down here.  Versions change, get old, and pass, like everything else. The Big 0, not.so.much! Everything is a mystery NOTHING is unexplainable Existence is |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jun 24, 2024 8:40:24 GMT -5
There a very few people (hahaha) here interested in insight or discovery. Full cups all around. I like RMs approach. He offered self-inquiry only if the seeker was disastified with his or her own. It is obvious to me that some see a certain beauty, love for their version of what's real. It speaks to them.They get a dressing down here. A "full cup" implies an acquisition of knowledge, so what I think most of us are pointing to is an "empty cup." If one's cup is empty, one lives in a not-knowing state of mind that is open and receptive to whatever is happening. It's the old Wei wu Wei thing--a sage does nothing but everything gets done. Yes, the addiction to thinking one can think one's way into IT implies a cause-effect filling of the cup. Luckily, even fools who persist in this folly can grow wise. I guess it's about sticking with it to THE END of one's rope.... or is it a snake?  |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jun 24, 2024 8:49:18 GMT -5
Some fools' disguises fool even themselves. There's a strong correlation between "full" and "fool."
Nonsense doesn't do it for me. I'll bow out at this point. You'll can have the last word.
|
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jun 24, 2024 19:00:38 GMT -5
Some fools' disguises fool even themselves. There's a strong correlation between "full" and "fool." Nonsense doesn't do it for me. I'll bow out at this point. You'll can have the last word. I agree about fools being too full of themselves to really even recognize their own folly. When they do, it's usually a big turning point, and their own shenanigans fall into clearer focus. Not many are willing to own it, and the hide-and-seek game continues. Nonsense shouldn't do it for anyone. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jun 25, 2024 9:33:34 GMT -5
Some fools' disguises fool even themselves. There's a strong correlation between "full" and "fool." Nonsense doesn't do it for me. I'll bow out at this point. You'll can have the last word. I agree about fools being too full of themselves to really even recognize their own folly. When they do, it's usually a big turning point, and their own shenanigans fall into clearer focus. Not many are willing to own it, and the hide-and-seek game continues. Nonsense shouldn't do it for anyone. Let me explain. You can't say discussions are "better" and in the same breath say SR is acausal. Better for what? That's my definition of nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 25, 2024 10:09:45 GMT -5
I agree about fools being too full of themselves to really even recognize their own folly. When they do, it's usually a big turning point, and their own shenanigans fall into clearer focus. Not many are willing to own it, and the hide-and-seek game continues. Nonsense shouldn't do it for anyone. Let me explain. You can't say discussions are "better" and in the same breath say SR is acausal. Better for what? That's my definition of nonsense. Why not? SR is acausal, but it's also highly correlated with certain activities. I see no contradiction there. Geologists have a gadget that breaks rocks. A rock is placed into a double hydraulic vise and gradually put under force until the rock breaks in half. The force required to break a rock is unknown prior to exerting pressure, but at some point the force becomes great enough that the rock suddenly cracks apart. Mathematicians call that a "discontinuous event." SR appears to be similar to that. Satch meditated for 30 years and suddenly one day he had a huge realization. Was that "right out of the blue" or did 30 years of meditation help trigger it? People who continually shift attention away from thoughts to "what is" seem far more likely to penetrate the concensus paradigm than people who spend all of their time thinking ABOUT "what is." Just my two cent. TIFWIW. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 25, 2024 10:33:10 GMT -5
Let me explain. You can't say discussions are "better" and in the same breath say SR is acausal. Better for what? That's my definition of nonsense. Why not? SR is acausal, but it's also highly correlated with certain activities. I see no contradiction there. Geologists have a gadget that breaks rocks. A rock is placed into a double hydraulic vise and gradually put under force until the rock breaks in half. The force required to break a rock is unknown prior to exerting pressure, but at some point the force becomes great enough that the rock suddenly cracks apart. Mathematicians call that a "discontinuous event." SR appears to be similar to that. Satch meditated for 30 years and suddenly one day he had a huge realization. Was that "right out of the blue" or did 30 years of meditation help trigger it? People who continually shift attention away from thoughts to "what is" seem far more likely to penetrate the concensus paradigm than people who spend all of their time thinking ABOUT "what is." Just my two cent. TIFWIW. The rock vise is a very bad analogy. If there was a 2 gallon bucket set under a dripping faucet, it may take a day or a week to fill. If I couldn't see the faucet or the dripping, when the bucket overflowed, I might say it occurred acausally, but it didn't. Not understanding the reasons, doesn't make something acausal. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 25, 2024 10:37:04 GMT -5
Why not? SR is acausal, but it's also highly correlated with certain activities. I see no contradiction there. Geologists have a gadget that breaks rocks. A rock is placed into a double hydraulic vise and gradually put under force until the rock breaks in half. The force required to break a rock is unknown prior to exerting pressure, but at some point the force becomes great enough that the rock suddenly cracks apart. Mathematicians call that a "discontinuous event." SR appears to be similar to that. Satch meditated for 30 years and suddenly one day he had a huge realization. Was that "right out of the blue" or did 30 years of meditation help trigger it? People who continually shift attention away from thoughts to "what is" seem far more likely to penetrate the concensus paradigm than people who spend all of their time thinking ABOUT "what is." Just my two cent. TIFWIW. The rock vise is a very bad analogy. If there was a 2 gallon bucket set under a dripping faucet, it may take a day or a week to fill. If I couldn't see the faucet or the dripping, when the bucket overflowed, I might say it occurred acausally, but it didn't. Not understanding the reasons, doesn't make something acausal. Acausal means unpredictable. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 25, 2024 10:52:07 GMT -5
The rock vise is a very bad analogy. If there was a 2 gallon bucket set under a dripping faucet, it may take a day or a week to fill. If I couldn't see the faucet or the dripping, when the bucket overflowed, I might say it occurred acausally, but it didn't. Not understanding the reasons, doesn't make something acausal. Acausal means unpredictable. Then we've NEVER been on the same page. No, it doesn't. acausal: Not arising from causation or arising from a cause. A quantum event is acausal, that's why quantum physics is so bizarre. Nobody, after over 100 years, knows what's going on in a quantum event. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jun 25, 2024 11:33:57 GMT -5
Let me explain. You can't say discussions are "better" and in the same breath say SR is acausal. Better for what? That's my definition of nonsense. Why not? SR is acausal, but it's also highly correlated with certain activities. I see no contradiction there. Geologists have a gadget that breaks rocks. A rock is placed into a double hydraulic vise and gradually put under force until the rock breaks in half. The force required to break a rock is unknown prior to exerting pressure, but at some point the force becomes great enough that the rock suddenly cracks apart. Mathematicians call that a "discontinuous event." SR appears to be similar to that. Satch meditated for 30 years and suddenly one day he had a huge realization. Was that "right out of the blue" or did 30 years of meditation help trigger it? People who continually shift attention away from thoughts to "what is" seem far more likely to penetrate the concensus paradigm than people who spend all of their time thinking ABOUT "what is." Just my two cent. TIFWIW. So the force (pressure) doesn't cause the crack? Yeah tensile strength is hard to predict for assymetrical, non-uniform materials, but we know it's some force that causes the failure. SR happens out of the blue, but people who "shift attention away from thoughts" are "far more likely" to have this happen out of the blue? Am I missing the logical consistency here. I agree that thinking about SR is actually self defeating, but that again implies cause and effect. And believe I'm the last person to say that it is or isn't causal. That would imply that the peace that surpasses understanding is understandable. I'm just tired of idiots, not you, trying to whack me into enlightenment by calling me a fool because I choose to practice. As to satch's SR or anyone else's, I take all such claims with a grain of salt. It seems everybody and their mother is nowadays. Next thing you know even Laffy will make the claim and that's a preposterous as Trump weighing 215 lbs. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 25, 2024 11:59:26 GMT -5
Why not? SR is acausal, but it's also highly correlated with certain activities. I see no contradiction there. Geologists have a gadget that breaks rocks. A rock is placed into a double hydraulic vise and gradually put under force until the rock breaks in half. The force required to break a rock is unknown prior to exerting pressure, but at some point the force becomes great enough that the rock suddenly cracks apart. Mathematicians call that a "discontinuous event." SR appears to be similar to that. Satch meditated for 30 years and suddenly one day he had a huge realization. Was that "right out of the blue" or did 30 years of meditation help trigger it? People who continually shift attention away from thoughts to "what is" seem far more likely to penetrate the concensus paradigm than people who spend all of their time thinking ABOUT "what is." Just my two cent. TIFWIW. So the force (pressure) doesn't cause the crack? Yeah tensile strength is hard to predict for assymetrical, non-uniform materials, but we know it's some force that causes the failure. SR happens out of the blue, but people who "shift attention away from thoughts" are "far more likely" to have this happen out of the blue? Am I missing the logical consistency here. I agree that thinking about SR is actually self defeating, but that again implies cause and effect. And believe I'm the last person to say that it is or isn't causal. That would imply that the peace that surpasses understanding is understandable. I'm just tired of idiots, not you, trying to whack me into enlightenment by calling me a fool because I choose to practice. As to satch's SR or anyone else's, I take all such claims with a grain of salt. It seems everybody and their mother is nowadays. Next thing you know even Laffy will make the claim and that's a preposterous as Trump weighing 215 lbs. Seems ZD has not been using the dictionary definition of acausal, which would help communication. (See post above). I would say that's not insignificant. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 25, 2024 12:11:28 GMT -5
It helps to understand the difference between correlated and causal.
|
|
This 'attachment to Nothingness' is not uncommon with anyone who has had the realization, but in a way, it is only halfway to Here. I sometimes get the feeling that some of the push back here on the board seems to unconsciously question this, which is good.
