|
YES
Aug 5, 2014 5:02:08 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Aug 5, 2014 5:02:08 GMT -5
Maybe you can help me understand how it does that. Isn't it because, after realization, the ugliness is no longer being called 'wrong'? Long before I read Tolle I'd encountered the experience of seeing how something really ugly can be so hideous as to evoke a reaction similar to appreciating beauty. Take, for example, a scene like this one: That experience can open the mind to the nature of the dichotomy of beauty, essentially putting it on notice that it's making it all up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
YES
Aug 5, 2014 5:11:08 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2014 5:11:08 GMT -5
Isn't it because, after realization, the ugliness is no longer being called 'wrong'? Long before I read Tolle I'd encountered the experience of seeing how something really ugly can be so hideous as to evoke a reaction similar to appreciating beauty. Take, for example, a scene like this one: That experience can open the mind to the nature of the dichotomy of beauty, essentially putting it on notice that it's making it all up. wtf? Attachments:
|
|
|
YES
Aug 5, 2014 5:18:12 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Aug 5, 2014 5:18:12 GMT -5
Not to me. There is graceful beauty in the world, and there is morbid ugliness. One cannot be without the other. It's not satisfactory to end the unsatisfactory by nullifying it. You would not want to end beauty by dealing ugliness a death blow, so what to do? Do you know? As for mind, all orchestrations originate there, and the band plays on. Again, what to do? I feel that what to do would be to realize that if (as is indeed the case) there cannot be graceful beauty in the absence of morbid ugliness, this very fact is indicative of a single seamless Reality 'underlying' BOTH of them, which is itself neither morbidly ugly nor gracefully beautiful, nor does it have any experience of either. It seems to me that THIS realization (more so than that of the mere fact that the two are inseparable) renders the ugliness a whole lot less ugly. Or am I going too far, becoming, as it were, a 'stone buddha'? Why do you believe that your statement is "fact"?.. the realization that changes understanding is that the "single seamless Reality", is not "underlying", it is equal with the "BOTH of them".. hierarchies are the sources of inequalities.. Ugliness is not wrong, it is an attachment to preference, an imagined description based on personal preferences.. one person's 'ugly' is another's 'beauty'..
|
|
|
YES
Aug 5, 2014 12:55:26 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Aug 5, 2014 12:55:26 GMT -5
Long before I read Tolle I'd encountered the experience of seeing how something really ugly can be so hideous as to evoke a reaction similar to appreciating beauty. Take, for example, a scene like this one: That experience can open the mind to the nature of the dichotomy of beauty, essentially putting it on notice that it's making it all up. wtf? Ben Franklin put it this way: Beauty, like supreme dominion Is but supported by opinion
|
|
|
YES
Aug 5, 2014 16:31:57 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Aug 5, 2014 16:31:57 GMT -5
Maybe you can help me understand how it does that. Isn't it because, after realization, the ugliness is no longer being called 'wrong'? Yes, no longer considered a bad thingy, and hencely not struggled with, though it's not because there is an okay seamless reality beneath that makes it all okay. I've tried to talk about this before without much success. Lets try a different approach. I was watching a 'Doctor Who' episode last night that involved a visit with Vincent Van Gogh, and at one point somebody said "Sadness is happiness for deep people", which gave me a chuckle. There's some truth in that, though it's not so much about deep peeps as it is about aware peeps. The world isn't kind to visionaries and I don't want to debate whether Vincent was a visionary or a madman, and I don't even want to say that there is beauty in torment because we would still be fiddling with polarities to make it all good, which misses the point. I want to say that there is a power in life that encompasses all of it equally and has no understanding of our labeling and rejection of the 'darker' sides.
|
|
|
YES
Aug 5, 2014 16:40:32 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Aug 5, 2014 16:40:32 GMT -5
Isn't it because, after realization, the ugliness is no longer being called 'wrong'? Long before I read Tolle I'd encountered the experience of seeing how something really ugly can be so hideous as to evoke a reaction similar to appreciating beauty. Take, for example, a scene like this one: That experience can open the mind to the nature of the dichotomy of beauty, essentially putting it on notice that it's making it all up. Yes, that's what I'm hinting at as well. The dichotomy of good/bad is so deeply ingrained that it's difficult to find words to point beyond it, or to it's absence.
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Aug 5, 2014 21:58:46 GMT -5
Isn't it because, after realization, the ugliness is no longer being called 'wrong'? Yes, no longer considered a bad thingy, and hencely not struggled with, though it's not because there is an okay seamless reality beneath that makes it all okay. I've tried to talk about this before without much success. Lets try a different approach. I was watching a 'Doctor Who' episode last night that involved a visit with Vincent Van Gogh, and at one point somebody said "Sadness is happiness for deep people", which gave me a chuckle. There's some truth in that, though it's not so much about deep peeps as it is about aware peeps. The world isn't kind to visionaries and I don't want to debate whether Vincent was a visionary or a madman, and I don't even want to say that there is beauty in torment because we would still be fiddling with polarities to make it all good, which misses the point. I want to say that there is a power in life that encompasses all of it equally and has no understanding of our labeling and rejection of the 'darker' sides. Agreed. Wholeheartedly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
YES
Aug 5, 2014 23:27:24 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2014 23:27:24 GMT -5
Ben Franklin put it this way: Beauty, like supreme dominion Is but supported by opinion is butwtf is isbut?
|
|
|
YES
Aug 6, 2014 5:50:09 GMT -5
Post by quinn on Aug 6, 2014 5:50:09 GMT -5
Isn't it because, after realization, the ugliness is no longer being called 'wrong'? Yes, no longer considered a bad thingy, and hencely not struggled with, though it's not because there is an okay seamless reality beneath that makes it all okay. I've tried to talk about this before without much success. Lets try a different approach. I was watching a 'Doctor Who' episode last night that involved a visit with Vincent Van Gogh, and at one point somebody said "Sadness is happiness for deep people", which gave me a chuckle. There's some truth in that, though it's not so much about deep peeps as it is about aware peeps. The world isn't kind to visionaries and I don't want to debate whether Vincent was a visionary or a madman, and I don't even want to say that there is beauty in torment because we would still be fiddling with polarities to make it all good, which misses the point. I want to say that there is a power in life that encompasses all of it equally and has no understanding of our labeling and rejection of the 'darker' sides. Nice.
|
|
|
YES
Aug 6, 2014 10:14:46 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Aug 6, 2014 10:14:46 GMT -5
Yes, no longer considered a bad thingy, and hencely not struggled with, though it's not because there is an okay seamless reality beneath that makes it all okay. I've tried to talk about this before without much success. Lets try a different approach. I was watching a 'Doctor Who' episode last night that involved a visit with Vincent Van Gogh, and at one point somebody said "Sadness is happiness for deep people", which gave me a chuckle. There's some truth in that, though it's not so much about deep peeps as it is about aware peeps. The world isn't kind to visionaries and I don't want to debate whether Vincent was a visionary or a madman, and I don't even want to say that there is beauty in torment because we would still be fiddling with polarities to make it all good, which misses the point. I want to say that there is a power in life that encompasses all of it equally and has no understanding of our labeling and rejection of the 'darker' sides. Agreed. Wholeheartedly. Marie and I were talking about this in our frog satsang yesterday, and as I tried to say what the feeling sense of beauty is beyond the dualistic idea, it became Peace and Joy and Love. They are the same. Beauty is not by evidence, but by nature.
|
|
|
YES
Aug 6, 2014 12:21:04 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Aug 6, 2014 12:21:04 GMT -5
Ben Franklin put it this way: Beauty, like supreme dominion Is but supported by opinion is butwtf is isbut? really?? I think ur puttin' me on! You can use the word "only" there and it works just as well. "Is but supported by opinion" is the same as "It is only someone's opinion", and Ben used isbut for the meter and the rhyme.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
YES
Aug 6, 2014 23:24:19 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2014 23:24:19 GMT -5
really?? I think ur puttin' me on! You can use the word "only" there and it works just as well. "Is but supported by opinion" is the same as "It is only someone's opinion", and Ben used isbut for the meter and the rhyme. glad youre on. We got problems here... www.youtube.com/watch?v=W150IpqJhsY
|
|
|
YES
Aug 7, 2014 0:32:11 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Aug 7, 2014 0:32:11 GMT -5
really?? I think ur puttin' me on! You can use the word "only" there and it works just as well. "Is but supported by opinion" is the same as "It is only someone's opinion", and Ben used isbut for the meter and the rhyme. glad youre on. We got problems here... www.youtube.com/watch?v=W150IpqJhsY(** cackling facepalm **)
|
|
|
YES
Nov 9, 2014 4:28:30 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by freejoy on Nov 9, 2014 4:28:30 GMT -5
I use to try to say "yes" to everything and ended up returning hot merchandise back to the store for some crack heads. They asked me and I said yes, hehe I mean if we are all one and part of me ask another part of me why should I say no? Possibly because you won't be able to say yes or no once your head is being forced into a police cruiser.
|
|
|
YES
Nov 9, 2014 4:29:57 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by freejoy on Nov 9, 2014 4:29:57 GMT -5
I use to try to say "yes" to everything and ended up returning hot merchandise back to the store for some crack heads. They asked me and I said yes, hehe I mean if we are all one and part of me ask another part of me why should I say no? Possibly because you won't be able to say yes or no once your head is being forced into a police cruiser. Yeah: )
|
|