|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Sept 9, 2014 22:39:05 GMT -5
There are quite a few languages that regularly don't use pronouns. In such cases the interlocutors develop a sense for who is who and what is what based on the context. High context cultures often fall into this category. The conversation would likely need to focus on conditioning. The ready inference from a quick scan of this is that to the Japanese, English speakers likely sound like a bunch of egotists! Especially when we mangle their language!  Oh, and my lovely wacky wife is Korean, so I make it apoint to let her win a majority of arguments based on the fact that she in transrationally correct! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 9, 2014 22:42:21 GMT -5
The ready inference from a quick scan of this is that to the Japanese, English speakers likely sound like a bunch of egotists! Especially when we mangle their language! Precisely! When I studied Japanese, I had an amazing amount of difficulty keeping up with the participants and objectsmin a given context. Over the time of about 20 years living in Asia, my level of intuitive grasp (and appreciation for metaphors/parables/analogies) seems to have increased. Unfortunately, when writing professioanl papers, I tend to have to really turn on the hyper-analysis to make sure I'm not assuming too much from the reader. Actually, I somehow think that, with as objective and precise English can be (and beautifully so), some speakers of other languages think we're boring gits. That is, the precision can leave very little for interpretation, almost drowning out the joy of conversation. I can see it that way, but I have also lived the pains of a world swimming in ambiguity as well. Makes me fookin' eyes go crossed sometimes!  Thanks, that was a fun share to read.  What's your technical field (generally speaking)? From what little I know of other languages it seems that pretty much any non-Germanic can be characterized as more "lyrical". Most of them certainly sound that way. The history (near-ancient, circa 2500-1500 years past) is quite telltale in this regard. For a bunch of thugs caught between a rock and a hard place for centuries, nuance was an unaffordable luxury.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 9, 2014 22:47:26 GMT -5
The ready inference from a quick scan of this is that to the Japanese, English speakers likely sound like a bunch of egotists! Especially when we mangle their language! Oh, and my lovely wacky wife is Korean, so I make it apoint to let her win a majority of arguments based on the fact that she in transrationally correct! mine too (by way of Long Island) and I was just talkin' to her about Korean as pro-drop 'cause she spent time when young with her Grandmother back in Korea and learned it there. She's got waaaay too much goin' for her to risk ceding ground in contests of logic.  ... but when it doesn't apply, the universal male language of nodding and smiling sort of naturally emerges into the conversation. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 9, 2014 23:21:10 GMT -5
A- I think you underestimate the power of delusion. It's infectious and makes people say and do funny/stupid/crazy shait. Perhaps, but It's also possible to be so focused upon and fearful of delusion that we quite literally, see it everywhere... life becomes one big fear-fest, where in any given moment the focus is upon seeing clearly the 'truth' about existence, WIGIGO, rather than simply being. AS do you as you point all this out to me. But, of course not.  Imagine.... the inclusion of that which is deemed 'personal' within love's circle.  That's too bad.....sounds rather isolating. Our beliefs have a way of coloring experience like that. A belief that I am virtually alone, and awake, in a world of 'others' who just don't get it because they remain fast asleep...a unique perspective in a world of unwilling 'others' who are just not yet ready, is really more a reflection upon focus than a 'truth' about 'the world' at large. That's okay. ..I assure you, there's no such belief here. What happens happens. If I feel compelled to say something here, something gets said, & the outcome of that is actually none of my business...no idea of controlling other people's destinies. If the one I converse with is within the vicinity to hear and resonate with my message, it will get heard, and visa versa. I don't profess to have control over the impact or lack therof of those words. You made me smile with that bit, though. hehe, I actually DO dig that. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Sept 9, 2014 23:39:49 GMT -5
Precisely! When I studied Japanese, I had an amazing amount of difficulty keeping up with the participants and objectsmin a given context. Over the time of about 20 years living in Asia, my level of intuitive grasp (and appreciation for metaphors/parables/analogies) seems to have increased. Unfortunately, when writing professioanl papers, I tend to have to really turn on the hyper-analysis to make sure I'm not assuming too much from the reader. Actually, I somehow think that, with as objective and precise English can be (and beautifully so), some speakers of other languages think we're boring gits. That is, the precision can leave very little for interpretation, almost drowning out the joy of conversation. I can see it that way, but I have also lived the pains of a world swimming in ambiguity as well. Makes me fookin' eyes go crossed sometimes! Thanks, that was a fun share to read. What's your technical field (generally speaking)? From what little I know of other languages it seems that pretty much any non-Germanic can be characterized as more "lyrical". Most of them certainly sound that way. The history (near-ancient, circa 2500-1500 years past) is quite telltale in this regard. For a bunch of thugs caught between a rock and a hard place for centuries, nuance was an unaffordable luxury. I have basically been poking my way around the world posing as a language and intercultural communications teacher/specialist. I have been involved with every aspect of the field of applied linguistics, from research to management to traing to actual language teaching. Trouble was that the search for Truth engulfed a large part of my attention span, while I needed to project at least some semblance of professor-like qualities. interestingly, the ideas I was playing with were always enriched and/or spurred on by the interactions and subjects of specific study with which i was involved. However, I rarely had the chance to express or share them with students or colleagues. Kind of a loner, I guess, in that respect. All good. So, it was cool to find this website back when....i've never really visited others. Oh yeah, in between jobs, there were large chunks of time spent staring into mountains and mindscapes, storming the unknown/unknowable through contmplation, or just making a general nuisance of myself. I could turn seconds into hours into days... The most winding road, and I never really tried to make sense of it. I usually forget the details, but as you may know, Koreans have a keen memory for such things. Very interesting, btw, that your mrs. Is from there. I'm sure there are stories to tell! Hehe |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 9, 2014 23:44:33 GMT -5
That state
UG: The question was going on and on and on: "What is that state? I want it. I want to know what that state is, the state in which Buddha was, Sankara was, and all those teachers were."
Then Krishnamurti was again there in Saanen giving talks. When I listened to him, something funny happened to me -- a peculiar kind of feeling that he was describing my state and not his state. Why did I want to know his state? He was describing something, some movements, some awareness, some silence -- "In that silence there is no mind; there is action" -- all kinds of things. So, "I am in that state. What the hell have I been doing these thirty or forty years, listening to all these people and struggling, wanting to understand his state or the state of somebody else, Buddha or Jesus? I am in that state. Now I am in that state." So, then I walked out of the tent and never looked back.
Then -- very strange -- that question "What is that state?" transformed itself into another question "How do I know that I am in that state, the state of Buddha, the state I very much wanted and demanded from everybody? I am in that state, but how do I know? "How do I know that this is the state?" -- I didn't have any answer for that question -- it was like a question in a whirlpool -- it went on and on and on. Then suddenly the question disappeared. Nothing happened; the question just disappeared. I didn't say to myself "Oh, my God! Now I have found the answer." Even that state disappeared -- the state I thought I was in, the state of Buddha, Jesus -- even that has disappeared. The question has disappeared. The whole thing is finished for me, and that's all, you see. From then on, never did I say to myself "Now I have the answer to all those questions." That state of which I had said "This is the state" -- that state disappeared. The question disappeared. Finished, you see. It is not emptiness, it is not blankness, it is not the void, it is not any of those things; the question disappeared suddenly, and that is all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2014 5:10:04 GMT -5
I don't think he's talking about 'random'. The 'happening' is neither predetermined nor random. To make sense of this you first have to understand volition. Zackly. The notion of cause is attributed to a personal 'causer' in this case, or to a method or action carried out on a personal level, all of which are impersonal movements. It may mean that if one is willing to look and to see, then seeing may occur, and in that sense pointers are not to be dismissed with the idea that nothing can bring about this seeing, but there is not a volitional person who can choose to do that. That 'seeing' remains in the realm of the impersonal and is an aspect of the movement of the totality. We could say it is uncaused, or that it is caused by everything, or that it is acausal. We cannot say that a person causes it. hi Enigma, We have already had a discussion in this, You are right when you say this 'seeing' is included in impersonal movement. But UG correctly finds the problem here when one uses this 'seeing' to uncover the truth, Please refer the UG's lines below. --------------------- Q; In a smaller and minor way, I can see through an illusion.... UG's answer:A: That is another illusion. The illusion is that "the seeing is the ending." There is no way you can separate yourself and the seeing. Seeing is the illusion; the seer is the illusion. The seer tells himself that "seeing is ending," but it does not end. So the seer does not want to come to an end. The seer is the illusion. I don't know; it is better not to discuss these things. The seer is the illusion. Through the invention of what is called "the seeing of the illusion is the ending," the seer is gathering momentum and continuing. The moment you want to 'see' something you have separated yourself from that and the seer has come into being, and through that seeing he is maintaining his continuity. That is why seeing has not helped us; it has ended nothing there. ---------------------- So what do you say now? Seeing is also another illusion. So UG is right when he says 'just happening' without the intervention of us though what we do is also impersonal movement. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 10, 2014 7:34:34 GMT -5
After I wrote that it occurred to me that it might have been more prudent to say that 'it seems that a dog knows'. So, fair point. Pretty sure I get what you mean by the bolded bit, nevertheless, it could be said that the variety of contrasting experiences are 'not-actual' and the abiding isness within all experiences is 'actual'. 'Isness' isn't a word I tend to use, but I'm trying to offer an example that illustrates the point that what is 'actual' means different things to different people. Personally, I like the statement 'Love is all that is Real' but I understand that that wouldn't work for you....and its not something that I would insist on in every conversation. Will you look for where your description relies on ideas and imagery for its meaning, compared to an actual experience? Where you prefer the reference to 'Love', i see the 'word' love as unnecessary.. i can, you can, anyone can describe what they mean when they use the word 'love', and it is the 'many' nuanced individualized attempts to describe the experience called 'love' that adds meaning and understanding to the collective idea of 'love'.. those 'many' descriptions stand on their own merit, and have no need of a consensus 'word' that reduces the rich depth of personal experiences to an overused shorthand 'word' of convenience.. To say, "Love is all that is Real" is dependent on the mind's holding a particular set of values to be true.. there is liberation when the mind is freed from ideas like 'love', oneness, awareness (as stuff things are made of), duality/nonduality, etc.. umbrella words used as meaningless shorthand in place of organic interaction and interconnectedness.. umbrella words buffer people from engaging each other in sincere interactions to understand their experiences, umbrella wordsmiths create illusions that distract people from discovering who/what they actually are.. Convincing people that the word 'Love' has mystical meaning is useful in inspiring them to say things like "Love is all that is Real", rather than explore what 'it' is that IS 'real'.. philosophical discussions about how to best describe the experiences, misses the opportunity to share the experiences in favor of word-lawyering.. What exists after the experiencer has exhausted all efforts to disprove its existence?.. a more likely description of the actuality than the descriptions that did not survive all efforts to disprove the actuality.. A still mind's awareness is not distracted by ideas and wordsmiths.. it is still, alert, and present, the experiencer is engaged with the existence it is experiencing through the vehicle of its awareness, the ability to be informed by its experiences.. That was a good read and I understand what you are saying. You reveal much about your values I feel, and those are values that are easy for me to relate to. To you, it seems that what is experienced without mind-play/interpretation, is real/actual. I don't have a problem with that and there are many times when I would say that myself. From my perspective, the idea that 'love is all that is Real' can mean different things, but what I take it to mean this morning is this. Basically, its that the cause of all behaviour is love. Yes people behave selfishly, hurtfully, angrily, fearfully and many other ways that don't seem as if love is at the cause, but on close inspection, it can be seen that every behaviour and every action is born out of love, though our specific understandings about life and self etc will determine the particular way in which love manifests. So anger happens because we love. We hurt because we love. We are scared because we love. In this sense, I like the idea that Love is all that is Real, I think its a shift in focus that has a harmonizing and unifying quality to it. Its a destroyer of judgement. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 10, 2014 7:56:56 GMT -5
Zackly. The notion of cause is attributed to a personal 'causer' in this case, or to a method or action carried out on a personal level, all of which are impersonal movements. It may mean that if one is willing to look and to see, then seeing may occur, and in that sense pointers are not to be dismissed with the idea that nothing can bring about this seeing, but there is not a volitional person who can choose to do that. That 'seeing' remains in the realm of the impersonal and is an aspect of the movement of the totality. We could say it is uncaused, or that it is caused by everything, or that it is acausal. We cannot say that a person causes it. hi Enigma, We have already had a discussion in this, You are right when you say this 'seeing' is included in impersonal movement. But UG correctly finds the problem here when one uses this 'seeing' to uncover the truth, Please refer the UG's lines below. --------------------- Q; In a smaller and minor way, I can see through an illusion.... UG's answer:A: That is another illusion. The illusion is that "the seeing is the ending." There is no way you can separate yourself and the seeing. Seeing is the illusion; the seer is the illusion. The seer tells himself that "seeing is ending," but it does not end. So the seer does not want to come to an end. The seer is the illusion. I don't know; it is better not to discuss these things. The seer is the illusion. Through the invention of what is called "the seeing of the illusion is the ending," the seer is gathering momentum and continuing. The moment you want to 'see' something you have separated yourself from that and the seer has come into being, and through that seeing he is maintaining his continuity. That is why seeing has not helped us; it has ended nothing there. ---------------------- So what do you say now? Seeing is also another illusion. So UG is right when he says 'just happening' without the intervention of us though what we do is also impersonal movement. Yeah UG clearly points out the limit of 'seeing' there, and I resonate with it. He would have to include the seeing that ''the seer is the illusion''. Hence why he also tells us to throw away all his words, to debunk them all, and that perhaps 'it is better not to discuss these things'. Interesting use of the word 'better' though. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 10, 2014 9:14:22 GMT -5
Zackly. The notion of cause is attributed to a personal 'causer' in this case, or to a method or action carried out on a personal level, all of which are impersonal movements. It may mean that if one is willing to look and to see, then seeing may occur, and in that sense pointers are not to be dismissed with the idea that nothing can bring about this seeing, but there is not a volitional person who can choose to do that. That 'seeing' remains in the realm of the impersonal and is an aspect of the movement of the totality. We could say it is uncaused, or that it is caused by everything, or that it is acausal. We cannot say that a person causes it. hi Enigma, We have already had a discussion in this, You are right when you say this 'seeing' is included in impersonal movement. But UG correctly finds the problem here when one uses this 'seeing' to uncover the truth, Please refer the UG's lines below. --------------------- Q; In a smaller and minor way, I can see through an illusion.... UG's answer:A: That is another illusion. The illusion is that "the seeing is the ending." There is no way you can separate yourself and the seeing. Seeing is the illusion; the seer is the illusion. The seer tells himself that "seeing is ending," but it does not end. So the seer does not want to come to an end. The seer is the illusion. I don't know; it is better not to discuss these things. The seer is the illusion. Through the invention of what is called "the seeing of the illusion is the ending," the seer is gathering momentum and continuing. The moment you want to 'see' something you have separated yourself from that and the seer has come into being, and through that seeing he is maintaining his continuity. That is why seeing has not helped us; it has ended nothing there. ---------------------- So what do you say now? Seeing is also another illusion. So UG is right when he says 'just happening' without the intervention of us though what we do is also impersonal movement. U.G.'s mumble that it's best not to discuss these things is exemplified by the fact that in an "impersonal movement" there is no seer, no seen, and not even really any movement, only the appearance of movement from perspective, and any perspective embodies duality. In that sense appearance is illusion. He had that thought because to the mind nonduality embodies a paradox. In seeing/saying "One" there are two. So if these things are discussed, they're discussed using words that serve as pointers, such as, in this case, "impersonal". There's no conceptual resolution of the apparent contradiction. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 10, 2014 9:26:44 GMT -5
Thanks, that was a fun share to read. What's your technical field (generally speaking)? From what little I know of other languages it seems that pretty much any non-Germanic can be characterized as more "lyrical". Most of them certainly sound that way. The history (near-ancient, circa 2500-1500 years past) is quite telltale in this regard. For a bunch of thugs caught between a rock and a hard place for centuries, nuance was an unaffordable luxury. I have basically been poking my way around the world posing as a language and intercultural communications teacher/specialist. I have been involved with every aspect of the field of applied linguistics, from research to management to traing to actual language teaching. Trouble was that the search for Truth engulfed a large part of my attention span, while I needed to project at least some semblance of professor-like qualities. interestingly, the ideas I was playing with were always enriched and/or spurred on by the interactions and subjects of specific study with which i was involved. However, I rarely had the chance to express or share them with students or colleagues. Kind of a loner, I guess, in that respect. All good. So, it was cool to find this website back when....i've never really visited others. Oh yeah, in between jobs, there were large chunks of time spent staring into mountains and mindscapes, storming the unknown/unknowable through contmplation, or just making a general nuisance of myself. I could turn seconds into hours into days... The most winding road, and I never really tried to make sense of it. I usually forget the details, but as you may know, Koreans have a keen memory for such things. Very interesting, btw, that your mrs. Is from there. I'm sure there are stories to tell! Hehe Sounds like a wild ride, thanks for sharing a bit of it. Tolle was a linguist, and my mother was an English teacher. Participating here as certainly revealed some of that influence along the way, which was surprising. What you report by way of synergy between the secular and the search is a commonly reported thread. I just got done discussing that briefly with E' on the topic of self-reference. It's not surprising given that really, in the final analysis, all knowledge flows from the same source, and if one is looking for the truth, they can see it anywhere and anyway that they look. My favorite fragment of the Korean language (in mangled phonetics ): "Hoon na sim ni da!" |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 10, 2014 9:31:09 GMT -5
hi Enigma, We have already had a discussion in this, You are right when you say this 'seeing' is included in impersonal movement. But UG correctly finds the problem here when one uses this 'seeing' to uncover the truth, Please refer the UG's lines below. --------------------- Q; In a smaller and minor way, I can see through an illusion.... UG's answer:A: That is another illusion. The illusion is that "the seeing is the ending." There is no way you can separate yourself and the seeing. Seeing is the illusion; the seer is the illusion. The seer tells himself that "seeing is ending," but it does not end. So the seer does not want to come to an end. The seer is the illusion. I don't know; it is better not to discuss these things. The seer is the illusion. Through the invention of what is called "the seeing of the illusion is the ending," the seer is gathering momentum and continuing. The moment you want to 'see' something you have separated yourself from that and the seer has come into being, and through that seeing he is maintaining his continuity. That is why seeing has not helped us; it has ended nothing there. ---------------------- So what do you say now? Seeing is also another illusion. So UG is right when he says 'just happening' without the intervention of us though what we do is also impersonal movement. Yeah UG clearly points out the limit of 'seeing' there, and I resonate with it. He would have to include the seeing that ''the seer is the illusion''. Hence why he also tells us to throw away all his words, to debunk them all, and that perhaps 'it is better not to discuss these things'. Interesting use of the word 'better' though. No need to debunk the words if they're not analyzed and used to build structure. No need to blow down a house of cards if you keep the deck neatly undealt. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 10, 2014 9:47:50 GMT -5
Peeps interpret night dreams as real when in the dream. They may conclude that if they are sensing, 'there must be stuff to sense'. And yet there is no stuff, and it's just an erroneous conclusion. How do you know you're not dreaming now, in perhaps a different way than in your nightly dreams? Well, I suppose if I am dreaming now, I was born into it. Well, at least a dream character was born into it. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 10, 2014 9:53:31 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2014 10:48:16 GMT -5
Oh so...it seems like it would be hard to become more accident prone lying. Low potential energy and all. Maybe the ultimate method would be to silently note to oneself during mediation that one was lying lying lying....even though you were doing something else? THAT'S IT!! Can't wait for the waterfall of bliss joy. Well, here's the bad news: "There is no nearness to that, there is no farawayness from that, there is no closeness to that. Nobody is nearer to that because he is different, he is prepared. There's no readiness for that; it just hits you like a ton of bricks." - U.G. And here's the good news: "My mission, if there is any, should be, from now on, to debunk every statement I have made. If you take seriously and try to use or apply what I have said, you will be in danger." - U.G. YOU WILL BE IN DANGER. I like that. |
|
... but when it doesn't apply, the universal male language of nodding and smiling sort of naturally emerges into the conversation. 
Imagine.... the inclusion of that which is deemed 'personal' within love's circle. 
