|
Post by laughter on Feb 23, 2015 4:38:18 GMT -5
I am very sure none of these kind of technique would not lead you to realization, I am very sure you would still be doing these actions,right? at-least sometimes with the intent of realizing something? I share your opinion that none of the techniques will directly lead to what you probably mean by realization, although they can shift a peeps perspective. As to the doing, I'd put it that there is the appearance of action but no illusion about the doer. If it ain't effortless, it ain't meditation. As to the intent, no, there's no intent to realize. What I'd say is happening for me is the same process that's happening for every body/mind, in that every instant affords new opportunities to become more conscious of the conditioning that's operative.
|
|
|
Post by zin on Feb 23, 2015 5:01:45 GMT -5
Huh?! This is too long I will ask just one thing for now.. You had said "particularization of that will" but now you are saying " particularization is really just an inevitable function of movement itself"... Does this mean 'movement' comes from will? I was thinking not much so.. But I might've mixed things.. My issue with will is not about movement (what I choose to do, etc). An example, it is more like, "I want to live", preservation of life thing. Is this also called conditioning? If I understand it better I will ask again, thanks. (ps. no familiarity with that sutra). Hi zindarud, to me, I think laughter was saying that movement can be willy nilly, chaotic action, running in all directions, or like the wind that blows. I think by particularization laughter is referencing the movement that is the human personality, which is not a tangled mixture of turmoil. It is not a windy storm that blows in any direction as it wills. But rather it is a well organized purposive unique movement of conditioning. Of course that's just my interpretation and could be erroneous to laughters actual meaning. Hi source.. You are talking about personalities by saying particularization. I was talking about a more initial thing but I admit I am not clear even to myself. Laughter later wrote: "How will becomes particularized can be commonly understood in terms of the laws of nature, but there is a not so subtle mistake in that idea. What particularizes is a question that is self-inquiry in disguise." I don't know, what is a mistake in the idea (of seeing self preservation as at least related to particularization).. or what is the mistake in taking natural laws as part of particularization (I will faint if I write that word one more time ) .. For me mind is only one part of the event. I mean the personal likes, dislikes, preferences, daily acts etc... I think I just can't bear the idea of dissolving of appearances. Will think about it a bit more.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 23, 2015 6:23:00 GMT -5
Hi zindarud, to me, I think laughter was saying that movement can be willy nilly, chaotic action, running in all directions, or like the wind that blows. I think by particularization laughter is referencing the movement that is the human personality, which is not a tangled mixture of turmoil. It is not a windy storm that blows in any direction as it wills. But rather it is a well organized purposive unique movement of conditioning. Of course that's just my interpretation and could be erroneous to laughters actual meaning. Hi source.. You are talking about personalities by saying particularization. I was talking about a more initial thing but I admit I am not clear even to myself. Laughter later wrote: "How will becomes particularized can be commonly understood in terms of the laws of nature, but there is a not so subtle mistake in that idea. What particularizes is a question that is self-inquiry in disguise." I don't know, what is a mistake in the idea (of seeing self preservation as at least related to particularization).. or what is the mistake in taking natural laws as part of particularization (I will faint if I write that word one more time ) .. For me mind is only one part of the event. I mean the personal likes, dislikes, preferences, daily acts etc... I think I just can't bear the idea of dissolving of appearances. Will think about it a bit more. The problem manifests when the experiencer buys into the conceptual model of 'appearances', that's a 'belief' conjured with the illusions of word-play.. try to 'dissolve' the appearance of monthly bills, or the nice man with the pretty blue lights when you get stopped for speeding, or try to dissolve the appearance of gravity..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 23, 2015 13:34:18 GMT -5
Conceptual models based on appearances very obviously serve many utilitarian purposes. One of those is to provide a false sense of surety so that an identity rooted in form and an idea of reality doesn't lead to psychological discomfort.
|
|
|
Post by zin on Feb 24, 2015 15:36:15 GMT -5
Hi source.. You are talking about personalities by saying particularization. I was talking about a more initial thing but I admit I am not clear even to myself. Laughter later wrote: "How will becomes particularized can be commonly understood in terms of the laws of nature, but there is a not so subtle mistake in that idea. What particularizes is a question that is self-inquiry in disguise." I don't know, what is a mistake in the idea (of seeing self preservation as at least related to particularization).. or what is the mistake in taking natural laws as part of particularization (I will faint if I write that word one more time ) .. For me mind is only one part of the event. I mean the personal likes, dislikes, preferences, daily acts etc... I think I just can't bear the idea of dissolving of appearances. Will think about it a bit more. The problem manifests when the experiencer buys into the conceptual model of 'appearances', that's a 'belief' conjured with the illusions of word-play.. try to 'dissolve' the appearance of monthly bills, or the nice man with the pretty blue lights when you get stopped for speeding, or try to dissolve the appearance of gravity.. Generally, my idea about appearances is limited to 'selves', it's not about physical things. But this is not my main issue. You said on the Still Mind thread: "It is particularized by the experiencer's private mindscape, that portion of mind sovereign for the localized version of itself's unique cultivation.." I want to arrive at a description of particularization without using 'mind' there, especially in the personality sense. If you think it as, one will branches out as many tiny wills, what might be the reason? All I can think of is for expansion (but expansion not for 'fun'). In the process 'selves' are formed, minds are formed, etc but I want to know whether this is a must.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 24, 2015 22:21:35 GMT -5
The problem manifests when the experiencer buys into the conceptual model of 'appearances', that's a 'belief' conjured with the illusions of word-play.. try to 'dissolve' the appearance of monthly bills, or the nice man with the pretty blue lights when you get stopped for speeding, or try to dissolve the appearance of gravity.. Generally, my idea about appearances is limited to 'selves', it's not about physical things. But this is not my main issue. You said on the Still Mind thread: "It is particularized by the experiencer's private mindscape, that portion of mind sovereign for the localized version of itself's unique cultivation.." I want to arrive at a description of particularization without using 'mind' there, especially in the personality sense. If you think it as, one will branches out as many tiny wills, what might be the reason? All I can think of is for expansion (but expansion not for 'fun'). In the process 'selves' are formed, minds are formed, etc but I want to know whether this is a must. No mind/no description.. The singularity was curious, it wondered: "What AM I".. you/me/we/us/them/Life/Cosmos are the ongoing answer to the question. "What Am I"?.. independently functioning versions of the whole ensure no controlling bias, ensure getting honest answers from infinite potential, ensure diversity, spontaneity, random order..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 25, 2015 10:30:52 GMT -5
If you have a concept of reality, then you also have a concept of yourself, because there's no way to have one without the other. bump
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 6, 2015 3:09:15 GMT -5
The OP took for granted the pointer of the absence of identity, and these ideas provide some motivation. Any sense of identity based on what changes is bound to result in anxiety, and that, in the form of existential dread, is what drives what is for most people an unconscious search for answers. Any sense of identity based on what is pointed to by the idea of changelessness is a self-deception.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 9, 2015 14:03:39 GMT -5
What seems to be the spiritual fad these days is to state identity in terms of a mixture of form and emptiness, something along the lines of "I am infinity embodied. Spirit taking a human journey. All that is, temporarily limited for the purpose of experiencing the world". All beautiful and powerful ideas, but when one settles for an idea, any idea, one has settled. The idea that "it's all unbounded energy" is both a profoundly powerful and sublime statement of appearances and a dogmatic trap.
|
|
|
Post by zin on Mar 10, 2015 8:19:07 GMT -5
What seems to be the spiritual fad these days is to state identity in terms of a mixture of form and emptiness, something along the lines of "I am infinity embodied. Spirit taking a human journey. All that is, temporarily limited for the purpose of experiencing the world". All beautiful and powerful ideas, but when one settles for an idea, any idea, one has settled. The idea that "it's all unbounded energy" is both a profoundly powerful and sublime statement of appearances and a dogmatic trap. Some things in this thread are still on my mind (reminder to myself).
|
|
|
Post by zin on Mar 11, 2015 7:55:39 GMT -5
OK, the first thing on my mind: I have no idea about what I was trying to say by 'particularization'. It seemed so important then, now I don't know. Will does not seem divided. There *are* individuals but the will is undivided. I know this also is contradictory to some thing. And what is the current situation (of wars, etc) if will is not divided? Anyway.. it is just that today is like that (for me).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 11, 2015 8:42:21 GMT -5
OK, the first thing on my mind: I have no idea about what I was trying to say by 'particularization'. It seemed so important then, now I don't know. Will does not seem divided. There *are* individuals but the will is undivided. I know this also is contradictory to some thing. And what is the current situation (of wars, etc) if will is not divided? Anyway.. it is just that today is like that (for me). I'm going to take this post as an opportunity to comment on the movement of the wholeness question. The "non-dual" perspective is that because of non-separation, everything anyone does is a manifestation of the Whole. This just seems quite bizarre to me. For example, the Hitler question keeps coming up. The universe or the earth or whatever needed a "Hitler" so Hitler was "manifested. I don't get why Oneness needed Germany to kill 6 million Jews and 12 million total. I don't get why the universe needed Stalin to kill millions of his own people to keep power. I don't get why the universe needs ISIS and other terrorists to kill thousands of people for an ideology. I could go on and on, but point made. Does merely the idea of separation kill people? I don't think the manifestation of Wholeness kills people, people kill people.....and nasty people in power can kill a lot of people...... (Sorry z, I didn't mean to derail your post)........but I think you make an excellent point.........
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 11, 2015 9:10:23 GMT -5
OK, the first thing on my mind: I have no idea about what I was trying to say by 'particularization'. It seemed so important then, now I don't know. Will does not seem divided. There *are* individuals but the will is undivided. I know this also is contradictory to some thing. And what is the current situation (of wars, etc) if will is not divided? Anyway.. it is just that today is like that (for me). I'm going to take this post as an opportunity to comment on the movement of the wholeness question. The "non-dual" perspective is that because of non-separation, everything anyone does is a manifestation of the Whole. This just seems quite bizarre to me. For example, the Hitler question keeps coming up. The universe or the earth or whatever needed a "Hitler" so Hitler was "manifested. I don't get why Oneness needed Germany to kill 6 million Jews and 12 million total. I don't get why the universe needed Stalin to kill millions of his own people to keep power. I don't get why the universe needs ISIS and other terrorists to kill thousands of people for an ideology. I could go on and on, but point made. Does merely the idea of separation kill people? I don't think the manifestation of Wholeness kills people, people kill people.....and nasty people in power can kill a lot of people...... (Sorry z, I didn't mean to derail your post)........but I think you make an excellent point......... I just explained to Z in a PM how to clear up this issue, and he is sufficiently open-minded that he might just decide to follow the pointer. With others it is much less likely. As long as ideation remains dominant, the obviousness of "what is" will remain obscured.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2015 14:29:11 GMT -5
Hi zindarud, to me, I think laughter was saying that movement can be willy nilly, chaotic action, running in all directions, or like the wind that blows. I think by particularization laughter is referencing the movement that is the human personality, which is not a tangled mixture of turmoil. It is not a windy storm that blows in any direction as it wills. But rather it is a well organized purposive unique movement of conditioning. Of course that's just my interpretation and could be erroneous to laughters actual meaning. Hi source.. You are talking about personalities by saying particularization. I was talking about a more initial thing but I admit I am not clear even to myself. Laughter later wrote: "How will becomes particularized can be commonly understood in terms of the laws of nature, but there is a not so subtle mistake in that idea. What particularizes is a question that is self-inquiry in disguise." I don't know, what is a mistake in the idea (of seeing self preservation as at least related to particularization).. or what is the mistake in taking natural laws as part of particularization (I will faint if I write that word one more time ) .. For me mind is only one part of the event. I mean the personal likes, dislikes, preferences, daily acts etc... I think I just can't bear the idea of dissolving of appearances. Will think about it a bit more. Hi zindarud, for me appearances, meaning the world, dissolves every night in sleep, and I'm not only not concerned about it, but actually look forward to it. I get to put the world down and enjoy the freedom it affords me. It allows me the rest and peace to pick the world back up again in the morning, refreshed and with new eyes.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 11, 2015 15:58:15 GMT -5
OK, the first thing on my mind: I have no idea about what I was trying to say by 'particularization'. It seemed so important then, now I don't know. Will does not seem divided. There *are* individuals but the will is undivided. I know this also is contradictory to some thing. And what is the current situation (of wars, etc) if will is not divided? Anyway.. it is just that today is like that (for me). There's no answer to the apparent contradiction to be had by logic or reasoning or even by love, by the heart ... our feelings on the issue will ever be as divided as our conclusions. But the fact remains that the contradiction is only apparent. Ideas that lead to a comfort and familiarity with the contradiction are a hindrance. Explaining it away, or even just accepting it, are only ever a temporary fix.
|
|