|
|
Post by billfromtexas on Aug 31, 2016 11:56:11 GMT -5
I would like to teach
how to read and understand your environment better,
as what it is pointing to and telling you,
by every little detail, every colour, every number on a car-plate,
sounds, words and gestures people on the streets make when they pass by,
the looks of dogs, birds and other animals who you encounter.
Every little detail in everyday, ordinary life is an adventure,
so sublime, cute and utterly interesting and amasing,
you would never have to go to the movies ever again,
if you could learn how to do that.
It takes a little bit of effort in the beginning,
but then...oh...how lovely and harmonieous all of creation
is playing along in what is called Lila,
the play of the Divine.
|
|
|
|
Post by billfromtexas on Aug 31, 2016 12:13:51 GMT -5
Last night
in my bed
I was silently complaining
to my friend and roady
that I felt betrayed by someone
whom I trusted
It was late in the night
the city was already sleeping
and after I told my dissapointment
to my friend
I heard
loud and clear
my name
Someone was calling my name
just once
in the distance
somewhere
And I knew
by that
my friend and roady
heard me and called out
my name
For me to know:
I'm listening!
I'm there when you need me!
I call out your name
to let you know:
I care!
|
|
|
|
Post by billfromtexas on Aug 31, 2016 13:02:44 GMT -5
As for some of the other things you posted - well, quite some stories you've cooked up there! Stories are fun as long as you don't believe in them too much. I don't have interest in commenting all the point in your posts, but I'll just comment on this bit: Enigma said: [...] And so, if you're going to test to see if presence can do a better job of protecting you than your mind, you must actually be present. In that empty, open alertness, all of your senses and knowledge, plus your insight and intuition, is fully available to you. Pay attention and you will see that you are being taken care of. The painter of the pictures will catch you if you fall." [...] 5.) The last bolded paraphraph speaks for itself, I think. It sounds encouraging on the first read, but on a second read it sounds like as if it is just some abstract affirmational drivel, given by someone who pretends to know what he is talking about but doesn't. These are empty words. All of them. The whole statement. They have not signifying content. Nothing is pointed to. They are not empty words, but they appear empty to the inflexible rational mind. You're so stuck in your head and in your ideas that I can see how what is suggested wouldn't make sense for you, as it cannot be tested by remaining in the comfort-zone of your mind playing pinball with your concepts. If you cannot intuitively see through the insubstantiality of (your) thoughts, an alternative approach could be to try to take this intellectualisation much much further, rather than staying in the play-pen with the handful of your simplistic pet-theories. Rather than staying in your comfort zone, you could try to thoroughly explore every relevant angle, including the ones that challenge your favourite ideas. In this way maybe intelligence can devour itself, but the game has to be upped considerably for that to happen. It seems to me that currently you're operating like a run of the mill conspiracy-theorist, and I doubt much spiritual insight will be generated that way. Oh by the way, here's a riddle for you: Okay, Visa. Here is another answer to that: This is NOT a koan. Koans refer to something that is not just some ..... you name it. They refer to dialogs and happenings in the past of a certain sampradaya, the zen-students belong to. They are, beside being a training to over-come the mere "thingking-mind" (a Ramesh Balsekar term), a means to have something to chew on. They are intellectual dog-food. This is a koan: Hui Heng went to Tür-Tzu to get some bread for his students. Rice everyday was making them cranky and grumpy. Hui Heng said: "Wanna ex-change rice for bread?" And Tür-Zu said, "here is sushi. That's rice-bread for bored students." How much was Hui Heng paying for Tür-Zu's sushi? |
|
|
|
Post by billfromtexas on Aug 31, 2016 13:52:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Aug 31, 2016 16:36:02 GMT -5
I am well aware of those two elements regarding interactions. But they do not deal with the considerations i listed. I am seeking to explore your behavior-attitude, not of other's responses to your input. Do you have any thoughts to share about your response to laughter, in relation to the list above? None. I can't be bothered. Hey that's twice in one week I said I can't be bothered. To read what I might think of what visa thinks that Laffy might think strikes you as constructive? It would be for you some kind of nourishment? Q1. link please. Q2. i have to read the post first. |
|
|
|
Post by billfromtexas on Aug 31, 2016 17:25:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by billfromtexas on Aug 31, 2016 18:09:08 GMT -5
Boah eh! It took me half a year to figure out that Enigma and Laughter play Stadler and Waldorf from the muppet-show. But today it dawned on me... Statler and Waldorf (excellent) : www.youtube.com/watch?v=14njUwJUg1I |
|
|
|
Post by wei sa on Aug 31, 2016 21:28:06 GMT -5
Well, at least you haven't given the right answer in any of your replies to me. If it was in one of your monologue-posts I would've missed it as I don't read them. Okay, not my problem when you seem to be not very interested in what is going on here, in this thread, and in the others, on a daily basis. You asked, I answered. If you don't read my monologs, that's fine. But I DID answer and you don't seem to know my answer. That is what I think you try to hide with your reply here. Try to hide? I thought I was once again being pretty direct as I don't tend to have any reason to be elusive. Anyway, I was curious about your answer to the riddle, but not curious enough to start wading through pages and pages of posts for no reason. There's a very clear correct answer, which is given with basically ~1-3 words, so if it's anything more elaborate than that, then I can already say that it's not the right answer. Ah, so "academics" have somehow different states of mind or different criteria? Interesting how these taxonomies work. I'm not really sure what to think of this, but if you think so, sure: I'm sorry if what I wrote offended you. You might have noticed, though, that I wasn't doing any random pot shots or imagining junk about your personal life or being passive-aggressive etc. I was giving you a brutally honest interpretation of what I see in your posts and in your behaviour on this forum, with the minimum amount of irony or sarcasm or elusiveness or any kind of game-playing. I wouldn't have written so directly to everyone, but from your posts I figured that firstly you're not made of sugar and secondly that you might be up to being directly confronted like that. In self-inquiry hurt feelings might be worth it if they shake up some beliefs or identifications or attachments etc. If not, perhaps it was all for nothing. I cannot say if it was for nothing or not. |
|
|
|
Post by wei sa on Aug 31, 2016 21:38:43 GMT -5
Oh by the way, here's a riddle for you: A father and son were involved in a terrible automobile wreck. Both were picked up by an ambulance and rushed toward a hospital. Along the way the father died of his injuries. At the hospital the boy was wheeled into an operating room, and doctors were called. A neurosurgeon arrived, took one look at the boy, and said, "I can't operate on this boy; he's my son!" Who was the neurosurgeon?Okay, Visa. Here is another answer to that: This is NOT a koan. Koans refer to something that is not just some ..... you name it. They refer to dialogs and happenings in the past of a certain sampradaya, the zen-students belong to. They are, beside being a training to over-come the mere "thingking-mind" (a Ramesh Balsekar term), a means to have something to chew on. They are intellectual dog-food. This is a koan: Hui Heng went to Tür-Tzu to get some bread for his students. Rice everyday was making them cranky and grumpy. Hui Heng said: "Wanna ex-change rice for bread?" And Tür-Zu said, "here is sushi. That's rice-bread for bored students." How much was Hui Heng paying for Tür-Zu's sushi? That is not the correct answer. Whether you call it a koan or not is not relevant. You might notice that I didn't even use the word "koan", I just called it a riddle. The answer is very simple and direct, not clever or elaborate or some kind of elusive trick. It directly answers the question "Who was the neurosurgeon?". You might think that this is pointless, but personally I think it would be worth it for everyone on this forum to either figure out the answer to this riddle or be given it, and I think it's relevant to the discussion here. If you want I can PM you the answer. |
|
|
|
Post by billfromtexas on Sept 1, 2016 5:40:57 GMT -5
Okay, not my problem when you seem to be not very interested in what is going on here, in this thread, and in the others, on a daily basis. You asked, I answered. If you don't read my monologs, that's fine. But I DID answer and you don't seem to know my answer. That is what I think you try to hide with your reply here. Try to hide? I thought I was once again being pretty direct as I don't tend to have any reason to be elusive. Anyway, I was curious about your answer to the riddle, but not curious enough to start wading through pages and pages of posts for no reason. There's a very clear correct answer, which is given with basically ~1-3 words, so if it's anything more elaborate than that, then I can already say that it's not the right answer. Ah, so "academics" have somehow different states of mind or different criteria? Interesting how these taxonomies work. I'm not really sure what to think of this, but if you think so, sure: I'm sorry if what I wrote offended you. You might have noticed, though, that I wasn't doing any random pot shots or imagining junk about your personal life or being passive-aggressive etc. I was giving you a brutally honest interpretation of what I see in your posts and in your behaviour on this forum, with the minimum amount of irony or sarcasm or elusiveness or any kind of game-playing. I wouldn't have written so directly to everyone, but from your posts I figured that firstly you're not made of sugar and secondly that you might be up to being directly confronted like that. In self-inquiry hurt feelings might be worth it if they shake up some beliefs or identifications or attachments etc. If not, perhaps it was all for nothing. I cannot say if it was for nothing or not. First of all, thank you for taking the bait. 1.) You are not a zen-master (IMNHO) and I'm not your student. So if you give me "riddles" to solve, why would I answer them to you in a way you think is the right answer to them? And that I pointed out in my response to you and in my monologs. 2.) But because you insist on answering the "riddle", here is my one word answer to "who is the surgeon"?: Sat-an!3.) Yes, academics are expected to behave in a more civil manner than other people because they should have learned by finishing their studies with a degree that a certain code of behaviour in academic circles is obligatory and recommend when debating or arguing a certain point. And calling someone a "d!ckhead" is not part of that academic lingo in a debate. 4.) I don't feel personally offened by what you called me. Like I said, in this thread, I feel honored by being called those titles you called me, but for the rest of the audiance, it might be a good idea to remind you that an appology would be the right way for you to get rehabilitated by me and those who agree with my stance. And your appology here isn't a real appology. It's like saying, "yeah, sorry, moron." 5.) And no, I'm not made out of sugar. You can call me any name you wanna, under the condition that I can do that too. But that does not seem to be the case here. And that is called a double-standart, Visa. In case you haven't noticed yet. |
|
|
|
Post by billfromtexas on Sept 1, 2016 5:43:44 GMT -5
Okay, Visa. Here is another answer to that: This is NOT a koan. Koans refer to something that is not just some ..... you name it. They refer to dialogs and happenings in the past of a certain sampradaya, the zen-students belong to. They are, beside being a training to over-come the mere "thingking-mind" (a Ramesh Balsekar term), a means to have something to chew on. They are intellectual dog-food. This is a koan: Hui Heng went to Tür-Tzu to get some bread for his students. Rice everyday was making them cranky and grumpy. Hui Heng said: "Wanna ex-change rice for bread?" And Tür-Zu said, "here is sushi. That's rice-bread for bored students." How much was Hui Heng paying for Tür-Zu's sushi? That is not the correct answer. Whether you call it a koan or not is not relevant. You might notice that I didn't even use the word "koan", I just called it a riddle. The answer is very simple and direct, not clever or elaborate or some kind of elusive trick. It directly answers the question "Who was the neurosurgeon?". You might think that this is pointless, but personally I think it would be worth it for everyone on this forum to either figure out the answer to this riddle or be given it, and I think it's relevant to the discussion here. If you want I can PM you the answer. |
|
|
|
Post by billfromtexas on Sept 1, 2016 6:22:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by billfromtexas on Sept 1, 2016 6:50:45 GMT -5
Today I made it to page 43 of Jed McKenna's new book: Dreamstate - A Conspiracy Theory. And I encountered a statement I really enjoyed. Here it is:
"Why did Iago go all psycho on Desdemona and Othello? Because Shakespeare said so, that's why."
Yeah...that sounds about right, Jed.
|
|
|
|
Post by wei sa on Sept 1, 2016 8:11:31 GMT -5
Try to hide? I thought I was once again being pretty direct as I don't tend to have any reason to be elusive. Anyway, I was curious about your answer to the riddle, but not curious enough to start wading through pages and pages of posts for no reason. There's a very clear correct answer, which is given with basically ~1-3 words, so if it's anything more elaborate than that, then I can already say that it's not the right answer. Ah, so "academics" have somehow different states of mind or different criteria? Interesting how these taxonomies work. I'm not really sure what to think of this, but if you think so, sure: I'm sorry if what I wrote offended you. You might have noticed, though, that I wasn't doing any random pot shots or imagining junk about your personal life or being passive-aggressive etc. I was giving you a brutally honest interpretation of what I see in your posts and in your behaviour on this forum, with the minimum amount of irony or sarcasm or elusiveness or any kind of game-playing. I wouldn't have written so directly to everyone, but from your posts I figured that firstly you're not made of sugar and secondly that you might be up to being directly confronted like that. In self-inquiry hurt feelings might be worth it if they shake up some beliefs or identifications or attachments etc. If not, perhaps it was all for nothing. I cannot say if it was for nothing or not. First of all, thank you for taking the bait. You're welcome. I suspected it would be a waste of both of ours time, but I still wanted to maintain some benefit of the doubt, so I figured I'd give it one shot. I'm definitely not a zen-master and you're certainly not my student. It was completely up to you what to do with the riddle, I wasn't coercing you in any way - I simply asked it as I think it is worthwhile and interesting once the correct answer is known. If you didn't want to engage with it, you could've just said it straight away without any need to do any clever manoeuvres. This is not an academic journal. Also, as I remember it, I was calling your behaviour on this forum dïckish (i.e. "being a dïck"), rather than saying that you as a person are a dïckhead. "Rehabilitated"? If you weren't offended, I don't really see why you were asking for an apology. My apology wasn't akin to saying "yeah, sorry, moron", although now that I look at it, it would have been better to use a different expression than "made of sugar" in the following paragraph. But yes, it was a fairly restrained apology. All things considered - for example your own behaviour on this board, e.g. the recent pot shots at Enigma - that seemed to me the most appropriate. I don't actually regret my posts here - you have your defences set so high that a direct unrestrained confrontation was the best way I could think of to try to reach something behind the wall. I'm completely up for my posts or my ideas to be challenged - surely getting delusions or false ideas challenged can be one of the useful functions of a forum like this. For me there's a difference between on one hand trolling by doing random pot shots / imagining junk about someone's personal life / being passive-aggressive / spamming or playing games to gain attention, and on the other harshly criticizing those behaviours - so I don't really see a double standard. But perhaps for you there's no difference. By the way, I don't think we have much of an audience. Surely there are much more worthwhile things going on in this forum than this dialogue. |
|
|
|
Post by billfromtexas on Sept 1, 2016 9:03:07 GMT -5
"Just because it's ART does not mean it is neccessarily true." (Anja Schröder) I consider the bible as a work of art. New Living Translation Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I Am!" biblehub.com/john/8-58.htm |
|
