|
Post by zazeniac on Sept 14, 2021 8:18:42 GMT -5
Even among the anointed, if they are honest, which is rare, you'd not gather a single mustard seed. Have you ever imagined what it would be like to be a Catholic priest? You perform the exact same ritual every single day, probly multiple times on Sunday. Did you know they have to drink the dregs of the communion cup because otherwise they'd be spilling the blood of Christ? You're the center of attention, dressed in these outlandish anachronistic robes, you can't have sex much less a wife, and all these people come to you unloading all their baggage, and you tell them you've got the ultimate answer. If you can imagine a greater test of faith I'd be interested in hearing it. .. is it any wonder that so many of them fail it? That's not what I fantasize about. Can't say I have. Priests have this compulsion to save your soul. It is annoying. I used to hang around with an Anglican priest. He embraced Zen and nonduality but I always suspected there was a hidden agenda. Resolute faith and fanaticism are kin and dangerous from my dualistic view.
|
|
|
Post by shadowplay on Sept 14, 2021 8:20:39 GMT -5
Yes! ND is prior to/beyond those kind of concepts. There’s no requirement whatsoever to determine whether THIS is subjective or objective or something else entirely. Those are structurally dualistic philosophical questions - which can be fun to explore but tend to incline towards TMT. ND is simply a realisation that THIS (whatever THIS is) is not-two. The rest, the implications of this, how it appears in the world etc. is a kind of ongoing work in progress. This is where we differ slightly - but I suspect, only in how we express it. It’s clear that some sages have a dramatic ‘response’ to the end of seeking. Some report how thinking completely falls away. (In each of the dramatic cases that I know of I note that prior to the shift thought was overwhelmingly oppressive.) So, yes, mental silence can clearly act as a welcome and useful respite from the ongoing mental chatter which upholds the dualistic paradigm. But I don’t see a requirement for ongoing mental silence.
THIS (Reality, Source) presents HOW IT IS. There are no special circumstances or set of conditions required AT ALL. And though I agree that there is no thought involved in, say, driving the car, I would argue that mentation* is present to some degree. Right now if someone asks where you live. You can answer without thinking. But mentation is employed in the very mechanics of knowing this - even though this might not be obvious. What most sages are referring to when they profess an absence of thinking is the incessant voice in the head generating continuous narrative - in particular self-referential thoughts. This is what falls away in ‘real-time present actuality’. But mentation (just like blood flow or DNA replication or digestion) remains mostly unobtrusively active. * I agree that Reality is incomprehensibly intelligent - it needs no help from an imagined separate entity. But the very mechanics of that intelligence are employed in the (apparent) biological organism VIA functional expressions such as blood flow, DNA replication, digestion and mentation - there’s no divine intervention going on. No disagreement with any of that. I wasn't suggesting that mental silence (no voice in the head) needs to occur. I was only stating that for those people who can be silently aware without the voice in the head, it becomes obvious that 99% of conscious thought is an unnecessary overlay that for most adults tends to obscure the difference between "what is" as opposed to the meta-reality created by ideation. Yes, we could say that subconscious mentation is occurring when driving a car in the same way that blood circulates or cuts in the skin automatically heal (an extremely complex biological phenomenon). All of the intellectual distinctions and body-knowings that we learn growing up are internalized in the mind/body organism so that for an adult conscious thought is rarely required. If it does occur, it is what the Buddha called "thinking that is not-thinking." I usually use the term "subconscious mental processing" rather than "mentation," but we're both pointing to the same thing. During a zoom satsang with Norio Kushi, Paul Rezendez, Tyler Tarrant and 30 or 40 serious seekers I once said that 99% of conscious verbal thought (the voice in the head) is unnecessary. One of the seekers asked Tyler, "Do you agree with that?" Tyler smiled and said, "No. I'd say it's more like 99.5% of conscious thoughts are unnecessary." Yes, for some people the voice in the head suddenly stops, completely, right out of the blue. Gary Weber comes to mind as one example, but he had been a long-time meditator and yoga practitioner. It also occurs for some people with no background in meditation or existential seeking. The first guy that comes to mind in that regard was a supervisor of air traffic controllers at a large airport. Some sort of serious computer problem occurred, and while this guy was trying to resolve the issue and people in the tower were frantically running around, his internal narrative suddenly went silent. I met him later at a TAT retreat because that experience had gotten him interested in spirituality and non-duality. He told me that he was able to figure out how to resolve the problem at that time even though his mind remained totally silent. He said that he had felt like laughing at all of the people freaking out because he said, "I knew what to do without having to think a single thought." His silence lasted about a day before the internal narrative returned. I later met him again on a retreat near Lake Tahoe, and during that retreat his internal dialogue stopped for a much longer period of time. I suspect that most long-time meditators experience a more gradual reduction in thoughts rather than a sudden cessation. As you noted, various realizations can bring an end to particular patterns of thought completely, and especially self-referential patterns. Other types of thoughts can also simply cease after seeing their illusory or obscurational nature. Aside from conscious planning of future activities related to running a business, the primary thoughts that I entertain these days are, ironically, thoughts about how to use words more effectively for waking people up to THIS! Yes I thought as much - same thing, slightly differing pointers. I think of silence teaching as a kind of intermediary phase in the spiritual arc. In the consensus paradigm our attachments to form obscure our true nature. The seeking journey is often that of via negativa - negating qualities of the relative world in order that we might realise its ground. This can involve an emphasis on stillness, silence, retreat and denial of the world. This is a stage. To hang out here (as many seekers do) amounts to second mountain limbo. Once our true nature is uncovered it is realised that silence is present in the ordinary bustle of life - of course literal silence has a role to play in this too - and yes, in particular, mental chatter can be a source of obscuration - but there is no requirement to cling on in here. In the realisation of THIS, silence and the ordinary are not two. Mountain and rivers are once again…
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Sept 14, 2021 8:26:18 GMT -5
The subject I changed from was what? The mustard seed reference is a common Buddhist tale regarding grief, suffering. Kisa Gotami. A white wave washes the beach. Suffering is the opposite of practice. Deep down roars the lion like a goat. Ramana, Niz and Tolle drink a beer. One of them is a gnome. The actual attends the seeker. A pilgrim walks through barren lands. Forgotten where he came from. The world is the body of the monk. Zazeniac sits smiling in the corner. What is Buddha? Three pounds of weed. I know who the gnome is. Perfect description. "The actual attends the seeker." Wow, amazing. Love it. "The lion roars like a goat." Also great. Poor pilgrim, huh? True what you say about practice.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 14, 2021 9:19:00 GMT -5
BTW, just to set the record straight, you keep stating that I believe in an "objective physical reality." I suspect that many posters on this forum, as well as myself, do not think or believe that. There is a basic realization in ND that the observer and the observed are one and the same, and that any idea of twoness or separation is false. That pretty much eliminates the idea of an objective physical reality. Zen people deal with that idea in the same way that they deal with all ideas--by showing students how to communicate existential understanding without having to use words or thinking ("thinking" as defined in the way that SDP defined it). I was going to comment on this as well (and actually deleted a post), but then I realized that what inavalen wrote, specifically, was that his perception was that you interpret what he describes "from the position that there is an objective physical world". Sorry, I know this is involved. It's a complicated distinction, but not quite a subtle one: he thinks that you think that he thinks there's an objective, physical world. L: FWIW, I didn't interpret his words that way. He's stated several times that for him there is no objective physical world, so I definitely don't think that he thinks that. I interpreted his words to mean that he thinks that I think that there's an objective physical world, and from my POV the idea of an objective physical world is just another idea worth throwing in the trashcan.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 14, 2021 9:32:28 GMT -5
No disagreement with any of that. I wasn't suggesting that mental silence (no voice in the head) needs to occur. I was only stating that for those people who can be silently aware without the voice in the head, it becomes obvious that 99% of conscious thought is an unnecessary overlay that for most adults tends to obscure the difference between "what is" as opposed to the meta-reality created by ideation. Yes, we could say that subconscious mentation is occurring when driving a car in the same way that blood circulates or cuts in the skin automatically heal (an extremely complex biological phenomenon). All of the intellectual distinctions and body-knowings that we learn growing up are internalized in the mind/body organism so that for an adult conscious thought is rarely required. If it does occur, it is what the Buddha called "thinking that is not-thinking." I usually use the term "subconscious mental processing" rather than "mentation," but we're both pointing to the same thing. During a zoom satsang with Norio Kushi, Paul Rezendez, Tyler Tarrant and 30 or 40 serious seekers I once said that 99% of conscious verbal thought (the voice in the head) is unnecessary. One of the seekers asked Tyler, "Do you agree with that?" Tyler smiled and said, "No. I'd say it's more like 99.5% of conscious thoughts are unnecessary." Yes, for some people the voice in the head suddenly stops, completely, right out of the blue. Gary Weber comes to mind as one example, but he had been a long-time meditator and yoga practitioner. It also occurs for some people with no background in meditation or existential seeking. The first guy that comes to mind in that regard was a supervisor of air traffic controllers at a large airport. Some sort of serious computer problem occurred, and while this guy was trying to resolve the issue and people in the tower were frantically running around, his internal narrative suddenly went silent. I met him later at a TAT retreat because that experience had gotten him interested in spirituality and non-duality. He told me that he was able to figure out how to resolve the problem at that time even though his mind remained totally silent. He said that he had felt like laughing at all of the people freaking out because he said, "I knew what to do without having to think a single thought." His silence lasted about a day before the internal narrative returned. I later met him again on a retreat near Lake Tahoe, and during that retreat his internal dialogue stopped for a much longer period of time. I suspect that most long-time meditators experience a more gradual reduction in thoughts rather than a sudden cessation. As you noted, various realizations can bring an end to particular patterns of thought completely, and especially self-referential patterns. Other types of thoughts can also simply cease after seeing their illusory or obscurational nature. Aside from conscious planning of future activities related to running a business, the primary thoughts that I entertain these days are, ironically, thoughts about how to use words more effectively for waking people up to THIS! Yes I thought as much - same thing, slightly differing pointers. I think of silence teaching as a kind of intermediary phase in the spiritual arc. In the consensus paradigm our attachments to form obscure our true nature. The seeking journey is often that of via negativa - negating qualities of the relative world in order that we might realise its ground. This can involve an emphasis on stillness, silence, retreat and denial of the world. This is a stage. To hang out here (as many seekers do) amounts to second mountain limbo. Once our true nature is uncovered it is realised that silence is present in the ordinary bustle of life - of course literal silence has a role to play in this too - and yes, in particular, mental chatter can be a source of obscuration - but there is no requirement to cling on in here. In the realisation of THIS, silence and the ordinary are not two. Mountain and rivers are once again… Totally agree.
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Sept 14, 2021 10:57:52 GMT -5
No disagreement with any of that. I wasn't suggesting that mental silence (no voice in the head) needs to occur. I was only stating that for those people who can be silently aware without the voice in the head, it becomes obvious that 99% of conscious thought is an unnecessary overlay that for most adults tends to obscure the difference between "what is" as opposed to the meta-reality created by ideation. Yes, we could say that subconscious mentation is occurring when driving a car in the same way that blood circulates or cuts in the skin automatically heal (an extremely complex biological phenomenon). All of the intellectual distinctions and body-knowings that we learn growing up are internalized in the mind/body organism so that for an adult conscious thought is rarely required. If it does occur, it is what the Buddha called "thinking that is not-thinking." I usually use the term "subconscious mental processing" rather than "mentation," but we're both pointing to the same thing. During a zoom satsang with Norio Kushi, Paul Rezendez, Tyler Tarrant and 30 or 40 serious seekers I once said that 99% of conscious verbal thought (the voice in the head) is unnecessary. One of the seekers asked Tyler, "Do you agree with that?" Tyler smiled and said, "No. I'd say it's more like 99.5% of conscious thoughts are unnecessary." Yes, for some people the voice in the head suddenly stops, completely, right out of the blue. Gary Weber comes to mind as one example, but he had been a long-time meditator and yoga practitioner. It also occurs for some people with no background in meditation or existential seeking. The first guy that comes to mind in that regard was a supervisor of air traffic controllers at a large airport. Some sort of serious computer problem occurred, and while this guy was trying to resolve the issue and people in the tower were frantically running around, his internal narrative suddenly went silent. I met him later at a TAT retreat because that experience had gotten him interested in spirituality and non-duality. He told me that he was able to figure out how to resolve the problem at that time even though his mind remained totally silent. He said that he had felt like laughing at all of the people freaking out because he said, "I knew what to do without having to think a single thought." His silence lasted about a day before the internal narrative returned. I later met him again on a retreat near Lake Tahoe, and during that retreat his internal dialogue stopped for a much longer period of time. I suspect that most long-time meditators experience a more gradual reduction in thoughts rather than a sudden cessation. As you noted, various realizations can bring an end to particular patterns of thought completely, and especially self-referential patterns. Other types of thoughts can also simply cease after seeing their illusory or obscurational nature. Aside from conscious planning of future activities related to running a business, the primary thoughts that I entertain these days are, ironically, thoughts about how to use words more effectively for waking people up to THIS! Yes I thought as much - same thing, slightly differing pointers. I think of silence teaching as a kind of intermediary phase in the spiritual arc. In the consensus paradigm our attachments to form obscure our true nature. The seeking journey is often that of via negativa - negating qualities of the relative world in order that we might realise its ground. This can involve an emphasis on stillness, silence, retreat and denial of the world. This is a stage. To hang out here (as many seekers do) amounts to second mountain limbo. Once our true nature is uncovered it is realised that silence is present in the ordinary bustle of life - of course literal silence has a role to play in this too - and yes, in particular, mental chatter can be a source of obscuration - but there is no requirement to cling on in here. In the realisation of THIS, silence and the ordinary are not two. Mountain and rivers are once again… My experience is that you could do worse than being "stuck" in a practice. You could be stuck in the belief that you are free when every word you write or utter, every thought, every deed belies that belief. There's a mighty steep fall from the high horse of so called Self-Realization to the ground. Some are still clinging to that even if their head is bloodied and their eye is hanging out the socket. I'm reminded of the Monty Python Black Knight. Anyways, I'm quite content stuck in my practice, but definitely not free. I can tell this, that I am not free, from the ever present desire to crack skulls. I'm still masticating the idea that thoughts can run their course without troubling the landscape. When I have a thought, if it registers, the gap between the thinker and the thought dissipates and I'm prone to follow its lead without recourse. Zd talks about thoughts losing their stickiness. I'm convinced he means well, but is hallucinating. I'm open to the notion though. How about sn analogy? A hint? How does this work? Is weed helpful?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 14, 2021 11:04:45 GMT -5
So it seems that "cultural misappropriation" has been a thing for quite some time now. A mother's grief for their son or daughter though, is quite singular. Cultural misappropriation is a ridiculous notion. Who invented basketball? I remember eating at a Cuban restaurant run by two non Cuban gay men. They did Cuban better than my mom which is saying a lot. I found it flattering and interesting. But I don't get your point. Is the mustard seed reference taken from the Bible or vice versa or are you smoking some good sh$t nowadays? ... Oh I get it now. I'm appropriating the story, but I call myself a Buddhist some times. See I'm slower than even farmer. .. well, as the Buddha is reputed to have lived about 600 years BC it would have beenm his culture that was appropriated ..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 14, 2021 11:07:44 GMT -5
I was going to comment on this as well (and actually deleted a post), but then I realized that what inavalen wrote, specifically, was that his perception was that you interpret what he describes "from the position that there is an objective physical world". Sorry, I know this is involved. It's a complicated distinction, but not quite a subtle one: he thinks that you think that he thinks there's an objective, physical world. L: FWIW, I didn't interpret his words that way. He's stated several times that for him there is no objective physical world, so I definitely don't think that he thinks that. I interpreted his words to mean that he thinks that I think that there's an objective physical world, and from my POV the idea of an objective physical world is just another idea worth throwing in the trashcan. yes, I don't think there's anyone here over 100 posts who would offer anything but a wan, overly-equivocated defense of an "objective physical reality", so, if the perception is that someone is filtering through such a lens then it's a curious one for sure.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 14, 2021 12:34:50 GMT -5
"Most people don't use the word thinking for subconscious brain processing" ... It is a misinterpretation of what I said. I don't believe I said that. Can you point where I said it to clarify? "My brain was thinking" ... We don't think with our brains, but with our minds. If by "mind" you and zd understand subconscious, that is an error. The conscious awareness isn't in the brain. It seems that you and zd still keep interpreting what I describe from the position that there is an objective physical world. I deny that. We don't think with our brains at any level; we don't sense anything with our physical senses. Those process happen at an inner level, which isn't the subconscious, but the conscious, that can be in various states of consciousness. We don't communicate with others at word level. There is no other that has direct access to my reality. "I would never say that thinking is necessary for awareness" ... Thinking is awareness. There is no thinking outside awareness. Chattering is at awareness level too. "A newborn baby has a silent brain" ... Neither a newborn, nor an animal, plant, pebble are "silent". They are aware, so they are thinking. It is obvious that we don't communicate, because we view reality differently. I'll give you another example, of seeing things differently. Monks of all denominations adopt an ascetic life. Why? Because of a misinterpretation. The same one for which some seekers believe that suffering is necessary. It is not. The entities that keep incarnating get an emotional attachment to the physical world (family, friends, ...). When they eventually are in the position to graduate, and don't need to reincarnate, they could experience an withdrawal syndrome. That is why they choose for their last incarnation a life that is lonelier, with less satisfaction, pleasure, love, ... Like when a tv series you enjoyed ends. People got a glimpse of that situation, and misinterpreted that suffering leads to ascensions, or such. It doesn't. Like in that saying: " donkeys are asses, but not all asses are donkeys". (neither confirm nor deny any political inference) So, there are entities that incarnate as monks for their last incarnation, although mostly don't, because religious fervor is a symptom of lower evolvement. Most of those monks endure ascetic lives with no benefit for their evolvemnt. Again, my position, from which I interpret everything, is that there is no objective physical reality, and that what each one of us experiences when awake and conscious is a subjective reality created by their own subconscious. That reality is a distorted perception of the wider-reality, which is "made-of" consciousness only. "Thinking is awareness." That's a definition of thinking that I've only heard one other poster express here. Most people would say, "There is awareness OF thinking or awareness OF thought," which would indicate that awareness is prior to thought, and that thoughts appear in awareness. Most sages state that rather explicitly. Niz commented on this by saying, "You can have awareness without thought, but not thought without awareness." He, Ramana, and a host of other sages have described NS as "the deepest state" because it's a state of pure awareness with neither perception nor thought. Your definition makes it pretty clear that there's no possibility for communication about that particular topic. I would guess that SDP's definition of the word "thinking" is the most commonly accepted definition by the general public and certainly the one that most posters on this forum base their comments on. BTW, just to set the record straight, you keep stating that I believe in an "objective physical reality." I suspect that many posters on this forum, as well as myself, do not think or believe that. There is a basic realization in ND that the observer and the observed are one and the same, and that any idea of twoness or separation is false. That pretty much eliminates the idea of an objective physical reality. Zen people deal with that idea in the same way that they deal with all ideas--by showing students how to communicate existential understanding without having to use words or thinking ("thinking" as defined in the way that SDP defined it). I can't, and don't tell you not to non-think. I just tell you that I believe it is an erroneous path. We use some words differently, and that adds to the misunderstanding, but obviously we have different perspectives of the wider-reality. This causes me to perceive contradictions between parts of what you say, like that phrase about seeing here and now, but saying that there is no objective reality. This is why I prefer not discussing much after expressing a point of view, because it becomes a waste of time. Surely, discussing with somebody who says or infers that they know for sure, is a quicker show-stopper.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 14, 2021 12:44:16 GMT -5
BTW, just to set the record straight, you keep stating that I believe in an "objective physical reality." I suspect that many posters on this forum, as well as myself, do not think or believe that. There is a basic realization in ND that the observer and the observed are one and the same, and that any idea of twoness or separation is false. That pretty much eliminates the idea of an objective physical reality. Zen people deal with that idea in the same way that they deal with all ideas--by showing students how to communicate existential understanding without having to use words or thinking ("thinking" as defined in the way that SDP defined it). I was going to comment on this as well (and actually deleted a post), but then I realized that what inavalen wrote, specifically, was that his perception was that you interpret what he describes "from the position that there is an objective physical world". Sorry, I know this is involved. It's a complicated distinction, but not quite a subtle one: he thinks that you think that he thinks there's an objective, physical world. You keep misspelling my screen name, I believe you do it on purpose. I dislike it. Regarding zendancer's beliefs ... This exchange started from "his seeing here and now" (paraphrased), which implies an objective reality, to which I expressed my disagreement. He won't accept my observation from principle, and will try to drown me with words and concepts that mostly mean nothing, at least to me. So as in the past we reached an impasse again, which we call impasse in communication, but it is something else.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 14, 2021 12:52:53 GMT -5
I was going to comment on this as well (and actually deleted a post), but then I realized that what inavalen wrote, specifically, was that his perception was that you interpret what he describes "from the position that there is an objective physical world". Sorry, I know this is involved. It's a complicated distinction, but not quite a subtle one: he thinks that you think that he thinks there's an objective, physical world. L: FWIW, I didn't interpret his words that way. He's stated several times that for him there is no objective physical world, so I definitely don't think that he thinks that. I interpreted his words to mean that he thinks that I think that there's an objective physical world, and from my POV the idea of an objective physical world is just another idea worth throwing in the trashcan. That contradicts this:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2021 13:10:13 GMT -5
There is no point trying to share this with someone unless they...
- have some intuition that it is possible. - have some interest in it - have some dissatisfaction with conceptual knowing.
Otherwise it's pearls before swine.
|
|
|
Post by shadowplay on Sept 14, 2021 13:41:45 GMT -5
Yes I thought as much - same thing, slightly differing pointers. I think of silence teaching as a kind of intermediary phase in the spiritual arc. In the consensus paradigm our attachments to form obscure our true nature. The seeking journey is often that of via negativa - negating qualities of the relative world in order that we might realise its ground. This can involve an emphasis on stillness, silence, retreat and denial of the world. This is a stage. To hang out here (as many seekers do) amounts to second mountain limbo. Once our true nature is uncovered it is realised that silence is present in the ordinary bustle of life - of course literal silence has a role to play in this too - and yes, in particular, mental chatter can be a source of obscuration - but there is no requirement to cling on in here. In the realisation of THIS, silence and the ordinary are not two. Mountain and rivers are once again… My experience is that you could do worse than being "stuck" in a practice. You could be stuck in the belief that you are free when every word you write or utter, every thought, every deed belies that belief. There's a mighty steep fall from the high horse of so called Self-Realization to the ground. Some are still clinging to that even if their head is bloodied and their eye is hanging out the socket. I'm reminded of the Monty Python Black Knight. Anyways, I'm quite content stuck in my practice, but definitely not free. I can tell this, that I am not free, from the ever present desire to crack skulls. I'm still masticating the idea that thoughts can run their course without troubling the landscape. When I have a thought, if it registers, the gap between the thinker and the thought dissipates and I'm prone to follow its lead without recourse. Zd talks about thoughts losing their stickiness. I'm convinced he means well, but is hallucinating. I'm open to the notion though. How about sn analogy? A hint? How does this work? Is weed helpful? Ha… it’s healthy to let off some steam. I don’t know about enlightenment or self-realisation - they seem quite mythic to me - all I can honestly report is of a ‘shift in perception’ that occurred 22 years ago where it was seen beyond any doubt that Reality is not two. I haven’t been able to shake that sensibility since then - although its intensity seems to fluctuate. It’s not a great blissful attainment or anything - I slip into old ways. But it comes with a built in resolution that whatever is arising - old ways, agitation, irritation, boredom or whatever is simply that too. That’s very powerful realisation. But it has to be a realisation - I can see that as a thought or intellectual understanding it would just be another attractive idea. If it’s blissful states and freedom from stress that’s desired then I would recommend meditation, stillness, solitude etc. I’ve found that blissful states are simply related to the thinning out of thought. That’s all. There’s no big blissful panacea to be attained. To the extent that there is a shift into a clear seeing of the obvious, thought thins out - the past and future recede - and agitation diminishes accordingly. So no, I wouldn’t demonise thinking - I always maintain that thought has its place. I’m not against practice either. Practice will happen until there’s no need to practice - and then it might continue anyway as it can be an enjoyable dive into a space where thinking completely dissolves (I meditate everyday without fail.) It’s world denying practices and attitudes that I question. Weed never agreed with me. I like a drink at the weekend but I’m quite well disciplined these days, I didn’t used to be - I’ve got scars to prove it.
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Sept 14, 2021 13:42:51 GMT -5
Even among the anointed, if they are honest, which is rare, you'd not gather a single mustard seed. but if your context is based on the mortality story.. and if you weren't high when you wrote it.. I still don't understand I'd tell you to go play with yourself, but suspect that would be like telling a cow to go moo. Anointed are the unsuffering or unsufferable Self Realized. Basically there is noone that will not know grief. Love and grief are inseparable even among Them. My envy shows, I know.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 14, 2021 13:56:26 GMT -5
L: FWIW, I didn't interpret his words that way. He's stated several times that for him there is no objective physical world, so I definitely don't think that he thinks that. I interpreted his words to mean that he thinks that I think that there's an objective physical world, and from my POV the idea of an objective physical world is just another idea worth throwing in the trashcan. That contradicts this: No, it doesn't.
|
|