Xiao
Full Member
Posts: 184
|
Post by Xiao on Sept 21, 2021 19:41:17 GMT -5
I admire your efforts but you're going to need to try a lot harder to be insulting! I don't really subscribe to any sort of denial of "apparent reality" or whatever concept you might think I believe in. I wouldn't for a minute deny the reality of this appearance, or even the notion of individuals or any of that. I am not also trying to convince anyone to give up a practice. I am surprised that some people still believe there is a locus of control or a doer within experience. I see this as simply untrue, but if you see things otherwise then what are you going to do? Just magically see things my way or I yours? We cannot understand things that we don't understand. We can't simply decide to understand them, anymore than you could decide not to understand something you do understand, like two plus two. Whatever reality is, is doing itself without any permission needed from a so-called I. That's about it for me, along with the recognition that what this is is completely ineffable (hence the appreciation of Roy's teaching and ZD's ATA). Well. I'll give it another shot. Just kidding. This is where it gets interesting. So imagine that Xiao had an affliction. He created this imaginary world made out of paper cutouts and refused to interact with real humans. His paper world became the real world. Now Xiao's parents concerned about their child's delusion took him to see the illustrious Dr. Zendancer. Now the great doctor after many sessions cured Xiao's delusion or at least Xiao claimed he realized that the socalled beings he interacted with were just paper cutouts. But Xiao was still talking to these cutouts, inviting them to the dinner table, dancing with them, romancing them. I know this seems very familiar to you. There's the insult, sorry. I couldn't stop myself. Here's the question should Xiao's parent and the esteemed doctor be concerned? See I agree that we are not what we seem, but saying other than reality is not two is a venture into beliefs, unless it's a teaching prop, IMHO. This made little sense to me, sorry! I like real humans (hell, I am one) and my experience with paper cutouts is vastly limited, but if you can explain this more directly with less metaphor I'm happy to have the dialogue. For what it's worth The Illustrious Dr. Zendancer would make an awesome comic book.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 22, 2021 6:08:42 GMT -5
Do you remember what satch used to quote Ramana Maharshi saying about the thief pretending to be a cop? Attention and awareness arise out of the Natural-State-Field. Mind is not trying to kill mind. This "natural-state-field" is a shadow, a product of your imagination, and the effort it seems to take you to get to " the present moment now, with no self-rereferential thinking" is exactly the mind trying to kill mind. What you called the " gordian knot" is constantly reinforced in these discussions with the mental positions you take in opposition to the nondual pointers. And even if you accepted this as the way it was - in that self-referential foreground - it might just be one more turn in the knot. But, it doesn't have to be that way.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Sept 22, 2021 6:59:51 GMT -5
A gordian knot is analogous to how I picture the mind-body expression, (or the 5 aggregates). It's a bit like one of those knots you can end up with in a piece of string, where you can gently tug at both ends of the string and the knot slowly begins to unravel before your eyes, …. until *poof*, it pops out of existence and all you're left with is the string. But of course, prior to that, even though the knot was only ever a contortion of the greater string, the knot apparently was. Okay, it's probably not a very good analogy.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Sept 22, 2021 7:09:34 GMT -5
Yes. What's more, the more conscious I'm being, the greater the measure of control I have. The way I see it, all that just means that the movie(s) which came to mind were subject to conditioning, that the scenario is kammic in nature. Obviously in that instant not every movie ever made is going to come to mind, and most likely the movie(s) that did come to mind were either personally impactful, or had come up in some recent experience. Due to the nature of 'the conditioned' arbitrariness is a fallacy. In the scenario, most likely a small handful of loosely formed memories/impressions associated with movies would come to mind and briefly be considered before a choice would be settled upon as to which one was offered. That choice would be kammic in nature, meaning it would both be influenced by cumulative previous action/experience and potentially serve as influence for future action/experience. That is to say the choice made would follow interest and that interest would be being reinforced at that moment. Or not as the case may be.
None of this negates choice or the notion of personal responsibility.
Naturally I see it differently, but thanks for explaining it in such detail as it really helps hone in on where the difference is. The Buddhist monk Thanissaro Bhikku has given very similar descriptions of the Buddha's teaching on karma: namely, that our present actions are conditioned by the past but not fully - otherwise the Buddha would've been teaching determinism. I see no evidence for this freedom in the present moment that supposedly exists outside of conditioning, but I understand the nuances of the position well enough as it used to be something I believed. Back in the day when I was more of a Theravada Buddhist I would've definitely agreed with your explanation down to the Pali "spelling" of karma but over the years watching the moment of decision take place led to a shift in understanding. The bolded sections are contradictory in my experience, as the consideration of choices, and the subsequent choosing are all happenings that go on without any individual being able to influence that process. Yes, it seems most of us agree there's a deterministic aspect to reality, but not whether that's all there is.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 22, 2021 7:25:51 GMT -5
Attention and awareness arise out of the Natural-State-Field. Mind is not trying to kill mind. This "natural-state-field" is a shadow, a product of your imagination, and the effort it seems to take you to get to " the present moment now, with no self-rereferential thinking" is exactly the mind trying to kill mind. What you called the " gordian knot" is constantly reinforced in these discussions with the mental positions you take in opposition to the nondual pointers. And even if you accepted this as the way it was - in that self-referential foreground - it might just be one more turn in the knot. But, it doesn't have to be that way. I'm happy for you that you have me figured out.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 22, 2021 15:29:22 GMT -5
I'm happy for you that you have me figured out. I'm not sure your well wishes are sincere.. but regardless, can a you and a me ever truly be happy? Only if you're Italian. (Minute 1:50).
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 22, 2021 16:58:53 GMT -5
I'm not sure your well wishes are sincere.. but regardless, can a you and a me ever truly be happy? Only if you're Italian. I thought you'd say: if we were gay ... as in "lighthearted and carefree" (dictionary)
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 22, 2021 17:02:13 GMT -5
This "natural-state-field" is a shadow, a product of your imagination, and the effort it seems to take you to get to " the present moment now, with no self-rereferential thinking" is exactly the mind trying to kill mind. What you called the " gordian knot" is constantly reinforced in these discussions with the mental positions you take in opposition to the nondual pointers. And even if you accepted this as the way it was - in that self-referential foreground - it might just be one more turn in the knot. But, it doesn't have to be that way. I'm happy for you that you have me figured out. You know ...
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 22, 2021 18:19:57 GMT -5
I thought you'd say: if we were gay ... as in "lighthearted and carefree" (dictionary) Toto Cutugno - L'Italiano (Sanremo '83 - 2a serata) 2,801,484 views Music By – Toto (Salvatore) Cutugno. Lyrics By – Cristiano Minellono
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2021 8:53:17 GMT -5
I'm not sure your well wishes are sincere.. but regardless, can a you and a me ever truly be happy? Only if you're Italian. (Minute 1:50).
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Sept 23, 2021 10:44:31 GMT -5
I'm not sure your well wishes are sincere.. but regardless, can a you and a me ever truly be happy? Only if you're Italian. (Minute 1:50). Just so wrong in so many ways. But good wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2021 19:28:57 GMT -5
To Fly I think, such a dream Will never return. I painted hands and face in the blue And then suddenly the wind kidnapped me And I began to fly in an infinite sky. To fly, To sing In the blue, painted in the blue, I am happy to be above. And I flew, flew happy Higher the sun and even higher While the world disappeared slowly Far away down. A sweet music played only for me. But all my dreams disappeared at the daybreak because When the moon sets, it brings them with itself. But I continue dreaming about your beautiful eyes Which are blue as the sky embroidered with stars... To fly, To sing In the blue, painted in the blue, I am happy to be above. And I flew, flew happy Higher the sun and even higher While the world disappeared slowly In your blue eyes. Your voice is a sweet music Which plays for me. To fly, To sing In the blue of your blue eyes, I am happy to be here down. We are all gay in joy but some of us have fears about their sexuality and conceal their choice by acting-out the opposite best they can hoping not to be seen whereby heat arises within, their face to the world changing to colour red. Mind, the great decider is also the decider in duality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2021 19:42:17 GMT -5
I'm happy for you that you have me figured out. I'm not sure your well wishes are sincere.. but regardless, can a you and a me ever truly be happy? Beneath happy Joy. Limited by their having chosen-information aboard they separate themselves from the Whole each choice revealing peculiarities of the Seeker.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 24, 2021 6:09:43 GMT -5
Naturally I see it differently, but thanks for explaining it in such detail as it really helps hone in on where the difference is. The Buddhist monk Thanissaro Bhikku has given very similar descriptions of the Buddha's teaching on karma: namely, that our present actions are conditioned by the past but not fully - otherwise the Buddha would've been teaching determinism. I see no evidence for this freedom in the present moment that supposedly exists outside of conditioning, but I understand the nuances of the position well enough as it used to be something I believed. Back in the day when I was more of a Theravada Buddhist I would've definitely agreed with your explanation down to the Pali "spelling" of karma but over the years watching the moment of decision take place led to a shift in understanding. The bolded sections are contradictory in my experience, as the consideration of choices, and the subsequent choosing are all happenings that go on without any individual being able to influence that process. Yes, it seems most of us agree there's a deterministic aspect to reality, but not whether that's all there is. Count me out of that "most". Determinism applies to the relative, to what appears to you, as does randomness. So, really nothing to do with what I consider "reality" to point to, at all.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 24, 2021 7:11:08 GMT -5
Yes, it seems most of us agree there's a deterministic aspect to reality, but not whether that's all there is. Count me out of that "most". Determinism applies to the relative, to what appears to you, as does randomness. So, really nothing to do with what I consider "reality" to point to, at all. Count me out, too. THIS is beyond all concepts.
|
|