|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 2, 2023 9:18:20 GMT -5
Doesn't bother me, it's just worth mentioning is all.  This is why I have the view I do, that we are two, essence, and personality/persona/mask/small s self. The small s self is just a complicated neural network of memory-programs, gestalts of "video recordings". For most people, their living essence is buried under the neural network. The small s self chokes the life out of most people, quite literally. Not the small-s-self, but exclusively small-s-self identification chokes the life out of most people. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 2, 2023 9:40:21 GMT -5
Just to be clear, from my POV there is no "end to the journey" because how THIS will unfold is unknowable. THIS is infinite and beyond concept (including the concept of a beginning or an end). If one discovers that there are no boundaries (except in imagination) and that all thoughts about reality are imaginary, then THIS/the Unborn is the only thingless thing that is capable of contemplating its own isness, asking questions, finding answers, or doing anything else. What will THIS, manifesting as a human being, do next? It's like asking, "What thought will occur next?" Seeking usually comes to an end as soon as realizations occur that result in peace of mind, and that will vary from human to human. Some people have dozens of questions/issues that need to be resolved, and some people have very few. I go for a walk every day or so, and I carry along a pen and something to write on because while walking in silence thoughts will suddenly appear that suggest possible future courses of action. Today I was walking past a piece of property that I've thought about buying for improvement and resale. I hadn't pursued the issue because the property is rocky and might not have enough topsoil for a septic system for a 3 bedroom home. In the past I thought about making an offer and putting in a contingency that the property be approved by the environmental authorities. I would have to initiate a purchase contract, stake out a future home and driveway, and then pay the environmental office $1000 to get an inspector to determine if they would approve it for a 3 bedroom home. If they refused to approve it, I would exercise the contingency and lose $1000. Today, as I walked by the property, it suddenly dawned on me that I could pay a soil scientist $150 for an unofficial opinion that would give me a good sense of whether the property would be approved or not. A new idea right out of the subconscious! I can meet a soils guy at the property, describe the potential layout, and not have to stake anything out. He could punch a few holes in the ground, look at the soils, and give me an opinion. If negative, I'm only out $150. If positive, I make an offer, do the stakeout, pay $1000, and the odds for success would be worth the effort and risk. Gotta love how THIS comes up with new ideas!  A pen and something to write on? I would have used the voice recorder on my phone because then you could keep on walking while you're talking. I used to do that, but I always forgot to replay the notes.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2023 9:44:38 GMT -5
A pen and something to write on? I would have used the voice recorder on my phone because then you could keep on walking while you're talking. I used to do that, but I always forgot to replay the notes. Actually I think you've got a point there. I seem to recall a study showing that if you write something down it sticks more in the mind than if you just try and remember it and that would extend to recording your voice. What I mean is the act of writing makes it stick without having to refer back to read what you wrote if that makes sense. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 2, 2023 11:25:37 GMT -5
This is why I have the view I do, that we are two, essence, and personality/persona/mask/small s self. The small s self is just a complicated neural network of memory-programs, gestalts of "video recordings". For most people, their living essence is buried under the neural network. The small s self chokes the life out of most people, quite literally. These structures are all just interpretations of mind about the forms that are constantly coming and going. The machine, once seen for what it is, isn't mistaken for what you are. It really is that simple, but there's no algorithm that can lead to that "seeing", because it's not mechanistic. No problem with any of that. The problem is most of you seem content to keep functioning through "these structures are just interpretations of mind". You (plural) don't seem to understand how interpreting and how restricting the conditioning is. But I also understand sdp can do nothing about that, but I just keep pointing it out. The earlier post about ~getting around self~, is just this. When someone begins to approach just how restricting (small s) self is, that's (for sdp) just the beginning of awakening. "The machine, once seen for what it is", can be...what used to come up often...a kind of identity poker, a kind of bait and switch. In a manner of speaking, the (small s) self just wants to live to ~fight~ another day. (For me, us) spiritual practice is about taking the energy out of the structure that forms the (small s) self, this lessons the stranglehold of the complex network, which intercepts and interprets, virtually everything. So, I always suspect when anyone says you only need to see once, and then the (small s) self isn't mistaken for what you are. You basically (IMV) have to see every moment of every day "the machine" isn't what you are. What sees, you are correct, isn't the machine. All (true) spiritual practice is about *~being on the side of~* What sees. If one is "practicing" from the side of the small s self, I agree, that's not (true) spiritual practice. That's why Dogen could say: Practice is enlightenment, enlightenment is practice. So, saying again, there's a problem when one sees, and then merely goes right back to functioning through the (small s) self (IMV). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 2, 2023 11:28:47 GMT -5
This is why I have the view I do, that we are two, essence, and personality/persona/mask/small s self. The small s self is just a complicated neural network of memory-programs, gestalts of "video recordings". For most people, their living essence is buried under the neural network. The small s self chokes the life out of most people, quite literally. Not the small-s-self, but exclusively small-s-self identification chokes the life out of most people. Most people is very broad, anywhere from 51% to 99%. Most people *~think they are~* the small s self. But, see my reply to laughter above. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 2, 2023 11:30:39 GMT -5
Schopenhauer's, or Einstein's quoting Schopenhauer (both native German speakers)? I thought that to be relevant information. The context (in that English translation, see the attachment), says a little more about what Schopenhauer meant. On the other hand, it doesn't matter what Schopenhauer intended to say, but what one infers from it intuitively. Isn't it?  Schopenhauer was an interesting character. He read and studied the Upanishads which had just become available in Latin. It had a major impact on his world view and philosophy. Schopenhauer was, to my knowledge, the first of the Western philosophers who was pointing directly to what we here call the impersonal perspective with his concept of 'the will'. He also studied Buddhism. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 3, 2023 5:55:56 GMT -5
These structures are all just interpretations of mind about the forms that are constantly coming and going. The machine, once seen for what it is, isn't mistaken for what you are. It really is that simple, but there's no algorithm that can lead to that "seeing", because it's not mechanistic. No problem with any of that. The problem is most of you seem content to keep functioning through "these structures are just interpretations of mind". You (plural) don't seem to understand how interpreting and how restricting the conditioning is. But I also understand sdp can do nothing about that, but I just keep pointing it out. The earlier post about ~getting around self~, is just this. When someone begins to approach just how restricting (small s) self is, that's (for sdp) just the beginning of awakening. "The machine, once seen for what it is", can be...what used to come up often...a kind of identity poker, a kind of bait and switch. In a manner of speaking, the (small s) self just wants to live to ~fight~ another day. (For me, us) spiritual practice is about taking the energy out of the structure that forms the (small s) self, this lessons the stranglehold of the complex network, which intercepts and interprets, virtually everything. So, I always suspect when anyone says you only need to see once, and then the (small s) self isn't mistaken for what you are. You basically (IMV) have to see every moment of every day "the machine" isn't what you are. What sees, you are correct, isn't the machine. All (true) spiritual practice is about *~being on the side of~* What sees. If one is "practicing" from the side of the small s self, I agree, that's not (true) spiritual practice. That's why Dogen could say: Practice is enlightenment, enlightenment is practice. So, saying again, there's a problem when one sees, and then merely goes right back to functioning through the (small s) self (IMV). The depth of complexity of the machine is such that it far exceeds the ability of your mind to encompass any abstraction of it that isn't essentially a stick-figure cartoon. In terms of practice, you can gain ever subtler and finer gradations of attentivness and awareness that aren't limited by the capacity to abstract, but still, the same ultimate limitations apply because as you yourself point out, you're dealing with conditioning, and you only ever eventually replace one set of conditioning with another. You're incorrect to assume and assert that I don't see the restrictions for what they are, and I've already offered you that point, directly. There's certainly a place for examination, directed either inward or outward, and becoming conscious of the content and dynamic of mind, the process of getting present, is the best advice anyone looking for spiritual advice can hope to get - except for certain circumstances. Each individual will have a different arc in this regard. Some people might "need to do more work", some, less. But ultimately, the absence that is unconditional peace won't be found by doing, studying, or any type of practice. Certainly, people can get to a point by doing this kind of work that they achieve certain states of deep and long-lasting equilibrium, but 'pilgrim, if you've made that work an end, in and of itself, then there's a major opportunity waiting for you to set that aside. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 3, 2023 10:14:56 GMT -5
No problem with any of that. The problem is most of you seem content to keep functioning through "these structures are just interpretations of mind". You (plural) don't seem to understand how interpreting and how restricting the conditioning is. But I also understand sdp can do nothing about that, but I just keep pointing it out. The earlier post about ~getting around self~, is just this. When someone begins to approach just how restricting (small s) self is, that's (for sdp) just the beginning of awakening. "The machine, once seen for what it is", can be...what used to come up often...a kind of identity poker, a kind of bait and switch. In a manner of speaking, the (small s) self just wants to live to ~fight~ another day. (For me, us) spiritual practice is about taking the energy out of the structure that forms the (small s) self, this lessons the stranglehold of the complex network, which intercepts and interprets, virtually everything. So, I always suspect when anyone says you only need to see once, and then the (small s) self isn't mistaken for what you are. You basically (IMV) have to see every moment of every day "the machine" isn't what you are. What sees, you are correct, isn't the machine. All (true) spiritual practice is about *~being on the side of~* What sees. If one is "practicing" from the side of the small s self, I agree, that's not (true) spiritual practice. That's why Dogen could say: Practice is enlightenment, enlightenment is practice. So, saying again, there's a problem when one sees, and then merely goes right back to functioning through the (small s) self (IMV). The depth of complexity of the machine is such that it far exceeds the ability of your mind to encompass any abstraction of it that isn't essentially a stick-figure cartoon. In terms of practice, you can gain ever subtler and finer gradations of attentivness and awareness that aren't limited by the capacity to abstract, but still, the same ultimate limitations apply because as you yourself point out, you're dealing with conditioning, and you only ever eventually replace one set of conditioning with another.You're incorrect to assume and assert that I don't see the restrictions for what they are, and I've already offered you that point, directly. There's certainly a place for examination, directed either inward or outward, and becoming conscious of the content and dynamic of mind, the process of getting present, is the best advice anyone looking for spiritual advice can hope to get - except for certain circumstances. Each individual will have a different arc in this regard. Some people might "need to do more work", some, less. But ultimately, the absence that is unconditional peace won't be found by doing, studying, or any type of practice. Certainly, people can get to a point by doing this kind of work that they achieve certain states of deep and long-lasting equilibrium, but 'pilgrim, if you've made that work an end, in and of itself, then there's a major opportunity waiting for you to set that aside. OK, good post, I won't unfold all of it, just what's important, the highlights. From ~my~ perspective, this is incorrect. The (our) aim is to empty the centers of their contents, the contents consists of the conditioning, thoughts, (mostly negative) feelings/emotions, learned body-actions. That doesn't mean replace the conditioning with other conditioning. That's most pertinent. (For those who follow the Tao, something is unlearned every day. Lao Tzu TTC). For ~us~ there is no place for examination [see note below*]. Yes, to this. This teaching cannot be understood in terms of anything else, that's the dilemma I face trying to post here. So I don't write about my aims, except in a general way: First you have to row a little boat. Always, I try to point to, no matter where you are or where you think you are, there's further. Many times when I had a question, the words came, Just observe it. Basically, whatever happens, just observe whatever comes up. That's why we don't analyze, thus: "The depth of the complexity of the machine is such that it far exceeds the ability of your mind to encompass any abstraction...etc...". If someone said, but, what if... the answer was, then observe that. Basically, I was taught from day one, and every meeting, ~you~ are not what you think, you are not what you feel, you are not what you do. I was taught from day one to notice sensations (from the five senses). After six months I was taught to how to observe body-actions/how the body moves, and feelings and thoughts, but the important thing was not what one observes (and again, no analysis, maybe for a very long time), but what observes, and how to remember oneself. And, (then and thusly) you have to find your essence. But, basically, analysis* is like using a toothpick to try to move a boulder. So, again, good post. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 10, 2023 3:05:16 GMT -5
Headline: - "Childhood obesity soaring as ‘fat-shaming’ is bad and exercise is racist"
This is an example of a pinhead (Nicole Saphier, M.D.) trying to fix real problems: child obesity, wokeness. Obviously her formulation distracts and misses the mark. Surely: ‘ fat-shaming’ is bad, and not only because it is mean, but because it focuses on the problem, and induces negative emotions. You have to focus on what you want, healthy weight, not on what you don't want. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 10, 2023 18:27:40 GMT -5
Do Bad Things Really Come In 3's? You create your reality! Somewhat I agree, but mostly I disagree. I agree that there is no external force that impose on us bad things, and even less that it groups them in 3's. On the other hand, it doesn't explain the anecdotal evidence. Blindly negating is as "bad" as blindly accepting. Dismissing the "number three in Western culture" is an example of short-sight, and arrogance. For those who believe, or at least suspect that there is a reality to "bad things come in threes", that becomes an example of creating reality. - Something bad happens.
- You start to worry, because you know that "bad things come in threes". So, you attract / create another bad event.
- This confirms your belief that a bad thing doesn't come alone, and now you're worried what'll be the third bad thing. The shoe drops: the third bad thing happens!
- Now you feel a relief: three bad things happened, so you don't need to worry anymore. Guess what: no more bad things happen!
You create your reality! |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 10, 2023 22:42:31 GMT -5
Do Bad Things Really Come In 3's? You create your reality! Somewhat I agree, but mostly I disagree. I agree that there is no external force that impose on us bad things, and even less that it groups them in 3's. On the other hand, it doesn't explain the anecdotal evidence. Blindly negating is as "bad" as blindly accepting. Dismissing the "number three in Western culture" is an example of short-sight, and arrogance. For those who believe, or at least suspect that there is a reality to "bad things come in threes", that becomes an example of creating reality. - Something bad happens.
- You start to worry, because you know that "bad things come in threes". So, you attract / create another bad event.
- This confirms your belief that a bad thing doesn't come alone, and now you're worried what'll be the third bad thing. The shoe drops: the third bad thing happens!
- Now you feel a relief: three bad things happened, so you don't need to worry anymore. Guess what: no more bad things happen!
You create your reality! Replying to myself ... During my almost daily walk, I pass by a few homes with pet-dogs. As we've never been introduced, they see me as a potential threat to their territory, so when I approach they start barking (usually from behind windows, doors, garage doors, ...). The barking gets more and more "threatening", until I pass that house and I start leaving it behind, when the barking gradually quiets down to an end. I guess that from this chain of events, the dog concludes that his barking chased me away. So, next time he barks with even more conviction that he's acting effectively, chasing away the intruder. I love dogs. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2023 0:47:39 GMT -5
Sometimes it's best just to fix or change things. There's a story about one of Papaji's followers who asked him what he should do about the terrible noise from his next door neighbor who was up all night repairing motorbikes. What should I do he asked to find peace amidst all this racket. Can you tell me if there's some kind of special practice I should do to alleviate this disturbance to my mind. There was a pause as Papaji thought about it and then he replied, "move to a quieter neighborhood".
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 13, 2023 9:46:49 GMT -5
Last night I think I figured out what Gopal is doing. He has had certain realizations, and from those has built a conceptual structure. So now the conceptual structure has ~taken over~, Gopal has to fit all his experience within that conceptual structure. That's not possible. A model can inform experience, but experience does not always conform to the model. We don't always have to start from scratch, be we have to be open to anything. We can't play Procrustes.
But we all do this, even with each other, we see others through our paradigm.
|
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jan 13, 2023 10:39:15 GMT -5
Last night I think I figured out what Gopal is doing. He has had certain realizations, and from those has built a conceptual structure. So now the conceptual structure has ~taken over~, Gopal has to fit all his experience within that conceptual structure. That's not possible. A model can inform experience, but experience does not always conform to the model. We don't always have to start from scratch, be we have to be open to anything. We can't play Procrustes. You? Open to anything? What a put on. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2023 12:20:28 GMT -5
Last night I think I figured out what Gopal is doing. He has had certain realizations, and from those has built a conceptual structure. So now the conceptual structure has ~taken over~, Gopal has to fit all his experience within that conceptual structure. That's not possible. A model can inform experience, but experience does not always conform to the model. We don't always have to start from scratch, be we have to be open to anything. We can't play Procrustes. But we all do this, even with each other, we see others through our paradigm. What conceptual structure? Are you perceiving the tree or your brain physical thing is perceiving the tree? If your brain is perceiving, then are you your brain? If you are your brain, then how does the people who experience out of body experience perceives their own body? Once again are you perceiving the tree or your brain? |
|
