|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 23, 2023 12:29:55 GMT -5
Yes, a big part of the Zhuangzi is about the limits of language and the intellect. Yes. ...Like EM Escher drawings. ...Like the question, Have you quit beating your wife? I like the useless tree story, I'm pretty-much a useless tree. Have you read the Wenzi (Wen Tzu)? It's also a Taoist classic. A big part of that book is about how a sage lives in the world and how an ideal society is supposed to look like. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 23, 2023 12:34:54 GMT -5
Huge BINGO! That's something I've tried to point out for over ten years here, what I don't get about how SR & how life works, together. It's like, OK, I see the oasis is a mirage, but then get comfortable living with the mirage. It all doesn't compute for sdp. This has been an ongoing discussion since I arrived at the forum lol I dislike the whole 'SR' thing because it lends itself to an archetype which nobody seems to wholly conform to....trying to compare Tolle with UG, or Byron Katie with Niz is a disaster. But, in the context of SR, I'd be more inclined to say that not many 'appearances' are lost, it's more that the way of experiencing them changes. The way of experiencing the person, choices, actions, emotions, feelings....it changes. Yes, exactly. I'm reminded of the film War Games. WOPER, the war computer had to learn that global thermonuclear war was futile for everyone on the planet. He learned by playing tic-tack-toe with itself. At some point tic-tack-toe isn't playable anymore. I don't see how the SR play life, seriously, anymore. Why go through the motions? Now, I understand Buddha, after seeing-through, all he did was teach. Like, he couldn't be a goat-herder I don't think. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 23, 2023 12:40:59 GMT -5
Correct. When I talk about LOA it is similar to ZD when he talks about science. In the practical everyday life, relative truth context, it is useful, but in the absolute truth context, it is meaningless. But life post SR is not lived in two divided contexts like that. The continued practice of deliberate creation post SR would have to mean a sort of lying to yourself...at least a temporary 'unseeing' of 'One singular movement,.....no causation within the dream.....absence of personal volition....no separation.'
There are indeed certain facets of experience, that even after mind's informing post SR, continue to appear and as an appearance, continue to be engaged, at least on the face of things, similar to how they were engaged in the past, but when it comes to supposed "laws" that govern what appears/arises in experience, surely the seeing through of any and all such laws, would have a depth of carry-over into day to day life, such that the person simply cannot muster up an interest to engage in what he knows to ultimately be, delusion..?
I think there is a very important distinction to be made between an appearance that continues to appear and thus be engaged with in SR, vs. the continuation of engagement of a practice that invokes an Absolute Law that governs 'how/why' stuff manifests.
If there really has been a seeing through of/an absence of the SVP...of ALL separation, then by what means does an interest in practicing LOA/deliberate creation arise? Isn't there a huge sense that "I am kidding myself," happening alongside that?
I have no idea how you can conclude that after what I've just wrote here. I think you better have this discussion with your straw Reefs and then fill me in on the results after you two have sorted it all out.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 23, 2023 12:41:12 GMT -5
Yes. ...Like EM Escher drawings. ...Like the question, Have you quit beating your wife? I like the useless tree story, I'm pretty-much a useless tree. Have you read the Wenzi (Wen Tzu)? It's also a Taoist classic. A big part of that book is about how a sage lives in the world and how an ideal society is supposed to look like. I have it, didn't read in full, mostly just browsed. After 5 & 1/2 years of most of my books being packed away, I'm slowly unpacking, haven't come across it yet. When I do I will give it a look again. Wen Tzu, Cleary I think, translator, black cover. I've read some Lieh Tzu too. Have found nobody better than Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 23, 2023 12:47:10 GMT -5
Have you read the Wenzi (Wen Tzu)? It's also a Taoist classic. A big part of that book is about how a sage lives in the world and how an ideal society is supposed to look like. I have it, didn't read in full, mostly just browsed. After 5 & 1/2 years of most of my books being packed away, I'm slowly unpacking, haven't come across it yet. When I do I will give it a look again. Wen Tzu, Cleary I think, translator, black cover. I've read some Lieh Tzu too. Have found nobody better than Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu. The last time I've read Zhuangzi was more than 20 years ago and I liked it a lot. I read Tsai Chih Chung's Zhuangzi comics just recently and noticed that it wasn't really that good after all. There are some stories that don't actually seem to belong there because they are counter-intuitive to the Taoist logic. And some of the content of the Zhuangzi book has been under question by academics for a long time. Some of it has been added later. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 23, 2023 12:52:43 GMT -5
I have it, didn't read in full, mostly just browsed. After 5 & 1/2 years of most of my books being packed away, I'm slowly unpacking, haven't come across it yet. When I do I will give it a look again. Wen Tzu, Cleary I think, translator, black cover. I've read some Lieh Tzu too. Have found nobody better than Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu. The last time I've read Zhuangzi was more than 20 years ago and I liked it a lot. I read Tsai Chih Chung's Zhuangzi comics just recently and noticed that it wasn't really that good after all. There are some stories that don't actually seem to belong there because they are counter-intuitive to the Taoist logic. And some of the content of the Zhuangzi book has been under question by academics for a long time. Some of it has been added later. Yes, they are divided between the inner chapters and the outer chapters. Only the inner chapters are considered authentic. (If memory serves me). Probably my order of favorite stories, the turtle story fishing on river pu, just leave me here to wag my tail in the mud, the wheelwright, the empty boat, maybe the funeral story?, but the one where is said, when you get the meaning of words, you can forget the words, where is the man who has forgotten words, he is the one I would like to talk to ( ), the useless tree, those come to mind, oh, the frog in a well. And I like the poet Cold Mountain. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 23, 2023 12:55:55 GMT -5
The last time I've read Zhuangzi was more than 20 years ago and I liked it a lot. I read Tsai Chih Chung's Zhuangzi comics just recently and noticed that it wasn't really that good after all. There are some stories that don't actually seem to belong there because they are counter-intuitive to the Taoist logic. And some of the content of the Zhuangzi book has been under question by academics for a long time. Some of it has been added later. Yes, they are divided between the inner chapters and the outer chapters. Only the inner chapters are considered authentic. (If memory serves me). Correct. I like the monkey trainer story. Perfectly describes the nature of our perpetual discussions here on the forum. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 23, 2023 13:02:31 GMT -5
Yes, they are divided between the inner chapters and the outer chapters. Only the inner chapters are considered authentic. (If memory serves me). Correct. I like the monkey trainer story. Perfectly describes the nature of our perpetual discussions here on the forum. Yes. No, don't like 3 in the morning and 2 in the afternoon, but 2 in the morning and 3 in the afternoon is OK. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 23, 2023 13:14:35 GMT -5
It can be like walking a tightrope, because ego can sneak back in without being noticed and make a goal of the goaless goal. So all the lazy slobs who piss all over practice have a purpose to serve, after all. One of the more astounding things to follow along with on this forum was when either granma' or E' would make a simple, short statement along the lines of "you can't practice what you are" (etc.) and then eventually they'd get giraffe'd and torched and pitchforked into being cruel, anti-meditators  . E' used to call himself the "practice curmudgeon", and I'd call him the "evil frog" that "didn't like people peeps" (...cracked me up...). Is it possible to polish a brick into a mirror? ChatGPT: It is theoretically possible to polish a brick into a mirror, but it would be a very difficult and time-consuming task. Bricks are not made of a reflective material, so it would take a lot of effort to create a surface that is smooth and shiny enough to act as a mirror. Additionally, bricks are porous, which would make it even harder to get a smooth finish. If you are looking for a mirror, it would be much easier and cost-effective to purchase one rather than trying to make one from a brick. (** chatbot snicker **) |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 23, 2023 13:19:09 GMT -5
Well, sorry, but obviously it ain't so "Supreme" if it limits itself by excluding itself from the possibility of the dream of limitation  . Who are you to write the rules for SOCI? Is it within your capacity to imagine not being bound in such a way? Fun fact: there is this old-school text editor for programmers (emacs) that goes all the way back to the mid-1970's and that just won't die. It's written in LISP, and the notation you used to explain your idea above reminded me of this, because of the way Lisp works.  I realize my view is a predilection. You used the word " impossible" I'm open to the unknown. When I did tree work we necessarily used what's called a secondary hold. You have to climb to the top of the tree to tie in safely, then you can't-fall. But, climbing, always, either two hands in contact with tree, and one foot, or two feet and one hand. IOW, I'm not ready for a free-fall, except it should just-happen. If what you say is true, I'd say that has to mean SR is also reversible. If you'll buy that, I'll buy "God" can fall into Her dream. But of course you all say, SR once seen can't be unseen. I freely admit I have a paradigm. You do too, whether you accept that or not. You're writing scripts. Who gets to write scripts, you, or "SOCI"? No, I have no "conceptual paradigm", I'm simply critiquing yours. Why speculate about the "reversibility" of something you admit is a flavor you've never tasted? Please consider that as if it came from a peer, not someone claiming to have realized anything, because the messenger for the message is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 23, 2023 13:28:52 GMT -5
It can be like walking a tightrope, because ego can sneak back in without being noticed and make a goal of the goaless goal. So all the lazy slobs who piss all over practice have a purpose to serve, after all. One of the more astounding things to follow along with on this forum was when either granma' or E' would make a simple, short statement along the lines of "you can't practice what you are" (etc.) and then eventually they'd get giraffe'd and torched and pitchforked into being cruel, anti-meditators . E' used to call himself the "practice curmudgeon", and I'd call him the "evil frog" that "didn't like people peeps" (...cracked me up...). I've always come from a place that (interior) practice-meditation comes from what you (Truly) are, already are (I've made this point numerous times). So I just ignore anyone who says practice isn't necessary, as not-understanding what-practice-Is. So, no, small s self cannot practice, but it can obstruct practice. Yeah, I understand that perspective, because I'm not unwilling to consider it, and for some folks that's the way life is going to play out, and perfectly so. The refusal to consider the converse, that practice - even as you conceive of it - has the potential to be an obstacle in and of itself, simply is what it is. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 23, 2023 13:30:56 GMT -5
Yes. SR is acausal. Which means no matter what 'you' do or don't do, 'you' cannot make it happen and 'you' also cannot prevent it from happening. So 'you' may just enjoy the moment and whatever 'you' are doing in the moment. In that sense, SDP is correct, there's no point in worrying about this SR stuff from that 'you' perspective. I have no problem with the image of being the monkey freely caught with it's orange-fist-existential questions in the jar refusing to let go.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 23, 2023 13:34:55 GMT -5
uh-oh.  The seemingly teensy ledge/precipice between the abiding ground that never changes, and the tiniest, most minute of arising distinctions, and the conflating/mixing up of 'those,' is I would say the fodder for the most intense dharma battles when it comes to Nonduality. And the thing is, to even have reference for the argument, means there is quite a depth of (at the very least least) strong conceptual understanding about Nonduality already in play.
What's essentially so...what constitutes Truth vs. what arises/appears within/to the abiding ground, AS expression...AS appearance, is easy peasy to determine when we're talking abject things/objects that are obviously temporal/changing, vs. the unchanging. But things get so much more nuanced and subtle as we start to talk bout mind's "informing" post realization.
It's apparently far too easy to mistake a facet of that mind-informing FOR the realization/seeing through/Truth itself.
It's more important than ever as this seeming "precipice" enters into conversation for cool heads to prevail...this is the point where the most sacred of ideas also enter in.
uh-oh. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 23, 2023 13:44:31 GMT -5
I've always come from a place that (interior) practice-meditation comes from what you (Truly) are, already are (I've made this point numerous times). So I just ignore anyone who says practice isn't necessary, as not-understanding what-practice-Is. So, no, small s self cannot practice, but it can obstruct practice. Yeah, I understand that perspective, because I'm not unwilling to consider it, and for some folks that's the way life is going to play out, and perfectly so. The refusal to consider the converse, that practice - even as you conceive of it - has the potential to be an obstacle in and of itself, simply is what it is. It's not a refusal to consider, it's just understanding the plain truth. I could give you a dozen quotes from Ramana that show that your suggestion is absurd. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jun 23, 2023 13:51:47 GMT -5
Question: Is it possible to polish a brick into a mirror? ChatGPT: ... A more interesting question: Is it possible to polish a brick in a mirror?
|
|
