|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 14, 2024 10:55:39 GMT -5
Clearly the primary characteristic of folks who are enlightened is grumpiness. I pass. THE PIVOT Tao is obscured when men understand only one of a pair of opposites, or concentrate only on a partial aspect of being.Then clear expression also becomes muddled by mere wordplay, affirming this one aspect and denying all the rest. Hence the wrangling of Confucians and Mohists; each denies what the other affirms, and affirms what the other denies. What use is this struggle to set up "No" against "Yes," and "Yes" against "No"? Better to abandon this hopeless effort and seek true light! There is nothing that cannot be seen from the standpoint of the "Not-I." And there is nothing which cannot be seen from the standpoint of the "I." If I begin by looking at anything from the viewpoint of the "Not-I," then I do not really see it, since it is "not I" that sees it. If I begin from where I am and see it as I see it, then it may also become possible for me to see it as another sees it. Hence the theory of reversal that opposites produce each other, depend on each other, and complement each other. However this may be, life is followed by death; death is followed by life. The possible becomes impossible; the impossible becomes possible. Right turns into wrong and wrong into right- the flow of life alters circumstances and thus things themselves are altered in their turn. But disputants continue to affirm and to deny the same things they have always affirmed and denied, ignoring the new aspects of reality presented by the change in conditions. The wise man therefore, instead of trying to prove this or that point by logical disputation, sees all things in the light of direct intuition. He is not imprisoned by the limitations of the "I," for the viewpoint of direct intuition is that of both "I" and "Not-1." Hence he sees that on both sides of every argument there is both right and wrong. He also sees that in the end they are reducible to the same thing, once they are related to the pivot of Tao. • When the wise man grasps this pivot, he is in the center of the circle, and there he stands while "Yes" and "No" pursue each other around the circumference. The pivot of Tao passes through the center where all affirmations and denials converge. He who grasps the pivot is at the still-point from which all movements and oppositions can be seen in their right relationship. Hence he sees the limitless possibilities of both "Yes" and "No." Abandoning all thought of imposing a limit or taking sides, he rests in direct intuition. Therefore I said: "Better to abandon disputation and seek the true light!" [ ii. '.] Chuang Tzu emphasis sdp
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 14, 2024 11:27:17 GMT -5
.. It is if we believe in the conceptual meaning of the word and it's not some kinda Truth that reflects in what we actually are. I don't know anyone who knows 100% what we are that is individuated is ______. You don't know. Anyone on the forums want to stick their neck out here and proclaim to know 100%? Sure. There is only what we are, but "what we are" is just a conceptual pointer to what is non-conceptual, non-dual, incomprehensible, and unimaginable, and can be directly apprehended as non-conceptual, non-dual, incomprehensible, unimaginable, undivided, infinite, and ineffable by THIS as THIS. WHERE IS TAO? Master Tung Kwo asked Chuang: "Show me where the Tao is found." Chuang Tzu replied: "There is nowhere it is not to be found." The former insisted: "Show me at least some definite place Where Tao is found." "It is in the ant," said Chuang. "Is it in some lesser being?" "It is in the weeds." "Can you go further down the scale of things?" "It is in this piece of tile." "Further?" "It is in this turd." At this Tung Kwo had nothing more to say. But Chuang continued: "None of your questions Are to the point. They are like the questions Of inspectors in the market, Testing the weight of pigs By prodding them in their thinnest parts. Why look for Tao by going 'down the scale of being' As if that which we call 'least' Had less of Tao? Tao is Great in all things, Complete in all, Universal in all, Whole in all. These three aspects Are distinct, but the Reality is One. "Therefore come with me To the palace of Nowhere Where all the many things are One: There at last we might speak Of what has no limitation and no end. Come with me to the land of Non-Doing: What shall we there say-that Tao Is simplicity, stillness, Indifference, purity, Harmony and ease? All these names leave me indifferent For their distinctions have disappeared. My will is aimless there. If it is nowhere, how should I be aware of it? If it goes and returns, I know not Where it has been resting. If it wanders Here then there, I know not where it will end. The mind remains undetermined in the great Void. Here the highest knowledge Is unbounded. That which gives things Their thusness cannot be delimited by things. So when we speak of 'limits,' we remain confined To limited things. The limit of the unlimited is called 'fullness.' The limitlessness of the limited is called 'emptiness.' Tao is the source of both. But it is itself Neither fullness nor emptiness. Tao produces both renewal and decay, But is neither renewal or decay. It causes being and non-being But is neither being nor non-being. Tao assembles and it destroys, But it is neither the Totality nor the Void." [xxii. 6.] Chuang Tzu
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jan 14, 2024 12:07:52 GMT -5
.. It is if we believe in the conceptual meaning of the word and it's not some kinda Truth that reflects in what we actually are. I don't know anyone who knows 100% what we are that is individuated is ______. You don't know. Anyone on the forums want to stick their neck out here and proclaim to know 100%? Sure. There is only what we are, but "what we are" is just a conceptual pointer to what is non-conceptual, non-dual, incomprehensible, and unimaginable, and can be directly apprehended as non-conceptual, non-dual, incomprehensible, unimaginable, undivided, infinite, and ineffable by THIS as THIS.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 14, 2024 12:59:26 GMT -5
laughter thinks he's correct about everything, he's not. Sure, the first belief occurs after the fact. (If you ever stub your toe, you try very hard to try-not-to stub your toe, again). But then, subsequently, beliefs control and filter our perception. So, most beliefs are before the fact. That's the nature of conditioning. inavalan is an expert on how beliefs control perception, before the fact. Superstitions are beliefs before-the-fact. Most superstitions are rather stupid, and most people even know this, but some people will lick their finger and make a cross on their windshield, anyway. Or, sprinkle a pinch of salt over their shoulder. Sure, that's how a belief system is formed. When we talk about an adult male that has already a foundational belief system in place stubbing a toe or simply feeling the sunshine on our faces will reflect that. First beliefs are adopted from others', not from "facts".
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 14, 2024 13:08:50 GMT -5
All that you know exists only in the past, and it isn't 100% reliable. The present moment has no duration. You respond only to the past: instinctual, emotional, intellectual, intuitional. Our belief system is in effect now, it is the present based upon what one has experienced thus far. The thing about the present moment, the past, the future, there is only now just open up another set of beliefs. It really is difficult for anyone to say anything when we are examining what we believe to be true or the case in these instances. I meant that our "experiences" are read from banks of memory, which makes them unreliable. The present moment is when we (as gestalts as consciousness, not only "humans") respond, make a choice, consciously or not, and that immediately becomes past read from memory, which isn't reliable. Surely, as we evolve, more of the read information becomes more reliable, even if only symbolically; we start forming and reading hypotheses that encompass larger areas of reality (no spacial connotation here).
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 14, 2024 13:17:25 GMT -5
Clearly the primary characteristic of folks who are enlightened is grumpiness. I pass. I haven't noticed that. I don't think that it is always the case, but it would be normal to feel grumpy when you've put yourself in a box you "know" you can't get out of. I believe it is temporary, in larger terms.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 14, 2024 14:10:15 GMT -5
.. It is if we believe in the conceptual meaning of the word and it's not some kinda Truth that reflects in what we actually are. I don't know anyone who knows 100% what we are that is individuated is ______. You don't know. Anyone on the forums want to stick their neck out here and proclaim to know 100%? Sure. There is only what we are, but "what we are" is just a conceptual pointer to what is non-conceptual, non-dual, incomprehensible, and unimaginable, and can be directly apprehended as non-conceptual, non-dual, incomprehensible, unimaginable, undivided, infinite, and ineffable by THIS as THIS. So you don't know 100% what you are? The thing here is that you are pointing to what is non-conceptual etc, but that is a conceptual belief isn't it. There is only what you are is also a pointer to what can't be explained which is another concept, so all we have are pointers based upon a belief of what concepts mean. The belief maybe tainted with a manner of all things, whether it be from a so called realisation or an experience had whilst of the earth plane. And even though at times some members will say burn all concepts or everything said isn't the Truth, there is still a stance taken. Your personal understanding that the person reflects a SVP is based upon a belief held to be true, to which you then associated S.R with by saying that the selfhood is seen through to be illusory or something along such lines. If everything said is only a pointer only then I don't see why peeps will argue with other's and disagree over a pointer that isn't true or touching the mark.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 14, 2024 14:16:22 GMT -5
Sure, that's how a belief system is formed. When we talk about an adult male that has already a foundational belief system in place stubbing a toe or simply feeling the sunshine on our faces will reflect that. First beliefs are adopted from others', not from "facts". Can you give me an example? I am not following you here.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 14, 2024 14:22:15 GMT -5
Our belief system is in effect now, it is the present based upon what one has experienced thus far. The thing about the present moment, the past, the future, there is only now just open up another set of beliefs. It really is difficult for anyone to say anything when we are examining what we believe to be true or the case in these instances. I meant that our "experiences" are read from banks of memory, which makes them unreliable. The present moment is when we (as gestalts as consciousness, not only "humans") respond, make a choice, consciously or not, and that immediately becomes past read from memory, which isn't reliable. Surely, as we evolve, more of the read information becomes more reliable, even if only symbolically; we start forming and reading hypotheses that encompass larger areas of reality (no spacial connotation here). I think I getcha, it's like a cross reference of previous experiences. It's when we experience something unique or different then the alarm bells start ringing and one thinks wtf is this. Then that gets integrated within our memory banks and our belief system. What I have been mainly talking about is about a belief that the experiences are happening to a self reference, rather than a reference for you. A self reference is integrated as we evolve using your terminology. So when we have someone who has a self reference that stubs their toe, they believe they have stubbed their toe and not your toe. It might take a Nano second for the event to filter through the mind-body construct but it doesn't negate the belief that is there already that reflects a me rather than a you.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 14, 2024 14:32:29 GMT -5
First beliefs are adopted from others', not from "facts". Can you give me an example? I am not following you here. An example is the telepathic connection established by a fetus, then newborn, small child, with his parents and the physical environment / reality. We were, and are connected unconsciously to everything, and according to our individual level of evolvement interpret it, and use it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 14, 2024 15:02:29 GMT -5
That's the common-mind response. It's also the response, in clarity, after mind has been informed of the existential truth. I am uncertain as to which one of those you are expressing. .. You are referring to an existential truth as something that is true as a foundation. This isn't a foundation of a realised truth, it is a mindful belief that you have associated with something that can't be explained. Going over old ground here and not sure why you are even talking to me about this. Any response is a mind response. It matters not if it's common or unique. A peep that speaks of the world being a dream world is equally expressing a mindful response based upon what they believe a dream to be. That's how I believe it works. So it seems to you, sure.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 14, 2024 15:03:36 GMT -5
That uncertainty is due in part to you posing self-inquiry as a question to me in this dialog, as I predicted that you would. .. Well I am just returning the favour and putting the ball back in your court, predictable or not. Well, at least now you're on notice of what your movement of mind in this regard really is.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 14, 2024 15:05:18 GMT -5
Gee, almost as if it's ineffable ... .. It is if we believe in the conceptual meaning of the word and it's not some kinda Truth that reflects in what we actually are. I don't know anyone who knows 100% what we are that is individuated is ______. You don't know. Anyone on the forums want to stick their neck out here and proclaim to know 100%? Ah, now you want to hypermind on "knowing". Aces. "Not-knowing" is a way, a part of a path. It's the smoke of the Zen fire you mocked, and the verve that drives one up the flagpole. It can also, come to an end. At that end, is an absence.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 14, 2024 15:05:59 GMT -5
Clearly the primary characteristic of folks who are enlightened is grumpiness. I pass. (** muttley snicker **)
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 14, 2024 15:07:16 GMT -5
This is another one we can reconcile by language. I say that the pain happens and then there's a follow-on thought and characterization by mind as to the pain. If you don't make a distinction between pain and thought, then the temporal sequence won't fit into your lexicon. But I maintain that it's a useful distinction, for a number of reasons. Or maybe it isn't a language issue. Dunno'. The belief system is in effect prior to one stubbing their toe. If we want to talk about a split second between how pain receptors and thoughts are playing catch up with one another that doesn't negate the belief in that it's your toe and not mine that's been stubbed. How the body mind construction works doesn't have any bearing on one's belief system already in place. The belief that the pain, is "mine"? Is that the "belief" you think I have? Hey, is that doooooooooofus guy I see comin' round the corner?? ....
|
|