|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 17, 2023 9:14:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 18, 2023 17:41:56 GMT -5
 It was pretty good, worth the time. The description of the end of seeking and the end of the false sense of identity were good. In the second part the whole "self"-criss-crossing-verbal maze got rather .. maizy .. not that I disagreed with much of it but it got a little repetitive. Can relate to some of what Annette said about her path, although not the suffering as the driver. But the one-pointed focus near the end, the conscious seeking, rejecting anything relative in the search, as Low said, "arouse the mind without allowing it to rest anywhere". Related to that 100%. She said offhand that "the relative isn't real", and .. ok, sure, in context I won't quibble. But, what she said about "concerns". She said that she wouldn't understand anyone who said they had any, and used the metaphor of the fan that still spins after you flip off the switch. About that, I'll write this. I can't relate to a loss of interest in the relative. I find the world now, as I did prior to the milestone she spoke about, utterly fascinating, and at times, quite exciting. And it's hard not to notice people suffering. Perhaps one difference between myself and Annette is that I never bought too deeply into the whole "this fucked-up world" ideation she refers to. Was there a "me-them" sort of war over here? Oh, definitely. Maybe its a gender thing but I just always took that for granted as the way things are, so it was never an existential issue. Did I notice that there were assholes in the world? (tee hee) of course!  Again though, just the way things are. The hoi polloi 'round here have that sayin' : "ya' gotta' take the good wit' the bad". Certainly, the big picture puts things into .. perspective (although she had a critique of that). The illusion dissolves in the midst of all sorts and manner of conditions, and in the context of an infinite potential variety of personal conditioning. I don't disagree with her suggestion to perhaps work on trauma and similar issues, but I would assure her and anyone interested in what she said that this is absolutely and completely unnecessary. One can realize the existential truth with all sorts of "bills to pay in life", and to characterize those as other than "concern" is just word magic, although Annette's explanation about context is, of course, the resolution to it: "render unto Caesar". In that realization, as one "works off those various types of debt", there is no "concern" in the big picture, but also no blindness to suffering. There is, a wide eyed awe. An embrace with wide-flung arms of infinite circumference. An existential love affair. And it has, no end of depth.  It's not that there is no depth, it's that there is an absence of depth. Despite whatever relative hardship might arise, and hardships do arise, and no, I wouldn't claim to be "unconcerned" about them.
|
|
whatever 
Again though, just the way things are. The hoi polloi 'round here have that sayin' : "ya' gotta' take the good wit' the bad". 
It's not that there is no depth, it's that there is an absence of depth. Despite whatever relative hardship might arise, and hardships do arise, and no, I wouldn't claim to be "unconcerned" about them.