|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Dec 19, 2023 21:52:18 GMT -5
I'd say that's all quite insightful and accurate. You see a contradiction between that and ZD's pointing, and the dialog based on that perception has no end and is just a continuation of a very very long conversation that stretches back eons. You always insist that this fourth man has the free will, and you express quite clearly how the conditioned man who consist of the driver, passenger and rig are simply clockwork puppets. But notice how your appeals to free will are always described in terms of conditions and conditioning. You, are not a machine. . I've never said anything about the 4th man, only that ~he~ (the owner of the carriage) is absent. Basically, " A man is unable to explain what he himself really is", so I would never try to put That into words. The rocks are shouting the answer to you. Yet, you can not hear it. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Dec 19, 2023 23:11:45 GMT -5
Never. I've never said anything about the 4th man, only that ~he~ (the owner of the carriage) is absent. Basically, " A man is unable to explain what he himself really is", so I would never try to put That into words. The rocks are shouting the answer to you. Yet, you can not hear it. That's what ' acausal' is: bellow one's threshold of perception and / or understanding. One's 'acausal' is another's ... One's 'random' is another's ...  This doesn't mean that the other's '...' aren't distortions too. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 20, 2023 7:01:44 GMT -5
Do you think that ZD's pointing denies evolution and different states of consciousness? ZD has said explicitly dozen of times these are superfluous (my word) in relation to SR-TR (and you know that). According to ZD, there is nothing which can evolve. He has told me numerous times, explicitly, there are not different states of consciousness. Re-read the question. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 20, 2023 7:03:25 GMT -5
I'd say that's all quite insightful and accurate. You see a contradiction between that and ZD's pointing, and the dialog based on that perception has no end and is just a continuation of a very very long conversation that stretches back eons. You always insist that this fourth man has the free will, and you express quite clearly how the conditioned man who consist of the driver, passenger and rig are simply clockwork puppets. But notice how your appeals to free will are always described in terms of conditions and conditioning. You, are not a machine. . I've never said anything about the 4th man, only that ~he~ (the owner of the carriage) is absent. Basically, "A man is unable to explain what he himself really is", so I would never try to put That into words. Describe free will in terms that don't involve conditions or conditioning.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 20, 2023 7:03:38 GMT -5
Never. I've never said anything about the 4th man, only that ~he~ (the owner of the carriage) is absent. Basically, " A man is unable to explain what he himself really is", so I would never try to put That into words. The rocks are shouting the answer to you. Yet, you can not hear it.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 20, 2023 7:06:33 GMT -5
To you it might seem that awareness is "your" awareness, but "it" is as untouchable and indivisible in reality as it might seem to you to be subtle. What is pointed to takes no skill, and is not a reward for hard work. All of that is what appears to you, and is ultimately transient. There is no way for practice to make perfect what is already very simply, as it is. There is better and worse, noble and profane, the accomplished and the underachiever. Who is more contemptible, the beggar, or the lord? The context is Chuang Tzu. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The first time I read the Zen story (probably at least 40 years ago) of the *young dude student* meditating to become enlightened and the *old dude Master* rubbing two bricks together to make a mirror, I understood it perfectly. I agree. The alchemical principle: "To make gold you have to have some gold" applies here. I, me, self, can't practice. All I, me, self can do is get out of the way. I, me, self is always and only a self-perpetuating-feed-back-loop, a house of cards, a house of warped carnival mirrors, a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat (but not nothing). And yet you invoke Michael Jordan and his thousands of hours in your objection to acausality.  You don't see the contradiction? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 20, 2023 7:07:17 GMT -5
The rocks are shouting the answer to you. Yet, you can not hear it. That's what ' acausal' is: bellow one's threshold of perception and / or understanding. One's 'acausal' is another's ... One's 'random' is another's ... This doesn't mean that the other's '...' aren't distortions too. Acausal is neither random, nor non-random.  |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 20, 2023 10:38:40 GMT -5
I'd say that's all quite insightful and accurate. You see a contradiction between that and ZD's pointing, and the dialog based on that perception has no end and is just a continuation of a very very long conversation that stretches back eons. You always insist that this fourth man has the free will, and you express quite clearly how the conditioned man who consist of the driver, passenger and rig are simply clockwork puppets. But notice how your appeals to free will are always described in terms of conditions and conditioning. You, are not a machine. . I've never said anything about the 4th man, only that ~he~ (the owner of the carriage) is absent. Basically, "A man is unable to explain what he himself really is", so I would never try to put That into words. Ineffable, right. Are you implying you are That? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 20, 2023 12:08:08 GMT -5
Never. I've never said anything about the 4th man, only that ~he~ (the owner of the carriage) is absent. Basically, "A man is unable to explain what he himself really is", so I would never try to put That into words. Describe free will in terms that don't involve conditions or conditioning. I just deleted from my signature (to make room for what's presently there), I'll try to recreate it. It had been there for weeks if not months. The only real [free will] choice we have in life is where to place our attention (self-observation) and what awareness is aware of (self-remembering). That is as sincere as I can be. Everything else just happens and when it happens, happens in the only way it can happen. I've never said or implied anything different (but some things are complicated). You can't do emphasis in the signature, or I would (have). Not to go back and look, but I think involve is a new word. Now, things can change way, way, way, way, way down the road, but this is square one, where we start, from. And, "A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step". You can't build a second story without a first story. And, first you have to sail a dingy. It's kind of obvious I don't write about way, way, way, way, way down the road. However, just to add, no amount of "doing" [operating through the functions, and from-the conditioning, the illusory *self*] brings about change (things change, but not at our doing). But change happens with self-observation and self-remembering, change as in things happen differently. Still no doing, [except as stated]. {sdp resists writing more words. That doesn't mean sdp resists writing more words, it's just what is occurring}. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 20, 2023 12:25:55 GMT -5
The context is Chuang Tzu. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The first time I read the Zen story (probably at least 40 years ago) of the *young dude student* meditating to become enlightened and the *old dude Master* rubbing two bricks together to make a mirror, I understood it perfectly. I agree. The alchemical principle: "To make gold you have to have some gold" applies here. I, me, self, can't practice. All I, me, self can do is get out of the way. I, me, self is always and only a self-perpetuating-feed-back-loop, a house of cards, a house of warped carnival mirrors, a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat (but not nothing). And yet you invoke Michael Jordan and his thousands of hours in your objection to acausality. You don't see the contradiction? Read my post above (reply to you). The same goes for Michael Jordan. The same goes for everybody. You know the 15 puzzle? If there were not one open space, nothing could ever happen. Change occurs because of the "empty square". The same goes for Bobby Fischer, and his World Chess Championship, and his going nuts. It all just happened. You can skip to minute 12. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 20, 2023 12:30:48 GMT -5
Never. I've never said anything about the 4th man, only that ~he~ (the owner of the carriage) is absent. Basically, "A man is unable to explain what he himself really is", so I would never try to put That into words. Ineffable, right. Are you implying you are That? I'm just referring to the quote. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 20, 2023 12:32:30 GMT -5
Describe free will in terms that don't involve conditions or conditioning. I just deleted from my signature (to make room for what's presently there), I'll try to recreate it. It had been there for weeks if not months. The only real [free will] choice we have in life is where to place our attention (self-observation) and what awareness is aware of (self-remembering). That is as sincere as I can be. Everything else just happens and when it happens, happens in the only way it can happen. I've never said or implied anything different (but some things are complicated). You can't do emphasis in the signature, or I would (have). Not to go back and look, but I think involve is a new word. Now, things can change way, way, way, way, way down the road, but this is square one, where we start, from. And, "A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step". You can't build a second story without a first story. And, first you have to sail a dingy. It's kind of obvious I don't write about way, way, way, way, way down the road. However, just to add, no amount of "doing" [operating through the functions, and from-the conditioning, the illusory *self*] brings about change (things change, but not at our doing). But change happens with self-observation and self-remembering, change as in things happen differently. Still no doing, [except as stated]. {sdp resists writing more words. That doesn't mean sdp resists writing more words, it's just what is occurring}. Just curious, but why would one think that where one places attention is a free will choice? Where does the idea come from that one should place one's attention anywhere other than where it is? I understand that G may have said this, but what thought would suggest that G's admonition should be followed? Where would that thought come from? The underlying question would be "Who or what is it that thinks thoughts?" If the answer to that question is discovered, it will resolve the issue of free will or the lack of free will. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 20, 2023 12:58:56 GMT -5
I just deleted from my signature (to make room for what's presently there), I'll try to recreate it. It had been there for weeks if not months. The only real [free will] choice we have in life is where to place our attention (self-observation) and what awareness is aware of (self-remembering). That is as sincere as I can be. Everything else just happens and when it happens, happens in the only way it can happen. I've never said or implied anything different (but some things are complicated). You can't do emphasis in the signature, or I would (have). Not to go back and look, but I think involve is a new word. Now, things can change way, way, way, way, way down the road, but this is square one, where we start, from. And, "A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step". You can't build a second story without a first story. And, first you have to sail a dingy. It's kind of obvious I don't write about way, way, way, way, way down the road. However, just to add, no amount of "doing" [operating through the functions, and from-the conditioning, the illusory *self*] brings about change (things change, but not at our doing). But change happens with self-observation and self-remembering, change as in things happen differently. Still no doing, [except as stated]. {sdp resists writing more words. That doesn't mean sdp resists writing more words, it's just what is occurring}. Just curious, but why would one think that where one places attention is a free will choice? Where does the idea come from that one should place one's attention anywhere other than where it is? I understand that G may have said this, but what thought would suggest that G's admonition should be followed? Where would that thought come from? Essence is like a seed or an egg, essence is a seed. A seed is self-germinating (under the right conditions). Some people are just lucky in that essence wishes to emerge from the egg, crack the eggshell. So it comes from within, from deeper-than and previous-to the conditioned self, the conditioning we mis-take as a self. The empty square in a 15 puzzle is necessary. No empty square, an egg remains an egg. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 20, 2023 14:01:47 GMT -5
And yet you invoke Michael Jordan and his thousands of hours in your objection to acausality. You don't see the contradiction? Read my post above (reply to you). The same goes for Michael Jordan. The same goes for everybody. You know the 15 puzzle? If there were not one open space, nothing could ever happen. Change occurs because of the "empty square". The same goes for Bobby Fischer, and his World Chess Championship, and his going nuts. It all just happened. You can skip to minute 12. Yeah, sorry, but if you're not willing to acknowledge the contradiction then you've lost my interest. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 20, 2023 14:13:01 GMT -5
OK. I confess I am reading IRT a new book, at Wendy's. (Concerning one of my pet peeves with ZD). This was a response to a question. "Human beings have the ability to think, to reason. They can consider many problems and act upon their conclusions with relative freedom. Therefore, humans beings have the freedom to choose the wrong way; they have the power to act against the natural rule or standard state of the Universe, to willfully upset the natural balance. Since they have that freedom, I think they also have an obligation to get back on the right track, to regain the state of natural balance and follow the rule of the Universe. Stones, pebbles, and tiles do not have any intellectual ability. Therefore they are always in balance. This is the situation. Human beings are very great. They are superior to other animals and things in the Universe. But because of that greatness or superiority, they also have a great obligation; that us, to follow the right way -to be balanced. That's why we should practice zazen". Gudo Nishijima, A Talk on Pursuing the Truth, a commentary on Bendowa, the first chapter in Dogen's book Shobogenzo, 2023 I've been reading some Gudo for about ten years. I consider him in the top five of modern-day-Zen Buddhists, probably top 2 or 3. I'd say that's all quite insightful and accurate. You see a contradiction between that and ZD's pointing, and the dialog based on that perception has no end and is just a continuation of a very very long conversation that stretches back eons. You always insist that this fourth man has the free will, and you express quite clearly how the conditioned man who consist of the driver, passenger and rig are simply clockwork puppets. But notice how your appeals to free will are always described in terms of conditions and conditioning. You, are not a machine. You switched in terms of to don't involve. |
|
This doesn't mean that the other's '...' aren't distortions too.
You don't see the contradiction?
