|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 15, 2024 18:34:12 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm aware of that....there have been tests on people that have imagined lifting weights, and they discovered the muscles respond! Same with playing piano, one can imagine playing the piano, and the fingers start to change. Imagination can be SUPER wonderful. I see 'maya' as a useful concept, specifically to create a context to point away from it i.e to Source. Which is fine, and has its place, but it's still dualistic (the mind creates division between 'maya' and 'Source') Sometimes I think it's valid to point away from that dualism, or to at least notice that the mind is creating it. One way of doing that is the wave/ocean analogy. This is my best ZD impression: It's mind which creates the division. There is no division until the mind imagines it. I'm not so sure. I'd say there is a kind of morphogenetic field that the majority of people participate-in. IOW, Maya does exist, as a morphogenetic field. (IOW, it's not just a concept). Maybe satch can help me on this. well, just to clarify, I'm also not saying there is no division. But, I still think it's useful to notice mind's participation in the division-making. Logically, I'd say that mind can only create divisions, because there is some kind of basis of 'universal differences' to work with. Otherwise, how would mind create divisions? To use a Tenka word....the mind needs a 'reference' point, it needs a palette to work from. So my view is that it's good to notice how mind creates division, and it's fine for mind to naturally create division. It's the attachment TO the divisions that is the problem. I may have drifted off subject there. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 15, 2024 19:52:19 GMT -5
This is my best ZD impression: It's mind which creates the division. There is no division until the mind imagines it. I'm not so sure. I'd say there is a kind of morphogenetic field that the majority of people participate-in. IOW, Maya does exist, as a morphogenetic field. (IOW, it's not just a concept). Maybe satch can help me on this. well, just to clarify, I'm also not saying there is no division. But, I still think it's useful to notice mind's participation in the division-making. Logically, I'd say that mind can only create divisions, because there is some kind of basis of 'universal differences' to work with. Otherwise, how would mind create divisions? To use a Tenka word....the mind needs a 'reference' point, it needs a palette to work from. So my view is that it's good to notice how mind creates division, and it's fine for mind to naturally create division. It's the attachment TO the divisions that is the problem. I may have drifted off subject there. . |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 16, 2024 1:31:03 GMT -5
Off to RM re-education camp. I've heard Laffy and ZD are fashioning an ND gulag.  Who's is there to re-educate (muh-ha!-ha!) |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jan 16, 2024 7:54:02 GMT -5
When you love even your enemies, even Texans and cats, ethics and morals, right and wrong seem artificial and you're unlikely to kick one.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 16, 2024 9:56:35 GMT -5
When you love even your enemies, even Texans and cats, ethics and morals, right and wrong seem artificial and you're unlikely to kick one. I remember a scene from the Max von Sydow version of Jesus, The Greatest Story Ever Told, on TV, from when I was young(er). They (the 12) were out alone, kind of camping. Suddenly, Peter got up ramping and raving, he was angry someone took his coat, he was just spitting fire. And then Max said: "I took your coat". That just stopped Peter cold, he was just befuddled (like, how could you take my coat?). That's all I specifically remember, it made a deep impression on me, Jesus did an object lesson. (Of course that part's not in scripture). But I vaguely recall Jesus explaining, he launches into: Peter, if someone takes your coat, give him your cloak also (that is in scripture). What Jesus was pointing out, what you do to others, you are doing to yourself, the Golden Rule (basically, karma). So simple, yet so hard to do. Jesus continually pointed out, this is what you are really like inside. He made the teaching concrete. Another example, we are told, a bunch of Jews were going to stone a woman for adultery, they were most probably just trying to test Jesus. Then Jesus drew something in the sand, we aren't told what. Then he said, he that is without sin, you can cast the first stone. ...and then they all walked away. Yes, everything is about what we are like inside. Not so easy to see our insides. That reminds me of the 6th Patriarch. The 5th Patriarch gave him the bowl and the robe, and told him to get out of Dodge, because the rest of the monks are not going to understand. And a couple of very bad-dude monks went after him, to take back the robe and bowl, they were ready for some bruising and probably slicing, and found him. He just said, you want the bowl and robe, here, take the bowl and robe. This brought about some kind of flipflop in the bad dude, he immediately became a disciple of the 6th Patriarch. That's what I remember, probably leaving something out. Some people don't like to be shown what they are like, some are thirsting for it, but don't know it, until they are shown it. The con artist is like a gate keeper, difficult to get past. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 17, 2024 7:52:23 GMT -5
From the many possible analogies, I'll pick one about a kid, who can't swim, intending to become a swimming champion. He isn't a combination of a swimming champion and a non-swimmer, the latter holding back the former, the latter needing to be taken away, idled, or killed. Or, let's say I design an electric / electronic device. Then I start to build and debug it until I eventually have it working as I intended to. All this process is part of my training and working to become such a designer, to be better and better at it, to be more successful professionally, get recognition and benefits for me, my family, the company I work for, the industry, my country, humanity. When debugging the device I designed, that isn't a combination of a perfectly functional device and a device that functions chaotically. I am not a combination of an accomplished designer and an incompetent one. There is no Con Artist.This is very good, about eight minutes. The beginning is the most important part. Alan Watts gives the distinction between ~what's real~ and then ego, which isn't real. Cheri Huber equates what she calls the con artist, to ego, the way Watts describes ego and the way Huber describes ego, are the same. You just have to get this, or you get nothing else. Getting this is square one. Getting this is like the sign at the mall, You Are Here. Unless you know ~who you are~ in relation to everything else, you're just turning in circles. Of course the con artist likes to remain invisible. The con artist calls himself, you. The con artist wants the situation to be, when you say "I", it means him. So the con artist puts on the mask of inavalan, or stardustpilgrim, or Tom or D!ck or Harry, or Suzy Q, and says I. And the con artist is master of all sorts of games. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 17, 2024 10:30:19 GMT -5
I've never actually listened to a Cheri Huber talk, never seen her except pictures, decided to search, I like her betterer:
This is very good, seven minutes. If you don't have seven minutes, to resolve 99% of your issues...
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 17, 2024 11:28:50 GMT -5
I've never actually listened to a Cheri Huber talk, never seen her except pictures, decided to search, I like her betterer: This is very good, seven minutes. If you don't have seven minutes, to resolve 99% of your issues... I'm familiar with Cheri and in this video what she says sounds very much like what most of us are pointing to. My only issue with her words concerns the word "practice." She comes out of a Zen tradition, and most Zen people use that word incessantly. I quit using that word in regard to meditation or focused attention because of several misleading connotations of that word. I prefer to use the word "activity." Why? Because "practice" implies a practicer separate from whatever is being practiced as well as the idea that a practicer is practicing to get something or to improve in some way. When one discovers that there's no separate entity at the center of whatever is being done, life is seen more like an unfolding or a happening. The result of seeing the actual unity underlying all apparent diversity eliminates all efforting. Any sense of effort is proof that there's still no psychological freedom. True freedom is like being a feather wafted about on air currents. It then doesn't matter whether there's thinking or silence, focused attention or daydreaming. Wei wu Wei is action without an actor, and that's what Lao Tzu and all other ND sages are pointing to. Yes, focused attention will seem necessary until the "me" at the center of that activity is seen through. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 17, 2024 12:06:25 GMT -5
The no-gate gate. I listened to all of this, 32 minutes, except the last two minutes, because Elementary comes on at 12 noon.
At 2:00, I will listen to the last two minutes. This is particularly for inavalan, tenka, and satch.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 17, 2024 12:28:15 GMT -5
I've never actually listened to a Cheri Huber talk, never seen her except pictures, decided to search, I like her betterer: This is very good, seven minutes. If you don't have seven minutes, to resolve 99% of your issues... I'm familiar with Cheri and in this video what she says sounds very much like what most of us are pointing to. My only issue with her words concerns the word "practice." She comes out of a Zen tradition, and most Zen people use that word incessantly. I quit using that word in regard to meditation or focused attention because of several misleading connotations of that word. I prefer to use the word "activity." Why? Because "practice" implies a practicer separate from whatever is being practiced as well as the idea that a practicer is practicing to get something or to improve in some way. When one discovers that there's no separate entity at the center of whatever is being done, life is seen more like an unfolding or a happening. The result of seeing the actual unity underlying all apparent diversity eliminates all efforting. Any sense of effort is proof that there's still no psychological freedom. True freedom is like being a feather wafted about on air currents. It then doesn't matter whether there's thinking or silence, focused attention or daydreaming. Wei wu Wei is action without an actor, and that's what Lao Tzu and all other ND sages are pointing to. Yes, focused attention will seem necessary until the "me" at the center of that activity is seen through. Well, you see, that's only a problem that ZD has. She explains what she means by practice, I concur. Practice is what ~takes ___ to the present moment~. You have to meet people 'where they are'. When sdp writes about *being conscious*, you never seem to know what I'm talking about. For sdp that's a HUGE problem. You say, we're conscious all-the-time, it's just a matter of ~what~ we aware of. And then you talk about flow, and disappearing into flow. There's a mountain of difference between the 'thinking-self', the ego, the con artist, the small s self, and simple presence, simply being-aware, in awareness. Just right then, writing that sentence, sdp disappeared into the writing. Some days, I could disappear into the next thing and the next, and be absent, possibly until I go to bed and wake up the next morning. So it's about the presence, of awareness, presenting. That's ~where~ sdp *likes* to live. sdp is not interested in disappearing into flow. sdp is interested in awareness in-the-flow, that doesn't mean self-reflexive-thought, it's the very absence of the thinking-self. Practice, is being in focused attention to whatever is occurring in the present moment. Thinking, usually takes one out of the present moment, because usually our attention is taken captive by-the-words. Practice for Cheri Huber means being attentive to what's occurring in *reality*, the nuts and bolts, not the imaginative world of thought, which is what the imaginary self is made from. It's seems you don't really understand what practice is, or I'm sure it's not that, you just forgot what ZD was like, once upon a time. Practice, as Huber describes, puts ______ in the ~place~ of the absent self. I don't see how you don't get that. And furthermore, IT IS IMPORTANT WHAT OCCURS AFTERWARDS, after SR-TR, or after the little man in the head disappears. If you don't understand that, I don't want what-ZD-has. |
|
Who's is there to re-educate (muh-ha!-ha!)