|
|
Practice
Sept 26, 2024 2:14:57 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by steven on Sept 26, 2024 2:14:57 GMT -5
Which is equivalent to saying that THIS murders THIS. THIS manifests as both the sinner and the saint. There is no "other." Everything that happens is an unfolding of THIS. I call this kind of interpretation of events: armchair living. Just watched a BritBox series: "One of Us" (aka "Retribution"). Imagine you are one of its characters. Your brother and his pregnant wife, whom he just married two weeks ago, are killed in a robbery by a homeless drug addict. The murderer steals a car and is headed to the rural area were the victims' families live, as neighbors. Stormy weather, drugs, state of mind cause the murderer to roll over and get badly hurt right when he reaches your backyard. You and the others, about 7-8 people over the two families, as you try to save the driver's life, learn from the news that he murdered your relatives, and the police try to apprehend him. You found in his pocket your address on a piece of paper too. As the driver seems to briefly recover consciousness, you all decide for your protection to put him into an animal cage until tomorrow, when an ambulance and the police could reach your area, which is inaccessible due to the storm. Next morning you find the driver in his cage with his throat cut. Nobody confesses, and each family suspects one of their own, so everybody hesitates what course of action to take. If you were one of those characters, and you knew that one of your relatives, or close neighbors murdered that murderer of your brother and his freshly wed pregnant wife, what would you do? What if you consider that the police might be wrong in their assessment and assignment of guilt to that drug addict? What if the drug addict were a paranoid schizophrenic who skipped taking his meds? Fear, civic sense, compassion, righteousness? What drives you? Do you agree to participate in a cover-up? Do you go to the police and tell what you know, and make one of yours pay for their revenge on the murderer? Can you really put yourself in the shoes of that character, and think as if that whole tragedy happened to you and your family, and as if you really had to make that choice? THIS murders THIS? That's what I call armchair living. That's why most of us need to experience such tragedies, and suffering: to have to make choices believing there is no safety net. Not from your armchair, watching tv and dispensing judgments ... I wouldn’t say it’s armchair living. Seeing the big picture doesn’t mean you don’t fully engage in life. The two are not mutually exclusive. |
|
|
|
Post by steven on Sept 26, 2024 2:20:02 GMT -5
Which is equivalent to saying that THIS murders THIS. THIS manifests as both the sinner and the saint. There is no "other." Everything that happens is an unfolding of THIS. I call this kind of interpretation of events: armchair living. Just watched a BritBox series: "One of Us" (aka "Retribution"). Imagine you are one of its characters. Your brother and his pregnant wife, whom he just married two weeks ago, are killed in a robbery by a homeless drug addict. The murderer steals a car and is headed to the rural area were the victims' families live, as neighbors. Stormy weather, drugs, state of mind cause the murderer to roll over and get badly hurt right when he reaches your backyard. You and the others, about 7-8 people over the two families, as you try to save the driver's life, learn from the news that he murdered your relatives, and the police try to apprehend him. You found in his pocket your address on a piece of paper too. As the driver seems to briefly recover consciousness, you all decide for your protection to put him into an animal cage until tomorrow, when an ambulance and the police could reach your area, which is inaccessible due to the storm. Next morning you find the driver in his cage with his throat cut. Nobody confesses, and each family suspects one of their own, so everybody hesitates what course of action to take. If you were one of those characters, and you knew that one of your relatives, or close neighbors murdered that murderer of your brother and his freshly wed pregnant wife, what would you do? What if you consider that the police might be wrong in their assessment and assignment of guilt to that drug addict? What if the drug addict were a paranoid schizophrenic who skipped taking his meds? Fear, civic sense, compassion, righteousness? What drives you? Do you agree to participate in a cover-up? Do you go to the police and tell what you know, and make one of yours pay for their revenge on the murderer? Can you really put yourself in the shoes of that character, and think as if that whole tragedy happened to you and your family, and as if you really had to make that choice? THIS murders THIS? That's what I call armchair living. That's why most of us need to experience such tragedies, and suffering: to have to make choices believing there is no safety net. Not from your armchair, watching tv and dispensing judgments ... Can you imagine a scenario where you are fully engaged in living the life right in front of you without spending time imagining the answers to questions like: “What would you do if?” |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 26, 2024 6:40:28 GMT -5
I call this kind of interpretation of events: armchair living. Just watched a BritBox series: "One of Us" (aka "Retribution"). Imagine you are one of its characters. Your brother and his pregnant wife, whom he just married two weeks ago, are killed in a robbery by a homeless drug addict. The murderer steals a car and is headed to the rural area were the victims' families live, as neighbors. Stormy weather, drugs, state of mind cause the murderer to roll over and get badly hurt right when he reaches your backyard. You and the others, about 7-8 people over the two families, as you try to save the driver's life, learn from the news that he murdered your relatives, and the police try to apprehend him. You found in his pocket your address on a piece of paper too. As the driver seems to briefly recover consciousness, you all decide for your protection to put him into an animal cage until tomorrow, when an ambulance and the police could reach your area, which is inaccessible due to the storm. Next morning you find the driver in his cage with his throat cut. Nobody confesses, and each family suspects one of their own, so everybody hesitates what course of action to take. If you were one of those characters, and you knew that one of your relatives, or close neighbors murdered that murderer of your brother and his freshly wed pregnant wife, what would you do? What if you consider that the police might be wrong in their assessment and assignment of guilt to that drug addict? What if the drug addict were a paranoid schizophrenic who skipped taking his meds? Fear, civic sense, compassion, righteousness? What drives you? Do you agree to participate in a cover-up? Do you go to the police and tell what you know, and make one of yours pay for their revenge on the murderer? Can you really put yourself in the shoes of that character, and think as if that whole tragedy happened to you and your family, and as if you really had to make that choice? THIS murders THIS? That's what I call armchair living. That's why most of us need to experience such tragedies, and suffering: to have to make choices believing there is no safety net. Not from your armchair, watching tv and dispensing judgments ... I wouldn’t say it’s armchair living. Seeing the big picture doesn’t mean you don’t fully engage in life. The two are not mutually exclusive. Correct, but until one sees the big picture one can't imagine what's being pointed to. Living in one's head is a little bit like living in a mind-created prison without any bars.  The only time when most people get out of their heads is when something like a car wreck occurs. For at least a few moments people stop thinking and simply act without reflection. If that kind of a direct response to reality continued, people might discover THIS. |
|
roscod
Junior Member
Posts: 53
|
Post by roscod on Sept 26, 2024 7:50:31 GMT -5
I wouldn’t say it’s armchair living. Seeing the big picture doesn’t mean you don’t fully engage in life. The two are not mutually exclusive. Correct, but until one sees the big picture one can't imagine what's being pointed to. Living in one's head is a little bit like living in a mind-created prison without any bars. The only time when most people get out of their heads is when something like a car wreck occurs. For at least a few moments people stop thinking and simply act without reflection. If that kind of a direct response to reality continued, people might discover THIS. I tried reading this and the various posts preceding this, but I just got lost wondering how any of it relates to being? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 26, 2024 8:30:10 GMT -5
Which is equivalent to saying that THIS murders THIS. THIS manifests as both the sinner and the saint. There is no "other." Everything that happens is an unfolding of THIS. No problem with that, it's obvious. But then you get into why, and you never want to go there. That's what the Individual thread is about. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 26, 2024 8:48:18 GMT -5
Which is equivalent to saying that THIS murders THIS. THIS manifests as both the sinner and the saint. There is no "other." Everything that happens is an unfolding of THIS. I call this kind of interpretation of events: armchair living. Just watched a BritBox series: "One of Us" (aka "Retribution"). Imagine you are one of its characters. Your brother and his pregnant wife, whom he just married two weeks ago, are killed in a robbery by a homeless drug addict. The murderer steals a car and is headed to the rural area were the victims' families live, as neighbors. Stormy weather, drugs, state of mind cause the murderer to roll over and get badly hurt right when he reaches your backyard. You and the others, about 7-8 people over the two families, as you try to save the driver's life, learn from the news that he murdered your relatives, and the police try to apprehend him. You found in his pocket your address on a piece of paper too. As the driver seems to briefly recover consciousness, you all decide for your protection to put him into an animal cage until tomorrow, when an ambulance and the police could reach your area, which is inaccessible due to the storm. Next morning you find the driver in his cage with his throat cut. Nobody confesses, and each family suspects one of their own, so everybody hesitates what course of action to take. If you were one of those characters, and you knew that one of your relatives, or close neighbors murdered that murderer of your brother and his freshly wed pregnant wife, what would you do? What if you consider that the police might be wrong in their assessment and assignment of guilt to that drug addict? What if the drug addict were a paranoid schizophrenic who skipped taking his meds? Fear, civic sense, compassion, righteousness? What drives you? Do you agree to participate in a cover-up? Do you go to the police and tell what you know, and make one of yours pay for their revenge on the murderer? Can you really put yourself in the shoes of that character, and think as if that whole tragedy happened to you and your family, and as if you really had to make that choice? THIS murders THIS? That's what I call armchair living. That's why most of us need to experience such tragedies, and suffering: to have to make choices believing there is no safety net. Not from your armchair, watching tv and dispensing judgments ... ZD, and a lot of people here, speak in tautologies, which are relatively meaningless. He writes very simply, which can't explain the complications of life you demonstrate. ZD simply says, everything, means everything. So nothing can happen outside of everything. Of course he's absolutely correct. But that correctness is useless, worse than useless. Then they compound it by saying that there is no explanation, the events of life are beyond explanation, there is no why. He's just like Gopal, whose arguments cannot be defeated. He's just like my devout fundamentalist Christian sister, whose arguments can't be defeated, this is what the Bible says, period, end of story. There isn't just yes or no. The answer must include yes and no. The great Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna understood this. In Buddhism, this is called the Two Truths, subjectivity within Objectivity. |
|
roscod
Junior Member
Posts: 53
|
Post by roscod on Sept 26, 2024 8:56:21 GMT -5
I call this kind of interpretation of events: armchair living. Just watched a BritBox series: "One of Us" (aka "Retribution"). Imagine you are one of its characters. Your brother and his pregnant wife, whom he just married two weeks ago, are killed in a robbery by a homeless drug addict. The murderer steals a car and is headed to the rural area were the victims' families live, as neighbors. Stormy weather, drugs, state of mind cause the murderer to roll over and get badly hurt right when he reaches your backyard. You and the others, about 7-8 people over the two families, as you try to save the driver's life, learn from the news that he murdered your relatives, and the police try to apprehend him. You found in his pocket your address on a piece of paper too. As the driver seems to briefly recover consciousness, you all decide for your protection to put him into an animal cage until tomorrow, when an ambulance and the police could reach your area, which is inaccessible due to the storm. Next morning you find the driver in his cage with his throat cut. Nobody confesses, and each family suspects one of their own, so everybody hesitates what course of action to take. If you were one of those characters, and you knew that one of your relatives, or close neighbors murdered that murderer of your brother and his freshly wed pregnant wife, what would you do? What if you consider that the police might be wrong in their assessment and assignment of guilt to that drug addict? What if the drug addict were a paranoid schizophrenic who skipped taking his meds? Fear, civic sense, compassion, righteousness? What drives you? Do you agree to participate in a cover-up? Do you go to the police and tell what you know, and make one of yours pay for their revenge on the murderer? Can you really put yourself in the shoes of that character, and think as if that whole tragedy happened to you and your family, and as if you really had to make that choice? THIS murders THIS? That's what I call armchair living. That's why most of us need to experience such tragedies, and suffering: to have to make choices believing there is no safety net. Not from your armchair, watching tv and dispensing judgments ... ZD, and a lot of people here, speak in tautologies, which are relatively meaningless. He writes very simply, which can't explain the complications of life you demonstrate. ZD simply says, everything, means everything. So nothing can happen outside of everything. Of course he's absolutely correct. But that correctness is useless, worse than useless. Then they compound it by saying that there is no explanation, the events of life are beyond explanation, there is no why. He's just like Gopal, whose arguments cannot be defeated. He's just like my devout fundamentalist Christian sister, whose arguments can't be defeated, this is what the Bible says, period, end of story. There isn't just yes or no. The answer must include yes and no. The great Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna understood this. In Buddhism, this is called the Two Truths, subjectivity within Objectivity. The other side of the coin, Stardust, is incomprehensible detail and over-intellectualisation. While self-realisation may be an enigma, wrapped in an mystery, inside a riddle, the heart of it is still self-realisation. No amount of intellectualisation will solve it. It doesn't matter how many words you use. |
|
|
|
Practice
Sept 26, 2024 10:20:59 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 26, 2024 10:20:59 GMT -5
ZD, and a lot of people here, speak in tautologies, which are relatively meaningless. He writes very simply, which can't explain the complications of life you demonstrate. ZD simply says, everything, means everything. So nothing can happen outside of everything. Of course he's absolutely correct. But that correctness is useless, worse than useless. Then they compound it by saying that there is no explanation, the events of life are beyond explanation, there is no why. He's just like Gopal, whose arguments cannot be defeated. He's just like my devout fundamentalist Christian sister, whose arguments can't be defeated, this is what the Bible says, period, end of story. There isn't just yes or no. The answer must include yes and no. The great Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna understood this. In Buddhism, this is called the Two Truths, subjectivity within Objectivity. The other side of the coin, Stardust, is incomprehensible detail and over-intellectualisation. While self-realisation may be an enigma, wrapped in an mystery, inside a riddle, the heart of it is still self-realisation. No amount of intellectualisation will solve it. It doesn't matter how many words you use. It's not about intellectualisation. In Kentucky, the word Sheriff did not shoot and kill the word Judge. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 26, 2024 10:22:35 GMT -5
From one perspective, Niz'z "refuse all thoughts but 'I AM'", and his other advice about that, are a way of "using nonduality". As is the Christian mass and Eucharist, because "Christ", is an encoded form of "not-two". It's also related to the nirvakalpa samadhi that 'satch and Steve used to write about, or even some of the other, less ultimate states of meditation that many of us have written about. Then someone like E' or Reefs or sifty or even ZD will come along and point out the flaw in objectifying Oneness. That's what alot of those nasty evil Neo-Advaitans do as well. Of course, none of these perspectives are "wrong", per se. Niz was once asked by a guy about why he would sometimes chant and dance with the Bhakti's, and from what they wrote of his reply, I think he likely grinned and waived it off as unimportant.  .. Hare Rama dude! Here is what David Godman said about the Bhaktis: Harriet: "You said ‘rarely spoke’. That means that you must have heard at least a few stories. What did you hear him talk about?" David: "Mostly about his Guru, Siddharameshwar Maharaj, and the effect he had had on his life. I think his love for his Guru and his gratitude to him were always present with him. Nisargadatta Maharaj used to do five bhajans a day simply because his Guru had asked him to. Siddharameshwar Maharaj had passed away in 1936, but Nisargadatta Maharaj was still continuing with these practices more than forty years later." (I think I've read somewhere where Niz said this himself directly. By the way, my story of quitting smoking in 1991 was similar to yours. Cold turkey. Intense withdrawals that disappeared completely and forever on the 7th day. Ah, so more than just on occasion. Thanks, good to know! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 26, 2024 10:25:21 GMT -5
My opinion is that some of what you write is accurate, and can even relate to some of it. I could even relate something similar, and detailed, and have in the past. But it's far too mechanistic to apply to witnessing in sense that applies to what I now think of as spiritual meditation, and emotions are actually the easiest movement to observe for anyone who has ever been able to get to a state of emotional neutrality. It's the exact opposite of mechanistic. Mechanistic means stuff just happens. Correct practice, conscious efforts, never just happen. Never. I'm referring to the descriptions that break down meditation into various objects and processes. Not to say these can't be helpful to some folks depending on time, place, and intent. But that is a focus on how things are happening, not on what is. |
|
|
|
Practice
Sept 26, 2024 10:31:23 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 26, 2024 10:31:23 GMT -5
Correct, but until one sees the big picture one can't imagine what's being pointed to. Living in one's head is a little bit like living in a mind-created prison without any bars. The only time when most people get out of their heads is when something like a car wreck occurs. For at least a few moments people stop thinking and simply act without reflection. If that kind of a direct response to reality continued, people might discover THIS. I tried reading this and the various posts preceding this, but I just got lost wondering how any of it relates to being? Correct, being is not just being. There is the being of a star, the being of a mineral, the being of a plant, the being of a reptile, the being of a mammal, the being of a human being, the being of a Buddha, a Christ. Earlier, consciousness came up. Consciousness precedes all things. Seth/Jane Roberts has a good and useful term, consciousness units, CUs. CUs are fundamental, they are kind of metaphysical atoms. In his new book, Irreducible: Consciousness, Life, Computers and Human Nature, Federico Fa-gg-in uses the term consciousness units. I suspect he arrived at the term independently, can't imagine him reading Seth-Jane Roberts. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 26, 2024 10:42:48 GMT -5
THIS imagines that it’s a character in a TV drama. Even that's armchair living, which results in one's stagnation. Realizing that facet of reality that fits the drama metaphor does not necessarily mean disengagement. It's also possible to realize that any attempts by mind to bound the possibility for how manifestations unfold - including your own reactions - are nothing but misplaced chimera. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 26, 2024 10:49:48 GMT -5
Yeah, but imagination can be very powerful…it’s entirely possible that’s all there is to any of THIS. I’ll buy that. We cannot deny, that SOMETHING is happening! movement light and scent and sound stop and notice, all around never ceasing, always bold ever new a story told beauty, terror, toss the coin in the air, both sides are joined ever shifting, glinting, known without walls, yes, That. Is Home. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 26, 2024 10:56:47 GMT -5
I call this kind of interpretation of events: armchair living. Just watched a BritBox series: "One of Us" (aka "Retribution"). Imagine you are one of its characters. Your brother and his pregnant wife, whom he just married two weeks ago, are killed in a robbery by a homeless drug addict. The murderer steals a car and is headed to the rural area were the victims' families live, as neighbors. Stormy weather, drugs, state of mind cause the murderer to roll over and get badly hurt right when he reaches your backyard. You and the others, about 7-8 people over the two families, as you try to save the driver's life, learn from the news that he murdered your relatives, and the police try to apprehend him. You found in his pocket your address on a piece of paper too. As the driver seems to briefly recover consciousness, you all decide for your protection to put him into an animal cage until tomorrow, when an ambulance and the police could reach your area, which is inaccessible due to the storm. Next morning you find the driver in his cage with his throat cut. Nobody confesses, and each family suspects one of their own, so everybody hesitates what course of action to take. If you were one of those characters, and you knew that one of your relatives, or close neighbors murdered that murderer of your brother and his freshly wed pregnant wife, what would you do? What if you consider that the police might be wrong in their assessment and assignment of guilt to that drug addict? What if the drug addict were a paranoid schizophrenic who skipped taking his meds? Fear, civic sense, compassion, righteousness? What drives you? Do you agree to participate in a cover-up? Do you go to the police and tell what you know, and make one of yours pay for their revenge on the murderer? Can you really put yourself in the shoes of that character, and think as if that whole tragedy happened to you and your family, and as if you really had to make that choice? THIS murders THIS? That's what I call armchair living. That's why most of us need to experience such tragedies, and suffering: to have to make choices believing there is no safety net. Not from your armchair, watching tv and dispensing judgments ... ZD, and a lot of people here, speak in tautologies, which are relatively meaningless. He writes very simply, which can't explain the complications of life you demonstrate. ZD simply says, everything, means everything. So nothing can happen outside of everything. Of course he's absolutely correct. But that correctness is useless, worse than useless. Then they compound it by saying that there is no explanation, the events of life are beyond explanation, there is no why. He's just like Gopal, whose arguments cannot be defeated. He's just like my devout fundamentalist Christian sister, whose arguments can't be defeated, this is what the Bible says, period, end of story. There isn't just yes or no. The answer must include yes and no. The great Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna understood this. In Buddhism, this is called the Two Truths, subjectivity within Objectivity. Sure, the ten gazillion thingies are complex, but the existential truth, is simplicity incarnate. |
|
|
|
Practice
Sept 26, 2024 11:31:41 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 26, 2024 11:31:41 GMT -5
I wouldn’t say it’s armchair living. Seeing the big picture doesn’t mean you don’t fully engage in life. The two are not mutually exclusive. Correct, but until one sees the big picture one can't imagine what's being pointed to. Living in one's head is a little bit like living in a mind-created prison without any bars. The only time when most people get out of their heads is when something like a car wreck occurs. For at least a few moments people stop thinking and simply act without reflection. If that kind of a direct response to reality continued, people might discover THIS. Yes. We have developed a role for almost every circumstance in life, work, play, job, home, vacation, husband, wife, son, daughter, mother, father; a hundred different roles. But a wreck can be a situation for which we do not have a conditioned prefabricated role. Gurdjieff said this is a shock which puts us in essence. But we soon revert to a preprogrammed role. But I suspect some people like the taste of this, they are adrenaline junkies. But correct practice also puts one in essence. The practice self-remembering is also called the first conscious shock. But a wreck is an accidental shock, we can't afford to wait upon such an accident. |
|
.. Hare Rama dude!