Shin Buddhism

[rich]

There are many supernatural events recorded in The Old and New Testaments. The basic foundation of many peoples lives are people believing these as true. Before I started this topic, I wondered if Buddhists had beliefs in the supernatural ? The following archive I found on the internet.

nembutsu.info
Journal of Shin Buddhism

EDITORIAL
December 2002
It has become almost commonplace these days for many Buddhists to insist on the differences between the beliefs they hold and those held by adherents of other faiths. There is, of course, nothing wrong in doing so except that such opinions are often maintained with a distinct air of superiority and self-satisfaction as if the Buddhist view was inherently or self-evidently correct compared to non-Buddhist views. It is important for Buddhists to understand why they belong to the particular spiritual tradition that they do and to be able to explain its main tenets to outside inquirers with intelligence and honesty - in other words, to be able to convey to others why and how one follows one’s path with confidence and joy. Given the variety of schools within Buddhism, the foregoing remarks also apply to the same attitude within the tradition itself.

One often hears that the Buddhist point of view is superior because it does not subscribe to the notion of the world as being the 'creation' of a Divine being or because it does not insist that people have to believe in particular 'dogmas' or, furthermore, that it is a 'rational' religion that does not rely on silly superstitions. Such remarks are both true and not true and much care must be taken when making such general and often inaccurate assertions. To take the first example as a case in point. Although Buddhism does not subscribe to the view that the empirical world beheld by our senses was created by a higher being that is somehow separate from it, it does hold - at least in its Mahayana form - that the universe and everything in it (including our consciousness of it) derives from, or is dependent on, a higher reality from which it is inseparable, known as the Dharmakaya or, more commonly, Nirvana. So one could argue that the only real difference between these two perspectives is that one is a 'dual' perspective and the other a 'non-dual' perspective with respect to the ultimate reality from which all things arise. Is the Buddhist view on the matter thereby more 'rational' ? Not necessarily. Is it obviously correct ? Again, not necessarily. Much depends on our view of the world as confirmed by our spiritual insights and our temperamental tendencies. For many people (Muslims, Jews etc.), a non-dual, or monistic, view of the ultimate reality is patently nonsensical and thus is rejected without any compunction. These points are made not with a view to expressing doubt on the possibility of realizing the truth in such matters but to mitigate the unfortunate tendency in many quarters to dismiss alternative modes of apprehending reality simply because one does not agree with them.

Similarly, the commonly-held view of Buddhism as being supremely rational (as if it were just like any other discipline in the humanities!) does not bear deeper examination. The Buddhist scriptures are full of fantastic and supernatural events which bewilder one's reason. The Buddha himself often makes extraordinary and hyperbolic statements in relation to the transmundane realm which those who are not enlightened can only take on faith or, at best, dimly corroborate through their own experiences if they are fortunate enough. In fact, we only follow the Buddhist faith because we somehow have confidence in the veracity of the path even though we cannot confirm this at the outset. If mere rationality were our only recourse, we would have abandoned such a path long ago.

Obviously, one adheres to a particular spiritual faith because one believes it to be true. However, this does not mean that one can readily demonstrate this truth to others or, indeed, that one's inability to do so somehow vitiates one's own convictions. A hallmark of the Buddha's teachings is the primacy of tolerance and compassion coupled with an acute awareness of the relativity of all statements regarding the truth. This extends to our spiritual views as well which can also be subject to delusion and distortion. The upshot of such a realization should be a profound sense of humility in relation to one's own beliefs and a respectful attitude towards the beliefs of others even if we strongly disagree with them. After all, what makes us so sure of our own rectitude ?

One of the principal Buddhas in the Mahayana tradition is Amitabha - the Buddha of Infinite Light. This Buddha personifies the virtues of Wisdom and Compassion even though his reality is ultimately inconceivable and beyond our human ken. This should give us pause for reflection. If the ultimate reality, the Absolute, is ultimately unknowable in itself, we should be wary in rushing to claim that we alone hold the keys to the truth and the divine mysteries. No ordinary benighted individual can justify such a presumptuous claim. We are all entitled to be privy to the truth as it is manifested to us in its many (albeit limited) modes. Like Amitabha Buddha, those manifestations are well-nigh infinite (and often conflict with each other) but they all appear to derive from a higher source which beckons us to transcend our finite condition and embrace the Infinite. If we can accept this truth without being tormented by doubts or afflicted by smug spiritual arrogance, we are surely closer to the Mahayana spirit of generosity and non-discrimination.

Shinran, the founder of the Jodo Shinshu school of Pure Land Buddhism, refused to condemn or criticise the views of other Buddhist sects. He readily acknowledged that they all comprise the many forms of medicine that the Buddha administered to spiritually ailing sentient beings. He taught a vision of the truth as he saw it and invited others to partake of this liberating vision without coercion or manipulation. There was no sense of his path being 'better' or the only right one - simply that it was the only path that rang true to his condition and his perception of the truth based on deep experience of the Buddha's overwhelming compassion and his own flawed sense of self. In Shinran, I think we have an exceptional model of what it means to be a person of deep faith who is capable of remarkable tolerance with respect to the faith of others. In this current age of excessive and unthinking spiritual rivalry, Buddhists of all persuasions would do well to heed his inspiring example.
Return to 'What's New'





The web site for this information is, My Webpage (http://www.nembutsu.info/eddec022.htm)

[Polaris]

There are many supernatural events recorded in The Old and New Testaments. The basic foundation of many peoples lives are people believing these as true. Before I started this topic, I wondered if Buddhists had beliefs in the supernatural ? The following archive I found on the internet.

My opinion, and I'm somewhat ambiguous in what I "believe" in, is that the word supernatural encompasses and is frequently used to define a wide variety of events but, for me at least, it represents something that I've yet to explain. A mystery, so to speak. That is to say, I think everything has a natural and scientific basis. For example, once upon a time a solar eclipse was considered supernatural but once we discovered the science behind the mystery was solved.

Rich, I skimmed through the article you posted here and I guess my opinion on it would have to be that it would be incorrect for anyone who follows the Buddhist path to hold some kind of air of superiority over other spiritual and/or philosophical belief systems. From my understanding, clinging on to some "holier than thou" ego would be most inappropriate. Also, it seems to be that, for me, one of the most important aspects of the Buddhist way is compassion and tolerance to WHAT IS. It just so happens to be that WHAT IS involves many different people with many different belief systems, all of whom deserve respect.

[sahyo]

or is dependent on, a higher reality from which it is inseparable

"higher reality", not

ultimate reality from which all things arise

"ultimate"things", not

spiritual insights and our temperamental tendencies

sillysilly

should be a profound sense of humility in relation to one's own beliefs and a respectful attitude towards the beliefs of others

not agreeing silly thought"beliefs", which not, doesn't mean lacking compassion

"profound sense of humility", not

"others", not


After all, what makes us so sure of our own rectitude ?

"sure", not

transcend our finite condition

"finite"infinite", not

to be a person of deep faith

thoughtbelieving="faith" which not

In this current age of excessive and unthinking spiritual rivalry

which is called "spiritual rivalry"='thinkingseparate' which not

Return to "'What's New'"

"what's", not

"new"old, not

[sahyo]

should

"should"shouldn't, not

:D

[rich]

Is supernatural silly?

Are miricales impossible?

Will wonders ever begin?

Examples of Negative thinking.

Does anyone have anything positive to say/write?

:unsure: :blink: :rolleyes: B)

[rich]

One may download some music by posting here.

http://www.nembutsu.info/music/index.htm

:D

[Polaris]

Is supernatural silly?
Not silly. Just natural.

Are miricales impossible?
Not miracles.. natural.

Will wonders ever begin?
Wonders are all around us and for the vast majority of us wonders will never cease because the vast majority of us will never understand all that is natural.

Examples of Negative thinking.
Not negative thinking, Rich... just thinking.
Thinking ----> Wondering. Wondering ----> Learning :)


:)

[rich]

I reposted this thread in the Buddhist Forum, however for a different purpose.
Not for the Enlightenment of Anyone, but for the education of all.[i think.] Also, there is a music link in my 2nd reply on that topic. :rolleyes:

[sahyo]

believing in God is not inconsistent with the views of Buddha.

wasn't "views"

[sahyo]

views?

[rich]

see following post.

[rich]

view, views,
POV's, VIP's,
asheera, ...,
and Fed Up's too,
all of them
are free to
disagree
with
me. :ph34r:

[a random hack]

Polaris,
Does 'natural' mean something that I've been able to explain?

[Thomas Knierim]

I have merged the "Shin Buddhism" thread with the "Supernatural" in "Science" thread and moved it here, since both threads deal with the same topic.

Cheers, Thomas

[Thomas Knierim]

Dear Richie,

Do Buddhists believe in the supernatural?

There is no definite answer to this question. Some do, some don't. It depends on the education, the culture, the understanding, the mind of the believer, doesn't it? There is certainly no scarcity of supernatural events in Buddhist stories, such as the Jatakas. Many people love these stories, but not so many take them at face value. The character of these stories is more anecdotal, an ancient form of edutainment. They don't seem to have the same importance as the supernatural events of the Bible, i.e. "burning bush", "walking on water", etc. Buddhists would probably not hit you over the head if you said, "ah, nice story, but it is for kids, right?" The realization that the dhamma (dharma, teaching) can and must be communicated at all levels and in all modes of human thought, including those of literature and fiction, is widely accepted by Buddhists.

One often hears that the Buddhist point of view is superior because it does not subscribe to the notion of the world as being the 'creation' of a Divine being or because it does not insist that people have to believe in particular 'dogmas' or, furthermore, that it is a 'rational' religion that does not rely on silly superstitions.

According to my experience, such comments about the superiority of Buddhist views and methods primarily come from Western followers. It is easy to understand why. Usually Westerners don't come to Buddhism by the route of tradition, cultural upbringing, etc., but by choice at a later point in their life. This choice is a consequence of exploring other faiths and philosophies. If a Westerner chooses Buddhism, this usually means one has immersed oneself into Buddhist ideas and culture to a certain degree and one judges it to be superior to the traditions of one's own culture. The reasons for are quite varied and always subjective, but it is natural that the Buddhist path is perceived to be 'better suited' by such a person. Asian Buddhists generally have a different attitude. Most Asians with a rudimentary understanding of Christianity are quite respectful and tend to seek out the similarities between both faiths rather than the differences.

Cheers, Thomas

[Polaris]

Originally posted by a random hack@Jul 24 2003, 12:47 AM
Polaris,
Does 'natural' mean something that I've been able to explain?
Well, yes and no.

I'm using the word "natural" to describe something which has a scientific explaination, whether we know what that explaination is or not.

Earlier I used the example of a solar eclipse which initially scared the be-jeezzies out of people because they didn't know what was going on. 4000 years ago the Chinese believed that the Sun was being gobbled up by an invisible dragon and use to make all sorts of noise to scare the dragon away. The Chinese probablt thought the whole eclipse thing was pretty supernatural when, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

There's lots of things today that we would consider supernatural but it's only because we can't yet explain the natural scientific process behind it. Just because something is unexplained doesn't mean it isn't natural. :)

[rich]

Wondering if someday we will be in a state of awe, and just marvelling,
and singing and shouting at what we see.


* * * * * * *H O W
* * * W O N D E R F U L ! * * * * * * *

:D :P :lol: ;)

wishingjoyinghappyinggigglingbuddhisthinking

[Polaris]

I find I am in a state of awe for most things even if I know why and how it is there. :)

[rich]

Originally posted by Polaris@Jul 25 2003, 01:04 AM
I find I am in a state of awe for most things even if I know why and how it is there. :)
Polaris, * * * * * * *H O W
* * * W O N D E R F U L ! * * * * * * *



wishingjoyinghappyinggigglingbuddhisthinking


Polaris
Posted on Jul 24 2003, 07:41 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[sahyo]

because we can't yet explain the natural scientific process behind it.

"natural scientific process behind it"?

[rich]

I am impoyveous excuse nyc accent.

[a random hack]

Just because something is unexplained doesn't mean it isn't natural.

So something can be (described as) natural AND supernatural at the same time?

[rich]

Originally posted by asheera@Jul 25 2003, 04:17 AM
because we can't yet explain the natural scientific process behind it.

"natural scientific process behind it"?
asheera posted quoting Polaris:


because we can't yet explain the natural scientific process behind it.

"natural scientific process behind it"?


nay Polaris

good catch asheera.


What Polaris meant to say, wasbecause we can't explain the supernatural. If a scientific process is a reality, one can debate that if they wish, but not I. <_<

No scientific explanation required.

:blink: <_<

Though we are unique and superpowered, we are still mortal beings.
Sorry, but that is the way it is, at this time.

[Polaris]

because we can't yet explain the natural scientific process behind it.

"natural scientific process behind it"?

Yes.

QUOTE
Just because something is unexplained doesn't mean it isn't natural.


So something can be (described as) natural AND supernatural at the same time?

No.

[rich]

Could supernatural be a unnatural or natural event or happening, which we do not understand? :unsure:

[Polaris]

Originally posted by rich@Jul 26 2003, 10:52 PM
Could supernatural be a unnatural or natural event or happening, which we do not understand? :unsure:
I don't know Rich. I don't know what unnatural or supernatural is. I can't think of a real example of either. :unsure:

[rich]

Polaris,

Miricales, Healings, Raising of the Dead.
The Resurrerection of Jesus
The Miricale of Fatima.
Death Experiences.
Enlightenment.
Look for Miricales on the Web, you'll find many.
Perhaps you may have personally received one, but not aware of it.

[Polaris]

Miricales, Healings, Raising of the Dead.
The Resurrerection of Jesus
The Miricale of Fatima.
Death Experiences.
Enlightenment.



Rich, I've always been a "show me" kind of person. I've never experienced any of those thing and I don't know that they are miracles or supernatural or unnatural. I don't know what any of that means or if anything at all is unexplainable. I've never know anyone to be raised from the dead unless it's with CPR, I've never seen anyone walk on water or change water into wine. I've only heard stories of Jesus's resurrection, never seen proof that it can actually happen. Fatima? Death experiences and enlightenment? Will I have a death experience? Dunno. Enlightenment? I'm not counting on it.

I know that sounds like I must be an awfully skeptical and cynical person and that would be okay. I've often been called cynical even when I was a small child. Back then I came across as negative, and back then I admit I was negative because I didn't understand why I had to have proof for everything and why I couldn't just be happy in church Sunday school with all the other little kids. Now I know why. I might still be cynical but I don't think I'm negative. :)

Perhaps you may have personally received one, but not aware of it.

Perhaps. There's certainly a lot of stuff I'm not aware of. :)

[rich]

Polaris,

By you being skeptical, will make a miricale be a real miricale, if one can convince Polaris of it being a miricale.

Polaris is not a naive, or a gullible person.

We'll have to wait and see.

[Polaris]

Polaris is not a naive, or a gullible person.

Oh, I'm both of those as well. :)

[a random hack]

Placing too much faith in your cynicism, Polaris?
;)

Seems to me the only difference between 'natural' and 'supernatural' is the viewpoint of the person doing the naming.

[rich]

Originally posted by a random hack@Jul 28 2003, 11:13 AM
Placing too much faith in your cynicism, Polaris?
;)

Seems to me the only difference between 'natural' and 'supernatural' is the viewpoint of the person doing the naming.
Not a POV of namer, Hack.

An answer which is a personal observation.

Perhaps a miricale in your own life, which you have observed.

Groundrules:
Definitions of words, natural and supernatural are per dictionary. One's experience should fit into definition.

[a random hack]

Not a POV of namer, Hack.

An answer which is a personal observation.

?
Isn't POV based on observation (and definition), RT?

Perhaps a miricale in your own life, which you have observed.

P'raps, if I had POV 'miracle' as observing...

One's experience should fit into definition.
No thanks :)

[rich]

Originally posted by a random hack@Jul 31 2003, 10:37 AM
Not a POV of namer, Hack.

An answer which is a personal observation.

?
Isn't POV based on observation (and definition), RT?

Perhaps a miricale in your own life, which you have observed.

P'raps, if I had POV 'miracle' as observing...

One's experience should fit into definition.
No thanks :)
Sorry I took so long to reply to your post Hack.

An event I observed, about 6 years ago, at my local

church. It could have been a miricale, or a phenonma,

which I do not know, but I witnessed it.

On the last evening of a three day mission, the lady

that was talking about previous mission experiences

she had, and who seemed to saying that The Lord

Jesus was unhappy with the Catholics who were for

strengthening of ecunemical relations with some of

the Protestant groups. She was standing next to the

Pastor of our church, while he was distributing

communion. She was a stigmatic; i.e. her face was

bleeding, supposedly in the places where Jesus'

wounds were. I forgot if the wounds appeared on

other parts of her body too, but she needed assistance

to help hold her up, for having a stigmatism made

her weak.

Though I did not agree with her thoughts on

ecunemism, seeing the wounds on her face, was

quite an experience. :unsure:

[a random hack]

Hmm, couls tell you my thoughts about miracles, stigmata and ecunemical relations, but not worth the paper they're printed on :D

[rich]

Still would be interested in hearing what you observed, and/or your opinion or whatever your thoughts are, and why. :unsure: :blink: B)

[sahyo]

Still would be interested in hearing what you observed,
and/or your opinion or whatever your thoughts are, and why.

for?

[rich]

a :D she ;) era
reply was to random hack,
but am always receptive
to your replies. :D :)






r

[sahyo]

:D
thanking




r,
but for? was asking which quoted

[rich]

asheera,

for?

to learn why they said what they said, I reckon. :) :unsure:

[sahyo]

learn why they said what they said for? :)

[rich]

asheera,
Am trying to get a feedback from hack, to find out why he posted the statement he made in his reply: a random hack


a random hack
Posted on Aug 29 2003, 09:59 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm, couls tell you my thoughts about miracles, stigmata and ecunemical relations, but not worth the paper they're printed on



[a]:for?
[r]:cuz, i wanna know
[a]:for?
[r]: wanna hear his POV!
[a]:for?
[r]:HELP! (running out of room, screaming)
[a]heheteehee
[r]:wacko:

[sahyo]

wasn't which was asking, rich :)

[rich]

I am sorry for misunderstanding your understanding of what you were asking.
could your question, if you are asking, be more direct?

for?
what 'for'?
far, far, passed the four?
what 'fore' ?
Quote the raven, "nevermore"
Who is knocking on my chamberdoor? :lol:

[a random hack]

rich,
For?
Why you want to know?

[rich]

Originally posted by a random hack@Sep 9 2003, 11:13 AM
rich,
For?
Why you want to know?
A Random Hack, asked another question:
Hmm, couls tell you my thoughts about miracles, stigmata and ecunemical relations, but not worth the paper they're printed on

He and asheera, are up to the old political trick of answering questions, by asking another question. ;)
asheera keeps probing me to answer for .Now, The Hack probes me too. How do I know why i asked a question to begin with? :unsure: All i can say, is, it would make me happier if i knew, i think. Incidentally, why are both of you probing me? :unsure:

[a random hack]

seems to me, rich, perhaps if you knew why you ask questions, you might ask different questions.
But absolutely no-one is as well placed here to find out the answer to THAT question, as you are :)

[DavidS]

Hi Hack -

Your 'signature' says: 'Ego' loves that which allows it to feel empowered, and hates that which forces it to feel disempowered.

To which I say YES, except when 'ego' realizes that 'power-value'-motivation ultimately only leads to conflict with 'power-value''-motivated others, and therefore chooses to abjure power-motivation and, in a 'female'-principle-in-relation-to-'male' principle fashion, 'surrenders' to and whole-mind-body-n-souledly 'embraces' LOVE (or 'love-value'-motivation) as a WAY of LIFE.

Of course, IF you (or anyone else here) DEFINE(s) ego as, and therefore confines 'it' to, a 'THAT' which "allows it to feel empowered, and hates that which forces it to feel disempowered,"[/COLOR] then, one would naturally 'see', or 'interpret', such surrender-n-embrace pheomenon as the 'death' of the 'ego'.

On the other hand, IF one doesn't define (or [de]'finite'·ize) ego in such fashion, and instead regards 'it' as that aspect of 'personal' intelligence which assesses relative value, thereby helping one to 'personally' navigate the stream of reality's currents in an 'adept' or 'masterful' fashion (assuming one chooses to use it for such purpose), THEN one would naturally 'see', or 'interpet', such surrender-n-embrace phenomenon as the ego's 'awakening' to, or 'rebirth' in, the 'power'-transcending 'reality' of LOVE (or 'love-value'-motivation) - or sump'n like that.

The ego-eye or I-AM-I then operates in the context of a subjective Love-'dream', it's preceding Power-'dream' evaporating or evanescing into background memory like whisps of vapor-dust.

At the very least, such may (will?) 'seem' to be the case in the event such choice occurs. (Based on my experience, I would say such 'choice' may be experienced either as a 'voluntary' or an 'involuntary' 'happening', or dynamic 'mixture' of both.)

At least, that's what the love-power·love-love transition-thang 'looks like' in my personal/subjective perspective. :)

[sahyo]

when 'ego' realizes that 'power-value'-motivation ultimately only leads to conflict with 'power-value''-motivated others, and therefore chooses to abjure power-motivation and, in a 'female'-principle-in

people thinking-'asif'ego-whichnot not "chooses" but living-'asif'reacting-whichnot

[DavidS]

Originally posted by asheera@Sep 13 2003, 02:44 PM
people thinking-'asif'ego-whichnot not "chooses" but living-'asif'reacting-whichnot
Looks to me like 'as if' can be a 'considered' 'conscious' choice not simply a 'reaction' if made by a 'consciously consderate', as opposed to simply-reactive, 'person' or 'ego'.

Just out of curiosity, how did you arrive at 'gnowing' that 'as if' is always, or only, a 'reaction', as your words seem to imply that you do?

[sahyo]

people thinking-'asif'ego-whichnot not "chooses" but* living-'asif'reacting-whichnot
Just out of curiosity, how did you arrive at 'gnowing' that 'as if' is always, or only, a 'reaction', as your words seem to imply that you do?



wasn't "arrive at 'gnowing'"

"thinking-'asif'ego-whichnot"=thinking-'pastfuture'-whichnot
='reacting'-whichnot

[DavidS]

Originally posted by asheera@Sep 14 2003, 01:35 PM
"thinking-'asif'ego-whichnot"=thinking-'pastfuture'-whichnot
='reacting'-whichnot
Oh, sister, which art not! :D

[a random hack]

david,
ok.
Don't really understand the post, except maybe seems we define ego diferently.
would it be 'better' if i changed 'powerful' to 'control'?

[DavidS]

Originally posted by a random hack@Sep 16 2003, 06:58 PM
Don't really understand the post, except maybe seems we define ego diferently.
would it be 'better' if i changed 'powerful' to 'control'?
No, 'control' has same kind of 'limitation'. Jet's just leave it that we 'define' 'ego' differently. What you say about ego makes sense to me.

I just see/think/believe that 'ego' can also 'embrace' thangs like love (which involve setting 'power considerations' aside) and faith (which involves setting 'control considerations' aside) as well - IOW that 'ego' can go through a kind of 'lead'-into-'gold' conversion, or 'spiritual 'rebirth', process.

Hopefully more of what I am attempting to talk about will become clear later, maybe in a different 'context' (than the 'ego' concept). Nothing more to say about 'it' at the moment.

[...]

IOW that 'ego' can go through a kind of 'lead'-into-'gold' conversion, or 'spiritual 'rebirth', process.

Seeing how this is your opinion on the subject, could you tell me what this conversion did for you? IOW, did this process make you feel better in any way?

[DavidS]

Originally posted by ...@Sep 19 2003, 03:17 AM
IOW that 'ego' can go through a kind of 'lead'-into-'gold' conversion, or 'spiritual 'rebirth', process.

Seeing how this is your opinion on the subject, could you tell me what this conversion did for you? IOW, did this process make you feel better in any way?
Hi ... -

The short answer to "did this process make you feel better?" is, Yes, more and more so, along the 'slopes' of Life, sometimes in quite 'noticeable' 'steps', in overview, over time, however, I would have to say, gradually.

Since the 'subject' is quite broad, however, let me also add a long 'answer' to your question, an excerpt taken from some of my earier writing. It is a 'conceptual synthesis' that is basically 'autobiographical', but which struck me as making so much sense about the 'progression' I see in others around me as well that I 'generalized' my personal 'hypothetical' 'conclusions' about the process (possibly inappropriately):

. . . Fortunately, the very severity of the crises those who are errant bring upon themselves and subject others around them to also serves as a catalyst for positive change in those who have as yet underutilized capacity to acknowledge and constructively relate to the truth. Whether such eventuality is welcomed or not, sooner or later, particularly after repeated or lengthy trial and tribulation, when their strength is depleted, beleaguered individuals experience a state of psychospiritual 'bankruptcy', in which the hope of attaining idealization-fantasy fulfillment dies, and they starkly see that even seeking to compensate themselves for such unfulfillment by means of substitute desire-gratification dooms them to endless effort, if not utter frustration and futility.

They enter a phase, poetically alluded to as 'the dark night of the soul', characterized initially by feelings of upset and anger, then despair, followed by sadness, depression and, ultimately, resignation, in which yearning and striving for what they desire, because satisfaction continually eludes them, finally cease. Sense of purpose is lost. What they do or don't do then matters little to them, if at all. Life seems a cruel joke, if not meaningless. The process continues, generally in waves and spurts, till they fully accept the fact that they cannot have things be the way them want them to be (or not be the way they want them not to be). In the end, truly humbled, they reach the point where they stop being egocentrically willful and demanding, whatever their personal predilection and preference may have been or yet be.

Then, because no longer preoccupied with dreams of idealization-fantasy fulfillment and schemes aimed at attaining the same, they begin to be open to truly savoring and appreciating actualities and possibilities that are inherent in, and so embrace and act to creatively enhance, their and others present condition and circumstance, whatever this happens to be. As a result of becoming disillusioned regarding the possibility of actualizing and enjoying what, because of comparison-based sensation and logic, they previously mentally and emotionally fixated on as 'ideal', by default as it were, without specifically intending to, they organically rediscover and reexperience the beauty and bounteousness of Life as is.

In due course, such rediscovery and reexperience sparks a conversion in one's outlook and mode of operation. Because one then experientially knows disappointment and dissatisfaction to be idealization-associated blights, one becomes more wary of and less likely to be lured by fantasy-based temptations and, if and when one gets 'snared' by them, more quickly frees oneself from such entanglement by reestablishing wholesome relationship with what is in truth. Gradually, more and more often, and each time more fully, recognizing the bounteousness of experience and ongoing opportunity for discovery, development and joyful expression afforded by Life as It is to be a phenomenal boon, one proceeds with an attitude of greater and greater appreciation and consequently love. As the quest for 'more' desire-satisfaction then becomes superfluous, one increasingly enjoys and, so, more and more 'naturally' acts to enhance developments in Life's garden, whatever one's situation and whoever one may be with. Such progression 'naturally' culminates in one's actualizing totally positive modality and flourishing in complete psychospiritual communion with Life processes one is part and parcel of, as all one's giving and receiving becomes geared to this.
=========

To what degree it has and whether or not all my 'giving' and 'receiving' will become geared to the above-referenced 'this' remain questions for subjective assessment. Let me just say, that it is a 'way' of being-n-doing which I 'imagine' is the natural-ultimate outcome of the kind of 'process' outlined.

To anyone who 'resonates' with whats' in the above piece, please note: To post this material here, I had to delete all the included footnotes - many of which cross-reference very meaningful (I think) 'scriptural' passages in the Bible and the Gita and/or otherwise amplify the meaning of the body-text. If interested in accessing these 'footnotes' (which may then be 'clicked on' and read) go to:

Original piece (http://www.godspeak2000.net/6a/6059.htm)

- David

[...]

The short answer to "did this process make you feel better?" is, Yes, more and more so, along the 'slopes' of Life, sometimes in quite 'noticeable' 'steps', in overview, over time, however, I would have to say, gradually.

How important is it for you to stay in this process of gradual betterment, to benefit from your doings?

[DavidS]

Originally posted by ...@Sep 20 2003, 01:34 AM
How important is it for you to stay in this process of gradual betterment, to benefit from your doings?
Hi ...,

Over time, since 'love' includes 'loving' 'myself' (among other things, because 'loving' 'myself' (wholesomely) results in my becoming and being able to be more 'loving' in relation to others as well), I would say that this process of 'betterment' -- meaning a "making the 'best' of" or 'bettering' way of Life -- has, I think, become 'supremely' or 'primarily' 'important' to me. "The kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.", I think is an applicable analogy (except for the 'hideth' part; it's more like 'keeping it' from being stolen/drained/abused by all-too-voracious others, and not mindlessly 'squandering' it this way and that myself, because it is so 'precious').

The 'benefit' implication and/or 'motivation' is purely secondary, however. The 'foregound' focus is on maximizing thangs like balance, health, vitality, joy, from moment-to-moment, 'in' the 'moment'. The 'benefits' issue, which are also 'appreciated', pretty much takes care of itself as the process unfolds.

As I have 'progressed' along this 'path', the 'process' seems to have 'taken over', at least it seems to have 'developed' a 'life of its 'own', though I gnow that it ever remains a matter of choice, it's just that I think I am now very unlikely to 'un'choose it. It has become quite 'natural' and 'familiar' like my breathing. So even tho it is 'extremely' 'important' for me to 'stay' in the process (or 'return' to it when I 'see' that I've 'fallen' or 'drifted' out of the process's flow-stream), a fair proportion of the time, now, I would say that I don't even notice or think about thangs like 'betterment' or 'benefit' of any particular kind, and just proceed on the basis of faith, born of accumulating experience, that such will be the case if and as I don't 'swerve' from the 'path'.

I would say that, over time, I have progressively become much more sensitive to and aware of my inner 'feelings' -- of 'happiness', 'well-being' and 'relatedness' vs. things like 'unease', 'irritation', 'aggravation', 'depletion', 'aloneness' (as opposed to all·one·ness), etc. I now 'respect' what they are 'telling me' enough to be much more inclined than ever before to choose courses of thought, feeling and action which lead to experience of the former (and correspondingly to 'eschew' courses of thought, feeling and action which result in the latter). The quality of my subjective experience has become my top-value banana.

Though I'm a 'minimalist' in terms of 'physical' life-style, you might say I have become very 'self-indulgent' and prefer to live in relative 'luxury' in that regard.

I hope that comes close to addressing what you had in mind when asking your question. I don't know what kinds of things you have in mind when yuou say "important", "betterment" and "benefit".

Sincerely - David

[a random hack]

I have learnt to love 'others' by loving 'myself', and to love 'myself' by loving others'. Doesn't mean I always do so to the best of my (potential) ability, but then again, perhaps thinking 'potential' is much of the 'problem'? :)

[...]

David, what makes you believe you are not perfect as you have always been?

[DavidS]

Originally posted by ...@Sep 22 2003, 02:41 AM
David, what makes you believe you are not perfect as you have always been?
Sorry if I said things in ways that lead you to such a conclusion. The 'child' (at whatever 'stage' in it's 'development') is 'perfect' as is. I gnow I am, like everyone else, 'perfect' in that regard. BUT a 'child' is not 'mature' - a "child's" understanding and 'adeptitude' or quality-of-life-stream-'mastery' (in terms of 'navigating' life's 'currents' in 'beneficial' ways) are not as 'mature' as the a "grown up's". It is the 'maturing' process which I have been talking about. That process is, indeed, also alpha-and-omega-'perfect' as is.

Please note: I am not speaking in terms of bio[/U]logical[/U] 'age' when referring to things like a 'child' or a 'grown up'.

[...]

It is the 'maturing' process which I have been talking about. That process is, indeed, also alpha-and-omega-'perfect' as is.

So, in order to justify an useless endevour to mature, you claim that this rise to maturity falls within wholeness? Which is true ofcourse, but only if you believe there's an 'I' that needs to mature...

Following is a c&p

Question: Perhaps all senses of liberation, whether true or false, are at best only temporary. "this too shall pass." I don't see any reason why 'awareness' itself should be excluded from this "time tested" rule.

Answer: Awareness is just a word to point at the Nameless IT. Unconditional Apple Pie would do as well.

Al that falls under "time tested rules" will come and go. But THAT in which it comes and goes, does by itself not come and go. Coming and going is of time and space. THAT from which both time and space arise, is prior to manifestation and untouched by it. Even the mind's own logic dictates this to be so.

When we perceive a universe with time and space, we also perceive cause and effect. When there is cause and effect there must be a first cause. This first cause must by itself be uncaused, otherwise it would not be the first cause. It therefore has no beginning. If it has no beginning it has no end and qualifications such as before and after, or front and back cannot apply to it. Without these criteria it is outside of -or prior to- the dimensions of space and time.

Nothing said or written can be IT and yet, nothing can be not IT. Just like all objects appearing in space, are not the space they appear in. But beyond the subatomic level everything collapses into energy/space. In the same way, all that appears in IT/Awareness dissolves into IT/Awareness.

Liberation is when THAT/Pure Awareness, which has no beginning or end and which does not come and go, is recognized by THAT as 'your/Its' True Identity.

http://www.awakeningtothedream.com/newsletter/

[DavidS]

So, in order to justify an useless endevour to mature, you claim that this rise to maturity falls within wholeness? Which is true ofcourse, but only if you believe there's an 'I' that needs to mature...

Hi ...,

I 'respect' that you consider any attempt to 'capitalize' on such process to be 'use'less. I, of course, do not. I hope you can 'respect' that I consider it the most worthwhile (for 'self' as well as 'others') 'investment' one can make and so continue to do so myself.

I was in no way attempting to 'justify' the process (please reread my posts if you continue to think so after reading this). I merely tried to word-describe what, based on my personal perception and experience, I 'imagine' is "the way it is".

I do 'believe' that there are I's which have the 'potential' to 'mature', and that this earth-existence provides the necessary ingredients and stimuli for such flowering-fructification-and-seeding 'stage' to be 'reached'. Regarding your using the words "needs to mature", I made no such implication. One may 'desire' to 'mature' or not. And, carried 'forward' by the 'river' of Life itself, some will 'mature' regardless. Not all will, certainly not at the same time, however (the 'contrast' is what 'spurs' human 'learning'.)There is no 'need' for you or anyone else to 'mature' postulated.

I totally 'grooved' on the piece that you posted, and agree with its 'portrayal' of "Liberation'. Please note: It is only once one is 'liberated' (at least 'partly') that one has any degree of real'freedom' or 'choice' in the matter of cooperating with and capitalizing on the 'maturation'-process I speak of, resisting and/or rejecting it as something unpromissing', or, of course, electing to 'simply' accept and embrace whatever 'fate' brings one's way.

Things like liberation, emancipation or initiation, etc., while 'crucially' important, are only a first-step towards 'wholesomeness', IMO. A process of INTEGRATION (synonymous with what I have been calling 'maturity') has to 'take place' for wholesomeness to be actualized in 'reality'.

[rich]

Beyond Human Nature are Dolphins. Please open the following link to read some fantastic phenoma. :D
VISION of Sanctuary -- Eternal Spiral of Life
Most animals have some basic inner ... the contact promotes new development ... from the author and publisher to "The Millennium Matters..." website.
http://www.new-civi.most.org.pl/millennium...s/vision2d.html (http://www.new-civi.most.org.pl/millennium_matters/vision2d.html)

[...]

I hope you can 'respect' that I consider it the most worthwhile (for 'self' as well as 'others') 'investment' one can make and so continue to do so myself.

Ofcourse...

I merely tried to word-describe what, based on my personal perception and experience, I 'imagine' is "the way it is".

How much of what you write is spontaneous?

I do 'believe' that there are I's which have the 'potential' to 'mature', and that this earth-existence provides the necessary ingredients and stimuli for such flowering-fructification-and-seeding 'stage' to be 'reached'.

Is this belief fed by a meaning you want this earth-existence to have?

There is no 'need' for you or anyone else to 'mature' postulated.

True...

I totally 'grooved' on the piece that you posted, and agree with its 'portrayal' of "Liberation'. Please note: It is only once one is 'liberated' (at least 'partly') that one has any degree of real'freedom' or 'choice' in the matter of cooperating with and capitalizing on the 'maturation'-process I speak of, resisting and/or rejecting it as something unpromissing', or, of course, electing to 'simply' accept and embrace whatever 'fate' brings one's way.

- Define 'liberated'.

Things like liberation, emancipation or initiation, etc., while 'crucially' important, are only a first-step towards 'wholesomeness', IMO. A process of INTEGRATION (synonymous with what I have been calling 'maturity') has to 'take place' for wholesomeness to be actualized in 'reality'.

But who's doing the actualizing when you refrain from beliefs?

[DavidS]

Hi 'elipsis' :D -

...: How much of what you write is spontaneous?

If by 'spontaneous" you mean thinking-feeling-n-acting "in the moment", I would have to say all of what I write is spontaneous. It's not that I don't have a 'set' of 'perspectives' and 'understandings' which I bring with me to every situation, but that I don't have anything formulated in my mind when I sit down to read and (possibly) respond to what's been going on in the conversation here.

I 'write' whatever 'spontaneously' 'comes to mind' in response to what I read in the context of the 'gestalt' which I 'historically' bring to the table (in the present). I also 'spontaneously' think of and sometimes implement 'edits' to what I have just written on reading it for verbal 'correctness' and 'sense' - it's a bit like making sure the 'bread' I want 'buttered' is 'butter-spread in an 'even handed' way.

Having said that, let me ask you, would you consider the specifics of the movement-flow of your hand when you 'spread' something butter or mayonnaise on a slice of bread 'spontaneous' or 'rote' behavior? That's what my writing process is 'like', whatever your answer.

David: I do 'believe' that there are I's which have the 'potential' to 'mature', and that this earth-existence provides the necessary ingredients and stimuli for such flowering-fructification-and-seeding 'stage' to be 'reached'.

...: Is this belief fed by a meaning you want this earth-existence to have?

I don't think so, at least not any more than my 'belief' that it is the 'nature' of seeds to sprout, saplings to grow, flowers to bloom, and trees to fruit-n-seed, etc. is 'fed' by some kind of 'want' for the 'dance' of life on earth to have such kind of 'meaning' embedded in it. As I said, I think I am just 'seeing' "the way it is."

If you don't 'see' things the same way, it would of course make sense for you to imagine there had to be some kind of 'explanation' for my 'seeing' things the way I do, such as that I'm just a 'hungry' person who likes "being fed by a meaning I want this earth-existence to have." There is always the possibility (as with any one of us) that I don't know or gnow 'myself' honestly, I suppose.

All I can tell you is that I genuinely think that my 'view' is not the result of my 'desiring' things to be the way I 'see' them. I spent a great portion of my 'youth' seeing just this, but rebelling against things being this way, thinking-n-asserting things like "IF there is a Creator-God of any kind, 'He' or 'It' must a real 'f*ck up' because, the way things are, this sure is one hell of a world!" Relatively few people 'had it good' (the way I used to think of 'good', that is). I didn't 'see' the 'beneficence' of the process till I had my hubris-sh*t 'kicked out of me' -- I maintained that 'we' people could-n-would do a 'better' job than any hypothesized 'God' in terms of actualizing 'beneficent' process -- I got it 'kicked out of me' along the lines of what was expressed in the excerpt from my earlier writing which I posted.

David: I totally 'grooved' on the piece that you posted, and agree with its 'portrayal' of "Liberation'. Please note: It is only once one is 'liberated' (at least 'partly') that one has any degree of real'freedom' or 'choice' in the matter of cooperating with and capitalizing on the 'maturation'-process I speak of, resisting and/or rejecting it as something unpromissing', or, of course, electing to 'simply' accept and embrace whatever 'fate' brings one's way.

...: Define 'liberated'.

I was speaking of 'liberation' using the same 'definition' as was given in the piece that you posted, which I commended (above). It said:

"When we perceive a universe with time and space, we also perceive cause and effect. When there is cause and effect there must be a first cause. This first cause must by itself be uncaused, otherwise it would not be the first cause. It therefore has no beginning. If it has no beginning it has no end and qualifications such as before and after, or front and back cannot apply to it. Without these criteria it is outside of -or prior to- the dimensions of space and time.

Nothing said or written can be IT and yet, nothing can be not IT. Just like all objects appearing in space, are not the space they appear in. But beyond the subatomic level everything collapses into energy/space. In the same way, all that appears in IT/Awareness dissolves into IT/Awareness.

Liberation is when THAT/Pure Awareness, which has no beginning or end and which does not come and go, is recognized by THAT as 'your/Its' True Identity.

...: But who's doing the actualizing when you refrain from beliefs?

Same thang that's doing the actualizing when you 'engage' with 'beliefs', I suppose. Not that I think it is possible for anyone to operate without making at least some 'assumptions', and thus having some 'beliefs', about the nature (or naturelessness) of 'Reality' and how it 'operates'. That being said, the following passages from The Bhagavad Gita come to mind in relation to your question:

Though the saint sees, hears, touches, smells, eats, moves, sleeps and breathes, yet he knows the Truth, and he knows that it is not he who acts. Though he talks, though he gives and receives, though he opens his eyes and shuts them, he still knows that his senses are merely disporting themselves among the objects of perception.
and
I am the Seed of all being, O Arjuna! No creature moving or unmoving can live without Me.
and
Action is the product of the Qualities inherent in Nature. It is only the ignorant man who, misled by personal egotism, says: `I am the doer.’

[sahyo]

If by 'spontaneous" you mean thinking-feeling-n-acting "in the moment", I would have to say all of what I write is spontaneous. It's not that I don't have a 'set' of 'perspectives' and 'understandings' which I bring with me to every situation

can repeating-thought-beliefs-'set' of 'perspectives' and 'understandings' spontaneous?, david

[sahyo]

are 'beliefs'?, david

[a random hack]

I 'write' whatever 'spontaneously' 'comes to mind' in response to what I read in the context of the 'gestalt' which I 'historically' bring to the table (in the present). I also 'spontaneously' think of and sometimes implement 'edits' to what I have just written on reading it for verbal 'correctness' and 'sense' - it's a bit like making sure the 'bread' I want 'buttered' is 'butter-spread in an 'even handed' way.

Having said that, let me ask you, would you consider the specifics of the movement-flow of your hand when you 'spread' something butter or mayonnaise on a slice of bread 'spontaneous' or 'rote' behavior? That's what my writing process is 'like', whatever your answer.


Just want to muse a little on how wonderful it is, how we can learn how to semi consciously, or even unconsciously, grab a knife, fork or spoon, pick up just the right amount of butter, and with a few efficient strokes, cover our bread with butter exactly how we like it - thick, thin, well spread out or dense.
But perhaps we sometimes get a little too settled in our condiment selection? Sometimes, is wonderful to have dry bread, or jam, honey, peanut butter, or even <gasp> Vegemite! (tho I prefer Promite myself ;) ) :lol:

[...]

Hi 'elipsis'

You can call me Dotty if you want...

If by 'spontaneous" you mean thinking-feeling-n-acting "in the moment", I would have to say all of what I write is spontaneous.

What do you consider the 'source' of those writings?

It's not that I don't have a 'set' of 'perspectives' and 'understandings' which I bring with me to every situation, but that I don't have anything formulated in my mind when I sit down to read and (possibly) respond to what's been going on in the conversation here.

Is what you write pertinent for the recipient you're communicating with, or are you talking to yourself, telling yourself about issues you find important?

Having said that, let me ask you, would you consider the specifics of the movement-flow of your hand when you 'spread' something butter or mayonnaise on a slice of bread 'spontaneous' or 'rote' behavior?

Full attentiveness...

...: Is this belief fed by a meaning you want this earth-existence to have? I don't think so, at least not any more than my 'belief' that it is the 'nature' of seeds to sprout, saplings to grow, flowers to bloom, and trees to fruit-n-seed, etc. is 'fed' by some kind of 'want' for the 'dance' of life on earth to have such kind of 'meaning' embedded in it. As I said, I think I am just 'seeing' "the way it is."

Why do you think that, you have no way of knowing that this is the case, do you?

If you don't 'see' things the same way, it would of course make sense for you to imagine there had to be some kind of 'explanation' for my 'seeing' things the way I do, such as that I'm just a 'hungry' person who likes "being fed by a meaning I want this earth-existence to have." There is always the possibility (as with any one of us) that I don't know or gnow 'myself' honestly, I suppose.

There's no judgment on this end David...

All I can tell you is that I genuinely think that my 'view' is not the result of my 'desiring' things to be the way I 'see' them.

Nevertheless, realising thinker is thought will blatantly show how a view depends on desire to be a certain way...

Liberation is when THAT/Pure Awareness, which has no beginning or end and which does not come and go, is recognized by THAT as 'your/Its' True Identity.

How does this combine with persons waiting to be liberated? How can pure awareness be individualized and then liberated as if it could be contained?

Same thang that's doing the actualizing when you 'engage' with 'beliefs', I suppose. Not that I think it is possible for anyone to operate without making at least some 'assumptions', and thus having some 'beliefs', about the nature (or naturelessness) of 'Reality' and how it 'operates'.

IOW, 'you' is belief...

Action is the product of the Qualities inherent in Nature. It is only the ignorant man who, misled by personal egotism, says: `I am the doer.’

Do you still think/believe DavidS exists as a doer?

[a random hack]

Just felt like having a muse.....

If by 'spontaneous" you mean thinking-feeling-n-acting "in the moment", I would have to say all of what I write is spontaneous.

What do you consider the 'source' of those writings?


Seems to me that source of 'my' thoughts is 'not-me', but that's just a way of saying I don't know where thoughts come from, where they go or where they are even when I can 'see' 'them' :)

Do you still think/believe DavidS exists as a doer?

What's the alternative of 'being a doer'?

[...]

What's the alternative of 'being a doer'?

There is no alternative...

[DavidS]

Originally posted by asheera@Sep 28 2003, 05:15 PM
can repeating-thought-beliefs-'set' of 'perspectives' and 'understandings' spontaneous?, david
For crying out loud, again, asheera! What 'impels' you to try to put me (i.e., what I 'say') into the same 'narrow' box over and over, again and again?

When I 'see' something I've 'seen' before and so have a 'prior' 'perspective' of, I 'see' it differently in the present -- the 'colors' and 'shades' and 'angular relations' are always different and 'I' 'am' 'spontaneously' 'alive'-responsive to the differences in 'pattern' and associated 'significances' which 'spontaneously' 'pop' into 'my' 'head' and 'heart' in the moment.

There's a mountain (Thunder Mountain) which I can see and see daily right out my window, as well as whenever I take a walk in daylight or star-n-moonlight. I have a 'perspective' and an 'understanding' of that mountain. But looking at at or speaking about it, I never see or speak about it exact same way twice. In fact, based on all the 'sponteaneous' 'enounters' I've had with the thang, I'd say I have a growing/evolving (and thus 'changing') 'relationship' with it. The same holds true in terms of my 'relationship' with 'my' 'worldview' and the ideational 'concepts' and 'principles' I enjoy spontaneously[!] 'playing around with' (every bit as much as the mountain, I assure you).

I don't know what I can say to induce what looks and feels to me like your 'monkey' to get off of my back. Consider the possiblility that maybe what 'you' are 'seeing' 'in' 'me' may be something you don't want to 'see' 'in' 'yourself'. Consider the possibility that you've 'become' what you 'hate'. Consider anything and everything which might 'help'. All I can say in this regard, is that, in my 'view', you've got me beat hands down, asheera, when it comes to keeping on expressing the same (general) 'perspective' and 'understanding' -- it really 'looks' and 'feels' to me like there's only ONE of each in your case -- in a 'rote', repetitive, with very little variation, 'fashion' or 'manner'.

[sahyo]

david, are thoughts comforting?

[sahyo]

is thinking'imagining'about comforting, david?

[DavidS]

Originally posted by asheera@Sep 30 2003, 03:49 PM
david, are thoughts comforting?
Some are, some aren't. AND, in addition to that (I assume you can 'add' if and as you want to, asheera), some (kinds) are 'joying', some (kinds) are 'sadding'; some (kinds) are 'enlivening', some (kinds) are 'endeadening'; etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. there's zillions of 'ings' that thoughts can serve and lead to. As far as I can 'see', thoughts can 'take' 'you' to (or 'stimulate' 'you' to 'go' to) any and every possible emotional or spiritual 'state' - ranging from the 'heights' of heavenly 'bliss' to the 'depth' of hellish 'angst' - hence, of course, my 'deduction' that it 'desirable' that one learn to 'surf-navigate' the 'ocean of thought' adeptly, i.e. wisely (unless hellish 'angst' is on the list of one's 'acceptable' cup-o'-tea flavors, that is B) ).

is thinking'imagining'about comforting, david?
Given the way my thinking-n-imagining process 'runs' (as declared and shared above), asheera, I think it's 'fair' to at least provisionally conclude that the above must be a 'product' of your thinking-n-imagining. It's way too 'limited' to 'belong' in the 'world' of my thinking-n-imagining.

Thoughts are part of (human) life-living. If perchance you think that life-living is 'comforting', then I would say that 'thoughts' are 'comforting' in the same sense. But that's not how I approach things - I'm a 'joy'-man, not a 'comfort'-man by personality consitution, in my own estimation.

I am curiously wondering though, maybe the way in which you 'snipe' at and attempt to 'trivialize' my communications about just how I 'see' and 'experience' and 'choose to live' life in relation to whatever subject is on the table for discussion is somehow 'geared' to keep you in your 'comfort zone. Among other things, it occurs to me that, if what you are 'projecting' (as quoited above) as 'possible' (maybe even 'likely') onto 'me', what you say may be a quite 'significant' indicator-clue to something going on 'in' your 'self' in relation to the 'comfort' dimension you bring up. What do you think about this as a possibility?

[a random hack]

'love'ly ripples, ash'Dav'eera'idS :lol:

Some are, some aren't. AND, in addition to that (I assume you can 'add' if and as you want to, asheera), some (kinds) are 'joying', some (kinds) are 'sadding'; some (kinds) are 'enlivening', some (kinds) are 'endeadening'; etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. there's zillions of 'ings' that thoughts can serve and lead to. As far as I can 'see', thoughts can 'take' 'you' to (or 'stimulate' 'you' to 'go' to) any and every possible emotional or spiritual 'state' - ranging from the 'heights' of heavenly 'bliss' to the 'depth' of hellish 'angst' - hence, of course, my 'deduction' that it 'desirable' that one learn to 'surf-navigate' the 'ocean of thought' adeptly, i.e. wisely (unless hellish 'angst' is on the list of one's 'acceptable' cup-o'-tea flavors, that is ).

And 'beyond' thought?
Beyond 'state' or 'stimulate'?

Of course :)

[DavidS]

You can call me Dotty if you want...

Hi Dotty(-man, :D I assume?)

[As long as we're into 'name' related stuff, let me say, to everyone, that it's OK to address me as David instead of DavidS; as a matter of fact, I'd prefer it. I only put the 'S' into my screen name to differentiate which David was speaking in case there were other Davids here, or another David arrived.]

[Added preamble caveat: this is a relatively loong one, folks; some may prefer to skip it. I wanted to respond to Dotty's post as precisely and completely as possible in order to get to the nitty-gritty' of matters being discussed -- there's something very 'important', in my estimation, that's being 'zeroed in' on here.]

What do you consider the 'source' of those writings?

In my view, the 'ultimate' (and in that sense, 'real') 'source' of my and everyone else's speaking and writing, is Brahman, God, Life, The Void, or whatever else you or anyone else may want to call IT. On the other hand, I think one may also 'validly' say that the proximate 'worldly' 'funnel-deployer' (and in that sense, and only in that sense, 'source' or 'worldly source') of the 'ideation' and 'spirit' of what I 'say' is the psychospiritual (or 'mental'-n-'emotional') 'constellation' of my (i.e., this "David's") 'self'. 'My', or, if you prefer, "David's" communication-transmissons are a 'spectrumatic emanation' dispersed by this vibrantly-interactive-n-everchanging 'pattern' or 'constellation'.

[Note: such 'constellation' may also be referenced as 'my' or "David's" personal 'soul', or simply be thought of as one of the infinite multitude of Brahman's developing 'souls', or 'atmanic'-differentiations, while still being nominally, for purposes of conversation, referencing 'me').

Is what you write pertinent for the recipient you're communicating with, or are you talking to yourself, telling yourself about issues you find important?

Hopefully (IOW, the 'aim' is) both. In my experience, whether something turns out to actually be pertinent to the person I am addressing or others listening into the conversation is a 'hit or miss' proposition, but I always (at least) find the process of writing down what I think about a subject (I don't 'know' exactly what I'll 'say' before it 'pops into' my 'mind') quite a clarifying and educational 'exercise' myself.

The latter is one of the reasons why people write in diaries, I imagine. But if I only wanted to 'dialogue' with 'my' 'self', that's what I would be doing instead of engaging in post-conversations in a forum.

From the question you ask, I surmise that you haven't found my utterances particularly 'pertinent' yourself? So that's a 'miss'. I feel 'gratified' when and if and as I get 'indications' that something in what I said was found to be 'significant' by someone (anyone) here.

David: Having said that, let me ask you, would you consider the specifics of the movement-flow of your hand when you 'spread' something butter or mayonnaise on a slice of bread 'spontaneous' or 'rote' behavior?

...: Full attentiveness...

Not that it's a 'fair' 'forced-choice' question (I myself think it's a 'combination' of both 'kinds' of 'behavior'), but you didn't 'grapple' with my question, dude. I think "Full attentiveness" would be a 'great' 'answer' (because that's the 'crux' of conscious 'living' and therefore of conscious 'life', IMO) in another context. You were the one who brought up the 'question' of whether the writing was 'spontaneous' or not.

David: ...: Is this belief fed by a meaning you want this earth-existence to have? I don't think so, at least not any more than my 'belief' that it is the 'nature' of seeds to sprout, saplings to grow, flowers to bloom, and trees to fruit-n-seed, etc. is 'fed' by some kind of 'want' for the 'dance' of life on earth to have such kind of 'meaning' embedded in it. As I said, I think I am just 'seeing' "the way it is."

...: Why do you think that, you have no way of knowing that this is the case, do you?

It's my 'best bet' in terms of a 'theory' I've adopted-n-developed which ties together significant aspects of what I 'see' taking place in the 'procession' going on in Life's panoramic arena.

It is 'true', IMO, that no one 'knows' (and, if 'ever', certainly not 'in advance') exactly what 'the case' is. IMO, this pertains to even the 'simplest' of matters pertaining to perception and experience. One's only alternative in that 'light' is to provisionally 'believe' 'this' or 'that' as likely being 'the case' (or 'not the case') and proceed, with eyes 'peeled' for 'anomolies' that don't 'add up' in one's 'view'), OR to make thangs like choices and decisions with absoutely no 'idea' about what's going on and no sense of what is likely to 'happen' in 'this' or 'that' case. Different strokes suit different folks in this regard, as in any other, methinks.

David: If you don't 'see' things the same way, .... There is always the possibility (as with any one of us) that I don't know or gnow 'myself' honestly, I suppose.

...: There's no judgment on this end David...

I am 'seeing' that.

David: All I can tell you is that I genuinely think that my 'view' is not the result of my 'desiring' things to be the way I 'see' them.

...: Nevertheless, realising thinker is thought will blatantly show how a view depends on desire to be a certain way...

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with that. Hence the 'importance' of things like being 'open' to and seriously considering the implications of the perpectives of 'genuinely' thoughtful others, becoming and remaining 'aware' of the 'nature' and (possible) 'ramifications' of one's own 'desires', including any 'desire' to be or appear to oneself or others to be 'desireless', etc. A lot of 'chips' ride on one's 'bet' about "the way it is."

From the piece you quoted earlier: Liberation is when THAT/Pure Awareness, which has no beginning or end and which does not come and go, is recognized by THAT as 'your/Its' True Identity.

...: How does this combine with persons waiting to be liberated? How can pure awareness be individualized and then liberated as if it could be contained?

First Q is a 'tough' one. Add to that the fact (or 'notion' if you don't think it's a 'fact') that there are 'layers' of 'dreams' within 'dreams', so there are 'degrees' of 'recognition' (and misrecognition) pertaining the "Pure Awareness" and "True Identity" THANG. Every 'case' has to be subjectively guess-valuated. No 'generalizations' possible in this regard, methinks. It's a wild jumble out there! :lol:

Regarding your 2nd Q: I honestly have no idea how awareness become 'individualized' such that 'I' have 'mine', 'you' have 'yours', etc. Is it really just 'free floating' awareness which somehow becomes 'associated' with or 'arise from within' the constellation of 'this' or 'that' individual? Or what? I don't know. This is one of 'em thangs I have no 'beliefs' about simply because my mind hasn't been able to even formulate a 'theory' about it. I just relegate it to the label-category of 'divine mystery' or 'divine gift'.

Whatever the case, I don't think there is ever any 'real' 'containment' of any sort for or of 'awareness' (it's a 'beyond' time-n-space 'values' thang, I think). The only 'liberation' is from the imagined-identity 'containers' which 'individual' aspects of awareness (short-sightedly, aiming for short-term 'gain' I suppose) image·in and give 'credence' to based on 'data'-input from their physical senses.

IOW, 'you' is belief...

Yup. 'I' am not 'me' but 'universal-'essence' or -'spirit' (somehow, 'miraculously') functioning' as 'David' is another 'belief'. The wheel is rolling - Ladies and Gents who wish to, place your bets.

Action is the product of the Qualities inherent in Nature. It is only the ignorant man who, misled by personal egotism, says: `I am the doer.’

Do you still think/believe DavidS exists as a doer?

As I have implied in previous posts, I am personally quite comfortable thinking of and experiencing whatever happens around 'me' both as 'my' thoughts and experiences and as the thoughts and experiences of a universal Presence (which I happen to be 'privy'to).

Methinks what you are attempting to 'resolve' with your question is the same kind of 'dilemma' one might experience when in a time-'sensitive' situation and one thinks of both "Haste makes waste" ('True') and "A stitch in time saves nine" (also 'True'), which are, in strictly logical terms[/U] contradictory. Which 'way of thinking', or 'belief', or 'attitude', will be most creatively 'functional' and or most 'beneficial' depends on one's present personal 'circumstance' and personal 'condition' within it.

IMO, and I stress this is just an opinion based on 'my' personal observations, 'theorizings', and experiences, wisdom (which may also be thought of as either 'attribute' an 'individual' soul or of the 'universal presence') 'recognizes' that it is as 'pointless' to 'think' or 'argue' about the 'issue' of 'local' vs. 'universal' 'identity' as it would be to 'think' or 'argue' about which of "Haste makes waste" ('True') and "A stitch in time saves nine" is 'true' (or more 'fundamenally' true) than the other.

Either way of in-the-moment 'thinking' and 'believing' about 'Self' and/or 'self' has its (potential) uses. The wise (based on results actually experienced!) life- and/or word-artist develops a 'feel' for which 'way', or 'juggling' of such 'ways', will serve Creativity 'best' in relation to the 'need' or 'opportunity' present in that situational moment. S/he is 'equally' open to 'using' whichever 'picture-frame' 'tool' looks like it will be the most 'useful'. ;)

Spending time thinking about or trying to convince myself or anyone else either that 'I' am the 'doer' or that 'I' am not the 'doer' (but 'It', through 'me' is!) is, IMO, ultimately useless - not to mention mind-boggle·ing and wasteful of one's capacity for 'thought', again IMO.

Clue: I advocate discerning for whether a discussion and/or argument involves EITHER 'this' OR 'that' is 'true', 'right', or 'better' kinds of statements and pro·positions or ;) BOTH this AND that are 'true' and 'right' and 'good' depending on contextual exigencies.

In my metaview, dualistic [U]dichotomization which implies no possibility of situational 'mixture' or 'synthesis' is something 'suspect'.

[...]

Hello,

'My', or, if you prefer, "David's" communication-transmissons are a 'spectrumatic emanation' dispersed by this vibrantly-interactive-n-everchanging 'pattern' or 'constellation'.

It's not accumulated knowledge acquired through learning?

[Note: such 'constellation' may also be referenced as 'my' or "David's" personal 'soul', or simply be thought of as one of the infinite multitude of Brahman's developing 'souls', or 'atmanic'-differentiations, while still being nominally, for purposes of conversation, referencing 'me').

Which is wishfull thinking ofcourse...

Hopefully (IOW, the 'aim' is) both. In my experience, whether something turns out to actually be pertinent to the person I am addressing or others listening into the conversation is a 'hit or miss' proposition, but I always (at least) find the process of writing down what I think about a subject (I don't 'know' exactly what I'll 'say' before it 'pops into' my 'mind') quite a clarifying and educational 'exercise' myself.

Communication is always from self to self, yet we think/believe it's a separate person we're talking to, right?

The latter is one of the reasons why people write in diaries, I imagine. But if I only wanted to 'dialogue' with 'my' 'self', that's what I would be doing instead of engaging in post-conversations in a forum.

Aah, you answered above question, thanks. The Bhagavat Gita speaks about the transient shell of flesh which does not affect deathless spirit. Thing is, can deathless spirit be individualized or is it the same in/for every emanation of matter?

From the question you ask, I surmise that you haven't found my utterances particularly 'pertinent' yourself? So that's a 'miss'. I feel 'gratified' when and if and as I get 'indications' that something in what I said was found to be 'significant' by someone (anyone) here.

It's never about the other David, what one writes is only pertinent to that one...

You were the one who brought up the 'question' of whether the writing was 'spontaneous' or not.

Whether writing posts, buttering bread or having a dump, it's always full attentiveness. Difference being, do you believe there's a doer being attentive?

It's my 'best bet' in terms of a 'theory' I've adopted-n-developed which ties together significant aspects of what I 'see' taking place in the 'procession' going on in Life's panoramic arena.

A framework of your own making ofcourse, but how do you reconcile the inherent doubt embedded in beliefs with the effort you make convincing yourself of it's validity?

It is 'true', IMO, that no one 'knows' (and, if 'ever', certainly not 'in advance') exactly what 'the case' is. IMO, this pertains to even the 'simplest' of matters pertaining to perception and experience. One's only alternative in that 'light' is to provisionally 'believe' 'this' or 'that' as likely being 'the case' (or 'not the case') and proceed, with eyes 'peeled' for 'anomolies' that don't 'add up' in one's 'view'), OR to make thangs like choices and decisions with absoutely no 'idea' about what's going on and no sense of what is likely to 'happen' in 'this' or 'that' case. Different strokes suit different folks in this regard, as in any other, methinks.

Why settle for figments of your imagination then? You don't have to tell me how scary it is to find yourself empty handed, without consolement, but indeed, different strokes...

...: Nevertheless, realising thinker is thought will blatantly show how a view depends on desire to be a certain way...Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with that. Hence the 'importance' of things like being 'open' to and seriously considering the implications of the perpectives of 'genuinely' thoughtful others, becoming and remaining 'aware' of the 'nature' and (possible) 'ramifications' of one's own 'desires', including any 'desire' to be or appear to oneself or others to be 'desireless', etc. A lot of 'chips' ride on one's 'bet' about "the way it is."

You agree, but before you genuinely thought your viewpoint wasn't based on desire. Which is it?

First Q is a 'tough' one. Add to that the fact (or 'notion' if you don't think it's a 'fact') that there are 'layers' of 'dreams' within 'dreams', so there are 'degrees' of 'recognition' (and misrecognition) pertaining the "Pure Awareness" and "True Identity" THANG. Every 'case' has to be subjectively guess-valuated. No 'generalizations' possible in this regard, methinks. It's a wild jumble out there!

David, there are no persons waiting to be liberated.

Regarding your 2nd Q: I honestly have no idea how awareness become 'individualized' such that 'I' have 'mine', 'you' have 'yours', etc. Is it really just 'free floating' awareness which somehow becomes 'associated' with or 'arise from within' the constellation of 'this' or 'that' individual? Or what? I don't know. This is one of 'em thangs I have no 'beliefs' about simply because my mind hasn't been able to even formulate a 'theory' about it. I just relegate it to the label-category of 'divine mystery' or 'divine gift'.

Does this mean you've taken the mind for granted, as a given, without further investigation? Awareness never became individualized, nothing separated or associated with anything but itself. Only thought thinks/believes otherwise...

Whatever the case, I don't think there is ever any 'real' 'containment' of any sort for or of 'awareness' (it's a 'beyond' time-n-space 'values' thang, I think). The only 'liberation' is from the imagined-identity 'containers' which 'individual' aspects of awareness (short-sightedly, aiming for short-term 'gain' I suppose) image·in and give 'credence' to based on 'data'-input from their physical senses.

Then, if all you write comes from imagined-identity container, is fed by the importance/goal and meaning this container want reality to have, which comes through fallable physical senses, how much value can you attach to anything?

Yup. 'I' am not 'me' but 'universal-'essence' or -'spirit' (somehow, 'miraculously') functioning' as 'David' is another 'belief'. The wheel is rolling - Ladies and Gents who wish to, place your bets.
So, no goals, no meaning, no reason for living, because you've seen that which thinks all these attributes are real, isn't real at all?

As I have implied in previous posts, I am personally quite comfortable thinking of and experiencing whatever happens around 'me' both as 'my' thoughts and experiences and as the thoughts and experiences of a universal Presence (which I happen to be 'privy'to).

Ofcourse, that's perfectly fine...

Which 'way of thinking', or 'belief', or 'attitude', will be most creatively 'functional' and or most 'beneficial' depends on one's present personal 'circumstance' and personal 'condition' within it.

Which requires a belief in a doer...

IMO, and I stress this is just an opinion based on 'my' personal observations, 'theorizings', and experiences, wisdom (which may also be thought of as either 'attribute' an 'individual' soul or of the 'universal presence') 'recognizes' that it is as 'pointless' to 'think' or 'argue' about the 'issue' of 'local' vs. 'universal' 'identity' as it would be to 'think' or 'argue' about which of "Haste makes waste" ('True') and "A stitch in time saves nine" is 'true' (or more 'fundamenally' true) than the other.

Only if something feels there's a need to defend or protect, right?

Clue: I advocate discerning for whether a discussion and/or argument involves EITHER 'this' OR 'that' is 'true', 'right', or 'better' kinds of statements and pro·positions or BOTH this AND that are 'true' and 'right' and 'good' depending on contextual exigencies. In my metaview, dualistic [U]dichotomization which implies no possibility of situational 'mixture' or 'synthesis' is something 'suspect'.

Ofcourse, you have no interest in dying, different strokes again...

[Ocre]

Ofcourse, you have no interest in dying, different strokes again...
Who is there to have an interest?

:-)

[sahyo]

if what you are 'projecting' (as quoited above) as 'possible' (maybe even 'likely') onto 'me'

is it comforting 'thinking' "projecting"onto 'me'"?

is "me" which can be projected "onto"?....is "onto"?

[sahyo]

Who is there to have an interest?

ocre not challenging using word "who"
like challenges using word "which"? ;)

:D

[sahyo]

'love'ly ripples, ash'Dav'eera'idS :lol:


:lol:

[Ocre]

Why would the use of words need to be "challenged"?

There is no"challenger", only Self talking to Self; meaning showing meaninglessness, the Seeing itself has no qualities, no 'no qualities' either.



:-)

[...]

Awareness never became individualized, nothing separated or associated with anything but itself.

When awareness of this is present, any need for order is let-go. It also means that the use of words, phrases, syntax and grammar no longer fall within a set of rules. I can adress my fellow posters with language that indicates a belief in individuality according the the scrutiny of some, when it doesn't. Questioning 'who?' is perfectly alright if you feel inclined to do so, but it's asking for directions that's known very well...

[Ocre]

Was there ever a need for order to let go of?

..Awareness of this.." A quality to awareness?
In short Ed, how can there be 'directions"?

You wrote: Communication is always from self to self, yet we think/believe it's a separate person we're talking to, right?
-It's never about the other David, what one writes is only pertinent to that one...

Has that changed?


:-)

[Ocre]

It also means that the use of words, phrases, syntax and grammar no longer fall within a set of rules

What do you mean by this, didn't you still write in understandable English, following syntax and grammar?

:-)
Edited part:

About this cause and effect you mention here: (When awareness of this is present, any need for order is let-go.)
Self-Realisation is not an effect to a certain cause. (All points at the same, but every road-sign is ‘it’ as well…)

No matter how matters seem related (" realising thinker is thought (cause) will blatantly show how a view depends on desire to be a certain way."(effect..), every thought, feeling and image appears without any interference from anyone and appears in the same Unchanging Awareness.

It does not matter whether this is, or is not recognised for it to appear in that same “dream of Unchanging Awareness”, it does not matter how “Wholeness” might appear not to be, for it to never be lacking.
…And this does not mean some kind of conclusion follows, as if this conclusion might appear from a better place…;-)

The meaninglessness of meaning, the plot in the dream, it is so breathtakingly beautiful in diversion, possibilities, limitlessness…
How 'I' (as in “That”) surprise mySelf in endless awe of how 'I' might appear…!

:-)

And last:
I can adress my fellow posters with language that indicates a belief in individuality according the the scrutiny of some, when it doesn't.
The scrutiny of some...isn't that in itself an indication of this belief in individuality? ... ;)

:-)

[...]

..analizing what's written is one of your gifts Ocre, and as with everything, there's always something to find, to question, and that's part of joy, right? It's what Ocre's 'make-up' does best, amongst other things. If you ask a question i feel inclined to answer, you'll get an answer, but when you start asking for directions you know inside out, i'll bow my head in silence...

[Ocre]

Any "make-up" is there to thoroughly enjoy, no 'one' owns it...
You are me

I am not asking about any directions, there are none Ed, can you see a place or state to get to? "You" (as in "I", as in "the Unchanging") are allready and always "That" of course!

:-)

[...]

can you see a place or state to get to?

Nonewhatsoever...

[Ocre]

Then, what's this talk about directions?
:D

[...]

..you mean besides what you read into it? There is no talk about directions...

[Ocre]

:P

Admit it, you actually started thinking you were talking to David as you went along in that post...

Not that that matters in the least...

:-)

[...]

(...)

[Ocre]

What's that? A nose piercing gone bad, making for that third nostril?

:-)

[sahyo]

There is no"challenger", only Self talking to Self; meaning showing meaninglessness, the Seeing itself has no qualities, no 'no qualities' either.


:lol:

[DavidS]

Do you still think/believe DavidS exists as a doer?

Hi All -

I am attending a conference this weekend, so I won't have leisurely time to read and respond to posts till Monday. Just want to 'quickly' add this to my earlier response to the above question, since it's an 'itch' that won't stop until it's 'scratched':

IMO, we are all 'fingers' on the 'hand' of Life. If, let's say, an itch is scratched by a finger, would you say that the finger 'itself' did the scratching, or, since the finger 'itself' could not 'exist' or 'operate' as a life-'entity' on its 'own', that the scratching was 'really' done by the hand 'itself? Seems to me, one could 'truly' 'speak and be 'truly' understood either way. Either way, assuming the 'speaker' and the 'hearer' both gnow the relational connection between the finger and the hand, implies (as opposed to either 'excluding' or 'negating') the 'meaning' of the other.

Here are the words to a song, titled Alphabet Mantra, one of yesterday's conference speakers (Jan Phillips) sang to set the 'tone' for her presentation. The words in it 'play' with the above 'topic' - fairly meaningfully methinks (don't 'fixate' on any particular words or word-orders - it's the 'gestalt' they all-together refer to that I'm trying to get across):

Like the all all in the oneness
Like the branch and the vine
Like the call and the answer
Like the drink and the wine

Like the earth and the heavens
Like the forest and trees
Like the gate and the pathway
Like the hawk and the breeze
Like the iris and petals
Like the jewel and the mine
Like the known and the knowing
Like the laugh and the line

Like the moonlight and darkness
Like nowhere and near
Like the oak and the acorn
Like pain and the tear
Like the quest and the seeker
Like the rain and the flower
Like time and the hour

Like union and yearning
Like the vision and view
Like the waves and the water
So I am to you.

So I am to you, love
And you are to me
We dwell in each other
Like salt in the sea.

[Refrain:] O alleluia, o alleluia

=========

P.S. The refrain at the end was sung many times, with a variety of 'modulations' -- about as many as lines in the song. Also, the speaker wanted any 'nitpickers' (not her chosen word) in the audience to know that she was aware that X, Y, and Z were missing from the 'mantra'.

Later gators - David :)

[Ocre]

IMO, we are all 'fingers' on the 'hand' of Life.
If to you posters here are the fingers that do not move independently, why and how can fingers truly understand ‘each other’ as if this understanding is not exactly like the scratching you mention…?

would you say that the finger 'itself' did the scratching, or, since the finger 'itself' could not 'exist' or 'operate' as a life-'entity' on its 'own', that the scratching was 'really' done by the hand 'itself?
If you don’t hold that finger responsible for where it scratches, why hold a poster responsible for what he or she writes? ;)

:-)

[sahyo]

... : (...)

ocre : What's that? A nose piercing gone bad, making for that third nostril?

... : ..you mean besides what you read into it?

... : ..analizing what's written is one of your gifts Ocre, and as with everything, there's always something to find, to question, and that's part of joy, right?

[Polaris]

I think we're the itch. Finger and hands.. they're just too tangible.

[rich]

Originally posted by DavidS@Oct 4 2003, 10:01 PM
Do you still think/believe DavidS exists as a doer?

Hi All -

I am attending a conference this weekend, so I won't have leisurely time to read and respond to posts till Monday. Just want to 'quickly' add this to my earlier response to the above question, since it's an 'itch' that won't stop until it's 'scratched':

IMO, we are all 'fingers' on the 'hand' of Life. If, let's say, an itch is scratched by a finger, would you say that the finger 'itself' did the scratching, or, since the finger 'itself' could not 'exist' or 'operate' as a life-'entity' on its 'own', that the scratching was 'really' done by the hand 'itself? Seems to me, one could 'truly' 'speak and be 'truly' understood either way. Either way, assuming the 'speaker' and the 'hearer' both gnow the relational connection between the finger and the hand, implies (as opposed to either 'excluding' or 'negating') the 'meaning' of the other.

Here are the words to a song, titled Alphabet Mantra, one of yesterday's conference speakers (Jan Phillips) sang to set the 'tone' for her presentation. The words in it 'play' with the above 'topic' - fairly meaningfully methinks (don't 'fixate' on any particular words or word-orders - it's the 'gestalt' they all-together refer to that I'm trying to get across):

Like the all all in the oneness
Like the branch and the vine
Like the call and the answer
Like the drink and the wine

Like the earth and the heavens
Like the forest and trees
Like the gate and the pathway
Like the hawk and the breeze
Like the iris and petals
Like the jewel and the mine
Like the known and the knowing
Like the laugh and the line

Like the moonlight and darkness
Like nowhere and near
Like the oak and the acorn
Like pain and the tear
Like the quest and the seeker
Like the rain and the flower
Like time and the hour

Like union and yearning
Like the vision and view
Like the waves and the water
So I am to you.

So I am to you, love
And you are to me
We dwell in each other
Like salt in the sea.

[Refrain:] O alleluia, o alleluia

=========

P.S. The refrain at the end was sung many times, with a variety of 'modulations' -- about as many as lines in the song. Also, the speaker wanted any 'nitpickers' (not her chosen word) in the audience to know that she was aware that X, Y, and Z were missing from the 'mantra'.

Later gators - David :)
Beautiful mantra David.

Is she aware that s is missing too.

I do not consider constructive criticism as nit picking. If I were commissioned, or even requested to provide word phrases for the missing letters, I would gladly give it a try, gratis.

[Ocre]

Originally posted by asheera@Oct 5 2003, 12:46 AM
... : (...)

ocre : What's that? A nose piercing gone bad, making for that third nostril?

... : ..you mean besides what you read into it?

... : ..analizing what's written is one of your gifts Ocre, and as with everything, there's always something to find, to question, and that's part of joy, right?
This is “meaning happening” as well of course.. ;)

Ed and I go back a way and the joke about the piercing was like an extended hand to help someone get up after maybe having knocked him down in a friendly romp.
I’m not sure if that’s how it felt to him, the question “what’s that?” was about finding that out as well.

:-)

[sahyo]

This is “meaning happening” as well of course.. ;)



;)

no

[rich]

AFAIAC,

ignorance and rudeness from the pair of ya.

:ph34r:

[Ocre]

Originally posted by asheera@Oct 5 2003, 06:04 AM

This is “meaning happening” as well of course.. ;)



;)

no
“No” only points at meaning happening differently.
Without meaning ever happening right or wrong, without meaning ever doing anything else but reflect the meaning-finder and visa versa. Neither being ‘real’. (real as in Absolute, Unchanging)

:-)

[Ocre]

Originally posted by rich@Oct 5 2003, 07:36 AM
AFAIAC,

ignorance and rudeness from the pair of ya.

:ph34r:
What’s AFAIAC?

Ignorance is implying there is something to “know” and rudeness implies something real can be hurt, instead of just “hurt happening”.

:-)

[rich]

undefined What’s AFAIAC?


AFAIAC= As Far As I Am Concerned.

Re; Any reply I made was being ignored by asheera and yourself.

Deliberately by asheera. I know and she knows.

Sensitive, ain't I?

Probably traces of senility.

Please continue to ignore. :ph34r:

[Ocre]

I can’t find a post from you to me that has been ignored Rich. Which one are you talking about?

Feeling ignored is about expectations/wishes concerning attention, isn’t it?
But how could you be truly ignored when attention is never absent? It doesn’t have an owner, there is no-one to direct attention. The you you think you are appears in attention as well … :D

:-)

[rich]

Ocre,
I stand corrected. Had a much longer reply written, and hit the wrong key here, and lost the message.

However, the jist of it is the tricks one's imagination plays within self, makes one an irrational being, thinks irrationally. Maybe it is brain neuropathy, so many false signals imagining, and I do not not mean hallucinations.

Was probably set off, by not receiving a reply to my reply to David, on The Alphabet Mantra , which I was expecting. Thank you for replying, and making me aware of my misinterpretations. I am sorry. :( :)

[Ocre]

Was probably set off, by not receiving a reply to my reply to David, on The Alphabet Mantra , which I was expecting.
David wrote:
I am attending a conference this weekend, so I won't have leisurely time to read and respond to posts till Monday.

No need to apologize by the way. Was there a choice in how matters were perceived?

:-)

[rich]

QUOTE
Was probably set off, by not receiving a reply to my reply to David, on The Alphabet Mantra , which I was expecting.

David wrote:
QUOTE
I am attending a conference this weekend, so I won't have leisurely time to read and respond to posts till Monday.

I was aware of David being away, thus was not expecting a reply from David.

My QUOTE should have read:Was probably set off, by not receiving a comment to my reply..............expecting.

A comment from anyone who read my reply. :lol: :D

Oh well, we do not always express ourself very well. :)

[a random hack]

Was there a choice in how matters were perceived?

Guessing not :)

[Ocre]

Feelings of “not being seen” seem to originate somewhere “outside”, but only reflect a way of looking that was conditioned as to “what” needs to be seen.

After all Rich, all is seen, always. Whether it is a feeling of being ignored, this is seen, or a feeling of being deeply appreciated, this is seen…
When there is a wish for something in particular to be seen, this is seen…

What appears to be, is only there because of the eye and when the eye is a “this should be seen”, what appears to be is “something is ignored”. Eye and image form and are each other, but the Seeing is who you truly are, never born en and never to die, no beginning, no end.

:-)

[Ocre]

Originally posted by a random hack@Oct 6 2003, 08:54 AM
Was there a choice in how matters were perceived?

Guessing not :)
When a red chair is seen, is this chair responsible for being seen? Or can the eye be held accountable for seeing it? :D

[sahyo]

When a red chair is seen


:lol:

[DavidS]

Hi all, I'm baaaack! :lol:

Great conversation. Too much water gone under the time-bridge to respond to directly. Space-time-matter-energy 'parameters' 'require' that I be 'selective' in terms which past-ripples I present-futurely 'surf'. No insult intended by any 'omission' in this regard.

Originally posted by Ocre@Oct 4 2003, 09:21 AM
If to you posters here are the fingers that do not move independently, why and how can fingers truly understand ‘each other’ as if this understanding is not exactly like the scratching you mention…?
Ahhh, LIFE is so multidimensional, even the best (physical·world-based) analogies only pertain in some ways, not all. In my view, the 'fingers', though certainly situationally 'limited', are imbued with the same kind(s) of 'power' (the 'power' of 'awareness', the 'power' of 'spirit', etc.) as the hand. The way I image·inatively 'see' IT, each and every finger is an Atmanic 'chip' off the mother-father-Brahmanic 'block.' Though by no means completely independent, the way the 'life-system' seems to be set up, each 'finger' (each 'individual' 'soul-boat' thought-n-feeling constellation-flow 'element') has the 'ability' to, to some degree, elect where-n-how to direct it's 'portion' of the thought-feeling-n-action 'stream', I think.

If you don’t hold that finger responsible for where it scratches, why hold a poster responsible for what he or she writes?
But I do regard the 'fingers' as being, to a 'significant' degree, response·able in terms of both the mode and manner it of thought-feeling-n-action-flow 'touching' (or not) and 'being touched' (or not) in relation to 'neighborly' others.

I am personally 'aware' (i.e., in the 'field' of my 'consciousness', I personally 'see') that any 'assessment' of the 'degree' of anyone's (including one's 'own) response-ability in the context of his, her, or it's 'personal' situation is a subjective 'doing'. For instance, IMO, it would be 'foolish' for anyone to think-n-feel that a two year old is response·able enough to tie his/her own shoelaces, and therefore hold him/her 'personally accountable' for not personally 'doing' so. On the other hand, it would be just as 'foolish' to simply 'allow' (even if in the name' of compassion) more capable, 'older' kids in their 'family' to not 'learn' to do so, certainly to not even 'try' to do so -- for very practical, quality-of-life-of-self-and-other loving 'reasons', I think any 'sane' parent with experience in this regard will assure you.

[DavidS]

<_< Originally posted by ...@Oct 3 2003, 02:29 AM
Which is wishfull thinking ofcourse...
Does your thinking that my thinking is wishful and that yours isn't make what you think the 'truth'?

In my view, all 'thinking' 'arises' in a subjective mental-n-emotional-constellation-determined context, including yours. People 'wish' differently depending on what they subjectively think-n-feel is 'true' and, in that context, 'truly' 'valuable'. All perception-n-experience, as well as all 'assessments' and 'opinions' pertaining thereunto, derive from this, I think. The 'attribution' Which is wishful thinking of course..." therefore also applies to everything you say, too (in my 'view').

The 'theory' that the functional-dynamic governing the process which leads to my perceptions-n-experiences is the same as yours, IMO, very adequately 'explains' why different thoughts would pop into and different 'assessments' and 'opinions' would 'make sense' and 'feel right' in each of respective 'heads' and 'hearts'. Of course, the alternate 'theory' that mine derive from a subjective stage-setting that is 'wishful' and that yours derive from one that is 'dispassionate' (or, relatively speaking, 'more' so), or, for that matter. turning the same 'theory' the other way around, would also 'explain' the 'discrepancies' between our views and opinions, as well.

IMO, since I think-n-believe that it's all subject·ive and none of us knows everything, we all necessarily proceed on the basis of our 'best' 'bets' in terms of which of these theories or, possibly, some other 'theory' entirely, applies in any given instance, the discussion here being but one case in point. Which 'theory' one adopts and proceeds on the basis of on any given situation, I think, says something 'significant' about the 'shape' or 'configuration' of one's subjective mental-n-emotional constellation then and there.

Of course, thoughts-n-feelings pertaining to just what any such 'choices' do or don't 'signify' is also a subjectively determined, or at least 'influenced', matter! :D

'Wishing' ;) you and everyone else here the most wonderful subjective·ising process possible! - David

[sahyo]

and therefore hold him/her 'personally accountable' for not personally 'doing' so.

:blink:

[sahyo]

david'ng

I am personally 'aware' (i.e., in the 'field' of my 'consciousness', I personally 'see') that any 'assessment' of the 'degree' of anyone's (including one's 'own) response-ability in the context of his, her, or it's 'personal' situation is a subjective 'doing'.


...'ng

Which requires a belief in a doer...


david'ng

Of course, thoughts-n-feelings pertaining to just what any such 'choices' do or don't 'signify' is also a subjectively determined, or at least 'influenced', matter!


...'ng

A framework of your own making ofcourse, but how do you reconcile the inherent doubt embedded in beliefs with the effort you make convincing yourself of it's validity?

[DavidS]

Dots - dang, your 'stuff' is 'catchy'! I was wishing-n-hoping (for sake of personal 'ease') to simply 'finesse' my way on through - but the stuff you put out strikes me as too 'substantive' to 'ignore'.

It's never about the other David, what one writes is only pertinent to that one...

Never? Only? Strikes me this is way too much of an overgeneralization. What is 'pertinent' to one may also be 'pertinent' to another, to some extent at least, in my view. Again, I imagine that differences in the configurations of your and my subjective mental-n-emotional constellations are what 'lead' us to adopt and (provisionally at least) 'believe' different 'theories' in this regard.

A framework of your own making ofcourse, but how do you reconcile the inherent doubt embedded in beliefs with the effort you make convincing yourself of it's validity?

I truly don't think I am 'trying' to 'convince' myself. Why? Because I already 'believe' and am quite 'happy' thinking-feeling-n-'believing' as I do. The way I 'see' (and experience!) what I am doing is that I am 'offering' accounts of the way I think-n-feel-n-'believe' to others here hoping some readers here may 'get' something from what I say, even if it's only something to pinball boing-bounce off of in disagreement (such they get greater 'clarity' regarding, as well as opportunity to more clearly (to me and others) express their 'own' 'views' as well should they want to). I also 'read' what others say to see if I might 'get' something in the process. I am the richer for 'trying on' others' perspectives and ways of navigating what the perceive-n-experience to be 'the case' for personal 'fit'. I 'know' I can 'swim'. Am having unadulterated fun (no 'fear' and 'doubt' issues 'dogging' me, as far as I can tell at least) splashing around in the communal, ways-of-seeing-n-being-n-doing filled, pool.

Please don't take the generosity of my expression(s) or my interest in exploring 'fine' points pertaining to any given subject to be an 'indicator' of discomfort with some sort of 'doubt'. Let me suggest an alternate 'theory' pertaining to 'me' for 'you', follow traveller, to try on for size: I am just 'enthusiastically' enjoying word-art-musically participating in the 'jam session' that's giong on here.

Why settle for figments of your imagination then? You don't have to tell me how scary it is to find yourself empty handed, without consolement, but indeed, different strokes...

To be honest with you, at least as far as I-David am consciously privy to, whatever it is that I AM is joyfully delighting in the 'firework'-displays of my and others' image·inations. The notion that I am 'settling' in any way is quite incongruous with what I perceive-n-experience. Also, I am not the least bit 'scared' (I have made 'friends' with 'uncertainty'), nor to I feel at all 'empty-handed' (quite to the contrary, I feel 'filled' to the point of 'overflowing' by all the wonderful 'music'. And as far as being 'without consolement' is concerned, my thought-n-feeling response is 'huh'? I've never been a happier 'camper'.

Given that I don't 'resonate' with anything you said in the above-quoted, it occurs to me to suggest, for whatever stimulus value it may have, that you 'apply' your own stated (and therefore presumably genuinely 'believed in' by you) on the issue of the 'pertinence' of any personal 'view' here.

...: Nevertheless, realising thinker is thought will blatantly show how a view depends on desire to be a certain way...
David: Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with that ... etc.
...: You agree, but before you genuinely thought your viewpoint wasn't based on desire. Which is it?

My 'desire' is to 'see' thangs "as they are" to whatever degree such may be possible (for me), and, from that 'platform', relate to and participate in what's going on 'in' and 'around' 'me' in an enthusiastially loving way. It is not to 'see' thangs be something I'd personally 'like' them to be - that would 'defeat' the 'purpose' just stated. That "depends on desire" thang is a double-edged sword -- it is the latter desire-'edge' that my 'viewpoint' isn't 'based' on -- at least, I am wary of and quick to 'relinquish' of such 'desires' when and if I detect their 'snake-head' in my soup.

David, there are no persons waiting to be liberated.

One thing's fer sure, Life doesn't wait for anything or anyone - it just flows on and on.

Does this mean you've taken the mind for granted, as a given, without further investigation? Awareness never became individualized, nothing separated or associated with anything but itself. Only thought thinks/believes otherwise...

There are times when (i.e., situations in which) 'seeing' thangs in that 'light', or from that 'angle', provides the 'best' resolution (or re-solution) for me. At such times, I 'place' or 'hold' such view-template in the 'foreground' of my thinking-feeling-n-believing process. At other times, I have found that I have arrived at a 'better' (in my value scheme that is) resolution by thinking-feeling-n-believing that consiousness, awareness, etc. are 'individualized'. I think one can get a lot of fun- and love-conducive 'mileage' from the notion that I and others have 'individualized' 'souls'.

Which of these 'truths' 'appears' to be 'the case' depends on the level of 'magnification' setting of one's view-scope, I think. The difference between you and me, maybe, is that I don't 'restrict' my 'experimentation' and 'investigation' to just one one 'way' of thinking-n-feeling-and-'believing' about thangs because I recognize (or hallucinate ;) that both 'truths' are 'valid' (or 'pertinent'), though 'paradoxically' (in U]strictly[/U] axiom-based-logic terms) 'opposed'.

Then, if all you write comes from imagined-identity container, is fed by the importance/goal and meaning this container want reality to have, which comes through fallable physical senses, how much value can you attach to anything?

You keep mis'attributing' and mis'character'izing my 'wants' and 'desires', IMO. I 'value' anything and everything (even 'cointrary' things) that I think may lead to the most beningly-creative 'resolution' in any given situation.

So, no goals, no meaning, no reason for living, because you've seen that which thinks all these attributes are real, isn't real at all?

Not so, as I hope the paragraph above the above quoted piece makes clear. Again, I restate: it's all really subjective.

Of course, you have no interest in dying, different strokes again...

I don't see how you came to this conclusion. But that aside, the case is that I'm very 'interested' in the 'dying' 'adventure' that lies ahead of me and have pre·pared myself for it in a variety of thought-n-feeling-navigational ways, though I have no interest in 'embarking' on it at present. I have 'fantasized', and occasionally cotinue to 'fantasize', about various conceivable/possible personal 'scenarios' in that regard, deciding which kinds I would personally 'prefer' over others, how I would deal with should an 'unpreferred' one come to pass, etc. If nothing else (who knows, something I haven't even conceived of as possible might come to pass), I've found doing so to be an interesting 'exercise' which, among others things, 'informs' my present decisions and choices in a variety of ways.

[DavidS]

Originally posted by rich@Oct 4 2003, 01:22 PM
Is she aware that s is missing too.

That was an omissionon my part. Thanks for bringing it to my attention - the 'song' is not the same as it was 'sung' without it. The missing line is: "Like the sea and the islands."

I do not consider constructive criticism as nit picking.
With the caveat that different folks may use different criteria for subjectively evaluating whether the content or manner of any given piece of criticis is 'consructive' may be different, I wholeheardely agree with you.

If I were commissioned, or even requested to provide word phrases for the missing letters, I would gladly give it a try, gratis.

Be my guest. T'would be fun to see what you come up with, if anything. I don't think the author would be interested though (or else I'd promise to pass whatever you came up with on), 'cuz my sense from hearing her talk about a variety of subjects is that her response would be to suggest that I tell you to get on with your 'own' poetry and personal-experienced-based story-telling. This is one of the things she ardently 'advocates' (she, Jan Phillips, is the author of a book called Marry Your Muse - the score under 'Your' is my addition - great for anyone thinking about, but being hesitant in relation to, concsiously electing to be an 'artist' of any kind).

One of the things she shared in her talk was a poem from someone name something that sounded like Haziz. It was titled: Why aren't we all Screaming Drunks? I masde some notes hearing it's last lines, which went something like:

"Any thought that you are greater of less than anyone else quickly breaks the wine glass." !!!

Too true, too true, the owl in me tooted on hearing this. :D

I'm glad you personally found the mantra meaningful enough to be 'commendable' - even if no one else found it so, that alone 'says' it was 'worth' the 'while' it took to type it.

David

[DavidS]

Poste content delete - as I read on, I realized it was redundant.

[DavidS]

Originally posted by asheera@Oct 6 2003, 02:47 PM
and therefore hold him/her 'personally accountable' for not personally 'doing' so.

:blink:
I get that you feel 'confused' by the statement of mine you quoted, asheera. Sorry, would 'love' to 'respond' but I don't have a 'clue' about what you are actually thinking (in relation to my words) and why.

[sahyo]

I feel 'filled' to the point of 'overflowing' by all the wonderful 'music'.



For crying out loud, again, asheera!


;)

[sahyo]

I get that you feel 'confused' by the statement of mine you quoted, asheera.

not "confused" :)

[rich]

The Alphabet Mantra


Like the all all in the oneness
Like the branch and the vine
Like the call and the answer
Like the drink and the wine

Like the earth and the heavens
Like the forest and trees
Like the gate and the pathway
Like the hawk and the breeze
Like the iris and petals
Like the jewel and the mine
Like the known and the knowing
Like the laugh and the line

Like the moonlight and darkness
Like nowhere and near
Like the oak and the acorn
Like pain and the tear
Like the quest and the seeker
Like the rain and the flower
Like the sea and the islands
Like time and the hour

Like union and yearning
Like the vision and view
Like the waves and the water
Like the xylophone and its sounds,
Like the YOU of you,
The zenith of me,
So I am to you.

So I am to you, love
And you are to me
We dwell in each other
Like salt in the sea.

[Refrain:] O alleluia, o alleluia

[Ocre]

…each 'finger' (each 'individual' 'soul-boat' thought-n-feeling constellation-flow 'element') has the 'ability' to, to some degree, elect where-n-how to direct it's 'portion' of the thought-feeling-n-action 'stream', I think.

Isn’t this like saying the finger (to some degree) chooses where to scratch, instead of the itching-scratching happening within the Body and directing itself? (Taking the body here as: where all parts seem to function as if they act and respond on their own, the body where all ‘happenings’ originate, without the originating itself having a cause.)

Of course, if you think you are the finger, you can be seen to act, to scratch…and if you think you are the itch, you can be seen to cause, to invite…and if you think you are the thinking, you can be seen to find order, to find cause and effect taking place in the causeless…

Holding something responsible, is believing it acts on it’s own and is divided. And of course, if you believe you are the finger that moves on it’s own, you will seem to see other fingers that move on their own, (After all, it will seem that “doing” is real) and you can come up with any kind of order these fingers seem to follow, so as to predict and expect “what should follow” and with that, fixate the illusion that it is not all “you” happening.... :D

:-)

[sahyo]

and if you think you are the thinking, you can be seen to find order, to find cause and effect taking place in the causeless…



no

[Ocre]

All can be seen, without there ever being a seer.


“No” is just “meaning happening differently”.
There are no words (which objectify by their nature) to describe THAT in which all words appear.
And this does not ask for words to ever be used differently as if they can describe “That”.

:-)

[sahyo]

“No” is just “meaning happening differently”.

"no" wasn't "meaning happening differently"

There are no words (which objectify by their nature) to describe THAT in which all words appear.
And this does not ask for words to ever be used differently as if they can describe “That”.

"no" wasn't "describing"

"THAT"?...."That"?

:)

[Ocre]

"no" wasn't "meaning happening differently"
All words are described meaning happening.
"no" wasn't "describing"
All words describe.

“That”, as in the unnameable, the Unchanging.

:-)

[sahyo]

All can be seen, without there ever being a seer.

yet ocre wrote asif "a seer"

[Ocre]

Every writing is 'as if seer'.

There are no seers, all “as if” is only that; “as if”…

:-)

[sahyo]

Every writing is 'as if seer'.

only if ocre thinking whichnot

There are no seers, all “as if” is only that; “as if”…

did "yet ocre wrote asif "a seer""
say 'aseer' is? and that "asif" is moreless than asif? ;)

[Ocre]

only if ocre thinking whichnot

Asheera sees a ‘seer’ in Ocre’s writing?

did "yet ocre wrote asif "a seer""
say 'aseer' is? and that "asif" is moreless than asif?

Whatever that is taken to be saying, does it have meaning as if there is a seer, writer, a you and a me?
Here again Asheera informs after a 'seer', like she informed after "which"?

;-)

[sahyo]

Here again Asheera informs after a 'seer', like she informed after "which"?

no...ocre thinking'believes' asheera "informs after"

:)

[rich]

as if a seer is a she era is a seer; as if ? :unsure:

or as if asheera is a seer; as if ? :unsure:

which; as if? :unsure:

[rich]

What if; Rich changed his name to a he era /aheera, would Rich be a male chavinist pig ? :unsure:

[DavidS]

Originally posted by asheera@Oct 6 2003, 05:52 PM

I feel 'filled' to the point of 'overflowing' by all the wonderful 'music'.*



For crying out loud, again, asheera!


;)
'Crying out loud'-articulations which lets someone capable of 'sympathetic resonance' 'know' that you find something 'painfully' troublesome is wonderful 'music'." (This, whether it is 'heard' and 'appreciated' as such, or not!) Sweet-sap·py utterances can also be "wonderful 'music'." I wonder if you've ever 'seen' and 'considered' the vital meaning conveyed by Beethoven's 'gift' -- his 'rapturous' music ranges from the grandest, most joyful 'exhultations' to the most eloguent "crying out alouds", asheera. Would that more could appreciate the 'significance' of that -- the 'truth' (pertaining to personal ex·pression) is right there for all to hear-see!

;) backatcha

[DavidS]

Originally posted by asheera@Oct 6 2003, 05:56 PM
I get that you feel 'confused' by the statement of mine you quoted, asheera.

not "confused" :)
Oh, I misinterpreted your choice of :blink: as a personal-condition-ex·pressive emoticon. Silly me. Color me 'ignorant' as well, 'cuz I have no idea what else you meant to convey in that case then, invisibility-cloaked lady.

[DavidS]

Originally posted by rich@Oct 6 2003, 07:27 PM
Like the xylophone and its sounds,
Like the YOU of you,
The zenith of me
Hey, pretty cool there, XYZ-man!

Had my doubts whether anyone could fill the bill - what with the X and Z 'characters' being so 'unusual'-wierd, I mean.

[DavidS]

Hi Ocre,

This life-beach-bum appreciates the opportunity to 'comb' the response·ability 'beach' with 'you', Dude. B)

Holding something responsible, is believing it acts on it’s own and is divided.

Hold your horses, Mr. Jump·to·Conclusions-man. 'Who' or 'What' do you image·in your are talking to? Apparently, not 'me'. You completely overlook my 'point' that each and every human-finger of Life has some degree of personal response·ability and thus to some 'extent' acts "on it's 'own'" on the basis of it's 'own' 'free will' (it is certainly not 'totally' response·able, and, in any event, could not 'choose' to do exercise any of it's ability/ies except as such choice is 'supported' by the 'hand'-entity from which the human-finger 'emerges' and is an appendage-member of).

Also, in case this 'escapes' the 'selection' of your attention, let me point out that absolutely nothing in what I've just said implies that the 'finger' is 'separate'.

And of course, if you believe you are the finger that moves on it’s own, you will . . . blah, blah and you can come up with any kind of order these fingers seem to follow, so as to predict and expect “what should follow” and with that, fixate the illusion that it is not all “you” happening....

Rein in your horses even tighter, Mr. Presumptive·man. There was absolutely nothing in what I said which even began to imply that the 'finger' moves {U]totally[/U] on its own. As a matetr of fact, the 'analogy' of a 'finger' was used specifically to convey the meaning implicit in the fingers total dependency on the 'hand'. Can you 'realistically' :D image·in a finger all by itself, unattached to any 'foundational' hand, scratching an itch.

Ignoring the 'true' meaning conveyed by my 'picture', you proceed to set up you own 'paper tiger' (on false premises, IMO) and then proceed to demolish it. Congratulations on the 'form' displayed by your shadow-'box'ing, but what you are 'box'ing has absolutely no relevance to 'me' (meaning, in this case, the {I]meaning my words were life-artfully designed to convey).

Let me say just this much in relation to your implying that 'you' operate under the premise that fixate the illusion that "it is all “you” happening": The 'you'-finger which I am 'addressing' is just the Ocre-designated part of that hand-mommy-daddy-'umbrella' which 'you'-Ocre personally choose to 'identify' your 'self' with and {B}therefore[/U] claim it's all 'you' and/or that 'you' are all of 'It'.

To the 'you' I'm 'addressing', let me say "It ain't all about 'you', Ocre." I honor this 'you', as this 'me', as being a 'vital' part of the glorious Happening we (all) behold, no more and no less. If this 'you' wants to have a meaningful conversation with this 'me', it's gonna have to 'humble' itself to the level of human Being -- else we'll be at 'cross † purposes' with one another, methinks.

Can you dig it?

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Ocre@Oct 7 2003, 11:32 PM
All can be seen, without there ever being a seer.
By whom? :lol:

I was under the impression that one (at least) of the 'roles' of payed by 'humanity' in Creation's unfolding 'script' was that of Being an appreciate·ive 'sight'-vehicle, making 'all can be seen' ex·peer·ience ([u]possibly) actualizable, or realizable, in the 'world' of LIFE.

Could you give me an example of something 'seen' without there being a seeing-vehicle-being present and operational?

Or maybe what you mean by 'seer' is something else entirely, possibly another one of your don't-ya-just-love-to-shoot-'em-down? 'paper tigers'?

[DavidS]

Originally posted by rich@Oct 8 2003, 06:14 PM
What if; Rich changed his name to a he era /aheera, would Rich be a male chavinist pig ? :unsure:
No 'male', no 'chauvinst', no 'pig'. Dem 'designations' is for 'common' folk. You, Knight of TBV Round Table, would be 'dubbed' maledelusional-chauvinismatic-pigness, or sumpn like that methinks.
:D

[Ocre]

Originally posted by asheera@Oct 9 2003, 04:12 AM
Here again Asheera informs after a 'seer', like she informed after "which"?

no...ocre thinking'believes' asheera "informs after"

:)
Asheera sees a ‘seer’ in Ocre’s writing?

:-)

[Ocre]

Hi David,

I’m too busy at this time to let your words in, but I will get back to you and respond when that has passed.
I am not a dude by the way…. ;)

:-)

[sahyo]

:)

'Crying out loud'-articulations which lets someone capable of 'sympathetic resonance' 'know' that you find something 'painfully' troublesome is wonderful 'music'."

david "'painfully' troublesome"For crying out loud, again, asheera!"?
....which is posted which david 'haps "'painfully' troublesome"?

I wonder if you've ever 'seen' and 'considered' the vital meaning conveyed by Beethoven's 'gift' -- his 'rapturous' music ranges from the grandest, most joyful 'exhultations' to the most eloguent "crying out alouds", asheera.

"'rapturous' music ranges from the grandest, most joyful 'exhultations' to the most eloguent "crying out alouds"", "meaning"?....blossoming, meaning?....chirping, meaning?

[sahyo]

Here again Asheera informs after a 'seer', like she informed after "which"?

no...ocre thinking'believes' asheera "informs after"



I’m too busy at this time to let your words in

"informs after"?...."in"?, out?

:)

[rich]

This post is just a couple ofThank yous' to David, for the thoughts and/or eloquent words used in his replies. :)

DavidS
Posted: Oct 9 2003, 11:55 PM



Member


Group: Members
Posts: 227
Member No.: 36
Joined: 5-July 03




QUOTE (rich @ Oct 6 2003, 07:27 PM) </span>

Like the xylophone and its sounds,
Like the YOU of you,
The zenith of me
[color=blue]
Hey, pretty cool there, XYZ-man!

Had my doubts whether anyone could fill the bill - what with the X and Z 'characters' being so 'unusual'-wierd, I mean.


DavidS
Posted on Oct 10 2003, 01:15 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE (rich @ Oct 8 2003, 06:14 PM)

What if; Rich changed his name to a he era /aheera, would Rich be a male chavinist pig ?

No 'male', no 'chauvinst', no 'pig'. Dem 'designations' is for 'common' folk. You, Knight of TBV Round Table, would be 'dubbed' maledelusional-chauvinismatic-pigness, or sumpn like that methinks.

[Ocre]

Hi David,

Free will would mean there is separation between what is experienced and who experiences it, it implies there is ‘space’ to independently and freely move and effect something else.
If you agree there is no separation, where does this room come from for one thing to freely and independently move and effect the other?

I have no ‘wish’ for a meaningful conversation, all is this ‘conversation’, whether you and I follow agreed upon meaning, or watch the tree in the garden…;-)

All that “I” might wish is belief there is anything outside, that anything could be lacking.
Can you tell me David, what you believe exists outside “you”?

:-)

[Ocre]

Could you give me an example of something 'seen' without there being a seeing-vehicle-being present and operational?

It points at “no object, no subject”.

If experience can show truth, it means this truth is changing and therefore not really truth, not absolute.
Only that which is constant and unchanging in ALL experiencing can be (Unchanging) Truth, and this cannot be pointed at or named.
What is unchanging in all experiencing is The witnessing, The Seeing, The Awareness of it.
Not as in “a witness", "a seer," “one to be aware”.

I know this might seem hard to get, but it only seems so when Identity is still seen as something you might “have” instead of “be”.

(This dude-ess is absent this weekend, will read you next week)

:-)

[Ocre]

Originally posted by asheera@Oct 10 2003, 07:13 AM
Here again Asheera informs after a 'seer', like she informed after "which"?

no...ocre thinking'believes' asheera "informs after"



I’m too busy at this time to let your words in

"informs after"?...."in"?, out?

:)
Is this a question Asheera?

:-)

[sahyo]

If experience can show truth, it means this truth is changing and therefore not really truth, not absolute.
Only that which is constant and unchanging in ALL experiencing can be (Unchanging) Truth, and this cannot be pointed at or named.

which is thinking'seeming'believing-"changing"-"Unchanging"-'as thoughseparate'?

What is unchanging in all experiencing is The witnessing, The Seeing, The Awareness of it.
Not as in “a witness", "a seer," “one to be aware”.

yet ocre wrote:
I know this might seem hard to get, but it only seems so when Identity is still seen as something you might “have” instead of “be”.

"be" "Identity"?....which is thinking"Identity"-asthough a"something"one-"witness"-"seer"-"one to be aware"?....which is thinking'identificating'?

:)

[DavidS]

Hi Ocre - I apologize for the presumption. Thanks for the clarification that you are not a Dude (that could mean many things, just one such possibioity being that you fall into the 'Dudess' category). :D

Free will would mean there is separation between what is experienced and who experiences it, it implies there is ‘space’ to independently and freely move and effect something else.

Hmmm... from what you say, looks like you're a strict determinist, and that this 'philosophy' is based on the notion that their is absolutely no 'separation', or 'space' as you also put it, between nodes of 'consciousness' (whatever it is that ex·peer·iences anything, in any given case).

Well, I too 'believe' there is no 'absolute' separation between such Beings. But, apart from the fact that this means that all Beings are 'intimately' interconnected, such that whatever 'movements' one makes are ripple-effect 'felt' by neighboring (which, ultimately means, all) others, I see no logical corollary that there cannot be, and so there isn't, any such thing as 'free' will.

Let me see if I can tease out some of what is at the 'crux' of our divergent 'conclusions' in this regard. Let's run an 'imagined' physical-anology-'experiment' here. Let's 'visualize' a bunch of "nodes of consciousness", like 1 kg. weights, situated at the intersections of strings, all, in effect, 'tied' into the 'fabric' of one 'web', together. (Let's also 'hook' the web to a 'frame' like that of a trampoline or drumhead to make the visualization 'sensible', though the frame is not a 'significant' part of the the analogy itself).

I can certainly imagine a completely mechanistic (i.e., 'absolutely' Lifeless) model (at least for purposes of this exploration), in which the 'movements' and effects' of each "node" of consciousness would be completely 'collectively' codetermined via the 'pulls' of the various string-segments. The whole web would simply 'reverberate' like the head of a struck drum, or cog-wheel 'whirl' togther like the components of a 'clock's mechanism. The 'determined' movements of elements of the drumhead, or of the hands of the clock, might be considered to be 'evidence' of 'Life', but that wouldn't actually be the case, because none of the 'movements' or 'effects' could be could be considered to have been node-'self' generated. Clearly, no 'free will' here.

Now let's assume, for purposes of this thought experiment, that it wasn't a completely 'mechanistic' system. Let's say, that there was a little 'rocket in the pocket' of each of (or at least some of) the 'nodes' of consciousness, which the nodes could and so did, with some degree of 'freedom', enage in some kind of 'self-determination' (in terms of 'movements' and 'effects', etc.). Looks to me like the web would still have all of the elastic-connection-vibrational 'characteristics' of the mechanistic model, and there would be the same kind of 'elastic connection' ( 'no'-separation) [u]evidenced by the 'movements' and 'effects' in the web.

I assume the logic presented is coherent enough so that you too, Ocre, 'see' that the "no separation" CONDITION in your argument is operative in both models. Whether or not there is a some degree of 'free will' in terms of the 'choices' (to 'lean' and/or 'move' towards this or that 'space') made by any nodes of consciousness, on the basis of the 'results' of the above thought-experiment, I submit that the 'axiomatic statement' that "Free will would mean there is separation between what is experienced and who experiences it, it implies there is ‘space’ to independently and freely move and effect something else." is a 'fanciful' supposition, which has 'loopholes' for lots of 'logical' water to sieve-flow through.

If you agree there is no separation, where does this room come from for one thing to freely and independently move and effect the other?

The second model above clarifies this quite nicely, I think. Now, one might say that 'rocket in the pocket' of the "nodes of consciousness" themselves may be 'web-connected' in that the 'derive' their 'power' from the same source, but if one assumes that 'source' is 'itself' made of some sort of 'free-will' 'stuff', such that they are also imbued with a 'modicum' of 'free will', the water-tightness of the logic in this model is preserved.

How might one 'evaluate' the possibility or impossibility of such there being such a 'free wheeling' source? Well, I think it is 'beyond' the 'scope' of anyone's personal grasp to completely nail things down on this score, I think any personal 'position' on this score necessarily has to be arrived at on the basis of 'guestimates' and 'best bets' (as opposed to some kind of 'logical proof). However, I think it says something 'significant' in this regard, that many scientists studying the matter based on the 'consistencies' as well as 'inconsistencies' of quantum theoretical principles (which have been 'validated' in many ways) have come to the conclusion that the particular configuration (including the particular forms of the 'laws' of 'physics') of the universe we find ourselves in is a just probablistic one, one of many possible ones. IOW, it could have been, and, quite conceivably elsewhere (in 'another' 'universe') is, different than the one 'we' presently find our 'selves' in!

I have no ‘wish’ for a meaningful conversation,

You waaaay paper-tiger-oversimplify the issue I am raising in relation to you (among others), IMO, non-Dude ;) I-David am talking about the pros of conversation that is mutually meaningful and cons of conversation which isn't (mutually meaningful, that is), which therefore, in effect at least, amounts to no more than a kind of kindergarten-in-which-each-kid-just-plays-with-his-own-toys-or-sucks-her-own-thumb, concatenous mixture of blabbering-n-uncomprehension.

all is this ‘conversation’, whether you and I follow agreed upon meaning, or watch the tree in the garden…;-)

Yes, and this all certainly includes solipsistic 'speech' which basically amounts to litttle more than (small 's') self-masturbation. Let me point out that you (anyone) can engage in that kind o' thang just standing in front of her/his bathroom mirror. Not that that's a 'bad' thing -- I 'do' a lot of that kind of 'talking to/with myself' (actually its just 'thinking' to/with myself since I can 'hear' myself without 'speaking'), and I find such 'activity' both quite meaningful and insight-stimulating. But this forum-'space' is communal. The 'opportunity' here is for something other than that to 'take place'. Not that this means anyone here 'must' avail himself or herself of the 'opportunity' -- there's lots o' 'free' will to go around.

All that “I” might wish is belief there is anything outside, that anything could be lacking. Can you tell me David, what you believe exists outside “you”?

I don't quite 'get' the first part of this. This is not intended as criticism' - I know the difficulties inherent in verbal composition, and I 'see' that you are doing your 'best' (and that that 'best' is pretty darned articulate). It just means that I have to guess that what you mean is something like: "A 'belief' that there is something/anything 'outside' necessarily 'indicates' that some kind of experienced-lack is and will continue to be a 'significant' part of one's ex-peer·ience."

'See' if you 'get' this: I 'believe' that All That Is 'exists' both 'inside' and 'outside' of 'me'. The 'outer' movie-script-'picture', meaning the 'world' of 'my' 'perception-and-experience', is a symbolic representation of what's 'invisibly' or 'unkowingly' going on 'in' on the 'inside' of 'me'. Neither 'world' 'lacks' anything!

The 'fallacy' in your logic, maybe, is that you think that if someone somehow conceives of and ex·peeriences thangs as Being 'located' in the 'outside' 'world', s/he will necessarily think-n-feel-n-'believe' that such thangs as not being 'inside', that s/he will necessarily think-n-feel-n-'believe' that such thangs are 'separate' from her/ or him and/or they from her/him, that s/he is to some degree 'cut off' and 'alone', that s/he is not a part of 'them' and that they are not an 'integral' part of her/his 'own' Being, etc.

I hope you can 'see' that "It ain't necessarily so" (a line from a Porgy and Bess song, referencing some of the thangs 'said' in the Bible), if one conceives of the outside-inside 'differentiation' thang along lines such as I do, instead of the going by the 'rigid'-axiomatically thinking that if someone thinks-n-feels-n-'believes' that certain aspects of Being are 'taking place' 'outside' necessarily means that that someone must think-n-feel-n-'believe' that they are 'taking place' 'separately'.

Or so I 'see' and 'think'. Does the way I 'see' and 'think' in this regard make meaningful 'sense' to you?

David :)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by rich@Oct 9 2003, 09:33 PM
You, Knight of TBV Round Table, would be 'dubbed' maledelusional-chauvinismatic-pigness, or sumpn like that methinks.
On second thought, methinks the appelation would only 'pass' 'inspection' (in Sergeant Asheer's eys, that is) IF 'you' were then 'referenced' as "maledelusional-asifchauvinistic-pigness-maledelusionally-asifchauvinistically-pignessing!
:lol:

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Ocre@Oct 10 2003, 08:33 AM
David: Could you give me an example of something 'seen' without there being a seeing-vehicle-being present and operational?
Ocre: It points at “no object, no subject”.
That was 'my' 'point' as well. I can 'see' that your words don't 'point' to 'anything' or anyone' at all, and was questioning the practical relevance of the 'point'. I just wondered if you were aware of any 'evidence' whatseover which in any way 'corroborated' or 'supported' your "No see·er is 'needed' for 'seeing' to 'occur'" pro·position.

If experience can show truth, it means this truth is changing and therefore not really truth, not absolute.

I 'get' that that's your 'personal' de·finite·ion of pertaining to "truth" -- that something which 'truly' changes is an 'inferior' kind of 'truth', maybe not even deserving of being considered as being 'truly' being what it is, developmental-changes and all, and that only something which never changes is worthy of 'absolution'. ;)

If you want to turn everything that is ex·peer·ienced into such shlock and only view-consider it in that 'light', that's fine with me. I personally think-n-believe, and the trend of my ex·peer·iences tend to reinforces this way of thinking-n-believing in 'me', that what you are referencing as being "not really truth" has a GREAT 'deal' to offer anyone who wants to more meaningfully appreciate the 'significance' of his or her ex·peer·iences and develop something which may be alluded to as wisdom. You see, my prime area of interest is in 'learning' (as well as 'teaching' what I've 'found' to to be the case on this score) to more 'masterfully' 'surf-navigate' the 'field' of ex·peer·iential Life -- IOW, Life as actualy ex·peer·ienced by 'us' 'human' beings-n-doings.

Only that which is constant and unchanging in ALL experiencing can be (Unchanging) Truth

Yes, but this is a kind of kind of 'tautological' de·finite·ion, don't you think. I personally can't get any surf-mileage by boing-bouncing off of that statement.

and this cannot be pointed at or named.

I disagree. One can Mind-image-in-atively 'point' to and 'name' anything and everything and nothing (which doesn't 'exist by definition), though just how meaning-'reveal'ingly so is certainly questionable-n-debatable, IMO.

I can 'point' to and 'name' a lot of see·ers, one such being David's Mind's-Eye (or 'it'), for instance. I also 'see' and ex·peer·ience the 'awareness' 'function-source' of this 'I' as being, at its most 'primal' level, as unchanging.** I 'get' that you think and so 'see' this 'I' as not having having any kind of 'truly' meaningful existence (and thus don't 'value' the relational and conscisouness-expanding 'opportunities' communicating with 'it' in a mutually meaningful way.

** Please note: this just means that that is all that 'I' am 'aware' of - it clearly doesn't mean that such 'seat-of-awareness' is necessarily really unchanging -- just that I (or you in relation to the 'nature' of your 'awareness') am not aware of any such change, which might be taking place while I (or you) 'ignorant'-bliss-fully proceeds 'believing' and 'trusting' that it is something 'permanently unchanging' as is. Lot's of 'reasons' why people, including myself, might 'choose' do so. It is as 'reassuring' to 'believe' there's something universal and unchanging which our 'selves' are 'anchored' onto, as it would be to for a 'child' to 'know' that her/his 'parents' will always, absolutely-consistently be 'there', or 'here', for her/him to 'rely' on.

It may interest you, and possibly others, to know that there are some quite credentialed scientists, Rupert Sheldrake being one such, who seriously hypothesize that the very 'laws of nature' (as presently 'framed' by the scienific comunity) may be 'evolving' in 'relation' (or 'response') to unfolding 'happenings'.

What is unchanging in all experiencing is The witnessing, The Seeing, The Awareness of it.

I must say, I find it quite readily conceivable that something (unknown) about either the quality or wholistic-field-integration-'acuity' of the 'awareness' which one ex·peer·iences as being 'constant'·ly 'present' in the field of one's consciousness does in fact change in 'relational response' to what one ex·peer·iences and the cumulative 'results' thereof, and that most folks, even many of the the most ex·peerienced meditators, are simply unware of this by virtue of the 'hypnosis' of their 'belief' that it isunchanging. There have been many demonstrations of the Mind's capacity for such 'negative halluicination', where something which is present, and thus 'the case', is 'seen' as not presently being the case.

The above notion is quite interesting to open-mindedly speculate about, at least. Regardless of whether this is relegated to 'bin' of non-absolute 'truth' or not (it matter little to me, either way), let me tell you, for example, that it I find it quite meaningful to interpret why I am aware of different thangs, and of the some of same thangs in different ways now than earlier, in terms of my now 'looking through' the 'eyes' of 'love' (with a 'different' 'awareness' of what 'love' 'is') than before.

I know, I know - one can still think of the 'awareness' function as being the same as it was before, just the 'lens' being peer·ed through which is 'configured' differently. That 'view', however, doesn't result in my having as much meaning to 'chew' on and digest and integrate into the constellation of my Being, however. [Please note: I speak only for my 'self'; someone else's ex·peer·ience, pertaining to the degree of 'nourishment' of the meaning-'meal' might well be the opposite.]

I know this might seem hard to get, but it only seems so when Identity is still seen as something you might “have” instead of “be”.

Who said anything about 'having' (as opposed to 'being')? Either way, even for people just geared in 'being' mode, the 'possibility' I am 'pointing' may be 'hard to get' as well.

(This dude-ess is absent this weekend, will read you next week)

Ahh, now I have a 'positive' (non-neti ;) statement which 'truly' 'communicates' what your 'gender' is. I thought so, but wasn't 'certain', since someone saying s/he was not a 'dude' could also 'signify' that s/he didn't like being 'referenced' using 'slang'.

Thanks for the wonderful nut-cracking ;) dance. I hope you enjoy your weekend.

David :lol:

[Ocre]

which is thinking'seeming'believing-"changing"-"Unchanging"-'as thoughseparate'?

Asheera and Ocre in “causeless”:

Asheera: effort"effortless"?

Ocre: Meaning only appears because it sets itself off against something else, again, without meaning ever being about "Truth".

Asheera: against?....something else?

Ocre: That’s why all is just THAT appearing in endless variations to appear to itself…

"be" "Identity"?....which is thinking"Identity"-asthough a"something"one-"witness"-"seer"-"one to be aware"?....which is thinking'identificating'?

Awareness IS Identity. Not as more than one.

:-)

[Ocre]

Hi David,

It took longer than I wrote to get back to you, been very busy.

The 'handicap' with any kind of visual model is that Awareness itself is not an object, but I’ll go along for the ride:
What you do with this model doesn’t seem very effective to me, because you state : “Let’s say…(-)....which the nodes could and so did, with some degree of 'freedom', enage in some kind of 'self-determination'” to try and “illustrate” there can be “free will”.
From my p.o.v. you do nothing of the kind, but only imagine it to be so in the model you wish to use as ‘evidence’ that it might be so…;-) (The “the "no separation" CONDITION isn’t operative in both models this way.)


I 'believe' that All That Is 'exists' both 'inside' and 'outside' of 'me'. The 'outer' movie-script-'picture', meaning the 'world' of 'my' 'perception-and-experience', is a symbolic representation of what's 'invisibly' or 'unkowingly' going on 'in' on the 'inside' of 'me'. Neither 'world' 'lacks' anything!

Could you express who/what you feel you are then?

Or so I 'see' and 'think'. Does the way I 'see' and 'think' in this regard make meaningful 'sense' to you?
I must say it feels your “mind” is very active and running around the place collecting the fruit it grows…;-). It takes some re-reading to hear what speaks to me and if it speaks to me…
That’s not a problem.

:-)

[Ocre]

I will read your second post to me later, it needs more focus than there is at this point, of better put, a different focus.

Had a great weekend, met some folks I ‘ve been exchanging with for years on bulletin boards and we all went to a Satsang with this Dutch Adavaita-guy.

He suggested I should give them myself… :D

:-)

[sahyo]

Ocre: That’s why all is just THAT appearing in endless variations to appear to itself…


"be" "Identity"?....which is thinking"Identity"-asthough a"something"one-"witness"-"seer"-"one to be aware"?....which is thinking'identificating'?


Awareness IS Identity. Not as more than one.


which is thinking"Awareness IS Identity"one"THAT"itself"?


which is thinking"Identity"-asthough a"something"one-"witness"-"seer"-"one to be aware"?....which is thinking'identificating'?

[rich]

And HERE, right NOW, on the Buddhism Forum,



t h i s w i l l k i l l you:















some have an identity of

















ANONYMOUS !

[Ocre]

Who said anything about 'having' (as opposed to 'being')? Either way, even for people just geared in 'being' mode, the 'possibility' I am 'pointing' may be 'hard to get' as well.

Whether or not something is “hard to get” depends on the belief if there is anything to “get”.
If it is “knowing” attention is focussed on, than there seems to be a “not knowing” as well and the mind races through its fields of instant crops, fearing this “not knowing”, an insatiable hunger. Insatiable because thought is about nothing real, but seeks meaning and truth and with that, creates the illusion of untruth. (The not-knowing thought, that chases itself through another crop of thoughts…;-) )

All this thinking just happens, without any effort and when attention is directed towards finding truth in these thoughts, the thinker that arises as the farmer in the fields, seems real and sees other farmers all around him. (other “people with thoughts”)
An intention to undo this thinking is that same thinking ;-), for it sees meaning in losing the meaning-finder.
Like wishing for nothing to wish….;-)

‘Being Identity’ implies there is no-one to talk to as if “they” do have identity. “They” are that same identity. Sense of being is ever present and only when the thought arises that this Being could end, there seems to be a someone having (and possibly loosing) identity…
This thought arises by itself and there is no “thinker” to change that thought, for the thinker IS that thought

:-)

[Ocre]

which is thinking"Awareness IS Identity"one"THAT"itself"?


Again: all is just THAT appearing in endless variations to appear to itself

:-)

[sahyo]

which is thinking"Awareness IS Identity"one"THAT"itself"?

[Ocre]

All is just THAT appearing in endless variations to appear to itself.

(From "causeless"):
There are no other questions than "thought-questions" Asheera...

There are no "real" questions....


:-)

[sahyo]

:lol:

[sahyo]

depends on the belief if there is anything to “get”.

like ocre posting explaining-describing-defining?


If it is “knowing” attention is focussed on, than there seems to be a “not knowing” as well and the mind races through its fields of instant crops, fearing this “not knowing”, an insatiable hunger. Insatiable because thought is about nothing real, but seeks meaning and truth and with that, creates the illusion of untruth. (The not-knowing thought, that chases itself through another crop of thoughts…;-) )

like:


Being Identity’ implies there is no-one to talk to as if “they” do have identity. “They” are that same identity.* Sense of being is ever present*

?


thinker that arises as the farmer in the fields, seems real and sees other farmers all around him. (other “people with thoughts”)
An intention to undo this thinking is that same thinking ;-), for it sees meaning in losing the meaning-finder.

ocre think requires thinking"thinker" to say "not like ocre thinking"? ;)


‘Being Identity’ implies there is no-one to talk to as if “they” do have identity. “They” are that same identity. Sense of being is ever present and only when the thought arises that this Being could end, there seems to be a someone having (and possibly loosing) identity…
This thought arises by itself and there is no “thinker” to change that thought, for the thinker IS that thought

which thinks:

Being Identity’ implies there is no-one to talk to as if “they” do have identity. “They” are that same identity.* Sense of being is ever present"

?



This thought arises by itself and there is no “thinker” to change that thought, for the thinker IS that thought

:

‘Being Identity’ implies there is no-one to talk to as if “they” do have identity. “They” are that same identity.* Sense of being is ever present*

[Ocre]

Asheera: like....?

Ocre: Like Asheera replying.

Asheera: which thinks....?

No which, all is "THAT".

:-)

[sahyo]

No which, all is "THAT".

did post 'is a which'?

"THAT"?

[Ocre]

Since there is no which, why ask?

That: the Unnameable, the Unchanging

:-)

[sahyo]

That: the Unnameable, the Unchanging

which thinks"That"the Unchanging"changing as though separatenotseparate?

[Ocre]

No which, all is "that" (the Unnameable, the Unchanging)

:-)

[sahyo]

No which, all is "that" (the Unnameable, the Unchanging)

yet ocre posts thinking as though awhich-athinker

[Ocre]

which thinks : "yet ocre posts thinking as though awhich-athinker"?

:-)

[sahyo]

Whether or not something is “hard to get” depends on the belief if there is anything to “get”.



I know this might seem hard to get, but it only seems so when Identity is still seen as something you might “have” instead of “be”.


"be"Identity"?


yet ocre posts thinking as though awhich-athinker

[Ocre]

"be"Identity"?

from one page back:

Awareness IS Identity. Not as more than one.

:-)

[Ocre]

Read you later, there's a birthday-dinner here waiting to get cooked.
(My youngest turned 12 today)

:-)

[sahyo]

:D

[sahyo]

Awareness IS Identity. Not as more than one.


:D hehe

[sahyo]

celebration-greetings son :D

[DavidS]

Hi Ocre -

Thanks also for your thoughtfully engaged and engaging replies. Combining material from more than one post:

This thought arises by itself and there is no “thinker” to change that thought, for the thinker IS that thought.

Let me put contrast that with what 'apprears' in my 'view': There is a think·er 'gizmo' in, or through which, the thought arises, I agree, since it just 'pops' in 'into' one's field of 'consciousness', 'by itself' as it were. But without what I am calling the 'think·er', the (particular) 'thought' itself couldn't/wouldn't 'arise' -- it would have nothing to 'arise' 'in' or 'via'. Thus no thought ever really 'ex·ists' all by itself.

I also agree that such postulated think·er cannot change the 'thought' which arises 'by itself', but by virtue of that think·er's capacity to think about what is thought, it is in a position evaluate the possibility and possible pros and cons of 'elect'ing to 'condition' 'itself' as a 'vehicle' (via thangs like 'autohypnosis', 'autosuggestion') in such a way THAT the kinds of thoughts which 'arose' (by themselves!) in the Mind-space of the think·er were of, let's say, a beningly-creative 'nature'. That is, such that the 'thoughts', as a 'constellation', were (more) 'healthy', 'balanced', 'positively'-spirit reinforcing, etc. Using a more 'mechanical' model, it is possible to 'spontaneously' elect to engage with and respond to one's 'programming' in ways which alter such 'programming' in previously thought-about-and-desired 'directions' -- because in those ways lie the possibility of a being the 'author' of 'home run' maybe.

[Note: a lot depends on both the 'skillfulness' and 'savvy' of the program·er - there's 'duds' in both regards in every field of 'occupation'; also, 'ways' may include 'techniques', including artless-art and meaningless-meaning 'zen' sorts of ones.]

Strikes me that your way of modeling of absolutely-no-'mediary'-connection-and-possible-effect in 'non separate' Life simply doesn't 'permit' something capable of thought-'acting on itself' in a continually instantaneous feedback 'loop'. Your mono-'tier' (as I think of it) connection-hypothesis leaves no 'room' for the kind of thang I am talking about to make operational sense.

From my p.o.v. you do nothing of the kind, but only imagine it to be so in the model you wish to use as ‘evidence’ that it might be so…;-) (The “the "no separation" CONDITION isn’t operative in both models this way.)

I am not clear what the 'imagining' you refer to is. From what I've stated above, I hope it is clear that I think it's possible to 'imagine' possibilities which might come about if one's thought-stream was 'aligned' in a different way, and then create-design-and-Mind-screen-'run' an auto-suggestion scenario in which the 'philosophy' of a (more?) benignly-aligned thought-stream (which is 'inherently' 'creative' in terms of 'outer' effect) was reinforced, such that the 'net effect' was that one's thoughts and personal ex·peeriences were more aligned with one's heart's deepest desires.

This is not "only imagining" and so (deludely) ex·peer·iencing something. This is creatively imagining and artfully guide·ing, based on person preference, the flow of one's thought-stream, so as to 'arrive' at a 'desired' 'destination' (or desired-direction series of ongoing destinations) and ex·peer·ience such possibilities in reality. The more 'results' along such lines one has, the more one realizes that one isn't only 'imagining' things, that one is actively input-participating in one's the 'evolution' pertaining to the 'character' or 'nature' of one's 'own' constellational thought-n-feeling stream, and thus, to some degree at least, 'determining' one's 'own' thought-n-ex·peer·ience 'destiny'.

Could you express who/what you feel you are then?

I guess you could say, I am a 'relative' 'Free Willy'·ian. :lol:

Seriously tho, there are too many aspects to what "I AM" (or any 'human' "AM') is or is about to say in one piece; however, in this context, let me say that I am 'one' who operates on the above 'principle', and think-n-feels that everyone else does as well of course, whether they 'acknowledge' or take an consciously-active 'role' in guiding the 'part' that they 'play' in 'determining' the 'direction' (or 'lack' of 'direction') of their own thought-stream (and consequent ex·peer·ience) or not.

Of course, I understand that, from your point of view, we're all completely 'yin' with no 'yang' of our own, and everything going on here, as well as everywhere else, is ALL just BIG MAMA 'carrying us along' (or not! ;) ) as she does her thang!!

'I' wonder where this baby is gonna 'land' next? . . . Wherever! . . . like dem ravens which soar and cartwheel-cavort with one another in the updraft-slipstreams which abound around Sedona's plentiful red lock 'uprisings', the dance-flow of 'my' (or are they really just Mama's? or 'incestuously' both ours?) thoughts-n-ex·peer·iences are plenty-interesting-n-delightful.

David :)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by asheera@Oct 15 2003, 04:32 AM
thinker that arises as the farmer in the fields, seems real and sees other farmers all around him. (other “people with thoughts”)
An intention to undo this thinking is that same thinking ;-), for it sees meaning in losing the meaning-finder.
Just wanna say that, in my 'view', thoughts are extremely 'fertile' in terms of Creativity (which is what I 'think' ;) Life is all about), even 'more' 'Creative' than what grows on geo-molecular 'farmland'.

It therefore strikes me as being well worth contemplating, 'as real' [!], the possible 'dynamics' and 'natural effects' of the 'farms' and 'farmers'- analogical think·ing and think·ers, as well as using the 'concepts' of 'farms' and 'farmers' as aids in the process of such contemplation -- for those who feel 'called' or 'drawn' to that kind of Creativity, at least.

Also, that it's worth emphasizing that one is 'playing' with 'spirit fire' in this regard (hey, even 'nukes' are just 'physical'!) Very important that 'learners' be quick to 'wise up' and be as 'wise' as possible about what's really going on as you go along, because the cumulative ripple-repercussion-wave-build-up in every kind of mind-n-spirit-state 'direction' is potentially fantasmagorically enormous!
:)

[DavidS]

Hi Ocre - some 'second'-thoughts to what I said earlier, to refine certain 'distinctions':

I said something to the effect that I offered my double model based thought experiment "to try and “illustrate” there can be “free will”."
You said: "From my p.o.v. you do nothing of the kind, but only imagine it to be so in the model you wish to use as ‘evidence’ that it might be so…"
Let me clarify if I can: It was a thought experiment, the results of which I presented as 'evidence' that it could quite conceivably be so. IOW, it 'showed' (I thought :D ) that 'your' thought-'conception' in this regard wasn't the only possible one in relation to the free-will 'issue' which could be supported by relational 'logic'."
=========
I said: I 'believe' that All That Is 'exists' both 'inside' and 'outside' of 'me'. The 'outer' movie-script-'picture', meaning the 'world' of 'my' 'perception-and-experience', is a symbolic representation of what's 'invisibly' or 'unkowingly' going on 'in' on the 'inside' of 'me'. Neither 'world' 'lacks' anything!
You said: Could you express who/what you feel you are then?
I answered that in a certain way which didn't really focus on the "inside" and "outside" conceptual differentiation. Don't know if I can pull this together in a satisfactory way, but let me try:

in my 'view', we live in a 'holographic' universe. The 'potential' for any possible kind of 'manifest' ex·press·ion, for the 'entire' universe in a way, lies 'in' (or 'inside') all, even the very 'smallest', of its combinatory 'elements'. 'I'-David am one particular, soul-strand-n-body-form·ally 'unique' ex·pression of aspects of that 'potential', in 'my' case ex·pressed as 'me'-David-here-and-now, as is everyone else, though equally 'uniquely' in their 'own' case.

So, the whole 'world' of my ex·peer·ience is the ex·pression of something that is 'potential' within this 'me' (and every other 'me'), of course. 'I', this David-me, am 'connection-related' to every other 'me' 'outwardly', in the sense that we ripple and ricochet off of each other's vibes in the 'world', 'out there', as well as 'inwardly', where we 'recognize' that 'there, but for historical choices, go 'I'; that others are actually just 'me' in different soul-strand-n-body-form 'dress'.

To reprise: Could you express who/what you feel you are then?

Let me say that 'I' think of 'myself' as a 'being' whose 'existence' is an ex·pression of the potential inherent in any and all 'elemental' as well 'compound' aspects of Creation.

In that sense, "Thou Art THAT which I AM" and "I AM THAT which thou art" is a statement pertaining to 'the truth' of my (and everyone else's) 'identity'.

However, 'I'-David am ALSO identifi·able as a set of 'personas' with 'David' as their operating 'ego', all of which are 'characterized' by a psychospiritual constellation which may be referenced as a my Atmanic 'soul'. And everyone else is ALSO identifi·able as a set of personas, each 'character·ized' by her or his mental-n-emotional soul-constellation.

The latter pro·nouncement may be pooh-poohed as 'only' referencing 'temporary' and 'changing' identities, and thus as not 'really' the "real McCoy" ;), which may be 'lauded' as an 'irrevocable' and 'permanent' universal-'identity' thang-a-ma-bob. But, however such thangs may be valued or devalued by anyone, I submit, the thangs referenced by the latter pronouncement may nevertheless be considered to 'organically' be part of my current 'identity' 'in' 'the world', in the 'HERE and NOW', as, I also submit, your 'ego', 'personas', and 'soul' are presently 'organically' part of 'yours', and everyone else's 'egos', 'personas', and 'souls' are 'organically' part of 'theirs' - this, even while 'yours' are mine and 'mine' are yours and 'ours' are theirs and 'theirs' are ours as far as our universal 'identities' are concerned.

Remember my plug 'for' BOTH-AND kinds of syntheses and 'attendant' 'explanations' and 'against' the 'blind spots' inherent in EITHER-OR kinds of analyses and 'attendant' 'explanations', everyone.

Thank you, Ocre, for the stimulus and opportunity to 'ex·pound' :D further on my 'vision'. I very much appreciate interacting a 'keen' listener and speaker. Helps to get to the nitty-gritty of shared as well as differentiated conceptions and perceptions - David

[Ocre]

Originally posted by asheera@Oct 15 2003, 09:20 PM
celebration-greetings son :D
Thank you. :D
It was my youngest daughter who turned 12.
(Two daughters and a son)

:-)

[Ocre]

But without what I am calling the 'think·er', the (particular) 'thought' itself couldn't/wouldn't 'arise' -- it would have nothing to 'arise' 'in' or 'via'. Thus no thought ever really 'ex·ists' all by itself.

Where does this image of a“thinker” appear but in those very thoughts?

but by virtue of that think·er's capacity to think about what is thought,..
Thought thinking about thought is still just “thinking” ;)

THAT the kinds of thoughts which 'arose' (by themselves!) in the Mind-space of the think·er were of, let's say, a beningly-creative 'nature'..
Thoughts don’t arouse in the mind, the mind is the thinking. “Mind” just happens, there is no “your mind” or “my mind”, after all what “you” are isn't any ’thing’ seeing or any ‘thing’ seen, but that in which both of them seem to appear. The "immediateness" before meaning kicks in…

it is possible to 'spontaneously' elect to engage with and respond to one's 'programming' in ways which alter such 'programming' in previously thought-about-and-desired 'directions'

When thinking about thoughts (that just pop up) is just as much this popping up, again, where is the autonomy (free will) for one to effect the other freely and independently?

I think it's possible to 'imagine' possibilities which might come about if one's thought-stream was 'aligned' in a different way, and then create-design-and-Mind-screen-'run' an auto-suggestion scenario in which the 'philosophy' of a (more?) benignly-aligned thought-stream (which is 'inherently' 'creative' in terms of 'outer' effect) was reinforced, such that the 'net effect' was that one's thoughts and personal ex·peeriences were more aligned with one's heart's deepest desires.

Of course it is possible to imagine, and imagination is creative, but it is the thought itself that imagines non-wholeness and with that veils the instant fulfilment of heart’s desires….
The illusional belief of anything lacking will always be mirrored in wholeness and create experiences of separation. It’s the game that Awareness plays itself…

It therefore strikes me as being well worth contemplating, 'as real' [!], the possible 'dynamics' and 'natural effects' of the 'farms' and 'farmers'- analogical think·ing and think·ers, as well as using the 'concepts' of 'farms' and 'farmers' as aids in the process of such contemplation -- for those who feel 'called' or 'drawn' to that kind of Creativity, at least.

Existence itself is creativity, the question was and still is, if there is a doer here…;-).

Let me say that 'I' think of 'myself' as a 'being' whose 'existence' is an ex·pression of the potential inherent in any and all 'elemental' as well 'compound' aspects of Creation.

And this “being” does it have absolute (unchanging) qualities? In other words: Is what you absolutely are: “Being”, or a being whose…and so on?
However, 'I'-David am ALSO……
What you continue to describe here, are the changing qualities that appear from “you” being NO-thing from/in/through which every-thing appears….

Thankin me is thanking you is thanking me.... :)

:-)

[sahyo]

ah daughter :)

:D thanking

[sahyo]

The "immediateness" before meaning kicks in…



no

[sahyo]

Thankin me is thanking you is thanking me....



no

[sahyo]

The illusional belief of anything lacking will always be mirrored in wholeness and create experiences of separation. It’s the game that Awareness plays itself…



no

[Ocre]

Belastingvoordeel

Zonnebloempitten

Kaasfondu

:D

[sahyo]

:lol:

[DavidS]

Hi Ocre,

I 'dig' how you see 'things' which 'appear' are 'organically' (symbiotically?) related and thus that they have no 'independent' 'existence' of their 'own'. While completely 'agreeing' with that, and in fact, 'seeing' things just the way you 'picture' them, I think I place a different value on the 'worthwhileness' of meaningfully 'addressing' and decipher-'exploring' the 'field' of flow-dynamics pertaining to the 'nature' of such completely interdependent aspects of Being -- the One and Only Thang that is totally, in and of Itself, Self-sufficient!

I think, we have different 'values-schemes' in this regard, however, which differences result in our each choosing different ways of 'framing' (the same) 'issues' for our own 'satisfaction'.

Where does this image of a“thinker” appear but in those very thoughts?

In my view, all 'thoughts' (and I include 'images' in the same 'category') 'appear' in the domain of 'MIND' -- 'postulated' as an 'ubiquitously present' 'faculty' of Life which operationally perceive-frames patterns, trends, etc. which 'appear' in the 'field' of it's awareness-gaze in 'symbolic' 'form'.

IOW, in my view, thoughts do not appear 'in' 'thoughts'. Thoughs about thoughts etc. 'appear', when they do, in the same Mind-'field' as the thoughts they 'derive' from.

David: but by virtue of that think·er's capacity to think about what is thought,..
Ocre: Thought thinking about thought is still just “thinking” ;)

Yes, indeedy. But, remember, in my view, 'thought' is a very powerful and potentially very beneficial instrumentality. "Thought about thought" significantly 'raises' the 'degree' of 'thought-power' and its creative potentiality, IMO.

Thoughts don’t arouse in the mind, the mind is the thinking. “Mind” just happens, there is no “your mind” or “my mind”, after all what “you” are isn't any ’thing’ seeing or any ‘thing’ seen, but that in which both of them seem to appear. The "immediateness" before meaning kicks in…

I hear you loud and clear, Ocre, but I prefer to operate in and navigate the field of Life by 'viewing' things differently.

Mind is ubiquitously present. Yes, in that sense it may be said to 'just happen'. I can also go along framing things in terms of saying that it is the Mind (and not any person·al Being) which is 'doing' the 'thinking'. But what happens in David's Mind-'zone', i.e., the 'thinking' that the Mind 'does' in David's Mind-'zone', is 'significantly' different from what happens in Ocre's Mind-'zone', i.e, from the 'thinking' that MIND 'does' in Ocre's Mind-'zone' - like a computer running two programs and 'multitasking', I suppose.

In that sense, it makes sense to me to think and operate in terms of there being both a David-program Mind-operation flow and an Ocre-program Mind-operation flow and specific-program-guided 'interactions' between these 'two' flows. In that sense, it makes sense to me to think and operate in terms of their being “your mind” and “my mind”.

after all what “you” are isn't any 'thing’ seeing or any ‘thing’ seen, but that in which both of them seem to appear.

'Seeing' is 'in the eye' or 'I' of the beholder. The way I (or THE MIND through 'me') 'sees' thangs, and this is just a function of the way the above referenced David-Mind's 'program' form·ulates the same 'data' I think, I 'see' a 'local' life-energy-awareness-focus-pattern 'nominally' designated "David's Mind", and a 'local' life-energy-awareness-focus-pattern 'nominally' designated "Ocre's Mind", each, simultaneously, being operational aspects of a totally inclusive, 'universal' life-energy-pattern, 'nominally' designated (all caps) MIND.

In my case, they both (i.e., David's Mind and Ocre's Mind) don't just 'seem' to 'appear' in my Mind-field, they both 'appear' quite vividly it I assure you. This is the 'picture' that 'appears'. The 'patterns' that are 'seen' in this regard are quite 'coherent' and have a fair a degree of consistency over time. They don't go about 'shape'-shifting in pattern-unrecognizable ways, IOW.

The "immediateness" before meaning kicks in…

The thang 'before meaning kicks in' strikes me as being 'akin' to an 'uncollapsed' wave-function -- which, as 'conceived' of by Quantum Scientists, remains a 'diffuse' 'cloud' 'encompassing' all possible probabilities. Their 'theory' is that this 'wave function' 'collapses' into one or another probability 'state' only upon its being 'observed' by an 'observing' consciousness. In your Ocre's-Mind-zone case, the 'shape' (the 'implications') of the meaning that 'kicks in' is different from the 'shape' (the 'implications') of the meaning that 'kicks in' when the same phenomenon is 'observed' in David's-Mind-zone -- we each 'collapse' the same "immediateness" into different-looking and different-behaving 'manifestations'.

When thinking about thoughts (that just pop up) is just as much this popping up, again, where is the autonomy (free will) for one to effect the other freely and independently?

The 'autonomy', in my view, derives from the (inherent) 'potential' of a thought-farmer to 'see' and 'register' the 'significance' of the 'fact' that this kind of thought-seed 'results' in this kind of) 'fruit' and that kind of thought-seed 'results' in that kind of) 'fruit', also that certain kinds of 'ground' are more fertile when it comes to certain kinds of thoughts. By 'cultivating' the 'ground' of one's 'beliefs', as well as being 'selective' in terms of what kind of thought-'seeds' to 'plant', one can significantly affect the odds in terms of the kind of 'fruit' which, later on down the road, 'manifest' in 'pop up' fashion in one's Mind-field.

HOw can this be 'done'? One can 'plant' thought-seeds using things like 'visualization' and 'prayer', which, 'done' often enough as 'psychic' 'acts', 'condition' one's Mind-field or -zone so it beocmes more 'aligned' or 'attuned' in certain, 'desired' ways. What then flows into (or 'grows' in) that Mind-field will then be significantly 'different' from what it would have been had one not so 'visualized' and/or 'prayed', certainly different from what flows into the Mind-field of some other 'aspect' of MIND which 'visualized' and 'prayed' differently.

In most cases, expecially when one is emotionally excited or stressed, such 'visualizations' and 'prayers' may be quite involuntary (no 'free will' operational in such case). However, when one is 'cool, calm and collected', as in a relaxed meditative state, it is possible (in my view) for a person to voluntarily (i.e., to some degree 'freely') elect to invent and Mind-run specially designed or adapted 'visualization'-movies and 'prayers'. (BTW, IMO, there's an 'implicit' 'visualization' in all 'prayers', in that it is 'imagined' that what is 'prayed' for will 'show up' in the field of one's experience 'in the future' -- 'prayers' are also Mind-mov·ies, IOW).

It is to such 'voluntary' election that I am referring when I speak of 'free will' in relation to one's 'thought stream'. Obviously, there's no 'free will' regarding thought-seeds which have already been 'planted' and are now 'yielding' a 'flurry' of 'fruit' of pre-determined quality in one's Mind-field-zone.

Of course it is possible to imagine, and imagination is creative, but it is the thought itself that imagines non-wholeness and with that veils the instant fulfilment of heart’s desires….
The illusional belief of anything lacking will always be mirrored in wholeness and create experiences of separation. It’s the game that Awareness plays itself…

Yes, but note, it is the MIND itself which 'imagines' both 'wholeness' and non-wholeness, and it is the HEART which 'assigns' 'value' and decides how best to use (if it decideds to use) perceptions and 'beliefs' pertaining to the 'unique' 'attributes' of aspects of the whole. It is possible to play the game in such way that one 'sees' 'different' aspects of Creation without either 'seeing' or 'expeeriencing' anything remotely close to 'separation' 'between' them. I'm glad your personal view-belief-system-seeded Mind-ground yields "no separation" 'fruit'. Mine does too, because I too 'see' all 'aspects' of Being as integrally-organically 'connected'. (I previously referenced these 'aspects' as 'parts', but that word seems to have set of 'alarm bells' in your head, presumably because you thought my use of the word 'part' necessarily implied that I 'saw' 'separation', maybe.)

Existence itself is creativity, the question was and still is, if there is a doer here…;-).

There is no 'question' in this regard in my Mind-field-movie. I 'hear' that there is no 'doer' (except BIG MAMA-MIND maybe) in your Mind-field movie. And I am 'saying' that there are 'doers' (of sorts) in my Mind-field movie. There's no question that something that's not 'projector-run' in your (Ocre's) Mind-field-movie is 'projector-run' in mine

In my Mind-field-movie, 'existence' is also 'creativity' in being-doing action (as in yours), but I 'see' 'existence' as having many 'personal' aspect-components to it, and such components as having some degree of 'free' 'personally determinable' 'will'.

David: However, 'I'-David am ALSO……
Ocre: What you continue to describe here, are the changing qualities that appear from “you” being NO-thing from/in/through which every-thing appears….

Yes, I see the same NO-thing thang in my Mind-field-movie. I just think that there's 'dynamic relationship' between the No-thing thang and thangs which 'appear'. IOW, aspects of life "associated with" the thangs that 'appear' can (and in my 'view', they do) feed-back 'affect' the No-thing thang "from/in/through which every-thing appears", in ways which 'influence' the 'odds' of certain thangs 'appearing' and others not in the 'appearance'-'window' of 'the future'.

This dynamic 'two-way' relationship is what is referenced in statements like, "The Father is in me, and I am in the Father", methinks.

Thankin me is thanking you is thanking me.... :)

If that's really ALL there was to the 'play' of Life, Ocre, there would be 'absolutely' ;) NO (rational) 'point' in thinking, feeling or saying "thanks" in relation to anyone or anything. I personally prefer 'giving' and 'receiving' thanks with a much more 'recognition'-of-the-'person', or -'aspect'-of-Life, flavor.

In that vein, once again, I thank you very much, Ocre. I very much appreciate the 'richness' of this conversation. And it ain't all 'me' doin' the 'enriching' - this all just couldn't/wouldn't have 'happened', at least not the way it did, without your personal responsiveness and personal input -- at least, that's how it 'appears' in my Mind-field-movie. :D

[Ocre]

But what happens in David's Mind-'zone', i.e., the 'thinking' that the Mind 'does' in David's Mind-'zone', is 'significantly' different from what happens in Ocre's Mind-'zone'
Where both happen is what “we” really are, the Unchanging awareness.
Of course all appears in this awareness in distinction, (nothing can appear without standing out) but the distinction is only there pointing at the indistinct true Self that cannot be seen.
In that sense, it makes sense to me to think and operate in terms of their being “your mind” and “my mind”.
Sure it would, but can there actually can be such an identity to whom things make sense, or is ‘sense’ (meaning) creating an instant, apparently separate, identity (meaning-finder) and visa versa? = The illusion of having identity instead of: Being indistinct identity (no-thing) in-through-from which every-things appears.
'Seeing' is 'in the eye' or 'I' of the beholder
No, the image (the ’seen’) is in the eye of the beholder, the Seeing is unchanged, regardless of the eye and the image.
In my case, they both (i.e., David's Mind and Ocre's Mind) don't just 'seem' to 'appear' in my Mind-field, they both 'appear' quite vividly it I assure you. This is the 'picture' that 'appears'. The 'patterns' that are 'seen' in this regard are quite 'coherent' and have a fair a degree of consistency over time. They don't go about 'shape'-shifting in pattern-unrecognizable ways, IOW.
What you seem to do here is give meaning to giving meaning ;) , and identify with the meaning-finder.
The image of order/patterns going shape-shifting is a pattern in itself of course. It’s as if you are looking for the last observer, (?) while there is none…;-)

The 'autonomy', in my view, derives from the (inherent) 'potential' of a thought-farmer to 'see' and 'register' the 'significance' of the 'fact' that this kind of thought-seed 'results' in this kind of) 'fruit' and that kind of thought-seed 'results' in that kind of) 'fruit', also that…
In other words, the autonomy also only exists as ‘thought’, as ‘mind’. Subtiteling what’s “just happening”.
HOw can this be 'done'? One can 'plant' …..
Again, is this “one can plant..” real? (absolute/unchanging). Like in the model you used before, it’s as if you build on an assumption of choice and free will, to illustrate how it functions, but without actually addressing how this free will (identity as object) can exist within unseparateness.
It is to such 'voluntary' election that I am referring when I speak of 'free will' in relation to one's 'thought stream'. Obviously, there's no 'free will' regarding thought-seeds which have already been 'planted' and are now 'yielding' a 'flurry' of 'fruit' of pre-determined quality in one's Mind-field-zone..
See if you can choose a thought. Can you see where thought begins so you might start one yourself :P ?
Affirmations are not ‘chosen thoughts’, but thoughts about changing thoughts. Thoughts are creative, but nothing “real” can be created. What comes and goes, comes and goes in THAT which never comes and goes, Unchanging Truth, the Absolute. Attention will redirect to what is real when seen that thought is about nothing real. Yes, but note, it is the MIND itself which 'imagines' both 'wholeness' and non-wholeness,
Wholeness cannot be imagined by the mind, wholeness has no boundaries to be contained into a concept, wholeness is inborn realisation. The wholeness-thought that appears as the opposite of non-wholeness is a concept that makes them both seem ‘real’. (Does non-wholeness exist? Does untruth?)
It is possible to play the game in such way that one 'sees' 'different' aspects of Creation without either 'seeing' or 'expeeriencing' anything remotely close to 'separation' 'between' them.
Awareness plays this game, no “one”.
I just think that there's 'dynamic relationship' between the No-thing thang and thangs which 'appear'
This idea is just something appearing as well. When you look for the order in which things appear, you skip that the order-finder appears just as well, creating what is found by looking at it and being created in reciprocity by the “looked at”.
There is no-one to find truth as if identity and truth are objects…
there would be 'absolutely' NO (rational) 'point' in thinking, feeling or saying "thanks" in relation to anyone or anything. I personally prefer 'giving' and 'receiving' thanks with a much more 'recognition'-of-the-'person', or -'aspect'-of-Life, flavor.
That’s why ‘David’ can get offended… :D (because needing a point is needing a sense of identity.)
When the person (the thinker, the doer) becomes less fascinating, just as fascinating as the table and the sky, it is seen ‘you’ are all and nothing, gratefulness then has no conditions.

:-)

[sahyo]

Of course all appears in this awareness in distinction, (nothing can appear without standing out) but the distinction is only there pointing at the indistinct true Self that cannot be seen.


"distinction" "indistinct"ion, no
"pointing at"?


The illusion of having identity instead of: Being indistinct identity (no-thing) in-through-from which every-things appears.


not even


nothing “real” can be created.


"real" notreal, no


What comes and goes, comes and goes in THAT which never comes and goes, Unchanging Truth, the Absolute.


changing "Unchanging", no


Awareness plays this game, no “one”.


a'one'entity which "plays this game"? :lol:


There is no-one to find truth as if identity


yes, yet ocre posts defining"as if identity"

[DavidS]

Hi Ocre -

Thanks again for your, as usual, thoughtful and cogent response. Everything you state makes complete-in-and-an-of-itself 'sense' to me. IOW, there are some very meaningful (to me) 'points' in what you say. But we are, I think, operating on the basis of different 'premises', so in the end, I still 'prefer' the way I 'see' and (consequently) 'navigate' the world of my ex·peer·ience. Your personal way of 'seeing' and 'navigating' looks like it 'works very well' for you (and so, presumably, may well-serve others here too).

Of course all appears in this awareness in distinction, (nothing can appear without standing out) but the distinction is only there pointing at the indistinct true Self that cannot be seen.

For instance I totally agree with the "pointing at" assertion. But I strongly disagree with the exclusive (of other 'points') presumption which is implicit in your use of the word "only" (as highlighted, above).

That’s why ‘David’ can get offended… :D (because needing a point is needing a sense of identity.)

It's amazing how people can 'condescendly' 'pooh-pooh' the 'position' someone else's takes on something on the basis of presumed 'need'. I see the utilitarian value and so very much 'like' and respect/honor 'points' and 'identities', though I son't 'need' this and can live quite well/happily without such being 'accorded'.

I do not 'read' any other kind of 'offence' into the words in your post, as there is no other kind of disrespect or dishonor either implicit (hidden) or ex·pressed (overtly), meward or anyone elseward, in this case. When there is, however, David 'sees' 'offence' and acts/speaks 'accordingly'! Not that David thinks-or-feels the THAT (to be 'explained') of Creation is disserved or diminished one iota thereby, but that the THIS of Creation is 'disserved' and 'diminished' by 'offences' and that it is more 'beneficially' creative to myself and others for me to not 'simply' 'shut up' and 'put up' with such disservice and diminishment while in THIS 'world'.

When the person (the thinker, the doer) becomes less fascinating, just as fascinating as the table and the sky, it is seen ‘you’ are all and nothing, gratefulness then has no conditions.

Interesting assertion, Ocre. Makes me wonder how would you 'explain' the fact that I am, rare and relatively minor monetary lapses which I quickly recover from notwithstandsing, very grateful for everything being the way it is then, even though I am 'especially' 'fascinated' by human thinker-n-doer related dynamics 'practices' which derive from 'theories' in that regard.

Here something I composed before coming online which I think 'rounds out' my 'view' (potential readers: it's 3½ pages worth):
------
Hi Ocre:

Our discussion-dance pertaining to thangs like 'identity' and 'free will' has rythym-rocket-orbited 'me' into revisiting and reviewing what amounts, I think, to a 'neat' theological [!] thought-'form'. Am 'tickled' (person·ally-inspired? im·personally-impelled? whatever ... maybe I'm just 'simply' 'delighted', like a cat 'impulsively' zig-zag-chase-batting a ping-pong ball across a room) to share it in such an art·iculated-meaning appreciative context.

Preliminary 'point': I mean 'theological' in the sense of the·ological, the the in this case referencing the 'manifest' or 'manifesting' 'nature' of the THAT, this THAT referencing the un·noun·nameable ESSENCE of all Creation (this is what is alluded to by Ramakrishna, or whoever's, "Thou art THAT" pro·clamation). All 'manifest' Being, all the this's and that's 'perceived' or 'ex·peer·ienced' in our mental, emotional and physical 'world' (or 'worlds') is 'rooted in' and 'grows' 'out' of, continually-n-pervasively 'infused' and 'suffused' by the 'invisible' 'essence' of THAT.

In other words, 'manifest' or 'perceived' thangs, which may indeed be 'named' or 'pointed to', are 'the' thangs. For instance, the tree-treeing, the wind-winding, the light-lighting, the Spirit-'inspiring', the Mind-'conceiving', ... you name it! They are all 'manifest' (i.e., 'perceived' or 'ex·peer·ienced') ex·pressions which are rooted 'in', are 'filled' with, and grow 'out' of THAT, and thus, according to this theology at least, all thangs may appropriately be considered-n-'believed' to actively be 'radiant' 'emanations' of, and thus related to as 'extensional' aspects of THAT.

This leads to the 'logical conclusion', of course, that all being-thangs ('thoughts' and 'feelings' included) are as 'worthy' of being considered-n-related to in 'reverential' fashion, as 'sacred'. The 'fact' (that is, in 'light' of this theory :) it 'is' a 'fact') is, the's are 'really' THAT, just in being-doing co·motion, i.e. just 'going about' THAT's 'business' in 'wordly' 'dress'. (Yes, there's a 'dress code' 'requirement' for entry-n-participation in the space-time place game!)

The 'manifest' world is 'God'-'Godding' about all over space-time 'place', which is just another way of saying that the 'manifest' world is THAT-the·ing :) Itself all over the place. Quite a 'saucy' 'pisser' THAT-'God' is! (Sorry, but BIG MAMA 'tickled' me, and I'm sharing the 'laugh' – as I wrote "all over the place", images of a male dog going around doing his leg-lifting thang is what came to into my MIND-zone.)

Polaris and others: when considering the 'believability' or 'unbelievability' of the notion of there 'really' being some sort of 'God' thang (besides 'popular' Judeo-Xian-Islamic and other folk-loric 'conceptions' in this regard, that is), maybe try on the above 'vision' for 'perspective' and 'see' if what 'appears' in it theoretically corresponds to what you 'see' or 'imagine' going on in and around you. Strikes me that, in the 'light' of 'God' being 'seen' as THAT, 'believing' that the 'manifest' world of our (anyone's) ex·peer·ience simply is as 'model-envisioned' above becomes 'true' theism!

To 'elaborate' this theology just one vision-step further (though, I think, this is where Ocre might start having a different 'opinion' slant): I en·vision the Presence and creative/ex·pressive Power of THAT to be completely 'decentralized'. Some like to think and say "The 'center' is 'everywhere'." That is, THAT is completely 'pervasive' and diffused'. THAT's Presence and Power are ACTUALLY 'distributed' throughout, 'live' within, and 'radiate' from any and all the·beings which co·ordinate·dly 'manifest' in THAT Creation field.

Thus, according to this theology at least, I-David, one of the David's manifest in the world, really am THAT 'living' 'in the world' 'person·ally' as 'me'-David. Likewise, you as 'identified', or 'named', are THAT 'living' as 'you'. A 'significant' 'portion' of the PRESENCE and the creative/expressive POWER of THAT is person·all 'yours'. This 'portional' 'gift' is 'yours' to allocate and dispense in whatever fashion, 'you' person·ally choose. You (anyone) can 'surf' the waters of Creation by virtue from what you've 'inherited' from THAT. The PRESENCE within you has the POWER to discern/discriminate and choose what it will. 'Your' 'own' 'personal' habitual 'preferences' are the only thangs which preclude you from 'choosing' to 'manifest' something 'different'. BIG MAMA is (presumably, of her own volition) de·centralized. It is not SHE that discerns and chooses 'for' you; that is something you 'do' (or not!) 'for' and 'by' virtue of the PRESENCE and POWER which BIG MAMA THAT has 'vested' in or 'bequeathed' to you 'personally', which is NOW a 'done' 'deal'.

Where I think my 'vision' diverges from yours, Ocre, is that you-Ocre have arrived at the 'logical deduction' that BIG MAMA as only THAT HERSELF must be what's running the whole manifest-manifesting 'show', which 'view', of course', 'renders' each and all of us no more response-able for 'determining' our own 'destiny than a leaf floating on a stream 'determines' whether it 'sinks' or 'floats' and where, specifically, it goes; whereas I-David have arrived at the 'logical deduction' that it is PERVASIVE-MAMA-THAT as 'you', as me', and as everyone and everything else, which, in co·ordination, actually (which, in world-stage terms, means 'really') 'determine' the show's-flow.

I can only surmise that differences in terms of the 'spiritual leanings' or 'preferred relational stances' of THAT as presently mentally-n-emotionally 'configured' in 'you' and 'me', incline each of us to 'believe' (or at last to 'want' to 'believe') something different (from each other) pertaining to the 'issue' of 'degree' of our and others' personal response·ability. Whatever the actual case, THAT as[/U] you-Ocre and THAT as me-David sure think-n-feel quite differently about the topic. I am also sure that, given the meaning-framing 'templates' or 'lenses' we each, respectively, 'view' 'happenings' in and around us through, it really 'looks' to you like there's no such thang as 'personal-aspect' 'free will', etc., JUST AS it really 'looks' to me like 'personal-aspect' 'free will' is what 'makes' the world go the way it goes.

This may come across as 'too' 'radical' a paradigm to 'conceivably' be 'possibly the case', but let me not shy away from 'taking it to the limit'. In my view, even a rock is 'freely' 'choosing', by virtue of the PRESENCE and POWER of THAT which suffuses it, BUT in the rock's 'own' way in that case, to be the rock that it is. For 'strict' 19th century Science-based philosophers, one might say that the 'rock' 'chooses' to 'act' 'in accordance with' the laws of physics and chemistry as we have come to 'know' these. This should not be considered an indication that the rock has no 'free will' as such, just that it's THAT isn't 'configured' in such a way as to be 'able' to ex·press itself in ways that are more free-flowing and 'personally' 'inventive'.

I guess you might say all of Creation/Existence is ('being'-centrically) 'discerning' and 'animated' in my view. Here's an excerpt from an earlier piece I wrote in which I argued the 'logic' of this 'view':

"The potentially liberating and amendatory truth (which, for the forementioned reasons, many don't appreciate) is that everybody in existence is spiritually motivated by a mindfully discriminating [b]intrinsic potency. This was termed 'atman' or 'soul' by sages of old, who recognized everyone and everything as an immediate expression of the universally present, intelligently creative essence which they understood to be the real meaning of 'Brahman' and 'God'. But, because such words have been misappropriated by custom and their significance sometimes grossly distorted by misusage, I generally refer to it alternatively, as Intelligence, Creativity, Life Itself or the Life-Force. However labeled, it is the source 'element' from which all Being springs, the core I-Am-That-I-Am,That Which Is at root within each and everyone. (Though the full import of this cause of all causes may yet escape you, the following review and analysis of our catalog of scientific knowledge should at least make its fundamental character obvious.)

"Even the simplest cases of what's called gravitational attraction provide perfect illustration, if viewed without prejudice. Bodies of matter-energy must move themselves, for nothing really pushes or pulls them one towards the other.[see footnote**] And they must perceive both presence and relative location, else they could not attempt to move as they do, with an acceleration proportionate to the mass and proximity and in the direction of coexisting others.

Electromagnetic and nuclear interactions, where repulsion occurs as well, are additionally revealing. Ongoing scientific investigation has led us to understand the fact that sense perceptions are basically 'gross' acknowledgments, and that everything is fundamentally a wave-form and nothing is actually solid at core. So, besides there being no substantive means to constitutionally link those bodies which form conglomerates, there is no real 'boundary' that so-called objects bump into when they apparently bounce off one another. The only inference this permits, if one has enough courage and faith in Life not to invent extrinsic agency as a false postulate, is that the movements that bodies make and the stations they take result from the impulses and choices of discerning, autogenic 'interiors'.
---------
Footnote ** As one of my college physics professors humorously commented, there are no 'rubber bands' or 'strings with hooks' connecting them. But let me also point out that the notion of force fieldspermeating space is a purely 'etheric' invention, though as they've grown accustomed to using the idea for explanatory and predictive purposes many have come to believe such things actually exist and exert a 'powerful' influence in and of themselves.
========
Zowieeee! You can 'see' why I couldn't/wouldn't never 'fit in' with most 'professors' of Science OR Religion, cantchoo?

P.S. In case anyone wanting to read what preceded and followed the 'excerpted' passage, here's a link to it on the web: KERPLINK (http://www.godspeak2000.net/123/2001.htm).

[Ocre]

I do not 'read' any other kind of 'offence' into the words in your post,…
I was jokingly referring to your holding Asheera responsible for her re-actions.
Makes me wonder how would you 'explain' the fact that I am (--) very grateful for everything being the way it is then, even though...

What I wrote was a referral to : If that's really ALL there was to the 'play' of Life, Ocre there would be 'absolutely' NO (rational) 'point' in thinking, feeling or saying "thanks" in relation to anyone or anything. I
personally prefer 'giving' and 'receiving' thanks with a much more 'recognition'-of-the-'person', or -'aspect'-of-Life, flavor.

I printed out the long ;) composition to read when there is room and will get back to you on it…

:-)

[Ocre]

Hi David,

In your composition you actually make ‘my’ point more than once.
From what I can see you more or less state that all chooses to be (is chosen to be) and this only confirms that choice is unreal. (If all chooses, there is no choice)

This for instance: it is PERVASIVE-MAMA-THAT as 'you', as me', and as everyone and everything else, which, in co·ordination, actually (which, in world-stage terms, means 'really') 'determine' the show's-flow.
Is saying nothing more than “THAT” determines the show’s flow. How is that different from:
you-Ocre have arrived at the 'logical deduction' that BIG MAMA as only THAT HERSELF must be what's running the whole manifest-manifesting 'show'? Isn’t all manifestation of THAT, still THAT?

When all is (manifestation of) “That”, all thought about “That” is “That” as well of course (you state so yourself, the tree treeing, the wind winding, so also the thought thinking).
Whatever is written is “it” as well… And since “THAT” can be no object to talk or write about, talking about it is without choice as well. (THAT’s choice if you prefer, annulling choice as an act)

Here:
But let me also point out that the notion of force fieldspermeating space is a purely 'etheric' invention, though as they've grown accustomed to using the idea for explanatory and predictive purposes many have come to believe such things actually exist and exert a 'powerful' influence in and of themselves.
Is the key David: Just as this is invention to ‘use’ the idea for explanatory purposes, Free choice is an invention as well to facilitate explanation/meaning as if there is an object/subject, as if identity is an object.

:-)

[sahyo]

(you state so yourself, the tree treeing, the wind winding, so also the thought thinking).
Whatever is written is “it” as well… And since “THAT” can be no object to talk or write about, talking about it is without choice as well. (THAT’s choice if you prefer, annulling choice as an act)


:lol: ...."tree treeing" only "thought thinking" if ocre reading thinkingliteral'wordswhichnot'.........which is thinking "tree treeing" literalwords, ocre?.....which thinks"tree treeing" 'about'?


(THAT’s choice if you prefer, annulling choice as an act)


:lol: ....cannot "annulling" which not, ocre

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Ocre@Oct 20 2003, 03:10 AM
David: But let me also point out that the notion of force fieldspermeating space is a purely 'etheric' invention, though as they've grown accustomed to using the idea for explanatory and predictive purposes many have come to believe such things actually exist and exert a 'powerful' influence in and of themselves.
Ocre: Is the key David: Just as this is invention to ‘use’ the idea for explanatory purposes, Free choice is an invention as well to facilitate explanation/meaning as if there is an object/subject, as if identity is an object.
Yes, EXACTLY, Ocre. All that our (relatively) puny human Mind-zones can come 'up' with (i.e, all they can do is 'in'-vent) are 'pictorial' 'conceptions', which amount to theories, or models, about what's going on in the 'world' of our ex·peer·ience. There's the 'field theory' of gravitation, there's Unified String-Theory of Everything sorts of thangs, there's Ocre's theory regarding what does or doesn't 'do' any 'doing', and there's David's theory which differs from this pretty much simply in terms of what is 'viewed' as the being the driver's 'seat', when it comes to determining the course of this or that 'mini'-mind-n-spirit's 'flow'.

If I'm not mistaken, it has been 'mathematically' 'proven' that a given set of facts may be 'completely' accounted' for by more than one theory (or set of axioms), and that there are theoretically an infinite number of such axiom sets possible (Any 'discrepancies' can always readily be 'explained away' by the in·vent·ion and addition of more 'qualifying' axioms, as in the case of the in·vent·ion of 'epicycling' spheres in the case of Ptolemaic astronomy to explain apparent 'retrogression' of others planets as viewed from a sun-orbiting earth. In 'large measure', at least. I once heard, though I have no idea if this is really true, that it was theoretically possibly to come up with a 'geometry' of 'perception' such that, as viewed through that lens, "The earth is flat" would be a true statement!)

I think where you and I differ is that you place more (dare I say total or 'totalitarian'?**) 'importance', in terms of 'paying attention', etc., on the Super-SELF 'source' of our 'personal' faculties, whereas I think it is equally 'important', in terms of 'paying attention', to discern and become 'wise' in one's' navigational choices pertaining to the shape, dynamics and creative options of its current configurational wave-'representatives' (one's 'personal' 'self' included).

This get's back to my assertion that it's all basically subject·ive (any apparent 'objectivity' merely being a 'reflection' of 'intersubjective' 'agreement'') . You 'prefer' your 'theory' and I 'prefer' my 'theory', though they both 'explain' the same set of facts equally well IMO, because we differ in terms of our subjectively 'embraced' evaluations of our perceptions and ex·peer·iences; IOW, because of differences in your and my respective value-hierarchies.

I submit, as an operational proposition, that your 'theory' (i.e., the 'invention' that 'free-choice' is an 'invention' :D ) is best suited for experimentation and experience pertaining to what you think is 'most important' or 'best', and my 'theory' is best suited for experimentation and experience pertaining to what I think is 'most important' or 'best'.

Salut! my fellow in·vent·or - David :lol:

[Ocre]

...."tree treeing" only "thought thinking" if ocre reading thinkingliteral'wordswhichnot'.........which is thinking "tree treeing" literalwords, ocre?.....which thinks"tree treeing" 'about'?

So, again, which is thinking Ocre reading thinkingliteral’wordswhichnot’? Does Ocre exist from Asheera’s p.o.v. as a “thinking-person”?
i.o.w.: does Asheera see “which is thinking?” ;)

....cannot "annulling" which not, ocre
“THAT’s choice if you prefer, annulling choice as an act”= Only THAT chooses (manifests) means there is no choice.
It states the concept choice is annulled.

:-)

[Ocre]

All that our (relatively) puny human Mind-zones can come 'up' with (i.e, all they can do is 'in'-vent) are 'pictorial' 'conceptions', which amount to theories, or models, about what's going on in the 'world' of our ex·peer·ience.
In other words David, the thinking does itself and is about nothing real.
This does not disqualify above finding as if the paradox can be turned on itself. Seeing how Truth can be no object, is still no “truth” when expressed, because this expression itself also takes place in Unchanging Truth. (“That”)
“It” is indeed not nameable, but the roadsign never being the ‘thing’ it points at, doesn't mean the roadsign looses function.
What you seem to do is climb and investigate roadsigns to show they are not what they point at ;) and investigating them as if not all roadsigns point at only one thing; (That what we are is Awareness itself)...
I think where you and I differ is that you place more (dare I say total or 'totalitarian'?**) 'importance', in terms of 'paying attention', etc., on the Super-SELF 'source' of our 'personal' faculties, whereas I think it is equally 'important', in terms of 'paying attention', to discern and become 'wise' in one's' navigational choices pertaining to the shape, dynamics and creative options of its current configurational wave-'representatives' (one's 'personal' 'self' included).
Here you loose me again, did you not agree that what you describe here as Super-Self (That, Unchanging awareness) is the only realness, no matter how this Unchanging manifests? So why see a disctinction? It is the question you skipped in the last post: Isn’t all manifestation of THAT, still THAT?
You 'prefer' your 'theory' and I 'prefer' my 'theory', though they both 'explain' the same set of facts equally well IMO, because we differ in terms of our subjectively 'embraced' evaluations of our perceptions and ex·peer·iences; IOW, because of differences in your and my respective value-hierarchies.
This as well points only at “truth” not being an object and ‘you’ and ‘I’ (as experiencers) not existing as anything but the reflection of the experience. (And so does your closing paragraph point at that)
It does not matter in the least what the reflection of either one (experience-experiencer) looks like, what “we” are is the formless, timeless experiencing itself. (Where both experience and experiencer appear.)
As long as fascination is still with either experience or experiencer (which are undivided), attention will not be directed towards attention itself and ‘thinking’ will seem to be about something interesting, reshaping the illusional thinker as a reflection.

Of course that cannot in the least influence the Unchanging and is as “whole” as anything else... :D

:-)

[sahyo]

...."tree treeing" only "thought thinking" if ocre reading thinkingliteral'wordswhichnot'.........which is thinking "tree treeing" literalwords, ocre?.....which thinks"tree treeing" 'about'?


So, again, which is thinking Ocre reading thinkingliteral’wordswhichnot’? Does Ocre exist from Asheera’s p.o.v. as a “thinking-person”?
i.o.w.: does Asheera see “which is thinking?” ;)

not 'about' asheera
....'haps ocre read which posted
which the quote referring


....cannot "annulling" which not, ocre


“THAT’s choice if you prefer, annulling choice as an act”= Only THAT chooses (manifests) means there is no choice.
It states the concept choice is annulled.

no

:)

[sahyo]

As long as fascination is still with either experience or experiencer (which are undivided), attention will not be directed towards attention itself and ‘thinking’ will seem to be about something interesting, reshaping the illusional thinker as a reflection.


:lol:

[fu*]

"I think where you and I differ is that you place more (dare I say total or 'totalitarian'?**) 'importance', in terms of 'paying attention', etc., on the Super-SELF 'source' of our 'personal' faculties, whereas I think it is equally 'important', in terms of 'paying attention', to discern and become 'wise' in one's' navigational choices pertaining to the shape, dynamics and creative options of its current configurational wave-'representatives' (one's 'personal' 'self' included)."


>>>>i place importance<<<<
>>>>you place importance<<<<

How true.......How true.

[Ocre]

not 'about' asheera
....'haps ocre read which posted
which the quote referring

You mean it is about Ocre? (Ocre is real to Asheera asif whichtinkingaboutOcreposting is real?)

O: “It states the concept choice is annulled.”

no
What it states in Asheera’s eyes is not about Ocre either…. ;)

:-)

[Ocre]

Originally posted by fu*@Oct 21 2003, 09:31 AM

>>>>i place importance<<<<
>>>>you place importance<<<<

How true.......How true.


This is where Fu* places importance? :lol:

:-)

[Ocre]

Originally posted by asheera@Oct 21 2003, 07:27 AM

As long as fascination is still with either experience or experiencer (which are undivided), attention will not be directed towards attention itself and ‘thinking’ will seem to be about something interesting, reshaping the illusional thinker as a reflection.


:lol:
"Of course that cannot in the least influence the Unchanging and is as “whole” as anything else... " :D

:-)

[sahyo]

not 'about' asheera
....'haps ocre read which posted
which the quote referring


You mean it is about Ocre? (Ocre is real to Asheera asif whichtinkingaboutOcreposting is real?)

wrote "not 'about' asheera"....didn't write 'morelessnotmoreless' than wrote

the quote wasn't referring to:

“It states the concept choice is annulled.”


but

...."tree treeing" only "thought thinking" if ocre reading thinkingliteral'wordswhichnot'.........which is thinking "tree treeing" literalwords, ocre?.....which thinks"tree treeing" 'about'?



:)

[sahyo]

As long as fascination is still with either experience or experiencer (which are undivided), attention will not be directed towards attention itself and ‘thinking’ will seem to be about something interesting, reshaping the illusional thinker as a reflection.


:lol:


"Of course that cannot in the least influence the Unchanging and is as “whole” as anything else... " :D


:lol:

is 'anentity-something else-nothing else-"anything else"-everything else'
which can-"cannot" changing"-Unchanging", ocre?

[Ocre]

wrote "not 'about' asheera"....didn't write 'morelessnotmoreless' than wrote
And I wrote it’s not ‘about’ Ocre either and asked if you feel that Asheera’s words are ‘about’ Ocre?

the quote wasn't referring to:
Check again, your reply Oct 21 2003, 07:14 AM

:-)

[Ocre]

is 'anentity-something else-nothing else-"anything else"-everything else'
which can-"cannot" changing"-Unchanging", ocre?

It says The Unchanging cannot be influenced, so it's only your question that sees "which can-"cannot" changing"-Unchanging".... B)

:-)

[sahyo]

:lol:

[sahyo]

Of course that cannot in the least influence the Unchanging and is as “whole” as anything else... "


is 'anentity-something else-nothing else-"anything else"-everything else'
which can-"cannot" changing"-Unchanging", ocre?

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Ocre+Oct 21 2003, 01:07 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ocre @ Oct 21 2003, 01:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--fu*@Oct 21 2003, 09:31 AM

>>>>i place importance<<<<
>>>>you place importance<<<<

How true.......How true.
This is where Fu* places importance? :lol: [/b][/quote]
YES, YES, YES...YES, and YES! :lol:

Strikes me that it's 'worth' mentioning (i.e., it that is 'important' enough in current context to mention) that "import" also linguistically means 'meaning' or 'meaningfulness' as well as that that something is 'im·ported', i.e., something is 'sent' and 'brought into' 'port'.

Yes, my thought-n-feeling 'constellation' 'gives' 'place' to a certain, 'unique'-to'-'me', meaningfullness, and fu*'s thought-n-feeling 'constellation' 'gives' 'place' to a certain, 'unique'-to'-'her', meaningfullness.

"How true.......How true," fu* said. My thought-n-feeling 'constellation' 'gives' im·port·ant 'place' in the 'scheme' of 'thangs' to this "How true.......How true", and it occurs to me, because it 'pops' into 'my' head-n-heart, that it might be im·port·ant enough to mention, that others here may quite possibly also think-n-feel similarly, TOO! IOW, it may not only be 'fu*' and 'me' for whom >>>>i place importance<<<<>>>>you place importance<<<<How true.......How true. has the 'ring' of 'significant' 'truth'.
:)

[Ocre]

is 'anentity-something else-nothing else-"anything else"-everything else'
which can-"cannot" changing"-Unchanging", ocre?

There is no “entity”. All is THAT manifesting. :)

:-)

[Ocre]

Hi David,

I’m not clear if there just isn’t a response, or if you overlooked my posting.
Both is fine, but I’m just checking here.

:-)

[sahyo]

There is no “entity”. All is THAT manifesting. :)


:lol:

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Ocre@Oct 20 2003, 03:53 PM
All that our (relatively) puny human Mind-zones can come 'up' with (i.e, all they can do is 'in'-vent) are 'pictorial' 'conceptions', which amount to theories, or models, about what's going on in the 'world' of our ex·peer·ience.
In other words David, the thinking does itself and is about nothing real.
Methinks you interpret my words in 'favor' of your 'thesis' unduely, Milady. The thinking 'appears' as though it 'happened' all by itself, but any particular thought (with all its 'unique'-to-the-think·er 'significance') could not/would not have 'taken place' without the think·er being a 'willing' co·operative conduit-n-receptacle. The think·er 'deserves' 'credit' for the thougt's e·mergences, my thesis maintains; also that both the thought and the think·er are 'worthy' (i.e. im·port·ant, or sign·ificant) enough, at least sometimes, to be 'viewed' and 'treated' as 'real' (meaning as 'really' sign·ificant and im·port·ant, that is). IMO, only 'nothing' is 'not real' (or not 'really' sign·ificant and im·port·ant).

Meguestimates that your 'judgment' in this regard is the function of a "Monism is the theory that anything that isn't everything is nothing." kind of 'heresy' -- in 'my' 'view' it is, as I'm sure what I am 'championing' is 'heretical' in 'yours'.

This does not disqualify above finding as if the paradox can be turned on itself. Seeing how Truth can be no object, is still no “truth” when expressed, because this expression itself also takes place in Unchanging Truth. (“That”)

For the purposes of this discussion I can go along with the notion that 'changing truth' somehow takes place "in" 'Unchanging Truth' (instead of 'it' being an ex·press·ion of an 'authentic' facet of IT), but I cannot go along with the assertion that because it is 'no object," it is still "no truth" when ex·pressed. In my view, it is ex·pressed truth (which is quite a far cry from 'no' 'truth'.

“It” is indeed not nameable, but the roadsign never being the ‘thing’ it points at, doesn't mean the roadsign looses function.

We are agrred, I think, on this.

What you seem to do is climb and investigate roadsigns to show they are not what they point at ;) and investigating them as if not all roadsigns point at only one thing; (That what we are is Awareness itself)...

Not quite, certainly not as far as your 'only' implication is concerned. The 'roadsigns' point to both the "one thing" and the coming-from-and-going-to "road" 'direction' of individual, unique-to-the-traveller "road" which the 'signs' are referencing. We humans are allAwareness Itself; that is 'true' of everything in my book. However, I think, it does the whole 'truth' quite and 'injustice' if such a statement is 'used' to imply that that's all there really is to our 'story', that that's our story's only 'significant' (and 'worth' being 'talked about' and further 'pointed to') 'point'. Strikes me that the roadsign thang is a 'two way' street -- such that each and every one of our "road" stories becomes a 'significant' chapter in the Awareness roadtrip book.

Here you lose me again, did you not agree that what you describe here as Super-Self (That, Unchanging awareness) is the only realness, no matter how this Unchanging manifests?

Yes, in my view, it is the 'real' THANG that is the 'source' and 'sustainer' as well as 'container' of all ex·pressions of flowering-fruiting-n-seeding (and withering-decaying-n-dis·integrating, I might add), which, in my view, though also ever-morphing, are also 'real' thangs.

Isn’t all manifestation of THAT, still THAT?

Yes, which makes THAT im·port·ant enough to 'truly' entertain and consider as one walks the path of Life.

So why see a distinction? It is the question you skipped in the last post.

Yes I skipped it in the referred to post. That was because I had already 'answered' this as clearly as I could in my prior art·iculations, so it simply looked like my 'answer' was something you weren't 'into' seeing' (IOW, that your thought-n-feeling constellation must be so constituted that my kinds of thoughts on the subject are just 'noisy' 'nonsense', i.e, very unlikely to 'pop'-come-into-'focus' and 'pop'-'make sense' in 'your' mind-zone).

I will try again, by very 'succinctly' saying, to "why see a distinction?", because I also 'see' that creative dynamics pertaining to ex·pressions of flowering-fruiting-n-seeding (and withering-decaying-n-dis·integrating, of course) as ALSO im·port·ant, though, of course, not equally, to everyone.

David: You 'prefer' your 'theory' and I 'prefer' my 'theory', though they both 'explain' the same set of facts equally well IMO, because we differ in terms of our subjectively 'embraced' evaluations of our perceptions and ex·peer·iences; IOW, because of differences in your and my respective value-hierarchies.
Ocre: This as well points only at “truth” not being an object and ‘you’ and ‘I’ (as experiencers) not existing as anything but the reflection of the experience. (And so does your closing paragraph point at that).
All I can say is that my 'message' is getting 'mangled' to the point where it is unrecognizable by me after being 'translated' and 'reflected back' to me through framework of your view-of-Life 'lens'. Let me try more clearly convey what I'm 'seeing'.

Yes, 'truth' is not an 'object' - it ('truth') is a living 'meaning'-gestalt which is alive, which THAT act·ually, psychospiritually [/B]lives[/B], by dynamic-life 'way' of ex·perimentally ex·press·ing itself in the world of inter·action, in which both 'individuals' and 'multitudes 'learn' to ex·press It ever more love-joy-creatively as they intelligently 'discern' and 'digest' the 'significance' of the 'feedback they 'gets' from their own ex·peer·ience. To your notion of 'us' "Not existing as anything but the reflection of the experience?", I can only say, Pshaw!

It does not matter in the least what the reflection of either one (experience-experiencer) looks like,

As Tonto reputedly said to the Lone Ranger when he said, "The jig is up, we're surrounded Tonto!" ... "Speak for your self, paleface." :lol:

It it clear to 'me' that it does not matter in the least to 'you' what the 'reflection' -- yours, mine or anyone else's - "looks like". In my 'world', so to 'me', it 'matters' a lot!

what “we” are is the formless, timeless experiencing itself. (Where both experience and experiencer appear.)

For 'you', that's the 'truth'. For 'me', that's not. In my view, what 'I' am is not just an experience-giggle-gaggle 'fit' energy-dancing through the world of space and time. I am a self-conscious 'entity' using the feedback of my and others' personal ex·peer·iences to become a more love-joy-creative art·ist who gratefully ex·peer·iences ex·peer·ience, both 'learning' from and 'using' them (the ex·peer·ienced ex·peer·iences) to become more love-joy-creative, in so far as 'I' am 'capable' of doing so.

As long as fascination is still with either experience or experiencer (which are undivided), attention will not be directed towards attention itself and ‘thinking’ will seem to be about something interesting, reshaping the illusional thinker as a reflection.

Sounds like you have your 'path' all clearly 'road sign' interpreted, including 'seeing' that 'my' 'fascination' will result in my remaining 'illusion'-bound and that yours won't. I hope its equally clear to you that my 'road signs' point in a different direction(s) than that. In my view, there are 'illusions' pertaining to something ex·isting which isn't/doesn't as well as to something not ex·isting which is/does. We all 'place' our 'bets' (or not!) in such regards. And we all, accordingly, get "what's coming to us". Having done my best to 'figure out' the way the game works, that's the 'revelation' I elect to 'trust' and 'put my faith' in.

Of course that cannot in the least influence the Unchanging and is as “whole” as anything else... :D

I wouldn't rule out the 'feedback' factor in terms of being 'determinative' in relation to the evolutionary flow·ering-course of the "whole", the "whole" field of 'manifestation' or ex·peer·ience, that is. Yes, the THANG which folks designated as the 'source', 'sustainer' and 'container' of 'manifestation' or ex·peer·ience, of course will not 'change' -- IT has no 'changeable' features, in that, no matter what goes on 'in' the 'world', IT will always be that 'world's' a·morph·ous 'source', 'sustainer' and 'container', and it will remain "whole" as such. But, aside from the admittedly im·port·ant 'context' it provides for Life to 'happen', I am more directly interested in and involved with the 'change'-game. Though there's a lot of antipathy-pain-suffering 'in' 'it', the world of ex·peer·ience is where all the love-fun-joying goes on as well.

:) David

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Ocre@Oct 22 2003, 02:35 PM
Hi David,

I’m not clear if there just isn’t a response, or if you overlooked my posting. Both is fine, but I’m just checking here.
I was composing my above post at the time of your query. Thanks for checking just in case my not posting sometime is a 'reflection' ;) of 'my' simply having missed an 'engaging' opportunity, what with all the (enjoyable in its own right) 'traffic' in this place. :)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Ocre@Oct 22 2003, 02:34 PM
is 'anentity-something else-nothing else-"anything else"-everything else'
which can-"cannot" changing"-Unchanging", ocre?

There is no “entity”. All is THAT manifesting. :)
Just want to say that, in my view, 'we' are all 'sub'-'entities' who are simultaneously, as developed-n-continuing-to-develop facets of THAT (mind-conceived of as 'an entity') which are also manifest-n-manifesting aspects of THAT entity's manifestation-process -- for those whose 'I'-eyes 'entertain' and 'focus' on such thangs, that is.
:)

[Ocre]

The thinking 'appears' as though it 'happened' all by itself, but any particular thought (-) could not/would not have 'taken place' without the think·er being a 'willing' co·operative conduit-n-receptacle
So far you haven’t addressed where this thinker would reside … It is nothing but an image of this thinker appearing in thoughts. (Thinker IS the thinking). If the thinker actually was a “doer”, where is he during dreamless sleep? If he’s only there when thinking is going on, it means he can’t stop or start thoughts, but appears with them, IS them. ;)
…to be 'viewed' and 'treated' as 'real' (meaning as 'really' sign·ificant and im·port·ant, that is).
First: “Real” = Absolute. (unchanging and not dependently forming) So there is nothing real about ‘anything appearing’, only about ‘where all appearing takes place’.
Second: To be viewed by whom?

In my view, it is ex·pressed truth (which is quite a far cry from 'no' 'truth'.
If it is changing truth, isn’t truth of course… simple. It’s just meaning happening so that the immediateness “you” really are is pointed at. Not by meaning having meaning, but by meaning having none.
The 'roadsigns' point to both the "one thing" and the coming-from-and-going-to "road" 'direction' of individual
The roadsigns ARE the coming-from-and-going-to….
Isn’t all manifestation of THAT, still THAT?- Yes, which makes THAT im·port·ant enough to 'truly' entertain and consider as one walks the path of Life.
Who is this “one” but THAT? “Important enough to…” implies choice and doing. Who is there to choose and do if all is THAT?
why see a distinction?", because I also 'see' that creative dynamics pertaining to ex·pressions (-)ALSO im·port·ant, though, of course, not equally, to everyone.
That’s saying: I see a distinction, because I see a distinction…. :blink: Dynamics pertaining to expressions is THAT manifesting. “You seeing…” is THAT manifesting… The joy of recognising all as THAT needs no meaning, for it dissolved the meaning-finder as a ‘real’ thing.
It does not matter in the least what the reflection of either one (experience-experiencer) looks like, - In my 'world', so to 'me', it 'matters' a lot!
This “me” is the reflection of “my world”, you confirm the point here.
what “we” are is the formless, timeless experiencing itself. (Where both experience and experiencer appear.) -I am a self-conscious 'entity' using the feedback of my and others' personal ex·peer·iences to..
Then, to you consciousness appears in you? (not “you” in Consciousness?) This would imply that awareness had limits for it to be contained by “you”. How is this possible?
including 'seeing' that 'my' 'fascination' will result in my remaining 'illusion'-bound and that yours won't.
There is no my seeing and your seeing, just Seeing. There is no-one to direct attention. Existence processes itself on itself, when saturated, attention will be directed towards attention.
When attention is directed towards thinker/doer, attention seems to have an owner and "THAT" will not be recognised as whole and all. When “you” seem to be this thinker, it will persist in not loosing that identity of course. But even that does not add to or diminish from what ‘you’ are, were and only can be..

:-)

[Ocre]

This is from: http://www.awakeningtothedream.com/forum1/index.html
From the author of "awakening to the dream".

There is simply observing without some one doing it. If it was done by someone it could also be stopped by some one, but it cannot. Even when eyes and ears are closed, still silence and darkness are observed. Even in deep sleep, the absence of ‘observations’ is observed as it can be reported when the sleep ends.

Thinker-doer implies a separation which is not.
And by the way, it is snowing in Holland for the first time this year!

:-)

[sahyo]

still silence and darkness are observed


:lol:


the absence of ‘observations’ is observed*


:lol:


Thinker-doer implies a separation which is not.


yp, yet ocre posts as though thinkingwhichnot

:)

[Ocre]

yp, yet ocre posts as though thinkingwhichnot
There is no “one” thinking. When Asheera’s seems to see “ocre thinkingwhichnot”, does that mean this “one” thinking “is”?
(Or that "Ocre" is, or that "Asheera" is?)
If wholeness IS, does it matter how it appears not to be?

:-)

[sahyo]

:)

'haps when ceases ocreanlayzing

[Ocre]

To Asheera, there are conditions for wholeness to be?....

:-)

[sahyo]

'haps when ceases ocreanlayzing


not "conditions"notconditions, orce


'haps when ceases ocreanlayzing

[DavidS]

Hi Ocre,

I see that you still find that my statements don't make sense (i.e., that they don't 'add up' to the point where they 'hold water') in your frame of reference. I don't think I can elucidate the 'logic' of my oceanic-living-surf 'view' or the desirability of developing navigational adeptitude in that context any better than I already have.

My thought-n-feeling is that to continue this conversation at this point would just result in your and my going back and forth without coming to any further 'resolution' beyond what we have already come to in this regard.

Just a few small attempts-at-lens-clarification as I wind this conversation down, Ocre:

So far you haven’t addressed where this thinker would reside …

The same 'place' that THAT 'resides' -- that is, if you want to image·in things in 'residential' terms. Several of my earlier posts have implicitly 'answered' this 'question' already, but in this regard two and two haven't yet 'clicked' into four as yet.

I said: "everybody (implicitly, every 'form' of THAT) in existence is spiritually motivated by a mindfully discriminating intrinsic potency." The think·er (noun), in which 'context' the 'thinking' takes place, is the mind-n-spirit-constellation or 'form'. The think·ing (verb), is the 'intrinsic potency' thang in action. It strikes me that one could equally well say that the think·er 'resides' 'in' the think·ing as saying that the think·ing 'resides' 'in' the think·er -- both provide a basis for logical thought-processing. But trying to resolve the issue of which 'resides' where or in which strikes me as being mis·thought-guided, as the two 'items' under consideration are really two, each-dynamically-meaningful-in-its-own-way, facets ('conceptual' facets, at least) of Life-process-happening. 'There', in the stream-flow of Life-Process-happening, is 'where' it makes the most sense, it seems to me, to regard both the think·er and think·ing as happening-residing.

... It is nothing but an image of this thinker appearing in thoughts.

You think-n-feel that "images" "appearing" in Mind (i.e., the 'domain' of 'thought'), in this case, of a "thinker", are nothing but "images" (i.e., 'idols'), in this case of a fictional think·er. OK. I 'get' and 'respect' that. I, on the other hand, think-n-feel that the "images" which "appear" in my Mind-zone are really INDICATIVE of something, in this case, I take the "image" I have of a "thinker", lets say of a 'you'-Ocre-thinker or a 'me'-David-thinker, to be INDICATIVE of something that is really PRESENT and POWERFUL (actively-making-ripples which strike my ripple-detectors!). The "image" of the "thinker" is just that, an "image" of the "thinker", but just as would be the case if your body-image were to pop in front of my body-eyes, it is, or at least it may be 'logically' considered as being, INDICATIVE of a real aspect or facet of THAT-in-the-process-of-Life-Being -- as 'factual' (i.e., not 'fictional'). I hope you 'get' this and 'respect' it at some point.

(Thinker IS the thinking).

{LOUD BUZZER SOUND}.

In David's-view-game: I'm sorry, your 'answer' is 'incorrect'. "Thinker" refers to the Being-aspect and "Thinking" refers to the Doing-aspect of this or that 'thought'-'happening'. You are 'reducing' basically irreducable (because their conceptual 'dimensions' are 'orthogonally' related) 'items' into one, meaning·cidal, confabulation. In this case, the 'noun' and the 'verb' have their own, each in its own way 'significant' or 'true', meaning -- like the 'mass' and 'velocity' of an object in physics -- it is not logically possible to 'meaningfully' equate two such 'unique'-factor-'naming' elements.

In Ocre's-view-game: Congratulations, the $64 million jackpot is yours! Lemmeno watch-gonna-do-with-it. :lol:

Despite our view-derivative disagreements, Ocre, please know that I think-n-feel that your 'way' of 'framing things' can also be 'significantly' creative (it isn't the paints used, but the paint·er ;) , who 'inspirationally' 'creates' with them, that really makes 'the difference', IMO). And, in my book, Creativity is what Life is all about, so, though I'm 'signing off' on this conversational-thread, I remain 'warm' youward fellow crafts[wo]man.

:ph34r: (10/4, Roger, over and out - zen bowing)

[Ocre]

"'haps when ceases ocreanlayzing" ...what?

:-)

[sahyo]

'haps when ceases ocreanlayzing

[Ocre]

There is no “one” thinking.
When Asheera’s seems to see “ocre thinkingwhichnot”, does that mean this “one” thinking “is”?
(Or that "Ocre" is, or that "Asheera" is?)
If wholeness IS, does it matter how it appears not to be?

:-)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Ocre@Oct 24 2003, 01:27 AM
And by the way, it is snowing in Holland for the first time this year!
Hey, izzat where your 'thinking-unit' :) is? Throw a snow ball for me (don't get to do that here in Arizona). I just saw an item on the news which reported that the snow in Europe was unusually early this year.
:D

[Ocre]

but just as would be the case if your body-image were to pop in front of my body-eyes, it is, or at least it may be 'logically' considered as being, INDICATIVE of a real aspect or facet of THAT-in-the-process-of-Life-Being -- as 'factual' (i.e., not 'fictional'). I hope you 'get' this and 'respect' it at some point.
These indications form by themselves, effortlessly. “There is simply observing without some one doing it.” Whatever is observed David, by whomever it seems to be observed, there can be no doer.
"If it was done by someone it could also be stopped by some one, but it cannot. Even when eyes and ears are closed, still silence and darkness are observed. Even in deep sleep, the absence of ‘observations’ is observed as it can be reported when the sleep ends." every 'form' of THAT is spiritually motivated by a mindfully discriminating intrinsic potency."
“THAT”(Awareness) does nothing and is Unchanging.

:-)

[sahyo]

'haps when ceases ocreanlayzing

[Ocre]

Originally posted by DavidS+Oct 25 2003, 05:14 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DavidS @ Oct 25 2003, 05:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ocre@Oct 24 2003, 01:27 AM
And by the way, it is snowing in Holland for the first time this year!
Hey, izzat where your 'thinking-unit' :) is? Throw a snow ball for me (don't get to do that here in Arizona). I just saw an item on the news which reported that the snow in Europe was unusually early this year.
:D [/b][/quote]
It didn't last today... :( .
But yes, it is unusually cold for the time of year.

:-)

[Ocre]

I’m off to bed, it’s after midnight here… I’ll read you when I do.

:)