Guest guest Posted July 12, 2002 Report Share Posted July 12, 2002 A discussion group, of course, if trapped in the web of words. However, those who use words should always be mindful that they are using abstractions, symbols to point at a picture of something that might or might not be reality. Bob is a very persuasive and often writes with charm and beautiful images. However, as much as I admire the images, the charm, I also must be aware that the words also have a conviction or "desire" driving them. No matter how each of us might position our rhetoric in such a discussion group, there is always the "ego" nature behind the words...else, they would not get posted at all, and certainly not with such effort, care, or energy. So, we also need to make the distinction between words and quotations from members in the context of "what is their ultimate desire?" What do they seek when they post these words? The same phrase "I desire world peace" means very different things when uttered by Nelson Mandela, the Dalai Lama and Adolph Hitler. For Mandela the phrase may mean that he would like to see and end to racial bigotry and strife in South Africa...for His Holiness the Dalai Lama it might mean a return to Tibet without conflict with China, as well as generally a condition of non-conflict and worldwide compassion, and for Adolph Hitler it would have meant that Germany had triumphed over its enemies and now controlled the westeren world. So, we always need to "consider the source" and do our best to find the motive. Although in the greater cosmic schema of things, I agree with "b-" about the nature of reality--in that one cannot truly divide something that is ultimately a unity, and that giving names to all the parts does not in itself mean that they no longer have unity, it is evident that thought can be divided. It can be divided not merely as obviously as saying "Each individual has independent thought" but we can go further and state that each individual posesses "multiplicity of thought" and can be divided against themselves, both in the illusion of time, and in the context of events or conditions. We loved broccoli yesterday, but today we are tired of it. This no more suggests and ultimate contradiction in the unity of the individual as it does the unity of the universe as a whole. However, it clearly points out the trap of words--that simply repeating that the universe is one whole unity will not keep individuals from harming other individuals. (Or helping them, hopefully!) If we believe in a Super Unity, that is one thing. To insist that in a literal sense all individual people are really just one consciousness, then it would be just as reasonable to suggest that person "a" should feel perfectly dellighted to give person "b" his new car or new home, if such were requested. Why does person "b" not feel that this is fair? If in fact all persons are just one unity, then it shouldn't matter. But it does matter. We feed our children before we feed other folks kids. Sure, we feed them from time to time, but we are not really dedicated in the effort. We write wills and bequeath our belongings to those we love and those we have created or adopted. We rarely bequeath the kaboodle to just "everyone" or "anyone." So, despite the words and symbols, I think everyone should maintain a level of sincerity and honesty. Do we BEHAVE as if the universe were a Super Unity, or do we behave as if it were compartmentalized? If so, then we should go easy in the literary department of waxing lyrical about the supreme oneness of it all. If we wish the world to be a greater unified whole, and for consciousness to achieve any sense of greater unification by peaceful means, then we need to be of one mind, but also of one consistent whole in our actions, too. The trap also ensnares good folks into believing falsely that the universe and "themselves" are in fact one and the same thing. This is solipsism, and this is not a valid belief system, as it can be disproven both logically and empirically. It is one thing to say that "my experience of the universe exists only in my head" which is true, it is another to believe that therefore the univerese only exists in your head. So, it is not that large a mis-step to suggest that the universe just exists inside of one big super head...(and what? we are all equals? We are portions of the superhead according to our level of mental ability? Our spiritual achievements? And how is this measured?) So, despite such Super Unities, and I am not saying that s Super Unity of some sort does not exist, (I personally think it does) but believing that it exists does not improve or change our daily experience of reality. I think our focus should be on the thoughts and actions that can bring about a positive, progressive improvement in the real lives of the Satsangh members. Of course, I include in that, whatever little jewels of wisdom, wit and vitality that may entertain and delight. However, the long scholarly dissertations aimed at convincing everyone that everyone is just one, well, I think it actually obscures the reality rather than making it clearer. Can individual members partake of habits that will bring them greater personal satisfaction, health, harmony and peace in their daily lives? I firmly believe so. I think that good personal habits of meditation, good diet, exercise (yoga), good deeds, good will and love for one another are all healing and healthy pursuits. If we obscure this day to day reality with the belief that "we're all just one big thought blob, anyhow---what can I do to change anything?" we could fall into the terrible trap of a sort of Metaphysical Super Symetry Cynicism...and then we would be part of the problem, rather than the solution. So, the impetus of our words--what the fuel that drives the engine is made of...what is that? Do we self examine? Do we ask what will be the reaction or result of our words? It is not merely our basic intentions, but the conditions under which we believe our words will be weighed or ignored. I realize that many members read these posts and sigh. Oh, for goodness sakes! Another long and unbearable monologue, diatribe, spleen venting, etc., when they see the posts. That's too bad, and I know full well that I contribute to that, too. My motives are for clarity of thinking and for ultimate result. I do not believe that each of us has no effect in the world, nor that our individual lives do not matter or have value. I think most of believe this, too. I also think that for those just entering on the path of personal growth, that an underlying belief that what one does and what one believes ultimately DOES have a meaningful impact on the greater ultimate reality. I apologize if this over long, and toothy comment confuses rather than clarifies, but this is the best manner in which I can "conversationally" state these ideas without resorting to pedantic or scholarly tracts, something which may sound profound by virtue of the Piled Higher and Deeper effect, but that can ultimately be totally unsatisfying, unrealistic and intellectually obscure. I have been a professional editor for Psychiatrists, Doctors, Attorneys, Politicians, writers, educators and more. I usually avoid scholarly treatises in my comments, not from an inability to utilize quotation marks, but for the very reason that the habit of dropping names to prove an issue is invalid. Long, painful quotes of persons, no matter how admirable their lives, are no more valid or invalid than the ideas themselves. Sure, I will toss in a story or a quote from time to time, when and where illuminating or entertaining. But, I prove my points with my own words, 99% of the time, because the idea must live or die on its own terms, and no amount of scholarship or expert testimony will make a weak idea into a strong one. (or vice-versa). Be kind to others. Be patient with yourselves. Seek to do no harm. Be generous of spirit. Forgive others. Forgive your own errors. Never lie to an animal or treat it in a manner that you would find insulting, degrading or hurtful. Believe that life is precious...that each moment spent with those you love or care about is the most valuable thing you possess. Value your health...be good to your body and spirit. Love others and seek to bring illumination into their lives. Stamp out grafitti and rap music. OK, so the last one is a bit weak and petty. None of us are perfect. Blessings Love, Zenbob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2002 Report Share Posted July 12, 2002 << The trap also ensnares good folks into believing falsely that the > universe and "themselves" are in fact one and the same thing. This > is solipsism, and this is not a valid belief system, as it can be > disproven both logically and empirically >> For some of us, this is not a belief system but actual, irrefutable experience. Holly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2002 Report Share Posted July 12, 2002 Dear Zenbob, I am (hehehe) far to new to these teachings (nondualism) to spin enriching remarks to your post, however I appreciate its robustness, genuineness and maturity. I don't understand why you mentioned one individual (perhaps due to their eloquence, I dunno), as I find that your comments rebut a philosophy and seemingly a prescription (for living?) by quite a few members, in a number of forums. Somehow, reading many posts (not at this forum, per se, but under the rubric of Nondualism), I come away deflated, for words like "nihilism" come to mind. Of course, this deflation is due in part to my living in my own "Private Idaho". My venture to understand more clearly is assisted by your evaluation. be well, cJames "The trap also ensnares good folks into believing falsely that the universe and "themselves" are in fact one and the same thing. This is solipsism, and this is not a valid belief system, as it can be disproven both logically and empirically. It is one thing to say that "my experience of the universe exists only in my head" which is true, it is another to believe that therefore the univerese only exists in your head." , zen2wrk@a... wrote: > We often love words and then hate the reality they sought to describe. > > A discussion group, of course, if trapped in the web of words. > > However, those who use words should always be mindful that they are using > abstractions, symbols to point at a picture of something that might or might > not be reality. > > Bob is a very persuasive and often writes with charm and beautiful images. > However, as much as I admire the images, the charm, I also must be aware that > the words also have a conviction or "desire" driving them. No matter how > each of us might position our rhetoric in such a discussion group, there is > always the "ego" nature behind the words...else, they would not get posted at > all, and certainly not with such effort, care, or energy. > > So, we also need to make the distinction between words and quotations from > members in the context of "what is their ultimate desire?" What do they seek > when they post these words? The same phrase "I desire world peace" means > very different things when uttered by Nelson Mandela, the Dalai Lama and > Adolph Hitler. For Mandela the phrase may mean that he would like to see and > end to racial bigotry and strife in South Africa...for His Holiness the Dalai > Lama it might mean a return to Tibet without conflict with China, as well as > generally a condition of non-conflict and worldwide compassion, and for > Adolph Hitler it would have meant that Germany had triumphed over its enemies > and now controlled the westeren world. > > So, we always need to "consider the source" and do our best to find the > motive. > > Although in the greater cosmic schema of things, I agree with "b-" about the > nature of reality--in that one cannot truly divide something that is > ultimately a unity, and that giving names to all the parts does not in itself > mean that they no longer have unity, it is evident that thought can be > divided. It can be divided not merely as obviously as saying "Each > individual has independent thought" but we can go further and state that each > individual posesses "multiplicity of thought" and can be divided against > themselves, both in the illusion of time, and in the context of events or > conditions. We loved broccoli yesterday, but today we are tired of it. > > This no more suggests and ultimate contradiction in the unity of the > individual as it does the unity of the universe as a whole. > > However, it clearly points out the trap of words--that simply repeating that > the universe is one whole unity will not keep individuals from harming other > individuals. (Or helping them, hopefully!) > > If we believe in a Super Unity, that is one thing. To insist that in a > literal sense all individual people are really just one consciousness, then > it would be just as reasonable to suggest that person "a" should feel > perfectly dellighted to give person "b" his new car or new home, if such were > requested. Why does person "b" not feel that this is fair? If in fact all > persons are just one unity, then it shouldn't matter. But it does matter. > We feed our children before we feed other folks kids. Sure, we feed them > from time to time, but we are not really dedicated in the effort. We write > wills and bequeath our belongings to those we love and those we have created > or adopted. We rarely bequeath the kaboodle to just "everyone" or "anyone." > > So, despite the words and symbols, I think everyone should maintain a level > of sincerity and honesty. Do we BEHAVE as if the universe were a Super > Unity, or do we behave as if it were compartmentalized? If so, then we > should go easy in the literary department of waxing lyrical about the supreme > oneness of it all. > > If we wish the world to be a greater unified whole, and for consciousness to > achieve any sense of greater unification by peaceful means, then we need to > be of one mind, but also of one consistent whole in our actions, too. > > The trap also ensnares good folks into believing falsely that the universe > and "themselves" are in fact one and the same thing. This is solipsism, and > this is not a valid belief system, as it can be disproven both logically and > empirically. It is one thing to say that "my experience of the universe > exists only in my head" which is true, it is another to believe that > therefore the univerese only exists in your head. > > So, it is not that large a mis-step to suggest that the universe just exists > inside of one big super head...(and what? we are all equals? We are portions > of the superhead according to our level of mental ability? Our spiritual > achievements? And how is this measured?) So, despite such Super Unities, and > I am not saying that s Super Unity of some sort does not exist, (I > personally think it does) but believing that it exists does not improve or > change our daily experience of reality. > > I think our focus should be on the thoughts and actions that can bring about > a positive, progressive improvement in the real lives of the Satsangh > members. Of course, I include in that, whatever little jewels of wisdom, wit > and vitality that may entertain and delight. However, the long scholarly > dissertations aimed at convincing everyone that everyone is just one, well, I > think it actually obscures the reality rather than making it clearer. > > Can individual members partake of habits that will bring them greater > personal satisfaction, health, harmony and peace in their daily lives? > > I firmly believe so. I think that good personal habits of meditation, good > diet, exercise (yoga), good deeds, good will and love for one another are all > healing and healthy pursuits. If we obscure this day to day reality with the > belief that "we're all just one big thought blob, anyhow---what can I do to > change anything?" we could fall into the terrible trap of a sort of > Metaphysical Super Symetry Cynicism...and then we would be part of the > problem, rather than the solution. > > So, the impetus of our words--what the fuel that drives the engine is made > of...what is that? Do we self examine? Do we ask what will be the reaction > or result of our words? It is not merely our basic intentions, but the > conditions under which we believe our words will be weighed or ignored. > > I realize that many members read these posts and sigh. Oh, for goodness > sakes! Another long and unbearable monologue, diatribe, spleen venting, > etc., when they see the posts. That's too bad, and I know full well that I > contribute to that, too. My motives are for clarity of thinking and for > ultimate result. I do not believe that each of us has no effect in the > world, nor that our individual lives do not matter or have value. I think > most of believe this, too. I also think that for those just entering on the > path of personal growth, that an underlying belief that what one does and > what one believes ultimately DOES have a meaningful impact on the greater > ultimate reality. > > I apologize if this over long, and toothy comment confuses rather than > clarifies, but this is the best manner in which I can "conversationally" > state these ideas without resorting to pedantic or scholarly tracts, > something which may sound profound by virtue of the Piled Higher and Deeper > effect, but that can ultimately be totally unsatisfying, unrealistic and > intellectually obscure. > > I have been a professional editor for Psychiatrists, Doctors, Attorneys, > Politicians, writers, educators and more. I usually avoid scholarly > treatises in my comments, not from an inability to utilize quotation marks, > but for the very reason that the habit of dropping names to prove an issue is > invalid. Long, painful quotes of persons, no matter how admirable their > lives, are no more valid or invalid than the ideas themselves. > > Sure, I will toss in a story or a quote from time to time, when and where > illuminating or entertaining. But, I prove my points with my own words, 99% > of the time, because the idea must live or die on its own terms, and no > amount of scholarship or expert testimony will make a weak idea into a strong > one. (or vice-versa). > > Be kind to others. > Be patient with yourselves. > Seek to do no harm. > Be generous of spirit. > Forgive others. Forgive your own errors. > Never lie to an animal or treat it in a manner > that you would find insulting, degrading or hurtful. > Believe that life is precious...that each moment spent with those you love or > care about is the most valuable thing you possess. > Value your health...be good to your body and spirit. > Love others and seek to bring illumination into their lives. > Stamp out grafitti and rap music. > > OK, so the last one is a bit weak and petty. > None of us are perfect. > > Blessings > Love, > > Zenbob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2002 Report Share Posted July 12, 2002 Perhaps ZenBob may mean that we can hide in words (like our own 'universe') Col Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2002 Report Share Posted July 12, 2002 the self is not a thing. it is beyond logic empirical proof who is the observer? & this whole universe is just a bubble on the sea of all (a small quote) Alan - Hbarrett47 (AT) aol (DOT) com Saturday, July 13, 2002 1:34 AM Re: Re: Reply to b & Nifty Ideas...Pls Read to End... << The trap also ensnares good folks into believing falsely that the > universe and "themselves" are in fact one and the same thing. This > is solipsism, and this is not a valid belief system, as it can be > disproven both logically and empirically >>For some of us, this is not a belief system but actual, irrefutable experience. Holly /join All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights, perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a.Your use of is subject to the Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2002 Report Share Posted July 13, 2002 > Be kind to others. > Be patient with yourselves. > Seek to do no harm. > Be generous of spirit. > Forgive others. Forgive your own errors. > Never lie to an animal or treat it in a manner > that you would find insulting, degrading or hurtful. > Believe that life is precious...that each moment spent with those you love or > care about is the most valuable thing you possess. > Value your health...be good to your body and spirit. > Love others and seek to bring illumination into their lives. > Stamp out grafitti and rap music. > > OK, so the last one is a bit weak and petty. > None of us are perfect. > > Blessings > Love, Dear Zenbob OK >>However, the long scholarly dissertations aimed at convincing everyone that everyone is just one, well, I think it actually obscures the reality rather than making it clearer>> Yes I do too but I don't think dividing up into camps is an answer. I think the problem you are describing comes from the experience of the thinkers involved. If one has experience of oneness the concept of it is not too exciting. Conceptualization itself is a fluctuation of the consciousness. Mistakes and unbiased perception are opposites but are the same thing- ---concepts. An experience of unity becomes conceptualized. How do you tell of it. The obvious oneness of it. The good feeling. While you are remembering the experience it cannot posibly return. What one person says another may not hear. This is especially true of concepts concerning non-dualism. It would be good to have common ground but I think that is impossible for now. It is the living Tower of Babble. I am optimistic about the future though. Mutual support for kind people. > > Zenbob Love Bobby G. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2002 Report Share Posted July 13, 2002 , "texasbg2000" <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote: > Conceptualization itself is a fluctuation of the consciousness. > Mistakes and unbiased perception are opposites but are the same > thing- ---concepts. Dear Bob, I'll not dispute what you've stated but only add to it, Both mistakes and unbiased perception don't always have to be concepts, ...they can transcend concepts (I beg you not to ask me to explain) > An experience of unity becomes conceptualized. How do you tell of > it. The obvious oneness of it. The good feeling. While you are > remembering the experience it cannot posibly return. Good question, it's a question everyone must ask (in some form) at one point or other... > What one person says another may not hear. This is more than the norm. Here's a key, When one one speaks whom do we speak to...? That's a potent question if you seduce it. If I see you as an organic bag of guts trapped in space/time and that's what you identify with you'll most likely relate to what I have to say. If I see you as something more you may think I'm talking to someone else... If I see you as something spiritual and you sense you are more than an organic sack of guts, ...sky's the limit. At this point I could even be confined to the identity of a rock, If you are detached from limits I could still sing wisdom... > This is especially true > of concepts concerning non-dualism. It would be good to have common > ground but I think that is impossible for now. Either I'm a lunatic or it's not impossible now... (you're choice) David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2002 Report Share Posted July 13, 2002 , "david bozzi" <david.bozzi@i...> wrote: > , "texasbg2000" <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote: > > > Conceptualization itself is a fluctuation of the consciousness. > > Mistakes and unbiased perception are opposites but are the same > > thing- ---concepts. > > Dear Bob, > I'll not dispute what you've stated > but only add to it, > > Both mistakes and unbiased perception > don't always have to be concepts, > > ...they can transcend concepts > > (I beg you not to ask me to explain) > > > An experience of unity becomes conceptualized. How do you tell of > > it. The obvious oneness of it. The good feeling. While you are > > remembering the experience it cannot posibly return. > > Good question, > it's a question everyone must ask > (in some form) > at one point or other... > > > What one person says another may not hear. > > This is more than the norm. > Here's a key, > > When one one speaks > whom do we speak to...? > > That's a potent question if you seduce it. > > If I see you as an organic bag of guts > trapped in space/time > and that's what you identify with > you'll most likely relate to what I have to say. > > If I see you as something more > you may think I'm talking to someone else... > > If I see you as something spiritual and you sense > you are more than an organic sack of guts, > ...sky's the limit. > > At this point > I could even be confined to the identity > of a rock, > > If you are detached from limits > I could still sing wisdom... > > > This is especially true > > of concepts concerning non-dualism. It would be good to have common > > ground but I think that is impossible for now. Dear David: Well said, there is a lot of wisdom there. > > Either I'm a lunatic > or it's not impossible now... > (you're choice) The topic I believe was a difficult one to discuss when people come from the great disparity in religious backgrounds that we see today. It was difficult in Shankara's day too. Only what occurrs is possible. Other things may appear possible but would happen if they were. If you believe it is possible to find accord with the different views expressed in that thread, go ahead. You could be classified a lunatic to try. > David Love Bobby G. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2002 Report Share Posted July 13, 2002 In a message dated 7/13/02 6:06:56 PM Mountain Daylight Time, EBlackstead writes: << Fair enough. But, Holly, is this your experience? >> >From time to time (from time to timeless? timeless to timeless? more like, here, then everywhere!). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2002 Report Share Posted July 13, 2002 HBarrett, Holy & Friends, , Hbarrett47@a... wrote: > > > << The trap also ensnares good folks into believing falsely that the > > universe and "themselves" are in fact one and the same thing. This > > is solipsism, and this is not a valid belief system, as it can be > > disproven both logically and empirically >> > For some of us, this is not a belief system but actual, irrefutable > experience. Holly Fair enough. But, Holly, is this your experience? yours in the bonds, eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2002 Report Share Posted July 13, 2002 , Hbarrett47@a... wrote: > In a message dated 7/13/02 6:06:56 PM Mountain Daylight Time, > EBlackstead@c... writes: > > << Fair enough. But, Holly, is this your experience? > >> > > From time to time (from time to timeless? timeless to timeless? more like, > here, then everywhere!). ****tapping Eric on the shoulder**** "excuse me Sir, may I have this dance with Holly?" "I have two-left feet, but this Shuffle isn't too difficult..." peace, d_ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.