Guest guest Posted November 30, 2003 Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 Hey Eric this woman try to kick butt, so up your it goes. Read it if you have the endurance. Bon Appettite! " awareness " because it doesn't exist, it is a myth of newage; ---------- Wry: Wrong. There is being lost in thought,feelings and negative emotions, being totally identified. Then there is the awareness that one is identified. To whatever degree there is an awareness of this, to that degree, one is less identified. If there is no awareness of it, one will continue to be identified. You are looking at awareness as if it is an entity that exists on its own side and then saying this does not exist, which is true, but pointless, as we have already covered this topic thoroughly. You are looking at it as something thought is trying to achieve, but real awareness is not about that. It is about making a practice of being attentive. You are saying that one is already attentive, can be attentive without being attentive, that one is not functioning in a dull, conditioned state. There is also a hint in all of this that you, yourself, believe " awareness " to exist on its own side, as an entity. In other words, you are implying you are already aware. To say this is ignorant. Of course people invariably think they are already fully attentive, and so, nothing is attentive to what is happening. This is waking sleep. -------------- we superimpose an effort of awareness or meditation on the turmoil of thoughts and this is hopeless; ------------------ Wry: Again this is a misunderstanding on your part, a confusion. Awareness, for however long, not as an entity, but as an ongoing attentivness, DISPLACES the " turmoil of thoughts, " as one cannot be aware when there is a turmoil of thoughts, in that these thoughts deplete the energy required to be aware. Each time a person is aware, this releases a little more energy that is locked into and degraded by a mechanical, physical, emotional, mental complex. In the beginning, one cannot observe thought. Perhaps it is only that the hand is clenched, or that the anal muscles are tight or whatever. One can also discover one is not usually aware, as one dreams oneself to be. Then there is hope. as one becomes interested in seeing more, rather than interpreting and thinking, and even more material accumulation is released. As I have said, zen buddhism is all over the internet like a cheap suit, as it is perpetrating the continuing ignorance of " good " people like yourself who are well-intentioned but very confused. --------------------- 'cause, as aware as i pretend to be at times, any mouse could come and steal the cheese from my plate unnoticed; ------------- Wry: This is too bad, but at least you are beginning to have a glimmer of your situation, though there is a disturbing glibness and complacency about your response to it. " Any mouse cannot steal the cheese from my plate unnoticed, " though this used to very much be the case. ----------------- whenever we feel stronger or sharper than someone, we have such huge dark/dull areas that a pink elephant could slip into it in dailight and we wouldn't notice a stir. -------------- Wry: Wrong again. You do not understand. It is whatever you think and do that is a product of the conditioned mind. When something with no opinion of any kind simply records this, whatever it is, this is the beginning of freedom. What you have written above is all based on the evaluations and comparisions of reactive thought. There is a way to use being meek for transformation, but you do not seem to be doing that. --------------- we focus our image of ourself on the places where we feel strong and self-confident and open big gaps of negligence in all the other places; ----------- Wry: This is, of course, not an impartial observation, as one is partial by selected a detail of what one has supposedly looked at; therefore this production is a product of thought and analysis, and does not arise out of a clear mind. Is this what you do? I assume so, as it is what everyone does. This is why it is important to discuss what impartial seeing is and how to make a science out of that, rather than just something hit and miss, which comes out of confusion. Something which is impartial, which has no opinion of any kind is not confused, is it? -------------- i make a brilliant discourse here on presence to each moment, ---------- Wry: Not you. You are writing poems about your " dick " pointing at the moon, and constructing idiotic koans based on formatory thought, such as about the dog and person dreaming, which suggest you secretely see " consciousness " as existing indpendently of you and the dog, as an entity (how could you verify this unless you exist on the same side as the thinker, which is what KKT said to you, in his own words), and making all kinds of scratch my back I'll scratch yours small talk out here. Also, you are the one who is constantly referring to other people's state of consciousness rather than your own lack of awareness. At least in this message you are acknowledging you are not aware, but apparently you do not see what Gurdjieff called " the terror of the situation. " ------------------ but in the middle of it i have to rush to the kitchen because my milk is burning again yet again and again i forgot my milk on the stove merciless milk... ---------- Wry: It is not the milk. Your approach is immature and self-centered. Believe it or not, I feel for you, more than you know. You are losing yourself in these writings, which are very weak and I do not believe can serve to help anyone, unless someone who knows how, using them for fodder to feed cattle that we can later eat. Sincerely, Wry ------------ zerox copyromania --------- p.s. It is sad. Have you no conscience? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2003 Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 Great, finally! Thanks, Pete, for posting this. From which list is Wry's response coming from? Besides, Pete, you have shown a profound human maturity forwarding Eric's verborrhea-attack under your name. a bow to you sk P.S. Wry's response is exhaustive. Nisargadatta , " seesaw1us " <seesaw1us> wrote: > Hey Eric this woman try to kick butt, so > up your it goes. Read it if you have the endurance. > > Bon Appettite! > > " awareness " > because it doesn't exist, it is a myth of newage; > ---------- > Wry: Wrong. There is being lost in thought,feelings and negative > emotions, > being totally identified. Then there is the awareness that one is > identified. To > whatever degree there is an awareness of this, to that degree, one is > less > identified. If there is no awareness of it, one will continue to be > identified. > You are looking at awareness as if it is an entity that exists on its > own side > and then saying this does not exist, which is true, but pointless, as > we have > already covered this topic thoroughly. You are looking at it as > something > thought is trying to achieve, but real awareness is not about that. > It is about > making a practice of being attentive. You are saying that one is > already > attentive, can be attentive without being attentive, that one is not > functioning > in a dull, conditioned state. There is also a hint in all of this > that you, > yourself, believe " awareness " to exist on its own side, as an entity. > In other > words, you are implying you are already aware. To say this is > ignorant. Of > course people invariably think they are already fully attentive, and > so, nothing > is attentive to what is happening. This is waking sleep. > -------------- > > we superimpose an effort of awareness or meditation on the turmoil of > thoughts and this is hopeless; > ------------------ > Wry: Again this is a misunderstanding on your part, a confusion. > Awareness, > for however long, not as an entity, but as an ongoing attentivness, > DISPLACES > the " turmoil of thoughts, " as one cannot be aware when there is a > turmoil of > thoughts, in that these thoughts deplete the energy required to be > aware. Each > time a person is aware, this releases a little more energy that is > locked into > and degraded by a mechanical, physical, emotional, mental complex. In > the > beginning, one cannot observe thought. Perhaps it is only that the > hand is > clenched, or that the anal muscles are tight or whatever. One can > also discover > one is not usually aware, as one dreams oneself to be. Then there is > hope. as > one becomes interested in seeing more, rather than interpreting and > thinking, > and even more material accumulation is released. As I have said, zen > buddhism is > all over the internet like a cheap suit, as it is perpetrating the > continuing > ignorance of " good " people like yourself who are well-intentioned but > very > confused. > --------------------- > 'cause, as aware as i pretend to be at times, any mouse could come > and steal the cheese from my plate unnoticed; > ------------- > Wry: This is too bad, but at least you are beginning to have a > glimmer of your > situation, though there is a disturbing glibness and complacency > about your > response to it. " Any mouse cannot steal the cheese from my plate > unnoticed, " > though this used to very much be the case. > ----------------- > whenever we feel stronger or sharper than someone, we have such huge > dark/dull areas that a pink elephant could slip into it in dailight > and we wouldn't notice a stir. > -------------- > Wry: Wrong again. You do not understand. It is whatever you think and > do that > is a product of the conditioned mind. When something with no opinion > of any kind > simply records this, whatever it is, this is the beginning of > freedom. What you > have written above is all based on the evaluations and comparisions > of reactive > thought. There is a way to use being meek for transformation, but you > do not > seem to be doing that. > --------------- > we focus our image of ourself on the places where we feel strong and > self-confident and open big gaps of negligence in all the other > places; > ----------- > Wry: This is, of course, not an impartial observation, as one is > partial by > selected a detail of what one has supposedly looked at; therefore this > production is a product of thought and analysis, and does not arise > out of a > clear mind. Is this what you do? I assume so, as it is what everyone > does. This > is why it is important to discuss what impartial seeing is and how to > make a > science out of that, rather than just something hit and miss, which > comes out of > confusion. Something which is impartial, which has no opinion of any > kind is not > confused, is it? > -------------- > i make a brilliant discourse here on presence to each moment, > ---------- > Wry: Not you. You are writing poems about your " dick " pointing at the > moon, > and constructing idiotic koans based on formatory thought, such as > about the dog > and person dreaming, which suggest you secretely see " consciousness " > as existing > indpendently of you and the dog, as an entity (how could you verify > this unless > you exist on the same side as the thinker, which is what KKT said to > you, in his > own words), and making all kinds of scratch my back I'll scratch > yours small > talk out here. Also, you are the one who is constantly referring to > other > people's state of consciousness rather than your own lack of > awareness. At least > in this message you are acknowledging you are not aware, but > apparently you do > not see what Gurdjieff called " the terror of the situation. " > ------------------ > but in the middle of it i have to rush to the kitchen because my milk > is burning again > yet again > and again i forgot my milk on the stove > merciless milk... > ---------- > Wry: It is not the milk. Your approach is immature and self- centered. > Believe > it or not, I feel for you, more than you know. You are losing > yourself in these > writings, which are very weak and I do not believe can serve to help > anyone, > unless someone who knows how, using them for fodder to feed cattle > that we can > later eat. Sincerely, Wry > ------------ > zerox copyromania > --------- > p.s. It is sad. Have you no conscience? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2003 Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 what is this harvest, man! i am starting to perceive you as an ice- berg, how many hidden lives do you live, how many lists do you preach on? jesus mother of god! Pete! you are full of surprizes! erix ps: may i pass on the below forwarded spread, i already have the bible if i need a pacifier to go to sleep Nisargadatta , " seesaw1us " <seesaw1us> wrote: > Hey Eric this woman try to kick butt, so > up your it goes. Read it if you have the endurance. > > Bon Appettite! > > " awareness " > because it doesn't exist, it is a myth of newage; > ---------- > Wry: Wrong. There is being lost in thought,feelings and negative > emotions, > being totally identified. Then there is the awareness that one is > identified. To > whatever degree there is an awareness of this, to that degree, one is > less > identified. If there is no awareness of it, one will continue to be > identified. > You are looking at awareness as if it is an entity that exists on its > own side > and then saying this does not exist, which is true, but pointless, as > we have > already covered this topic thoroughly. You are looking at it as > something > thought is trying to achieve, but real awareness is not about that. > It is about > making a practice of being attentive. You are saying that one is > already > attentive, can be attentive without being attentive, that one is not > functioning > in a dull, conditioned state. There is also a hint in all of this > that you, > yourself, believe " awareness " to exist on its own side, as an entity. > In other > words, you are implying you are already aware. To say this is > ignorant. Of > course people invariably think they are already fully attentive, and > so, nothing > is attentive to what is happening. This is waking sleep. > -------------- > > we superimpose an effort of awareness or meditation on the turmoil of > thoughts and this is hopeless; > ------------------ > Wry: Again this is a misunderstanding on your part, a confusion. > Awareness, > for however long, not as an entity, but as an ongoing attentivness, > DISPLACES > the " turmoil of thoughts, " as one cannot be aware when there is a > turmoil of > thoughts, in that these thoughts deplete the energy required to be > aware. Each > time a person is aware, this releases a little more energy that is > locked into > and degraded by a mechanical, physical, emotional, mental complex. In > the > beginning, one cannot observe thought. Perhaps it is only that the > hand is > clenched, or that the anal muscles are tight or whatever. One can > also discover > one is not usually aware, as one dreams oneself to be. Then there is > hope. as > one becomes interested in seeing more, rather than interpreting and > thinking, > and even more material accumulation is released. As I have said, zen > buddhism is > all over the internet like a cheap suit, as it is perpetrating the > continuing > ignorance of " good " people like yourself who are well-intentioned but > very > confused. > --------------------- > 'cause, as aware as i pretend to be at times, any mouse could come > and steal the cheese from my plate unnoticed; > ------------- > Wry: This is too bad, but at least you are beginning to have a > glimmer of your > situation, though there is a disturbing glibness and complacency > about your > response to it. " Any mouse cannot steal the cheese from my plate > unnoticed, " > though this used to very much be the case. > ----------------- > whenever we feel stronger or sharper than someone, we have such huge > dark/dull areas that a pink elephant could slip into it in dailight > and we wouldn't notice a stir. > -------------- > Wry: Wrong again. You do not understand. It is whatever you think and > do that > is a product of the conditioned mind. When something with no opinion > of any kind > simply records this, whatever it is, this is the beginning of > freedom. What you > have written above is all based on the evaluations and comparisions > of reactive > thought. There is a way to use being meek for transformation, but you > do not > seem to be doing that. > --------------- > we focus our image of ourself on the places where we feel strong and > self-confident and open big gaps of negligence in all the other > places; > ----------- > Wry: This is, of course, not an impartial observation, as one is > partial by > selected a detail of what one has supposedly looked at; therefore this > production is a product of thought and analysis, and does not arise > out of a > clear mind. Is this what you do? I assume so, as it is what everyone > does. This > is why it is important to discuss what impartial seeing is and how to > make a > science out of that, rather than just something hit and miss, which > comes out of > confusion. Something which is impartial, which has no opinion of any > kind is not > confused, is it? > -------------- > i make a brilliant discourse here on presence to each moment, > ---------- > Wry: Not you. You are writing poems about your " dick " pointing at the > moon, > and constructing idiotic koans based on formatory thought, such as > about the dog > and person dreaming, which suggest you secretely see " consciousness " > as existing > indpendently of you and the dog, as an entity (how could you verify > this unless > you exist on the same side as the thinker, which is what KKT said to > you, in his > own words), and making all kinds of scratch my back I'll scratch > yours small > talk out here. Also, you are the one who is constantly referring to > other > people's state of consciousness rather than your own lack of > awareness. At least > in this message you are acknowledging you are not aware, but > apparently you do > not see what Gurdjieff called " the terror of the situation. " > ------------------ > but in the middle of it i have to rush to the kitchen because my milk > is burning again > yet again > and again i forgot my milk on the stove > merciless milk... > ---------- > Wry: It is not the milk. Your approach is immature and self- centered. > Believe > it or not, I feel for you, more than you know. You are losing > yourself in these > writings, which are very weak and I do not believe can serve to help > anyone, > unless someone who knows how, using them for fodder to feed cattle > that we can > later eat. Sincerely, Wry > ------------ > zerox copyromania > --------- > p.s. It is sad. Have you no conscience? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2003 Report Share Posted December 1, 2003 Hi Wry! congratulations for the message and greetings! You wrote in part: <<You are looking at it as something thought is trying to achieve, but real awareness is not about that. It is about making a practice of being attentive.<< sk: could you expand on this? and, why should stand this in controversy to your interpretation of Eric's message " that one is already attentive " . >>You are saying that one is already attentive, can be attentive without being attentive, that one is not functioning in a dull, conditioned state. There is also a hint in all of this that you, yourself, believe " awareness " to exist on its own side, as an entity.<< sk: as what kind of entity you think that Eric believes that " awareness " exists? >> In other words, you are implying you are already aware. To say this is ignorant.<< sk: Where lies the ignorance-relevant difference between saying " I'm already attentive " or saying " making a practice out of being attentive, is what awareness is really about. " Of course people invariably think they are already fully attentive, and so, nothing is attentive to what is happening. This is waking sleep. sk: What do you mean with " fully attentive " , Wry? I'm not sure in which sense you use the term " entity " too but, in my opinion, this sounds like you were doing with " what is happening " the same as you opine Eric does, with " awareness " , i.e. putting it on its own side, as en entity. This sounds also, as if you would know what's " really " happening. So then, be so kind and tell me, is this the result of your practice of being attentive? that you now know, that there are people who think, they are fully attentive but are, in effect, waking sleep. Are you trying to wake this people up? If yes, why and what can you offer instead of waking sleep? Are you not positioning yourself on the same place you critisized, Pete was postioning himself with his Koan regarding consciousness? Your response implies, in my opinion, that you are able to discern between those who are waking sleep and those who don't. So, Wry, tell me please what's really happening in the realm of the blinds? Do you know that? smile sk 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.