On 14 Feb, 17:14, oxtail <oxt...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> jfez...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> > On 14 Feb, 15:48, oxtail <oxt...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> jfez...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >>> On 14 Feb, 15:23, oxtail <oxt...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>> jfez...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >>>>> On 14 Feb, 13:00, Hollywood Lee <hollywood...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>>>> jfez...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 14 Feb, 10:45, Hollywood Lee <hollywood...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> jfez...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 14 Feb, 08:05, Hollywood Lee <hollywood...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> jfez...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 14 Feb, 07:24, Hollywood Lee <hollywood...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> jfez...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 14 Feb, 06:40, Hollywood Lee <hollywood...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> jfez...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 13 Feb, 20:10, oxtail <oxt...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jfez...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 13 Feb, 18:48, oxtail <oxt...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jfez...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 13 Feb, 17:03, oxtail <oxt...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hollywood Lee wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> oxtail wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hollywood Lee wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> oxtail wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hollywood Lee wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jfez...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's interesting the 'how' that you keep
mentioning. It's a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mindbender
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to think about that. To me there's
ultimately no how in it. If
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you just let everything be without making
anything from it then the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how has disappeared. But then the question
can come up how do I make
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the how disappear? But you can't do it :) To
me it's something that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens on it's own and it's about allowing
it to happen. So then
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there can be the question how do I allow it
to happen and it just
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> round and round. In meditation there has to
be a how to know what to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do. For me meditation is about letting go of
the how. That's where
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effortless effort comes in if theres any
effort it's bare minimum in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such a way that it encourages effort and how
to disappear. To me
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surrender or letting go happens on its own
that way. Not that I'm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying I'm right about it that's just what I
see happening with it ;)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that life has a way of making
us think about all
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sorts of who, what, when, where, and how
questions. So, I don't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think we can really eliminate these sorts of
questions forever,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if they can be calmed, even set aside for
periods of time. It
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may even be useful to reflect on which of
these questions, if any,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lead to the ending of suffering - assuming, of
course, that is a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motivating idea for you.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From this perspective, I've found that "what"
sorts of questions,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially "whats" grounded in speculative
ontologies, aren't very
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful for me. And that "how" questions
regarding how to live my
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life, have been more useful.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YMMV.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For what?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the ending of suffering. Again, YMMV.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What suffering?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sorry. I made the mistake of taking you
seriously. I'll try not to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the future.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is suffering?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~Oxtail
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suffering is knowing that you're going to have to
die but you don't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to die so you resist it and resist it and
torture yourself with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it hoping that there can be some other way. But
there's no other way
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there's only resisting it or giving into it. You're
hoping that you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can do something with it but you can't and you can
see that you can't.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only thing you can do is look at those two
choices square in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> face. That's got nothing to do with me or anyone
else it's just the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way it is.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is it that suffers?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To me that question is only more thinking.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's natural for the self to suffer.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it natural for the awareness to suffer?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~Oxtail
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there any need to split your experience into parts
like awareness
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and self? Suffering happens along with everything else
that happens
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and we are aware of it. But to me it's difficult to
separate my
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> awareness from my body or my thoughts and say that
it's different. To
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me it's just when we need to talk about it it's split
up but in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience it's a whole thing nothing is separated
from anything else.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is in charge of the whole thing?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~Oxtail
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oxtail is :)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think I can see what you're getting at that awareness
is basic to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what we are and it's free from any humanness. In a sense
you could say
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> awareness is all we have because thoughts can't be
counted on to know
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything. It's when it's taken to the extreme and you
see people say
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'You are awareness' to me that's only partly true.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hmm. You say "awareness is basic to what we are and it's
free from any
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> humanness." Why privilege awareness as an attribute
different from or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> free of our human characteristics? At a purely
experiential level, I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> appear aware, I seem to have choices regarding thought
and action,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> speeding trucks seem good to avoid (if only to annoy
keynes), and on.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of this may be wrong, but it doesn't appear so. And,
after all,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> what do we know except what appears to our senses and
what we can then
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> infer with some degree of reliability?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What you just said is what I'm saying about it. It seems
to me that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> saying anything is splitting it up and is not fully true
so words are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> misleading in that way. When I look at it there's nothing
I can say
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> that will express it fully so there's no need to get
tangled in saying
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> it's this or that. It's beyond words in that way don't you
think?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I suppose its beyond words only if you insist that words
must provide
> >>>>>>>>>>>> perfect descriptions or no descriptions at all.
> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand why you said that. Seeing that it's
beyond words
> >>>>>>>>>>> doesn't mean you can't say anything you can say what you
like.
> >>>>>>>>>> I don't understand why you say awareness is beyond words -
any more than
> >>>>>>>>>> any thingie in our experience is beyond words if you insist
on some one
> >>>>>>>>>> for one correspondence between words and what is described.
> >>>>>>>>> I didn't say awareness is beyond words.
> >>>>>>>> OK.
> >>>>>>> I think the mix up comes from wanting an answer in thoughts
rather
> >>>>>>> than looking at it. If you look directly at your experience is
there
> >>>>>>> anything you can say that will express what it is? What I'm
saying is
> >>>>>>> based on that but there isn't anything for thoughts to know in
that.
> >>>>>> Not sure I agree. I can look at experience and say all sorts of
things
> >>>>>> that are useful to a Buddhist practice. I think the Buddha did
the same
> >>>>>> thing when he talked about reflecting on our thoughts and deeds
to see
> >>>>>> which are skillful and which are unskillful.
> >>>>> You can say words forever about it but it's only by actually
looking
> >>>>> at it that you see it not by thinking about looking at it.
> >>>> What makes you think
> >>>> you can look without thinking?
> >>>> --
> >>>> ~Oxtail
> >>> Look at thoughts happening ;)
> >> What is it that looks?
> >> What is it that thinks?
> >> Are they same?
>
> >> --
> >> ~Oxtail
>
> > Look at those questions happening
>
> How are they represented in the brain?
>
> --
> ~Oxtail
Have a look.
|
