三江源 Posted November 3, 2012 I further told them that when someone tells me how stubborn I am I thank them for recognizing and complementing me on my persistence... Well in that case you are distorting their intent.. the connotation of 'stubborn' is that one is resistant. the connotation of 'persistence' is of endurance and stamina, no implication of resistance/inflexibility. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dwai Posted November 3, 2012 Do you think that those who know are bound to not say it because of what those who do not know say? Those who know, know... whether they say it or say it not is a whole different matter... Given what was said by the all time great quote... its evident the writer did not belong to whose who know and do not say it... and I think it was because of the former rather than the latter... BTW those who know may state what they know in many forms (even doing nothing can be a profound statement...) those who know will understand what be going on those who do not know will misunderstand it. Those who do not say; may do so because: - they don't know and remain silent - because they choose to remain silent while actually knowing. Those who know know that remaining silent may be dew to a bunch of reasons... Why ruin this old chinese saying with so much intellectualization? I consider it like a zen-koan... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dwai Posted November 3, 2012 (edited) @implicate_order: Yes. You defined objects well. I care little for attempts at describing OC, but I do not doubt that we are speaking of the same thing. Please continue. @gatito: IME, you say. Then we have no problem and I have nothing more to say. Congratulations. (I still haven’t had time to read the article, but I will.) Not sure if we are though. You seem to be suggesting (and forest of emptiness agreeing) that there is a transition of subject into object. I am suggesting that the subject cannot become the object when standing on it's own (Objectless Consciousness). But the fact is also -- that which we consider the "subject" is not really a subject at all but a response to the objects that interact with it. However, it is also a fact that when these objects are removed, what remains is not "nothing" but "no thing" -- i.e. "no object, no phenomenon, etc". Since it is not a "thing", we can't really make it an object of inquiry. But since it is not nothing, it has it's own existence, as it is not dependent on any other thing to exist (albeit someone might argue, if it can be experienced if we die...to which my answer would be i don't personally know...but there have been other reliable testimonies of sadhus who have said it does). Since it is not a phenomenon, it does not have a beginning or an end. Since it has no beginning or end, it is beyond time. Since it is not a thing or a phenomenon, it exists beyond space. Since it exists beyond space and time, it is also called eternal (perhaps wrongly so, because syntactically, eternal means forever...but something that is beyond space and time cannot remain forever, because forever is in the time domain). we can extrapolate further and further. But the problem with the intellect is that it too is bound by the same rules of space and time (and no matter how much we can "imagine" no thing, atemporal, non-spatial, that too is in contrast to "thing", "temporal", "spatial") -- so we discard all that it isn't (neti neti), and then just be (for varying periods of time, we make time stop, we make space not exist, we are it...but then space and time kick back in, and we are back to intellectual rumination. That is the meaning of Upadhi or the limiting adjunct. The mind, the body, the law of causality. These three are the upadhis we have to deal with and there is no escaping that. Some great ones have the ability to transcend the upadhis for extended periods of time, but they too are subject to it's finality (in the physical sense). PS - It is also quite plausible, that in retrospect, there are various explanations that can be made wrt what "it" is...like infinite streams of consciousness (alaya vijnana) interconnected in an infinite matrix. But if you ask me, i would say that too is within the constraints of upadhis (or in certain traditions, called skandhas) for they are in contrast to these thereof... Edited November 3, 2012 by implicate_order Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boy Posted November 3, 2012 (edited) ... Edited November 5, 2012 by Boy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dwai Posted November 3, 2012 @implicate_order: I understand you perfectly. I speak of the other subject. Now, according to your knowledge and logic and in the simplest of terms: How do you get there? Many ways. My experience is to meditate in the gap between thoughts. Shavasana is a great way to access the gaps and elongate them. Taiji, yoga, washing dishes .... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
et-thoughts Posted November 3, 2012 (edited) . Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
et-thoughts Posted November 3, 2012 (edited) . Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
et-thoughts Posted November 3, 2012 (edited) . Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dwai Posted November 3, 2012 some intellects boundaries are beyond space and time... More likely are their ego 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
et-thoughts Posted November 3, 2012 (edited) . Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
三江源 Posted November 3, 2012 Indeed I am changing the negative connotation of resistance/inflexibility to a positive connotation of endurance and stamina... I realize that being persistent and being stubborn can have different connotations in which the persistent can be seen as stubborn by some ... the point I sought to convey centered on the idea that the one can choose how to react to their intent... it is not that one is resistant and inflexible it is that one maintains a certain position ... its a sublet difference... hmm, but if you neutralise the message of the word by choosing your own connotation.. how is this 'communication'.. have you not then ignored the frustration being conveyed by the person using the word 'stubborn'? Methinks what you are doing would be called incorrigable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
forestofemptiness Posted November 3, 2012 Just to clarify, I am not agreeing that subject transitions into objects. We often make subject into object, but this is a mistake in my mind. The mind is object oriented. What I am saying is that OC is not an object, and cannot be compared to an object. Paradoxically, I do not find that it stands apart from objects. Where is the line? Not sure if we are though. You seem to be suggesting (and forest of emptiness agreeing) that there is a transition of subject into object. I am suggesting that the subject cannot become the object when standing on it's own (Objectless Consciousness). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boy Posted November 4, 2012 (edited) ... Edited November 5, 2012 by Boy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gatito Posted November 4, 2012 .................................... @gatito: I just now found the latin phrase "obscurum per obscurius", and that is how I feel about Spira. And he speaks the truth. You might be looking in the mirror there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boy Posted November 4, 2012 (edited) ... Edited November 5, 2012 by Boy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
et-thoughts Posted November 4, 2012 (edited) . Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
forestofemptiness Posted November 4, 2012 "Exist" and "real" are just categories in the object oriented mind. In direct experience, right now, I experience no line. Re: Rupert Spira: listen to his interviews. He's a master in dialogue. @forestofemptiness: My first post would have made no sense if I had equated the subject with OC. Per definition, OC does not exist. But it is real. Objects exist, but they are not real. There's your line. @gatito: I just now found the latin phrase "obscurum per obscurius", and that is how I feel about Spira. And he speaks the truth. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
三江源 Posted November 4, 2012 Well choosing to neutralize the message of the word by choosing one own connotation may lead to better communication... 'may' being the operative word. generally better communication follows when a person speaking feels accurately heard, rather than optimistically distorted Sometimes one better ignore the frustration being conveyed this seems an optimistic head in the sand idea rather than an accurate or sensitive idea by the person using the tantrum fit When small children have tantrums the level of frustration that they are expressing is acute and if those tantrums are not responded to humanely the child into adult will suffer in many ways as a result as an emotional ploy anyone so up against it that they have to resort to an emotional ploy is in a dire situation. they evidently feel unable to be heard or seen without resorting to tortuous methods. a person resorting to ploys needs help to get out of that situation.... and persist through and with the emotional labor... of course one should recognize what be going on for what be going on and if one is actually being stubborn, one better change ones ways... most of the time individuals project unto others their own stuff... as absurd as it may seem the intolerant accuses the tolerant to be intolerant of their intolerance ... I imagine that you meant to state 'incorrigible' ... and by choosing my own word I think it leads to better communication... :-) I looked up the word in the dictionary to see possible meanings and could not find the word you used... though I am pretty certain you meant the one I used... and would be more certain if you confirmed this being so... (or clarify what you meant with the word you used) There is no word similar to 'incorrigable' for there to be any confusion. It was a pun, I incorporated 'able' into the word 'incorrigible'.. eh, my mistake no doubt. You see, when you say 'dew' instead of 'due'.. well, there IS such a word as 'dew' so there is room for movement, and when you say 'defiles' instead of 'defies' well, there IS such a word as 'defiles' so there is room for misunderstanding, but when the word 'incorrigable' comes up, there is no correlative to allow for confusion, hence my wordplay which as it turned out merely served to confuse you. hey ho. In this instance our mutual failiure of shared language understanding managed to make clarificatio into obfuscatio. Which just goes to show.. something, no doubt. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dwai Posted November 4, 2012 Just to clarify, I am not agreeing that subject transitions into objects. We often make subject into object, but this is a mistake in my mind. The mind is object oriented. What I am saying is that OC is not an object, and cannot be compared to an object. Paradoxically, I do not find that it stands apart from objects. Where is the line? It doesn't. That's because Objectless consciousness is precisely that -- Consciousness without objects in it's field. Where it stands apart from objects? It doesn't because it never was part of the objects. It's role is like that of light -- it illuminates. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
et-thoughts Posted November 4, 2012 (edited) . Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
et-thoughts Posted November 4, 2012 (edited) . Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
三江源 Posted November 4, 2012 From your response I realized something I find humorous... I perceive that 'My mistake' you insist who is insisting? not me. to see as a deliberate act on my part... A deliberate act on your part I saw as a mistake rather than a deliberate act on your part... There is always room for confusion... as for understanding... did someone deliberately say a certain word or just said it due to a mistake ? When the word 'incorrigable' comes up, I wondered what you meant to convey... I provided my best guess and asked you to clarify and validate what you sought to convey... and if you validate and/or elaborate I will eventually (hopefully) have a better understanding of what you sought to convey Oh I am sure that the brat I wonder why you use this abrasive terminology? generally feels better communication follows when they resort to tortuous methods to feel accurately heard and get their way rather than realize they better behave to get what they want. I dont understand what this actually means. Could you clarify 'behave'? Similarly to dancing jujitsu style with a bully to help them get out of resorting to fighting situations. Optimistically distorted communication seeks to cultivate clarificatio from obfuscatio ... (now would you elaborate on what you meant by those two word ). Endless elaboration creates labyrinths. Many individuals resort to emotional ploys in order to get what they want... many individuals adults still have to get over certain lessons and still suffer and cause others to suffer... I'm sure you have a meaning here of some kind which is clear to you. The intended 'pun' of 'incorrigable' be ... keep in mind that 'pun' : a joke exploiting the different possible meanings of a word or the fact that there are words that sound alike but have different meanings... Like the movie 'big'--- I don't get it... ok I will keep that in mind.. or maybe I'll just forget about it. Sorry if I neutralized the intended wordplay you had in mind by not getting it the first time around and having to ask you to explain the joke :-) You neutralized it did you? Like with a star trek gun? That happens to me all the time how deeply unfortunate for those around you. it sounds so tedious.... I find something humorous and others just don't get it... even after I seek to explain it to them...perhaps you are speaking to people who dont share your angle on things. explaining jokes really means you are joking with people not in resonance with you. humour is a funny thing. when shared. I have this idea that mutual failures of shared language understandings lead to better understandings as each clarifies and validates what each be considering where as assuming shared language understandings leads to each thinking different stuff... its a bit on the lines of... those who think they understand the other generally end up misunderstanding them those who wonder if they understand the other generally end up understanding them the key resides in validating if what one thinks and wonders to be corresponds to what append to be... are you suggesting that one has to check everything all the time in case one is getting it wrong? TBH, I would far rather speak to people with whom I have a rapport, then communication flows unimpeded. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gatito Posted November 4, 2012 (edited) - Edited November 4, 2012 by gatito Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
et-thoughts Posted November 4, 2012 (edited) . Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gatito Posted November 4, 2012 (edited) - Edited November 4, 2012 by gatito Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
