Hi Tony, Thats not quite what I was getting at. You don t decide to explode the world that you are the creator of, nor do you get to dissect it, due to someMessage 1 of 2 , Feb 21, 2005View SourceHi Tony,Thats not quite what I was getting at. You don't decide to explode the world that you are the creator of, nor do you get to dissect it, due to some readiness to do so. If you take the quality of karma as a guide, then following the path of certain ideals will get the experience to manifest, that would be the readiness, like preparing for a camping trip or a picnic.The absolution of self as some fixed, existing thing goes hand and hand with the world it is subject throughout. The self is the worldly experience as is any aspect it chooses to reject or except, of which the choice is as well the objective phenomena of self interactions with self and not-self objects. The self choice only comes forth, due to something to choose between or amongst, this given the ideas prescribed by past comforting or path of least resistant self desires. Noticing just an object/subject duality isn't enough and the language that details the "throughout life experience of self" cannot convey an accurate representation, to transcend across to a not-self, like you or George Bush.Exactly in the same manner as time/space motion dissolves potential, at a distance the interactions in dialect fall prey to dissolution. To further assume that we are not subject to that precise fundimental as any other object might be only causes a greater resistance, less comfort, more suffering. The idealism of enlightenment is entirely abstract, since it is deeply imbeded into the forre' of frenzy to get somewhere and be someone that isn't hindered by the rules we must create to maintain the comfortable self. The rich, not hindered by wealth, the bird not hindered by the obstructions of the walking path and so on. Self is the maximum potential, to be, to do, to have, nothing must remain unleft... to do.Peace and Love
Tony Osime <tony.osime@...> wrote:
Thanks for taking the time to explain this complex idea to me. I feel I
partly understand it. As my understanding progresses the whole idea
seems too incredible to fully accept. I feel there is some deep
resistance preventing me from going further. I guess it takes the
enlightened state to release the thinking mind from the surface on which
it stands. If you told me what I am standing on does not exist, it is my
creation, I would be scared to accept that since my whole reality might
explode in my face - even if that is what I ultimately want. I guess I
should just stay open to the possibility.
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 02:37:54 -0800 (PST)
From: Jason Fishman <munkiman4u@...>
Subject: Re: Introvert v extrovert
It means the dissection of reality, it means cutting to the quick of how
self is defined, as well as, what one takes as not-self. It's a
disposition of bounderies between what is sensed and that which senses.
It means, if you know words or any other object, like thought, it's as
the reflection of the interpersonal in relation to the
extropersonal contrast of self.
Irregardless of mind or the thinker of thoughts, the sensor
is the vanishing point that does not need to maintain qualities of it's
own, like a silent mind or a healthy body. Nor does it get to keep those
qualities for itself, it wouldn't want to since everything thing that
defines it's presence, including it's desire, is the seperation of the
reflection of self to other.
The amazment of the thinking mind get's resolved. It is
clear that there is no permanence to it or any other object that it
finds to be always the case, or in which holds a property like truth,
there is dissolution of self as taken to be any such property.
-Peace and Love
--- Tony Osime <tony.osime@...> wrote:
> Hi Jason,
> Thanks for your very wise words. I was particularly intrigued by your
> "...dissolve any hindrance to self by exposing the ways of the
> reflective other..."
> Would this refer to exposing the ways of "thought and thinking"? What
> I find so amazing is regarding my thinking mind is a hindrance to
> It is my thinking mind I am using to write this? Or, who is writing
> these words? If I suspended my thinking would my words be
> ...I wanted to try writing without my thinking mind but nothing
> - or did it?
> Mmmm...I have to "not" think about that!
> You wrote ---------------------------
> Introvert as a description isn't very helpful for meditation. If
> were a majority of meditators that took a similar test they would
> likely be described in the same manner.
> Meditation isn't a group activity and for the entirety of practice,
> the focus is self-situated, as-if there are those that are not self
> oriented, even in group activities.
> If we meditate to better relate to others or the world at large then
> it remains a self focus in reflection.To be a healthy self or learn of
> or anger or any assorted trait, all are self
> oriented activities, which benifits are seen through
> the eyes of the other to formulate those traits
> for themselves.
> The encompassing qualifier for meditation can be said to
> dissolve any hindrance to self by exposing the ways of
> the reflective other, without introversed or extroverted
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around