Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple and Saintly)

Expand Messages
  • medit8ionsociety
    ... I may be 100% wrong, but I don t read this that way. I think the ...desiring myself to be happy at the expense of others. part points to Shantideva
    Message 1 of 15 , Aug 9, 2011
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, medit8ionsociety <no_reply@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Whatever....suffering there is in this world all comes from
      > > desiring myself to be happy at the expense of others.
      > >
      > > --Shantideva, A Guide to the Bodhisattva Way of Life
      > >
      >
      >
      > FWIW, I really hope that sufferers don't believe that--i.e., that they must be at fault for any pain they have. Way to add guilt to other forms of suffering, Shantideva!
      >
      > W
      >
      I may be 100% wrong, but I don't read this that way.
      I think the "...desiring myself to be happy at the expense
      of others." part points to Shantideva saying that
      selfishness leads to suffering, and I don't
      see that having much if anything to do with laying guilt
      on others or oneself.
      As for the "Whatever joy there is in this world all
      comes from desiring others to be happy..." part, I guess
      I might have a problem with. IE: If the Eagles get beat,
      I get no happines from knowing that fans of the other
      footbsll teams are happy!!!
      Peace and blessings,
      Bob
    • walto
      ... It s not a question of selfishness leading to suffering which I happen to agree with. It s a question of whether what he actually wrote--that ALL
      Message 2 of 15 , Aug 9, 2011
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, medit8ionsociety <no_reply@...> wrote:
        >
        > "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, medit8ionsociety <no_reply@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Whatever....suffering there is in this world all comes from
        > > > desiring myself to be happy at the expense of others.
        > > >
        > > > --Shantideva, A Guide to the Bodhisattva Way of Life
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        > > FWIW, I really hope that sufferers don't believe that--i.e., that they must be at fault for any pain they have. Way to add guilt to other forms of suffering, Shantideva!
        > >
        > > W
        > >
        > I may be 100% wrong, but I don't read this that way.
        > I think the "...desiring myself to be happy at the expense
        > of others." part points to Shantideva saying that
        > selfishness leads to suffering, and I don't
        > see that having much if anything to do with laying guilt
        > on others or oneself.
        > As for the "Whatever joy there is in this world all
        > comes from desiring others to be happy..." part, I guess
        > I might have a problem with. IE: If the Eagles get beat,
        > I get no happines from knowing that fans of the other
        > footbsll teams are happy!!!
        > Peace and blessings,
        > Bob
        >


        It's not a question of "selfishness leading to suffering" which I happen to agree with. It's a question of whether what he actually wrote--that ALL suffering stems from selfishness--which I believe is quite false.

        It's important not to confuse sufficient with necessary conditions--especially here, where failing to do so indicts a whole lot of innocent sufferers in the world and is likely to just make such people feel worse.

        Best,

        W
      • Christopher Boozell
        In addition to Bob s helpful thoughts, I think it important to bear in mind where Shantideva was coming from: he wasn t trying to blame or condemn anyone.
        Message 3 of 15 , Aug 9, 2011
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          In addition to Bob's helpful thoughts, I think it important to bear in mind where Shantideva was coming from: he wasn't trying to blame or condemn anyone. Rather, the point of his work was to show a path to complete happiness.

          We all suffer - this kind of insight provides a means to taking responsibility (not blame) for our own path out of it.

          Vigilate,

          Christopher Boozell
        • walto
          ... I have no views about where he was coming from or what he was or was not trying to do, and I certainly cast no aspersions on the point of his work (with
          Message 4 of 15 , Aug 9, 2011
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Boozell <cjb@...> wrote:
            >
            > In addition to Bob's helpful thoughts, I think it important to bear in mind where Shantideva was coming from: he wasn't trying to blame or condemn anyone. Rather, the point of his work was to show a path to complete happiness.
            >
            > We all suffer - this kind of insight provides a means to taking responsibility (not blame) for our own path out of it.
            >
            > Vigilate,
            >
            > Christopher Boozell
            >


            I have no views about where he was coming from or what he was or was not trying to do, and I certainly cast no aspersions on the point of his work (with which I'm unfamiliar). He might be an absolutely wonderful person, thinker and writer for all I know.

            I was commenting only on the particular quotation that Bob posted, according to which all suffering stems from selfishness. I think it's important to realize that that sentiment is not only false but is likely painful to a number of vulnerable individuals.

            Best,

            W
          • sandeep chatterjee
            ________________________________ From: walto To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 1:50 AM Subject:
            Message 5 of 15 , Aug 9, 2011
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment



              From: walto <calhorn@...>
              To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 1:50 AM
              Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple and Saintly)

               


              --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Boozell <cjb@...> wrote:
              >
              > In addition to Bob's helpful thoughts, I think it important to bear in mind where Shantideva was coming from: he wasn't trying to blame or condemn anyone. Rather, the point of his work was to show a path to complete happiness.
              >
              > We all suffer - this kind of insight provides a means to taking responsibility (not blame) for our own path out of it.
              >
              > Vigilate,
              >
              > Christopher Boozell
              >

              I have no views about where he was coming from or what he was or was not trying to do, and I certainly cast no aspersions on the point of his work (with which I'm unfamiliar). He might be an absolutely wonderful person, thinker and writer for all I know.

              I was commenting only on the particular quotation that Bob posted, according to which all suffering stems from selfishness. I think it's important to realize that that sentiment is not only false 
              --------
              Why?


              If it can be seen that there is a distinction ( so to say) between pain (whether physical, mental or emotional)....
              ...and suffering.

              Suffering is the sense of an anguish of "WHY ME".
              Or that "THIS SHOULD NOT BE LIKE SO"

              It is perfectly possible to be in pain and not to be in suffering.
              And the vice versa is equally true.

              -------

              but is likely painful to a number of vulnerable individuals.
              ------
              Maybe
              Maybe not, if the distinction is understood.

              The sense of suffering.....no matter what is it's shape, hue, contours, content....... is always concurrent with the identification with the object held to be oneself.

              The sense of pain is always in the domain of the object.


            • walto
              ... It s obvious that not all suffering is caused by selfishness. Contract cancer, trip on a stick, sit on a thumbtack--you ll find out. ... Sure, if you
              Message 6 of 15 , Aug 10, 2011
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, sandeep chatterjee <sandeep1960@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > ________________________________
                > From: walto <calhorn@...>
                > To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                > Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 1:50 AM
                > Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple and Saintly)
                >
                >
                >  
                >
                >
                > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Boozell <cjb@> wrote:
                > >
                > > In addition to Bob's helpful thoughts, I think it important to bear in mind where Shantideva was coming from: he wasn't trying to blame or condemn anyone. Rather, the point of his work was to show a path to complete happiness.
                > >
                > > We all suffer - this kind of insight provides a means to taking responsibility (not blame) for our own path out of it.
                > >
                > > Vigilate,
                > >
                > > Christopher Boozell
                > >
                >
                > I have no views about where he was coming from or what he was or was not trying to do, and I certainly cast no aspersions on the point of his work (with which I'm unfamiliar). He might be an absolutely wonderful person, thinker and writer for all I know.
                >
                > I was commenting only on the particular quotation that Bob posted, according to which all suffering stems from selfishness. I think it's important to realize that that sentiment is not only false 
                > --------
                > Why?
                >

                It's obvious that not all suffering is caused by selfishness. Contract cancer, trip on a stick, sit on a thumbtack--you'll find out.


                >
                > If it can be seen that there is a distinction ( so to say) between pain (whether physical, mental or emotional)....
                > ...and suffering.
                >
                >
                > Suffering is the sense of an anguish of "WHY ME".
                > Or that "THIS SHOULD NOT BE LIKE SO"
                >


                Sure, if you redefine words, you can do anything. For example, I could just let "suffering" mean "the results of selfishness", then, certainly, all suffering would be caused by selfishness. I was talking about in English, not some language nobody knows but you and me.


                > It is perfectly possible to be in pain and not to be in suffering.
                > And the vice versa is equally true.
                >

                I suggest you look up the word "suffering" in any good dictionary and reconsider whether that's true.


                > -------
                >
                > but is likely painful to a number of vulnerable individuals.
                >
                > ------
                > Maybe
                > Maybe not, if the distinction is understood.
                >
                >

                That distinction is solely a function of your redefinition of a word that everybody knows. If we let "suffering" mean "satiation via hamburger" it will require hamburgers.



                > The sense of suffering.....no matter what is it's shape, hue, contours, content....... is always concurrent with the identification with the object held to be oneself.
                >
                > The sense of pain is always in the domain of the object.
                >


                Sorry, but I have no idea what any of that means. What I do know (and I think you do too) is that not all suffering stems from selfishness, and pushing such a proposition (without redefining some of the words as you have done above) simply adds a layer of self-blame to people who are often absolutely blameless.

                BTW, I hope I don't have to argue about this indefinitely. It's a pretty obvious point, I think, and, again, I'm not casting aspersions on its author, just pointing out one erroneous line.

                W
              • walto
                Just wanted to add--in case my examples of suffering seemed silly or trivial, and since they focused on physical pain-- The suffering (that, e.g, Tagore went
                Message 7 of 15 , Aug 10, 2011
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Just wanted to add--in case my examples of suffering seemed silly or trivial, and since they focused on physical pain--

                  The suffering (that, e.g, Tagore went through several times) connected with having one of your children die.

                  The suffering associated with the realization of famine where we can do but little good.

                  The suffering connected with recognition that someone innocent has been punished.

                  These too, are not caused by "my selfishness." I may feel worse if I think "Why have you done this to ME"--and that could certainly exacerbate my suffering. But these are not sufferings borne of selfishness.

                  Best,

                  W
                • sean tremblay
                  how about the suffering of being in a famine and starving to death, or being wrongly accused and suffering punishment?  I see your point that to the one who
                  Message 8 of 15 , Aug 10, 2011
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    how about the suffering of being in a famine and starving to death, or being wrongly accused and suffering punishment?  I see your point that to the one who suffers the suffering is real, you get socked in the eye and it hurts no matter what the nature of suffering is,  I think this topic has been debated before on this forum, so I suppose it's important enough to be revisited.  I understand the on attachment to suffering approach, but I am not so quick to dismiss suffering either,  sometimes non attachment is just another word for apathy, and apathy is the opposite of compassion.

                    --- On Wed, 8/10/11, walto <calhorn@...> wrote:

                    From: walto <calhorn@...>
                    Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple and Saintly)
                    To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                    Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011, 8:02 AM

                     

                    Just wanted to add--in case my examples of suffering seemed silly or trivial, and since they focused on physical pain--

                    The suffering (that, e.g, Tagore went through several times) connected with having one of your children die.

                    The suffering associated with the realization of famine where we can do but little good.

                    The suffering connected with recognition that someone innocent has been punished.

                    These too, are not caused by "my selfishness." I may feel worse if I think "Why have you done this to ME"--and that could certainly exacerbate my suffering. But these are not sufferings borne of selfishness.

                    Best,

                    W

                  • medit8ionsociety
                    ... Yo Sean, Your comments about this KISS stuff is right on from the usual duality based perspective we have in life, but the Saint was speaking non-dual
                    Message 9 of 15 , Aug 10, 2011
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, sean tremblay <bethjams9@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > how about the suffering of being in a famine and starving to death, or being wrongly accused and suffering punishment?  I see your point that to the one who suffers the suffering is real, you get socked in the eye and it hurts no matter what the nature of suffering is,  I think this topic has been debated before on this forum, so I suppose it's important enough to be revisited.  I understand the on attachment to suffering approach, but I am not so quick to dismiss suffering either,  sometimes non attachment is just another word for apathy, and apathy is the opposite of compassion.

                      Yo Sean,
                      Your comments about this KISS stuff is right on from the "usual" duality based perspective we have in life, but the Saint was speaking non-dual wise and as a teaching ....and I'm sure he was not apathetic to the type of suffering that goes around and comes around to everyone. As a matter of spiritual fact (in my semi-humble opinion), his type AAA rated Enlightenment would be characterized by total compassion. Only an egoist can have apathy.
                      >
                      > --- On Wed, 8/10/11, walto <calhorn@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > From: walto <calhorn@...>
                      > Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple and Saintly)
                      > To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                      > Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011, 8:02 AM
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >  
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Just wanted to add--in case my examples of suffering seemed silly or trivial, and since they focused on physical pain--
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > The suffering (that, e.g, Tagore went through several times) connected with having one of your children die.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > The suffering associated with the realization of famine where we can do but little good.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > The suffering connected with recognition that someone innocent has been punished.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > These too, are not caused by "my selfishness." I may feel worse if I think "Why have you done this to ME"--and that could certainly exacerbate my suffering. But these are not sufferings borne of selfishness.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Best,
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > W
                      >
                    • walto
                      Interesting that you mention the two perspectives, Bob. In a book I ve just been reading by the British philosopher, P.F. Strawson, there is much talk about
                      Message 10 of 15 , Aug 10, 2011
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Interesting that you mention the two perspectives, Bob. In a book I've just been reading by the British philosopher, P.F. Strawson, there is much talk about relativizing to two world pictures: a commonsensical one, according to which, e.g., physical objects actually have colors, hardness, etc., (and where there are rights and wrongs in the world) and a scientific, detached view, in which only those properties countenanced by physical theory are actually exemplified by things outside of us.

                        You similarly distinguish here between the "duality based perspective" and a detached, apparently more "objective" picture--a world in which there is, e.g., no pain, no time, no happiness, no death, no individuality, etc.

                        Relativizing, we may say that there is truly suffering only in the common-sense world, while in the non-dualistic world, there can be none, since pain in that world is illusory. Let us (for the sake of argument, anyway) grant all this. It would, then be the case, presumably, that, from the non-Dual perspective there could be no pain because there is no...self. But would it therefore be the case that there could be no suffering without selfishness? It seems to me that this would be the case only if either (i) within the Dual world, suffering was a result of selfishness; or (ii) embracing the the commonsensical, everyday world, is itself an act of selfishness. I don't think either of those is true.

                        As I've said (harped, even!) in our everyday world, suffering may result from many other things besides selfishness--so (i) seems false. So let's consider (ii)--is living in the Dual world (for most of every day) a sign of selfishness (again, without redefining that term). It seems to me that the acceptance (for most of every day, anyhow) of this everyday Dual world is a matter of our shared human condition--it's something which only Saints can escape for long periods. I think, therefore, that it's not selfishness to live most of one's life in our everyday world (after all, even Sri Ramakrishna did so): it is simply very (very!) hard to do otherwise. For most human beings, it is, indeed, impossible.

                        Finally (and I promise to get off this horse after this), I think Sean is right when he says that empathy requires the Dual view. There is neither Empathy nor Antipathy in the non-Dual world, just as there is no morality or immorality, no pain or death or need for charity. There there is only (if anything) bliss.

                        End of rant.

                        Best,

                        W

                        --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, medit8ionsociety <no_reply@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, sean tremblay <bethjams9@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > how about the suffering of being in a famine and starving to death, or being wrongly accused and suffering punishment?  I see your point that to the one who suffers the suffering is real, you get socked in the eye and it hurts no matter what the nature of suffering is,  I think this topic has been debated before on this forum, so I suppose it's important enough to be revisited.  I understand the on attachment to suffering approach, but I am not so quick to dismiss suffering either,  sometimes non attachment is just another word for apathy, and apathy is the opposite of compassion.
                        >
                        > Yo Sean,
                        > Your comments about this KISS stuff is right on from the "usual" duality based perspective we have in life, but the Saint was speaking non-dual wise and as a teaching ....and I'm sure he was not apathetic to the type of suffering that goes around and comes around to everyone. As a matter of spiritual fact (in my semi-humble opinion), his type AAA rated Enlightenment would be characterized by total compassion. Only an egoist can have apathy.
                        > >
                        > > --- On Wed, 8/10/11, walto <calhorn@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > From: walto <calhorn@>
                        > > Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple and Saintly)
                        > > To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                        > > Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011, 8:02 AM
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >  
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Just wanted to add--in case my examples of suffering seemed silly or trivial, and since they focused on physical pain--
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > The suffering (that, e.g, Tagore went through several times) connected with having one of your children die.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > The suffering associated with the realization of famine where we can do but little good.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > The suffering connected with recognition that someone innocent has been punished.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > These too, are not caused by "my selfishness." I may feel worse if I think "Why have you done this to ME"--and that could certainly exacerbate my suffering. But these are not sufferings borne of selfishness.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Best,
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > W
                        > >
                        >
                      • Sandeep
                        ... Simple and Saintly) ... bear in mind where Shantideva was coming from: he wasn t trying to blame or condemn anyone. Rather, the point of his work was to
                        Message 11 of 15 , Aug 10, 2011
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, sandeep chatterjee sandeep1960@ wrote:
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > ________________________________
                          > > From: walto calhorn@
                          > > To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                          > > Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 1:50 AM
                          > > Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple and Saintly)
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >  
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Boozell <cjb@> wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > > In addition to Bob's helpful thoughts, I think it important to bear in mind where Shantideva was coming from: he wasn't trying to blame or condemn anyone. Rather, the point of his work was to show a path to complete happiness.
                          > > >
                          > > > We all suffer - this kind of insight provides a means to taking responsibility (not blame) for our own path out of it.
                          > > >
                          > > > Vigilate,
                          > > >
                          > > > Christopher Boozell
                          > > >
                          > >
                          > > I have no views about where he was coming from or what he was or was not trying to do, and I certainly cast no aspersions on the point of his work (with which I'm unfamiliar). He might be an absolutely wonderful person, thinker and writer for all I know.
                          > >
                          > > I was commenting only on the particular quotation that Bob posted, according to which all suffering stems from selfishness. I think it's important to realize that that sentiment is not only false 
                          > > --------
                          > > Why?
                          > >
                          >
                          > It's obvious that not all suffering is caused by selfishness. Contract cancer, trip on a stick, sit on a thumbtack--you'll find out.

                          ---------

                          In all the examples that you provide, there will be physical pain, maybe even mental pain.....but there need not be an associated sense of  suffering.

                          Let's hang Nisargadatta, Ramakrishna, Ramana and all the other jokers from the nearest lamp-post......and the mutterings which arose through them on this very issue, consigned to the dustbin.

                          Right now as these pixels are getting placed in a specific arrangement....

                          ....there is tremendous pain(details are immaterial)....

                          ....in the presence of a total and complete absence of a sense of suffering.


                          ------


                          >
                          >
                          > >
                          > > If it can be seen that there is a distinction ( so to say) between pain (whether physical, mental or emotional)....
                          > > ...and suffering.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > Suffering is the sense of an anguish of "WHY ME".
                          > > Or that "THIS SHOULD NOT BE LIKE SO"
                          > >
                          >
                          >
                          > Sure, if you redefine words, you can do anything.

                          ---------
                          :-)

                          Yes.....to point to how identification with an event is necessary for an attribution of a meaning to the event.

                          And the movement to go deeper( in a manner of speaking)....

                          ...to see that there is no event in actuality, in the absence of the process of meaning attribution.

                          -----



                           For example, I could just let "suffering" mean "the results of selfishness", then, certainly, all suffering would be caused by selfishness. I was talking about in English, not some language nobody knows but you and me.

                          ---------
                          Who knows what or which language is irrelevant.

                          For while words and meanings are being used to express to point....

                          ... what is being eluded to, in neither in the domain of the word/sound....

                          ....or in the realm of the wordless/soundless.

                          To simply put it........there maybe the sensation of pain, in it's many forms, shapes, hues, intensities.......but there is really none to suffer the pain.

                          The associated sensation around the primary sensation, is a sense of an attributed meaning..

                          ....and needs a sense of a loci, a sense of a self-centered ness ....

                          .....for which the attributed meaning.....is a meaning.

                          And no such loci.....can be isolated or discreted.



                          >
                          >
                          > > It is perfectly possible to be in pain and not to be in suffering.
                          > > And the vice versa is equally true.
                          > >
                          >
                          > I suggest you look up the word "suffering" in any good dictionary and reconsider whether that's true.
                          >

                          So a book of ascribed meanings, held together by a consensus... is the yard stick?

                          :-) 

                          > > -------
                          > >
                          > > but is likely painful to a number of vulnerable individuals.
                          > >
                          > > ------
                          > > Maybe
                          > > Maybe not, if the distinction is understood.
                          > >
                          > >
                          >
                          > That distinction is solely a function of your redefinition of a word that everybody knows. If we let "suffering" mean "satiation via hamburger" it will require hamburgers.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > > The sense of suffering.....no matter what is it's shape, hue, contours, content....... is always concurrent with the identification with the object held to be oneself.
                          > >
                          > > The sense of pain is always in the domain of the object.
                          > >
                          >
                          >
                          > Sorry, but I have no idea what any of that means.

                          -------

                          That's fine.

                          For understanding(to use a term) is not in the domain of ideations....

                          ....and since in and as this very articulation, another idea got created ...

                          ...is neither in the absence of ideations.


                           What I do know (and I think you do too) is that not all suffering stems from selfishness, and pushing such a proposition (without redefining some of the words as you have done above) simply adds a layer of self-blame to people who are often absolutely blameless.

                          ---------

                          Let's leave  blamefull or blameless people......aside for the moment.

                          That.......the sense of suffering does not necessarily equate to the sense of pain....

                          ...means adding a layer of self blame to people....

                          ...for whom is the thought of such an ascribed meaning .....of relevance?

                          Where did this thought get anchored?

                          Who is it that took delivery of this thought?

                          And whatever answer that comes up....

                          ....instead of rushing to the keyboard..

                          ...the quest remains.....for whom has this very thought in the form of an answer...... occurred to?

                          Who is it...... that holds the thought of an answer..........as the answer.

                          ----------

                          >
                          > BTW, I hope I don't have to argue about this indefinitely. It's a pretty obvious point, I think, and, again, I'm not casting aspersions on its author, just pointing out one erroneous line.

                          :-)



                        • Sandeep
                          ... I ve just been reading by the British philosopher, P.F. Strawson, there is much talk about relativizing to two world pictures: a commonsensical one,
                          Message 12 of 15 , Aug 10, 2011
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Interesting that you mention the two perspectives, Bob. In a book I've just been reading by the British philosopher, P.F. Strawson, there is much talk about relativizing to two world pictures: a commonsensical one, according to which, e.g., physical objects actually have colors, hardness, etc., (and where there are rights and wrongs in the world) and a scientific, detached view, in which only those properties countenanced by physical theory are actually exemplified by things outside of us.
                            >
                            > You similarly distinguish here between the "duality based perspective" and a detached, apparently more "objective" picture--a world in which there is, e.g., no pain, no time, no happiness, no death, no individuality, etc.

                            ---------

                            And none to even observe as so.

                            The apperception in the very instant of espying these pixels....

                            that....in the absence of the individual...... who is to note the absence of the individual.

                            Any such noting would be an oxymoron.


                            Neti Neti (Not this Not this).....finally(without the connotation of an event in time)..

                            ....consumes the negator itself....

                            ....thereby consuming any sense of distinction between duality and non-duality.

                            -------


                            >
                            > Relativizing, we may say that there is truly suffering only in the common-sense world, while in the non-dualistic world, there can be none, since pain in that world is illusory. Let us (for the sake of argument, anyway) grant all this. It would, then be the case, presumably, that, from the non-Dual perspective there could be no pain because there is no...self. But would it therefore be the case that there could be no suffering without selfishness? It seems to me that this would be the case only if either (i) within the Dual world, suffering was a result of selfishness; or (ii) embracing the the commonsensical, everyday world, is itself an act of selfishness. I don't think either of those is true.

                            ---------

                            It is not that there is some exalted state of non-dualness.....

                            ...which has to be reached , attained, realized....... from and by the commonsensical world of duality.

                            Can the very intrinsic separation in such a notion be apperceived..

                            ..... a sense of separation which only gets to perpetuated...

                            ....in the very striving to move from to the other.


                            There is none other to embrace the  commonsensical world of duality....

                            ....whether selflessly or selfishly...

                            ... and there is none to reach a state of non-duality.

                            The moment, which is not the thought of something as the present-now.....is neither incomplete...

                            .. such that a movement of reaching out can be accommodated....



                            ....and neither it is complete( in the absence of any contrast being available of in-completion)

                            It cannot be it-ted. i.e. referenced, defined, whether in negation or in affirmation.


                            Form is the very formless........while ever remaining the formless.


                            Then what is this commonsensical everyday world teeming with the sense of duality....

                            ... aka the gestalt of a "me", for which the entire array of "you" and "your's appears to be so undeniably real...... and now with which a relating appears to be taking place.

                            Relating which maybe in the form of suffering or joyousness and the infinite hues in-between.

                            A display of what such a drama would be like..

                            ....if there was ever possible to isolate a stage/loci ...

                            ...on which such a drama could be enacted out.


                            That-which-is( to use a term).......as a plenum of infinite possibilities...

                            ....has no separate-able loci, on which any one of the infinite possibilities  could be actualized.

                            The apperception (once again a mere term)....

                            ...thereby consumes even the defining of "plenum of infinite possibilities".

                            For a possibility is a possibility...... only when there is a possibility of it ever being actualized.


                            The infamous bromide

                            As above

                            As below

                            As sideways.

                            :-)


                            >
                            > As I've said (harped, even!) in our everyday world, suffering may result from many other things besides selfishness--so (i) seems false. So let's consider (ii)--is living in the Dual world (for most of every day) a sign of selfishness (again, without redefining that term). It seems to me that the acceptance (for most of every day, anyhow) of this everyday Dual world is a matter of our shared human condition--it's something which only Saints can escape for long periods.

                            -------

                            Who has been feeding you all this baloney.

                            Escape to what, to where.

                            Where is the periphery of the "changing"......such that an stepping out(escape) is ever a possibility?

                            In the absence of non-drawable peripheries......can even a center be posited?

                            The biological object, to which an audience has bestowed a label of a Saint, Sage or bum-on-the-street......is  an appearance in and as the gestalt of the changing.

                            And subject to the apparent laws operating in and as that gestalt.

                            Apperception is not at the object level.

                            Nor is it in the soul level.

                            Nor is it in the spiritual level.

                            Nor is it in the other dimension levels.

                            All such domains, all such realms being mere creativity of thought....

                            ....neither in the realm of thought.

                            Nor in the field of the thoughtless.
                             
                            --------



                             I think, therefore, that it's not selfishness to live most of one's life in our everyday world (after all, even Sri Ramakrishna did so): it is simply very (very!) hard to do otherwise. For most human beings, it is, indeed, impossible.

                            ------
                            Indeed one lives in and as the commonsensical world......leaping out of the path of an oncoming rushing bus...


                            ....and simultaneously one is never .....of....... this gestalt of appearances.

                            Just like, all the pain, all the suffering, all the need to pay the bills or be prepared to look at some bars of a cell for a long time....

                            ...all the bouts of joys and happiness, all the understandings, knowledge, opinions, views whether of the mundane or of the spiritual...of the profane or the profound....

                            .....all of which were all so undeniably real......when the last night sleep dream drama was unfolding...

                            ...each and every nuance , each and every character, including the one held to oneself..

                            ....as the very ingredients making up the last night sleep dream drama....

                            .....appeared in you, persisted in you, subsided in you.....

                            .....they were all you.......manifested as so.....


                            ..nothing, no one of all that was you...

                            ....you the one sound asleep and snoring away in a 6 X 4 cot.

                            This awake-dream drama in which these pixels are getting viewed right..........not a white difference.

                            -------


                            >
                            > Finally (and I promise to get off this horse after this), I think Sean is right when he says that empathy requires the Dual view. There is neither Empathy nor Antipathy in the non-Dual world, just as there is no morality or immorality, no pain or death or need for charity. There there is only (if anything) bliss.

                            --------



                            A toe stubbed on a stone.

                            The reaching out to cup the painful, bleeding toe.

                            It's all you......the pain, the bleeding toe, the reaching out hand......and the stubborn stone.

                            Empathy, compassion......is not in the realm of viewpoints, or in the domain of ideations.

                            What is there is the field of ideations/thoughts ......as empathy, as compassion......are bargains.

                            Empathy and compassion is the natural and instantaneous pheromones of the milieu...

                            ...where there is the absence of the sense of a "suffering
                            -paining you"....

                            ..thus the absence of the co-created sense of "empathetic
                            /compassionate me"


                            Real empathy is never conscious of the unfolding as empathy.

                            Real compassion is never conscious of being compassionate.


                            >
                            > End of rant


                            Aw shucks.

                            :-)


                            Okey dokey back to meditation, which is what this List is about.


                          • walto
                            ... Who has been feeding you all this baloney. Not your own deli guy(s), certainly. I try to make sense rather than sound deep. But as you ask, I don t
                            Message 13 of 15 , Aug 11, 2011
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Sandeep" <sandeep1960@...> wrote:

                              "Who has been feeding you all this baloney."

                              Not your own deli guy(s), certainly. I try to make sense rather than "sound deep."

                              But as you ask, I don't eat mammals and...I've actually been feeding myself for some time now!

                              http://www.amazon.com/Perennial-Solution-Center-Walter-Horn/dp/1591095697


                              W
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.