[Meditation Society of America] Re: K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple and Saintly)
- --- In email@example.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 belowAs 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 rantAw shucks.:-)
Okey dokey back to meditation, which is what this List is about.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "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!