--- In [email protected], new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], "coshlnx" <coshlnx@> wrote:
> >
> > http://www.tinyurl.com/yvkdc3
>
>
> Hi, I have not posted for a month or two -- and have read only a
few
> threads that caught my interest. Sorry if my comments reflect this
> deficiency.
>
> I find a number of posts / articles interesting and stimulating --
and
> oddly ironic and paradoxical -- in a nice way :).
>
> Re: Andrew and Sam -- I can read much of each, seperately and agree
> with most of their points. That they find "huge" disagreement among
> themselves causes me to hypothesize they are only reading what they
> THINK they other is saying, not the actual words on the page. A
common
> theme and experience on FFL, in my view.
>
> Barry as always, and correctly, points to the fluidity,
transatoriness
> (is that like 'beyond satoriness' ??? :) ), impermanance and
eternal
> incompleteness of "midsets" (my words) and states of attention,
views,
> perceptions etc. And the ego-laden "icing" on such that is an
> attraction to "own it". (I own up to having done that at times :))
>
> A lesson in this, per my "view" (transatory as it is), is to
> remember -- when its forgotten -- that both the perceptor and the
> perception are always changing and thus investing in the "Truth"
of a
> matter -- particuarly with "ego capital / coins" -- is a rather
> shallow and unproductive venture. Put a stake in the ground when
its
> needed to get something done, else -- don't waste time "staking"
the
> territory with what will always be "old and outdated stakes" --
that
> is, staking out positions, staking ones ego on poles across the
land.
>
> On the other hand, its good to remember that some "stakes" in the
> ground work pretty well for a long long time. One should always be
> willing a a moments notice to dig up an old stake, but not waste
time
> challenging some "useful" though impermanent stakes every hour.
>
> Sorry if the metaphors and analogies are too nauseating. :) I am a
> visual sort of person and these ideas jump at me in visual form.
>
> Jim "trumps" Barry in a way with an view (not foreign to Barry I
know)
> that the "real deal" is to get beyond the dualities of
> ego/ego-challenging and views / view challenges to the state that
just
> IS. No ego, no ownership, no proseletizing for one's position, no
need
> for put downs to make one's postion appear better than others. Just
> sterling truth, non-attachment (in the best of senses), no
filters, no
> biases, no pre-set or "canned" / dogmatic view, ever fresh,
> compassionate, patient, ever innocent, pure fluidty in the NOW.
> Perhaps capsulated as "In the KNOW and in the NOW".
>
> An irony, and "trap", is that many individuals and groups think,
> perceive, view, and are "group-thinked" into believing they are
living
> the above "real deal" beyond duality and ego. Eternal truth of the
> sun-shine mind. :) And cling to dogma in doing so. Dogma that
can't be
> "true" if others' dogmas are also true.
>
> For example, many of us thought we were "golden", in the TMO, "When
> the Truth is Found...". Only to be disappointed when the rest of
the
> song played out "found ... to be Lies". Lies is perhaps too
dramatic
> .. but "incomplete" describes it better. That is still a huge
> disappointment. And yet its humbling. Arrogance dissipates and
> flexibility grows from such humbling experiences.
>
> Jumping back to the "duality" pair -- Jim and Barry, ironically the
> two appear to argue strongly for "their" points of view and
use "put
> downs" to usurp and weaken the view and holder of "opposite" views.
> When each, I think. gets IT - and the concompleteness of such
duality
> -- if not lives IT (at least some of the time).
>
> Perhaps part of the issue is responding to what one SEES others as
> saying, not the unbiased, unlayered, unfiltered words on the page.
> Ironically, if not commically, that is a sign of attachement to a
> views, filters and prejudgements -- all seeping into the "eternal
> freshness, gentleness, flexibility of IT".
>
> On a parallel front, Sam makes a point that doing "the right thing"
> (my words) -- what many would consider campassionate and ethical
> action -- CAN and often does manifest with NO religion. Indeed
> compassionate appearing action due to threat of punishment, perhaps
> "eternal punishment", seems not to be real compassionate-based
action
> but fear based action. An interesting premise to explore would be
how
> much religion produces such fear-based (or reward-based a
la "eternal
> life") "good works", vs. non-relgious factors that produce more
pure
> compassionated based actions.
>
> Recently I have "seen" more into the world of suffering, pain and
fear
> that much of the world experiences. Its overpowering, heart-
wrenching
> and humbling. How can one see that, and not want to reduce
suffering
> and pain, if only step by step, stone by stone? There is no
religosity
> behind such impulses.
>
> Perhaps Jim and Barry can look / breath inside and "breath out'
ways
> to reduce each others' limitations -- in creative ways that don't
> spark new "wars of duality".
>
> Just some thoughts. I'll take the opposite position tomorrow. Or
one
> of "my" antithical forms will. :)
>
hey new morning good to hear from ya!
