Vam, thanks for your extended explanation! And, IF I grok it, we agree. This paradigm/recognition phrased in word patterns that are more familiar to me would include:
Our psyches apprehend at differing levels at any given point in time. Different people appear to be at different levels at the same point in time. Ultimately, there is no time. We cannot agree because we, in our subjective roles are at different points on the path at any given point in time and since we are agreeing using words and concepts, we will not be able to come to agreement in ‘no time’. Vam, I know these are my words, not yours and I have left out a few specifics you presented. However, is there any contradiction with the points above for you? Once I hear back, I’ll add a few more observations. On Oct 21, 10:48 pm, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > " More to your real point about agreement being apparently impossible > - I’m not so sure this is in fact the case." > > My point is actually very simple, OM. > > Realisation is a phenomenon that illuminates the individual. One, it > establishes a new set of desire / values / truth paradigm that > liberates the individual to ( realisation of greater ) unity, more > free of his me - mine - myself perspective. And, two, it erases those > desire / values / truths that keep the individual tethered to his > lower nature, to his localised set of time - space - species > determined me - mine - myself centric desires / values / truths. > > This " realisation " process, in practice, is what I term as spiritual > evolution of the man. To choose the electable, we are required to > forego ( the reality of ) the pleasurable or desire - able. The time > scale along which this process takes place is endless, and the motion > is definitely non - linear. And, each one of our time - space - > species determined values perspective is specific to the coordinate at > which we are located. > > The distribution of individuals along the values - perspective > evolution scale is pyramidical, with a base that has an endless > spread. The barriers to rising up are exponentially higher, from the > lowest to the highest. In these evolution terms, the divide between > the material and spiritual is huge. In my experience, very few ( very > very occasionally ) actually transcend it. We are born materialists ; > spiritual realisations need to be pursued and take ( enormous ) effort > to succeed. > > Abiding agreement, and committment to the agreement, is a very evolved > thing to happen. That is why, trust is at such a premium. Given the > species, at any point in time ( - space effects cause more > disagreements - ), there are very few who by their realisation - > values - perspective would agree to the same thing. > > Agreements are easier to accomplish for spoils or gains, for > ( material ) objects of our lower nature. But, bat an eye, it > disappears, and The Reign Of Terror ensues. The me - mine - myself > anchor is more, far far more powerful than all attractions of > knowledge, reason and ' ideas.' > > Ironically, nobody can be faulted. Blame the Time - Space - Species - > Individual realisation coordinate ! > > The monster is the Buddha. The Chakra Tantra offers a very simplified > picture of the same realisation evolution scale. > > On Oct 21, 12:43 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > “…What I find is that all truths are obvious. If that is the aim, then > > there is nothing to be done, except to ' see.' …” – Vam > > > Exactly so Vam! I think it was my retelling of the Sufi story of 3 men > > all being ‘right’ that first struck a chord in Neil. In fact, there is > > nothing to be done in one sense. In another, I do not cease eating, > > sleeping nor even thinking. Also, while we may have known “all truths” > > when a child, I was happy to have met and read remarkable wo/men along > > the path who shared more clarified and purified apprehensions than I > > had at the time. So, it is in a way incumbent upon those who can to > > do. > > > “…01 Unity is one thing, unity through agreement is quite another… > > Unity through agreement is impossible, except on a limited scale. > > There will always be disagreement, expressed or not…” – Vam > > > I almost left your very eloquent words now replaced by the ellipsis so > > they could be read again! However, what you suggest here, a sort of > > criticism and argument, is true too. However, to be clear, I do not > > propose a tyrannical agreement nor a 1984 type either. Unity of > > subjective words can only manifest in what you have clearly said, > > words are subjective! We agree. And, in this process, (using words > > online) specific recognitions can and have been addressed in a fully > > functional way. I expect no more nor no less here. More importantly, > > both a fact and a direction for ‘work’ is presented. This, even though > > we know that in any ultimate sense, nothing can be done, AND knowing > > that what we ARE ‘doing’ may be part of this so called non-doing too. > > > “…02 Unity in effort, interest, programme or association is possible, > > more completely at reduced scales. Unity through affinity, need, > > characterisation or empathy too is possible ... more readily around > > carnal and commonplace basics like birth, food, sex, security, power, > > death and their auxilliaries such as money, money, money, money, money > > and money ... and less and less readily around the exalted and the > > intangibles such as feeling, emotion, thought, idea, knowledge ... “ - > > Vam > > > Yes Vam, I fully empathize. And, as humans we all have feelings, > > emotions, thoughts, ideas and knowledge. This is an aspect of how we > > are one. We are of the same pattern. Most of us have had quite similar > > if not equal feelings, emotions, thoughts and ideas albeit at > > different points in time. Yes, our specific associations with words > > may differ, yet the same seed is found within. So, in this pure sense, > > our knowledge is one too. How do we know this? One way is to share as > > we do here at Mind’s Eye! > > > More to your real point about agreement being apparently impossible - > > I’m not so sure this is in fact the case. IF one uses the more common > > paradigms, ones that we know have not been successful, of course this > > is the case. There is something about those who keep trying the same > > thing expecting a different result, no? > > > So, while accepting the apparent contradiction of agreement and unity > > being mutually exclusive, I suggest we continue using the axiom that > > they are not (exclusive) and see how that goes. What do you think? > > Again, a possibly poor analogy would be the different types of non- > > Euclidean geometries that arise when one of Euclid’s axioms is assumed > > to not be true. To explore in these realms, memes must be severed. > > > On Oct 20, 9:42 am, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > You strike the chords in my core ... indeed ! > > > > What I find is that all truths are obvious. If that is the aim, then > > > there is nothing to be done, except to ' see.' > > > > 01 Unity is one thing, unity through agreement is quite another. > > > > Differences and diversity abounds. Every part of speech - nouns, > > > adjectives, adverbs ... brings in view an endless range of > > > differentiation. Conditioned to these differences ( and inequities ), > > > unity to us is a mere term of abstraction. > > > > To a de - conditioned mind however, when differences and diversity > > > remains superceded, unity is obvious and immediate in our view. Cows > > > are different ; each cow is innately aware of such differentiation. > > > But all differences disappear in ' cowhood.' All cows are > > > characterised by this cowhood, that makes each a cow. > > > > Men are different. Humanity is one. Living beings are different. The > > > Earth is one. ... Planets are different. The Galaxy is one. ... > > > Galaxies are different. The universe is one. > > > > Differences are natural, in this manifest state of minimum potential. > > > To be able to see the unity takes effort, like taking water up the > > > slope. > > > > Unity through agreement is impossible, except on a limited scale. > > > There will always be disagreement, expressed or not. > > > > 02 Unity in effort, interest, programme or association is possible, > > > more completely at reduced scales. Unity through affinity, need, > > > characterisation or empathy too is possible ... > > > > more readily around carnal and commonplace basics like birth, food, > > > sex, security, power, death and their auxilliaries such as money, > > > money, money, money, money and money ... > > > > and less and less readily around the exalted and the intangibles such > > > as feeling, emotion, thought, idea, knowledge ... > > > > ( more was to follow ... but I'd rather have some feedback to the > > > above.) > > > > On Oct 20, 7:43 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 'We want' personal commitment in all kinds of areas - one might > > > > include here 'honour amongst thieves'. Some of our prison governors > > > > are in trouble at the moment for moving prisoners just before > > > > inspections (this is actually a common incident in quality schemes > > > > where managers shift inventory to show efficiency in their areas, > > > > resulting in great charts until the overall is seen). There are many > > > > old schemes of virtue and whilst one wants this to be internalised > > > > (preferably a world of virtuous individuals), it seems we need > > > > external checks. Capitalism claimed to do this through the > > > > disciplines of markets and the bottom-line. Blair is very happy to > > > > make his peace with god on the basis of his integrity. > > > > > In Hobbes, one can see a claim to accept regal authority as a least > > > > worst evil. We need something else, something in which virtue is its > > > > own reward, yet not the Blair-like excuse for not demonstrating what > > > > is right whilst posturing 'virtue'. I would not see this as a block > > > > to progress. Currently little taught (though one can do a whole > > > > undergrad course in the US on same) are the ideas of 'public choice > > > > theory' which aim to cope with the selfish individual decision-maker > > > > by encouraging a match between the individual and public interest. > > > > The theories or many and I'm sure I could establish some as mutually > > > > incompatible. > > > > > You have said a great deal that is interesting Orn - one sure sign of > > > > unity may well be that we share a 'lust' for it that goes beyond any > > > > personal disagreements (themselves a plus I would say, rather than > > > > squalid jockeying). Let me put up a quick thought experiment we won't > > > > do. > > > > > Imagine we meet and 'brainstorm' our ideas > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
