Molly, it is so. Indeed.
On Oct 22, 4:47 pm, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:
> harmony might be more "agreeable" than agreement.
>
> On Oct 22, 1:48 am, 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
>
> ...
>
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
