It is really the speed with which we need change that is against 'argument'. I follow what Doris has said very easily and Orn's tree- house picture. I'm not really concerned that we are individual in the sense of that preventing agreement - I wonder what prevents us from genuine relish of this.
On 22 Oct, 20:20, Doris Ragland <[email protected]> wrote: > What I have read and seen in the enviroment...It is a race against > time to change it- is it possible...In Alaska if the information is > right the ice is melting at such a high rate...(example)Eskimo's not > so far off to change their way of living...they use to fish on > ice ...now they say they will go to the sea....point is the ice > melting at such a fast rate..should not this tell us something ? I > know this has been concern for years but -this just shows me it is not > changing fast enough...just one example... > > On Oct 22, 1:00 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
