Rhett wrote:.
Greetings Ary,
I have responded to your last email, but considering you voiced the preference of not wanting to pursue these matters now, i express that i am unperturbed if you'd prefer not to respond, and do not do so.
Greetings. I have not sent you any email. Other than replying the forum's posts I haven't sent any email.
I can see cases where the sage will make such claims, but sure, he generally wouldn't do so. I understand what you're getting at, the sage understands that he's not inherently superior, and doesn't spout-off. But at the same time in the very act of being enlightened and valuing enlightenment we could say he is 'claiming' superiority over un-enlightenment. He is showing that he thinks enlightenment is better just by being it and prefering it. I think this is fair to say.
Well I don't think he "prefers" it. He is just being it. Aware of what people could be if they had the right approach, and as they don't, they remain ignorant (until that changes).
Where do you think there is fault? I'll definitely think about what you say if you respond.
Well, you said that people are either moving closer to God, or further away from "him". What about people being stable in their delusion? That would probably make the delusional attachments stronger yeah, but they're not really moving much further than where they already are. There is a point where something or someone get stuck, which is not the same as to go sinking more and more.
Also, I happen to disagree with your views on what is delusional and what is not, on what is wise and what isn't. So, it is naturally for me to think your influence will not be pure of delusion, you may clarify about certain points, but still pass them some (how much is relative) of your conditioning.
For example (I'm only assuming here), you would recommend people to think more about Nature, something which I wouldn't do. One thing is to think about something, and another thing is to observe and inquire into that subject. Very different things in my opinion. If I read more of your posts, I'd probably find more things which I think are delusional or that I don't agree. It is not my intention however.
Well, i was talking about "severe practical encumbances". For someone near the beginning of the path these are major stumbling blocks. Except of course in those instances where they cause hurt and turn the individual away from them, which is an inevitable and important part of the equation, not to be underestimated.
Well I would "agree" but there's something that I think you are missing. What about attachments, that one is not ready to give up? Be it because one isn't that much concerned about them, or because one still feels the need? There are more reasons, not only those two, of course. This also has to do with one's tendencies. It would be like, one really can't fool oneself into something one is not, by this I mean: if I know that I am not disciplined enough to play 6 hours a day, and still knowing it, I set that goal, I will VERY probably fail. One has to be conscious of one's actual tendencies, conditions, etc, and start from there. This also applies to how much passion one feels, how much contentment, discontent, etc. I hope you follow me.
Not having or being attached to getting a wife, kids and job is a very significant development along the way to enlightenment. Can you imagine just how divorced such a person would be from the mainstream?
I didn't understand the last sentence-question. About job, I think it's pretentious AND delusional to expect the government to feed and pay for one's care
To me thinking can be regarded as the conceptual parcelling-up of reality (Nature) and the determination of causal sequences, involving the application of labels for the purpose of communication and shorthand thinking.
Well, I would call that, one way of thinking, or one line of thought. Still delusional, thought is delusional. I disagree with: "instead of trying to free the mind from judgements, why not making the mind used to judging right?". Not sure if that's something David said, in anycase, I disagree with that.
Thinking can occur in both the deluded and undeluded individual, much more so in the latter, due to the mind being free of encumbances.
I think it's actually the other way round (not sure if this expression is correct). The less encumbances (burdens?) the less thinking there is.
Seeking what?
Truth... Oneself, Awareness, Silence, etc....
I worked for ten years and recently decided to utilise government support. I became a pariah at my last job and am essentially unemployable because people can't handle being so close to the truth. They can't handle being so close to someone so reasonable and gentle, that says things that lead them to feel bad about themselves. They usually end up oscillating between hating and loving me. Sometimes they hate themselves for hating me, and perhaps more often that i know of because they wouldn't want even themselves to see that, never mind me.
I doubt you act wisely (remember, what you consider wise is very likely to be different to what I consider wise), if you acted wisely you would be able to keep a job and still "spread" or "emanate" wisdom.
Seeking what?
I already answered this before.
If one really feels passion about something, there is no secondhand experience, or consulting to others. ONLY first-hand experience: alone, alone, alone, cause nothing can't stop you from what you need.
Observing oneself is a closed-loop scenario. That's fine and good if thinking on the nature of reality is involved, but if it's not one will only be repeating and habituating one's mistakes.
.
I think I "agree". But only if it's about not isolating everything else and merely observing (here it would be best described as: being attentive, instead of being aware). Attention has to do more with being focused. As I wrote above, I disagree when it comes to "thinking about" Nature, rather than inquiring into Nature.
Let me put this example: in my view, there's no need to think about Causality. With the right observation or Awareness, Causality will be seen, no need to be thinking (in the sense or level of wordy, dialogue like, or even image-like thinking)
Greetings,
Ary.