Suffering..

[Walker]

Sure, one can take that approach, but it seems to me there are more intelligent sources.

But, they didn't come to the dance.

How does scientitific attention differ from attention? And how did this different show itself when looking at nature? And what is 'practical observation'?

- Dattaswami’s contemplation is a portal for my contemplation.
Contemplation asks and answers questions of oneself.

- My contemplation is a portal for your contemplation.
- Your contemplation poses questions to yourself.
- Your contemplation is to answer them yourself.
- Feel as free to share your contemplation of my contemplation as you are free to share your contemplation that criticizes dattaswami.

- Contemplation is not a Socratic cross-examination of another for the purpose of falsifying their thoughts.
- Contemplation may include a Socratic cross-examination of one’s own thoughts, for the purpose of clarifying through falsifying one’s own assumptions.

- I have found that a more effective way of understanding, as opposed to inspecting the contemplation of another for faults, or asking endless questions that serve to fit the parameters of the unknown into your known and thus are based on the limitations of what you know … a more effective method than asking someone what they meant after they just explained what they meant … is to to assume (only for the purposes of understanding), that their explanation is true as stated.

- Understanding then becomes a manageable process. Then all you need to do, for contemplation, is ask yourself how can this be true?
- Your journey of sniffing out the cause and effect of how it can be true, is your contemplation.

- After you’ve considered the necessary elements, conditions and causations that would necessarily be present in order to make it true, then you examine the result of your contemplation for falsification purposes.
- If you can’t figure out the how, then you expand your knowledge of conditions and the elements that comprise conditions.

- If you have complete and total knowledge of all elements and their interactive relationships amongst any or all elements that comprise a condition, and you have complete data-point observation to monitor change, then you are nearing the singularity where future meets present.

- More importantly, logic indicates that the described omniscence turns predictions into statements of inevitability.
- This is the logical endpoint of omniscience, but because we live in duality and no man knows the future for certain, the alternative is to ride the winds of wu wei that are blown by God.

- Or, as in the Christian view, the motive force for doing, for movement, is Grace.

- Or, as in the Bach view that he pronounced to explain the Why of his human activities … S.D.G.

*

- Contemplation is an intellectual activity that requires thought.
- In contrast, non-intellectual meditation leads thought to the stillness of no-thought, which is no movement of mind, no change.
- Thinking is detected when a thought changes, thus one unchanging thought is not thinking.

[Walker]

Tell me some big insight you got from reading him.

An insight from reading him.


- The principle dattaswami is stating is, God is a conclusion drawn by serious-thinking folks, scientific-thinking folks rather than delusional nincompoops as they are characterized, and there’s no more faith involved in this conclusion of God than there is in any other scientific analysis of phenomena.

And is that insight completely new to you? Had it never occurred to you before?

It's occurred before, however young Harbal, I dare to feed you the following.

You may know something, you may have thought of something, something may be the foundation of your self-concept ... but if not manifested then it may as well never have existed and in effect, does not exist.

The element of contemplation that I have introduced in understanding the particular element of dattaswami in the condition defined as this thread, and the elements that comprise this thread right now under the conditions as we exist ... this element of contemplation is in fact a portal into the mind sense. The mind sense is what senses the one and only mind.

Dattaswami is an element, a cause, leading to effects.

- One effect is questions.
- One effect is criticial inspection.
- One effect is unsupported conclusions.
- One effect is organizing the contents within the boundary of the immediate sphere of awareness, with little dashes of thought.
- And last but not least, one effect is the veritable fountains of wisdom spouting off here and there, ahem.

... and the quenching of ad hominems, except in those where the attachment to that thirst has become a cling-on.



Tell us, young Harbal. Have these thoughts ever occurred to you, and if they have not, does that makes them wrong or unworthy of contemplation?

[Harbal]

Tell us, young Harbal. Have these thoughts ever occurred to you, and if they have not, does that makes them wrong or unworthy of contemplation?

The thoughts are neither right nor wrong as far as I'm concerned. It is the flooding of the forum with them that is wrong. Those posts are not meant as a topic of discussion, the man is just preaching, or the "guru" version of preaching.

[Walker]

Tell us, young Harbal. Have these thoughts ever occurred to you, and if they have not, does that makes them wrong or unworthy of contemplation?

The thoughts are neither right nor wrong as far as I'm concerned. It is the flooding of the forum with them that is wrong. Those posts are not meant as a topic of discussion, the man is just preaching, or the "guru" version of preaching.

Roger that, loud and clear. That point has been made. That point is not contested.

My point is, as it relates to suffering, is that one can yelp and yelp the same yelp, or one can do a continuity contemplation with that energy that habitually gets attached to complaints, or to emotions that may cause the complaints.


*

... for example, as you know, a bit of British self-deprecation never hurt anyone, but if never manifesting then the quality only exists within the non-duality of infinite potentiality.

- Physical bilateral symmetry of form, obviously the most efficient for human endeavours, could be the cause for dualism of thought.

- For example, dualism causes folks to consider whether planting before summer, or before winter. Obviously with life on the line this is not a choice, although the mind creates a choice with a false alternative called willful stupidity, after the essence of plant growth is grasped with dualism utilized by the mind sense, that has access to that aspect of mind.

- Leap-frogging over the paradoxes created by dualistic thought, which in turn is likely caused by physical form, we can obviously surmise that infinite potentiality is the essence of emptiness, thus emptiness is not nothing, but rather emptiness is a principle observed as existing within the realm of mind as All, i.e., the infinite. (The point, which is the landing to where the rambling stairway leads)

- Particulars of the infinite are anything you perceive, and if what you perceive is sentient, then the infinite is looking right back at you and sometimes saying, "Surprise!" before it eats you in the predatory universe.

- Particulars are little bits of All that paradoxically, are also All.
- The cause of particulars appearing is the interaction of elements within a condition.
- Folks are usually primary elements of a condition, unless there’s a natural disaster such as a sadistic God acting all mean and nasty with humans who have no more sense to get out of the way, than a tree in a California forest fire.

[Iwannaplato]

But, they didn't come to the dance.

So, you wait here hoping someone with wisdom will come so that you can develop your spirituality? A recommendation: there are better places and actively seeking can be very productive. Libraries, temples, bookstores, ashrams, even online searches would be better than this.

How does scientitific attention differ from attention? And how did this different show itself when looking at nature? And what is 'practical observation'?

- Dattaswami’s contemplation is a portal for my contemplation.
Contemplation asks and answers questions of oneself.

- My contemplation is a portal for your contemplation.
- Your contemplation poses questions to yourself.
- Your contemplation is to answer them yourself.
- Feel as free to share your contemplation of my contemplation as you are free to share your contemplation that criticizes dattaswami.

- Contemplation is not a Socratic cross-examination of another for the purpose of falsifying their thoughts.

Typing into a computer is not contemplation. I contemplated DS and found him wanting. I interacted with him and found this confirmed as a reaction. So, criticism followed. Reading is not writing. Computers aren't cars. Criticism is not contemplation: though they all have their place depending on needs.

- I have found that a more effective way of understanding, as opposed to inspecting the contemplation of another for faults, or asking endless questions that serve to fit the parameters of the unknown into your known and thus are based on the limitations of what you know … a more effective method than asking someone what they meant after they just explained what they meant … is to to assume (only for the purposes of understanding), that their explanation is true as stated.

1) I don't have to choose between criticism and contemplation, just as the implicit and explicit criticism you are aiming at me here does not keep you from contemplating what I say. The two processes may need to be separated in time, but one does not have to commit to one forever and set the other to the side.

In this case we have someone who is repeating a mishmash of hand me down ideas and not especially well. They are taking the position as an authority and flooding the forums with threads.

The most important thing about this for me is that it parallels the behavior of meme creators out there in the real world. Mediocre 'information' and 'truths' are pedalled often for profit but also for psychological secondary gain. Some are aware only of their 'good intentions', others know that their goals are selfish.

So, for me the interesting issues are 1) how do these voices maintain their self-image 2) why are other people drawn to these things 3) what happens when you touch on their areas of self-contrdiction, poor logic, narcissism (if present) 4) does their drivel have any hooks for me still and what is going on with that and can I root out those hooks.

Other people may come forward with something that is interesting and then the questioning and the contemplation have a different feel.

If I wanted to learn about a mish mash spirituality from an Eastern based human, I think there are vastly better ways to do this, given the individual in question here.