spinners though. The cycle I see us as in is broadly one of a
potential escape from ignorance and superstition and the fear of
this. We are held in this almost as England's batters are in the
spell of Pakistan spin.
On Jan 28, 5:10 am, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Though I know what you are saying and your thoughts are very familiar
> they are often out of my grasp. I decided to write my thoughts or I'd
> be stuck saying nothing when I have too many thoughts and result in no
> words, like staring into the dark recesses of the mind will coax some
> convergence of arcane geometries. I find that the rhythm of learning
> is stochastic but over time undulations emerge. Echolocation without
> the echo is how my sight seems to work. It seems to be a tough spot
> kinda in between or outside that I'm in. You are right about seeing
> things for yourself, holding whatever truth, there is a profound
> difference in what we assume things to mean. I mean that simply, as
> things have become evident to me over time from many perspectives. I
> am grateful to understand most of what you've said, even though a
> little unsure of what Zero and Bliss Infinite mean.
>
> In humor, I think if there are multiple lives this one's a lesson in
> humility. In my terms I would call your ideas on Home and Vanity
> 'living truth' of great value. We 'begin again'?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
> > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
> > a challenge?"
>
> > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
> > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
> > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>
> > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
> > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
> > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
> > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
> > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
> > ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>
> > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
> > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
> > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
> > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
> > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
> > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
> > us. Truth is our Home.
>
> > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
> > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
> > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
> > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
> > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
> > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>
> > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
> > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
> > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
> > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
> > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
> > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
> > what does not.
>
> > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
> > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
> > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
> > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
> > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
> > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
> > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
> > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>
> > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
> > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
> > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
> > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
> > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
> > our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
> > which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
> > which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
> > limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
> > all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
> > we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
> > journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
> > and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>
> > These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
> > Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
> > It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
> > the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
> > opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
> > public and personal lives.
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário