What Is, Is

[Arcanum]

[QUOTE=inri;1039896]

sorry beingist, perhaps 'alibi' was the wrong word...what I was referring to though was the fact that after my assertion that the very things we are doing here and now on this forum IS engaging mind, everyone seemed to be twisting and turning in an effort to avoid admitting that perhaps then they DID enjoy engaging mind.

I found that rather fascinating.

I find it rather fascinating that you see that twisting and turning when it was never the issue at all, but only your twisted and turned version of what was being talked about. Then you imagine that "everyone" has been avoiding admitting to your straw man, and then you find yourself fascinated with your new giraffe.

[inri]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Beingist

I find it absolutely fascinating how it is that those who enjoy debate can sometimes ever so subtly attempt to prod others into debating with them (I admit that in the past, I've enjoyed it, myself, as it provided 'juice' for my ego, and a seeming adrenaline rush for the rest of 'me'). Again, not that there's anything 'wrong' with this. It's simply fascinating to me now, because I can so clearly see it happening, anymore, even amongst my friends in meat space.

The thing is, though, inri, I don't think Arcanum is one inclined to debating anyone. Indeed, I used to think that, but as I look over his earlier discussions with me, I see that he wasn't debating at all. Merely stating what he was witnessing in me. The reason I thought he was debating was because he was simply responding to me, while I was 'projecting' that we were debating.

Anytime we present a contrary view and attempt to explain why our view is so, we are debating. You are doing right here, right now.

When we don't agree with another and we ask for clarification, is this 'prodding' another to debate or is it attempting to seek understanding? If the purpose of the exchange IS only to show another up in terms of logic, then indeed, the interest in actual understanding takes a back seat or may be even non-existent. I assure you this is not the case here.

I've been working on a book for the past year that very much mirrors these discussions we're having. I'm absolutely passionate about the subject of how many who reach a certain level of clarity get 'stuck' in their assessment of what they are seeing.

I often use these discussions as a launch-pad for material for the book and the passion behind this writing hinges completely upon 'spiritual understanding.' haha...it is NOT a book about winning debates.

Just for the record, the very definition of debate revolves around the idea of a discussion of two opposing views. Perhaps you're attaching some baggage to the word itself?...If we point out a seeming contradiction in another and they do not agree and we continue to discuss it, a 'debate' has ensued.

Arcanum regularly challenges the viewpoints of others, this could very easily be said to BE engaging another in debate. It's only when we use words though like 'prodding' and such that our own baggage and perceptions enter in.

I see something similar happening here--your desire to debate, or to 'engage mind' is clear, but he's not taking the bait, simply because he's not debating. I don't see this as him not 'engaging mind', for he must 'engage mind' simply in order to respond at all. Rather, it appears to me, as with his earlier posts with me, that he clearly understands that any attempt to refute any of your points would only be to prove your assertion that he enjoys debating or enjoys 'engaging mind', and he's not out to prove anyone right or wrong. He only makes his applicable observations, and lets it be. I rather envy him for such understanding.

I'm very, very curious Beingist. Why is my desire to discuss opposing views seen as a 'desire for intellectual debate' OVER spiritual understanding, while other's engagement in the very same type of discussions is seen in a different light? Is it perhaps because I'm particularly adept at spotting 'holes' and challenging the views behind them?

As Arc said; These conversations often allow questions to arise that would not otherwise. I love being challenged as much as I love challenging. It's all a lovely dance of going deeper....of delving within....I hold great fondness for those who challenge me and who serve as an impetus for me to hold up my views to the bright light and really have a good, hard, deeply honest look.

Inri, if there's one thing that, I'm learning from your posts (especially right now, with this one), is that attachments can be extremely subtle.

IN the context we speak of attachments here, we're referring to something that one NEEDS in order to be at peace. There is no NEED here.

In the face of actual 'attachments,' peace cannot prevail. I assure you, I'm as calm and peaceful as I can be as I engage you now and as I've engaged in this entire dialogue. There is no emotional discord experienced here as a result of any of these discussions...quite the opposite actually.....however, If the entire forum folded in this very second, I would also not experience a moment's emotional discord.

I engage in these discussions freely because I DO enjoy them..Like Arc, I Love the way the discourse with others raises questions that provide the impetus to 'look'..however, I don't in any way NEED them and could (and often do) simply abandon these forums for long periods of time on a moments notice.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Haven't we been down this road of pretending someone is saying the mind is evil or to be avoided or any other strange interpretation before?

There's oneness but mind has been naughty and needs to sit in the corner.

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Inri, if there's one thing that, I'm learning from your posts (especially right now, with this one), is that attachments can be extremely subtle.

Hence the need for a spiritual process to rid oneself of them that leads to the state we call enlightenment. Your attachment to life is every bit as much of an attachment as the attachment to debate, or the attachment to accomplishment and success.

[inri]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

I DO enjoy it. That was never the issue.

It was precisely the issue. The line of dialogue we've been engaging in here about enjoying engaging mind or not, arose as a result of me responding to Raykilleen that; anyone who willingly engages on these forums must have a certain 'like of mind' (his words again) as, to discuss spirituality IS engagement of mind.

All I've said is I don't enjoy the intellectual debate for the sake of intellectual debate.

No, you said you did not want to be lumped in with the 'everyone here' part of my statement when I said that anyone here who partakes must have a certain 'like of mind.'..which seemed to indicate that you were therefore saying; I do not have a like of mind, which then made me ask if you had an actual 'dislike' of mind.

As I think I established earlier, talking ABOUT spirituality = engagement of mind. If I like talking about spirituality then it follows that I like engagement of mind. The two go hand in hand. One cannot occur without the other. And yes, there are all sorts of various results of this particular form of mind engagement....such as a sense of 'communion'.....questions arising that cause us to look within....peace.....fun...joy......etc.

BTW...I can't think of anyone I know who enjoys 'intellectual debate' for the sake of 'intellectual debate'......there is so much more to it..It's about what we derive through the process.......more often than not, for me it is precisely "Understanding"........To say I enjoy intellectual debate for the sake of intellectual debate would kind of be like saying, I enjoy eating pastries for the sake of eating pastries, when really it is far more accurate to say; I enjoy eating pastries for the taste and enjoyment and pleasant feeling of well-being I receive from doing so.

[inri]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Haven't we been down this road of pretending someone is saying the mind is evil or to be avoided or any other strange interpretation before?

WE have indeed....and the words keep being said that 'mind is fine,' but just try asking someone flat out if they derive enjoyment from 'engaging mind' and watch the squirming begin.

[Arcanum]

[QUOTE=inri;1039915]

It was precisely the issue. The line of dialogue we've been engaging in here about enjoying engaging mind or not, arose as a result of me responding to Raykilleen that; anyone who willingly engages on these forums must have a certain 'like of mind' (his words again) as, to discuss spirituality IS engagement of mind.



No, you said you did not want to be lumped in with the 'everyone here' part of my statement when I said that anyone here who partakes must have a certain 'like of mind.'..which seemed to indicate that you were therefore saying; I do not have a like of mind, which then made me ask if you had an actual 'dislike' of mind.

As I think I established earlier, talking ABOUT spirituality = engagement of mind. If I like talking about spirituality then it follows that I like engagement of mind. The two go hand in hand. One cannot occur without the other. And yes, there are all sorts of various results of this particular form of mind engagement....such as a sense of 'communion'.....questions arising that cause us to look within....peace.....fun...joy......etc.

BTW...I can't think of anyone I know who enjoys 'intellectual debate' for the sake of 'intellectual debate'......there is so much more to it..It's about what we derive through the process.......more often than not, for me it is precisely "Understanding"........To say I enjoy intellectual debate for the sake of intellectual debate would kind of be like saying, I enjoy eating pastries for the sake of eating pastries, when really it is far more accurate to say; I enjoy eating pastries for the taste and enjoyment and pleasant feeling of well-being I receive from doing so.

You spend a lot of time painting self portraits, and they have a surreal quality to them.

[inri]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

I find it rather fascinating that you see that twisting and turning when it was never the issue at all, but only your twisted and turned version of what was being talked about. Then you imagine that "everyone" has been avoiding admitting to your straw man, and then you find yourself fascinated with your new giraffe.

Well, my point was that everyone who enjoys engaging in these forums dialogues must also enjoy engaging mind...as they are one in the same.

There were several attempts to deny this, such as:

Beingists: Not me, particularly. The mind has been a good tool for me, but beyond using it for work, I don't really have a 'like' for it.

which is why I don't participate much in threads having to do with the mind.

Interesting that beingist seemed to think that a thread had to be ABOUT mind in order to engage mind...and I think he even states here that he does not like mind.

He then went on to explain 'why' he chooses to engage mind on these forums even though he doesn't 'like it,' but then takes offense when I use the word 'alibi' to describe his explanation.

Arcanum:And so those of us who don't care to fall into your "every single person" category chose to question it,

Am I wrong that here you were saying that you did not care to be included in my assessment that 'everyone here' must 'like mind' as they engage it in order to enter into these discussions?....and then, a few posts back, you DID admit that you enjoy this.

Yup...looks like some 'twisting and turnin' to me.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by inri

WE have indeed....and the words keep being said that 'mind is fine,' but just try asking someone flat out if they derive enjoyment from 'engaging mind' and watch the squirming begin.

Mind has it's function and is a wonderful tool. For some, there is the enjoyment of intellectual debate, spotting the 'holes' in stories and eloquently and cleverly pursuing a win with the tenacity of a bull dog, subtly distorting with seemingly logical associations, definitions and conclusions, and a plethora of various other debate tactics of which I suspect you're familiar. For others it is communion and an exploration of truth.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Angela

You, on the other hand, feel a little urgent to me in your desire for Arcanum to *get* that he's not generating what he preaches, like it's very, very important to you that he get that he has this problem.

More than ever, this characterizes what I would see as going on Inri. I would perhaps even call it a NEED. Gasp!

The reason it seems to me and possibly to Arcanum that you are considerably attached to debate above all else (which can appear as a lack of sincerity about the actual spiritual topics) is that virtually every discussion you start steering in the direction you want to starts to become about what particular words people are using, 'he said/she said', telling everyone you have no needs/attachments and making sure we know in every post that you have no emotions of discord.

The discussions seem to steer in the direction of creating more separation instead of less and evolve into who can make the best linguistic argument. When a discussion steers into folks agreeing and coming together with mutual interests in mind, you're persistence seems to drop off considerably or you lose interest. I couldn't really say what it is. But again, as soon as there's a disagreement (particularly with Arcanum involved) there you are with more fire than ever.

It starts to look very much like,

'Arcanum, you seem to be attached to being right so if you'll just admit you're attached to this and I'm right we can move on.'

[inri]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Mind has it's function and is a wonderful tool. For some, there is the enjoyment of intellectual debate, spotting the 'holes' in stories and eloquently and cleverly pursuing a win with the tenacity of a bull dog, subtly distorting with seemingly logical associations, definitions and conclusions, and a plethora of various other debate tactics of which I suspect you're familiar. For others it is communion and an exploration of truth.

Whether you believe me or not, An exploration of truth (what is) is what this entire discourse has hinged upon where I'm concerned. Sometimes within the discovery process, there will be certain clashes of opinion that arise and what will ensue will in fact be a debate of sorts...two opposing views...I don't think I'm the only person on these forums that you do not see eye to eye with completely and you are not the only one I disagree with.

Don't you regularly spot 'holes' in people's 'stories' and point this out to them? Why is what i'm doing so very different?....I'm guessing because you perceive a motive on my part that you believe is so very different than your own...?

Perhaps if you'd try to assume that I have no alterior motive other than understanding and being understood, those 'subtle distortions' you perceive may morph in to something else.

Everytime I find myself coming up against someone who rather than addressing the content of what it is I'm saying (about mind in this instance) will instead focus upon his perceptions of my motives and my style of engagement it's like a very clear mirror...and If even the tiniest bit of frustration arises over this seeming inability to make myself be understood by the other, then I've been prompted to go a level deeper...and...well...I could go on...but I'll just say 'thanks' at this point.

[inri]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

More than ever, this characterizes what I would see as going on Inri. I would perhaps even call it a NEED. Gasp!

again..and I only state this to explain why it is that I don't see anything I'm doing here as hinging upon a NEED...there is no emotional discord. Needs create discord. Period.

The discussions seem to steer in the direction of creating more separation instead of less and evolve into who can make the best linguistic argument.

A debate cannot ensue unless there are two participants.

When a discussion steers into folks agreeing and coming together with mutual interests in mind, you're persistence seems to drop off considerably or you lose interest.

I regularly make it a point to comment to others when I agree or resonate with what they're saying.......I think when we're in full agreement, there is indeed less 'stimulation' to new ideas....I'm betting if we check over your own posting history, your longest discourses will be where you are not seeing eye to eye with another...or several who are partaking in the thread.

I couldn't really say what it is. But again, as soon as there's a disagreement (particularly with Arcanum involved) there you are with more fire than ever.

Yes, I'd say this is accurate. Arcanum's views very much present everything in a nutshell that I'm addressing in my new book....(been working on it now for well over a year...entitled: Stuck in Non-Duality..and not surprisingly, the chapter I'm currently working on is entitled; "The ever so subtle demonization of Mind")

My entire website is set up for discussion on this subject and I regularly engage my site visitors in similar discussions...many I very much agree with and express this both in articles and use the insight for my book.

It starts to look very much like,

'Arcanum, you seem to be attached to being right so if you'll just admit you're attached to this and I'm right we can move on.'

Well, as I've said, Arcanum is the epitome to me of someone who is 'stuck in non-duality' and as such he serves as a wonderful springboard for inspiration for that which is my current passion; Paving the way for going deeper...moving beyond the belief and dogma's of even the most well respected of 'guru's.'

I'm fascinated by the fact that those who are relatively clear in many ways...who know ABOUT beliefs and how they come to be can still get 'really' stuck....and I guess you could say he's kind of been a pet project in terms of trying to see if there are any words that can help one come to 'go deeper' when they're particularly entrenched in certain ideas about spirituality.

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by inri

Arcanum's views very much present everything in a nutshell that I'm addressing in my new book....(been working on it now for well over a year...entitled: Stuck in Non-Duality..and not surprisingly, the chapter I'm currently working on is entitled; "The ever so subtle demonization of Mind")

Very cool! My own book project has languished, perhaps it's a good time now to pick it back up and rewrite it all.

[inri]

Originally Posted by VinceG

Very cool! My own book project has languished, perhaps it's a good time now to pick it back up and rewrite it all.

My...you ARE a busy boy! Interesting enough, I find my own 'productivity' seems to go in spells too....I'll take on a recording project at the very same time as my book launch, at the very same time that all sorts of other changes are occurring. That old saying always comes to mind, "If you want a task completed, ask someone who's really busy"....haha...or somethin' like that.

I think it's kind of 'modes' of movement we fall in and out of.

[Arcanum]

[QUOTE=inri;1039942]

again..and I only state this to explain why it is that I don't see anything I'm doing here as hinging upon a NEED...there is no emotional discord. Needs create discord. Period.



A debate cannot ensue unless there are two participants.



I regularly make it a point to comment to others when I agree or resonate with what they're saying.......I think when we're in full agreement, there is indeed less 'stimulation' to new ideas....I'm betting if we check over your own posting history, your longest discourses will be where you are not seeing eye to eye with another...or several who are partaking in the thread.





Yes, I'd say this is accurate. Arcanum's views very much present everything in a nutshell that I'm addressing in my new book....(been working on it now for well over a year...entitled: Stuck in Non-Duality..and not surprisingly, the chapter I'm currently working on is entitled; "The ever so subtle demonization of Mind")

My entire website is set up for discussion on this subject and I regularly engage my site visitors in similar discussions...many I very much agree with and express this both in articles and use the insight for my book.



Well, as I've said, Arcanum is the epitome to me of someone who is 'stuck in non-duality' and as such he serves as a wonderful springboard for inspiration for that which is my current passion; Paving the way for going deeper...moving beyond the belief and dogma's of even the most well respected of 'guru's.'

I'm fascinated by the fact that those who are relatively clear in many ways...who know ABOUT beliefs and how they come to be can still get 'really' stuck....and I guess you could say he's kind of been a pet project in terms of trying to see if there are any words that can help one come to 'go deeper' when they're particularly entrenched in certain ideas about spirituality.

Your discussions here are indeed a good reflection of that focus, which is an attempt to gather information for your book on stuckness in general and now specifically the demonization of mind. The more you can prove stuckness and demonization, the better, and so that's what you do. It's not a perspective of yours that you're interested in questioning, only confirming, and so you guide every discussion into this apparent confirmation, using whatever debate strategies you have at your disposal. Yes, this seems to be where the sense of insincerity comes from.

Also, the book itself is an attempt to justify your own stuckness in your denial of the ultimate truth of oneness and non-volition, and the falsity of your personal identification. To do this, you must demonize non-dual teachings as they relentlessly point to these truths. They do not point beyond because there isn't anything beyond this radical oneness.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Yeah, it would be wonderful if the Sunday gathering in church was actually a Sastsang; a communion with Truth. It seems to have gotten 'dumbed down' a bit.

This satsang idea would be way cool.

Now that you mention this, it reminds me of my Roman Catholic days, when, for a time, I actually enjoyed going to confession, as it would mean doing penance, which in my case, was either a few 'Our Fathers' and/or a few 'Hail Marys', or saying a rosary. The reason I enjoyed this at the time, was because it allowed for some quality quiet-time with God, and, (though I didn't realize it at the time), quality time with the others there, also doing penance. It was indeed a communion of sorts, moreso even, as I reflect on it now, than communion itself (i.e., receiving the Eucharist).

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by inri

My...you ARE a busy boy! Interesting enough, I find my own 'productivity' seems to go in spells too....I'll take on a recording project at the very same time as my book launch, at the very same time that all sorts of other changes are occurring. That old saying always comes to mind, "If you want a task completed, ask someone who's really busy"....haha...or somethin' like that.

I think it's kind of 'modes' of movement we fall in and out of.

Sometimes we reflect, sometimes we do. Most of the time we do both.

[inri]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Your discussions here are indeed a good reflection of that focus, which is an attempt to gather information for your book on stuckness in general and now specifically the demonization of mind.

It's all about focus. WE could say I'm writing about 'going deeper' or being stuck...kind of one in the same but still the actual focus is different isn't it?

The premise may begin with a look at the ways we get stuck, but immediately moves to the whole idea of going deeper.

I don't see that there is any finality to 'seeing' so long as we're human.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by VinceG

Hence the need for a spiritual process to rid oneself of them that leads to the state we call enlightenment. Your attachment to life is every bit as much of an attachment as the attachment to debate, or the attachment to accomplishment and success.

Good point. Indeed, attachments are attachments.

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Good point. Indeed, attachments are attachments.

This is why people have come up with this idea of spiritual levels and achievement. Even though the end state has nothing to do with those levels, the dynamics of mind make it so that an observable progression can be defined out of that process.

At one point, you've transcended your attachment to conflict. At another, you're released your resistances to love. The scale, the progression, serves as a reminder to move in the right direction rather than getting stuck at a spot that may feel spiritual while you're there, but ends up as just another attachment.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by inri

I'm very, very curious Beingist. Why is my desire to discuss opposing views seen as a 'desire for intellectual debate' OVER spiritual understanding, while other's engagement in the very same type of discussions is seen in a different light? Is it perhaps because I'm particularly adept at spotting 'holes' and challenging the views behind them?

The best way I can answer this, currently, is in reference to something you say here--

Originally Posted by inri

Everytime I find myself coming up against someone who rather than addressing the content of what it is I'm saying (about mind in this instance) will instead focus upon his perceptions of my motives and my style of engagement it's like a very clear mirror...and If even the tiniest bit of frustration arises over this seeming inability to make myself be understood by the other, then I've been prompted to go a level deeper...and...well...I could go on...but I'll just say 'thanks' at this point.

The fundamental difference between your perspective and Arc's or CG's, or even mine (as it evolves), inri, is that you're focused on content, while the rest of us are looking more at context (not in every case, but at least in regard to the 'debate' or 'engaging mind' thing).

Not to suggest that it is errant to focus on content, or that one should or even can consciously change their perspective from content to context. In my case, not unlike the surrendering attachments, the shift simply happens with humility, the willingness to understand and accept 'what is' (not to get back on topic, or anything ), accept that I have attachments, and that I'm not 'faulty' for having attachments. It also happens as a result of simply going 'deeper', as you mention above.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by VinceG

This is why people have come up with this idea of spiritual levels and achievement. Even though the end state has nothing to do with those levels, the dynamics of mind make it so that an observable progression can be defined out of that process.

At one point, you've transcended your attachment to conflict. At another, you're released your resistances to love. The scale, the progression, serves as a reminder to move in the right direction rather than getting stuck at a spot that may feel spiritual while you're there, but ends up as just another attachment.

This is actually a reasonable illustration of what seems to be happening with me, lately. I sense, though, that there's going to come a point where I'm going to be compelled to give up everything, or that one last thing, in which case, I don't really know what's going to be the result of that, but, well, I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by inri

Needs create discord. Period.

Well, here's one point on which I think we can all agree.

That said, a question for you, inri--if there's discord, could there possibly be a need, somewhere?

[inri]

Originally Posted by Beingist

The best way I can answer this, currently, is in reference to something you say here--
The fundamental difference between your perspective and Arc's or CG's, or even mine (as it evolves), inri, is that you're focused on content, while the rest of us are looking more at context.

I don't get what you mean here by 'context.'

Are you are saying that 'how' we are saying something is more important than 'what' we are saying? What I meant by 'content' is the 'what' that is being pointed at through the dialogue...in this case, most recently, our relationship to mind.

Not to suggest that it is errant to focus on content, or that one should or even can consciously change their perspective from content to context. In my case, not unlike the surrendering attachments, the shift simply happens with humility, the willingness to understand and accept 'what is' (not to get back on topic, or anything ), accept that I have attachments, and that I'm not 'faulty' for having attachments. It also happens as a result of simply going 'deeper', as you mention above.

If we don't focus upon the content or more accurately, the 'what is being pointed to through the act of conversing' it seems to me, the conversation is going to lack continuity...can you describe a little more what you mean by 'context'?...

[inri]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Well, here's one point on which I think we can all agree.

That said, a question for you, inri--if there's discord, could there possibly be a need, somewhere?

if there's emotional discord arising, there is always a need behind it.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by inri

If we don't focus upon the content or more accurately, the 'what is being pointed to through the act of conversing' it seems to me, the conversation is going to lack continuity...can you describe a little more what you mean by 'context'?...

Yeah, content vs. context. That's toughie for me. How about an illustration?

I've always liked to cook, and ever since I could remember, I was always adamant about following the recipe to the tee--if it called for 2 tbsp. of butter, well, I was putting 2 tbsp. of butter in it, by gum.

Lately, I've been really interested in perfecting a beef stew. A friend of mine, with whom I share a cooking interest, put some red wine in his, and I thought I'd try that, so I asked him how much he put in. "Oh, about 1/2 a cup or so". But, when I put in 1/2 a cup, it didn't come out as well as I'd hoped. I mentioned this to my friend, and he said, "well, it could have been more than 1/2 a cup". I got a little peeved at this, and being the self-inquiring one that I am, suddenly realized that I'd been attached to this exact measurement thing. Since then, I don't measure stuff (except when baking, which is much more sensitive to measurement and temperature variations). And so, my last stew was, as far as I was concerned, finally perfected, though I still can't tell you how much red wine I put in it (the closest I can come to that is that it's about 6 or 7 "glugs" from a bottle).

The moral of the story (and I can cite numerous examples) is that when I paid such close attention to exact measurements, I was focused on content, whereas now, there is such a thing called "good enough". Before, I paid attention to every single, minute detail (content), whereas now, I realize that there's a bigger picture (context), that is infinitely more wonderful than the details of that picture, and without overlooking the details, themselves.

As applied to the current discussion here, the same thing seems to happening. You're saying "this is 'engaging mind'," or "this is what debate IS," and no one's disagreeing with you. But anyone who can see the bigger picture may notice that by paying such close attention to stuff, you're simply not seeing the forest for the trees (geez, I wish I had a dime for every time someone has said that to me ), and in relating to what you're exhibiting in being so intent on focusing on such detail, they're simply pointing it out to you, each in their own way. And yes, such observations are still seen through the lens of their own perception, but such is understood in the broader context of the whole conversation.

How's that? Make sense?

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by inri

if there's emotional discord arising, there is always a need behind it.

Indeed. Took me a long time to realize this, but.. yeah.

[Arcanum]

[QUOTE=inri;1039969]

It's all about focus. WE could say I'm writing about 'going deeper' or being stuck...kind of one in the same but still the actual focus is different isn't it?

The premise may begin with a look at the ways we get stuck, but immediately moves to the whole idea of going deeper.

I don't see that there is any finality to 'seeing' so long as we're human.

Unless there's the seeing that you're not. Hehe.

[inri]

[QUOTE=Arcanum;1040022]

Originally Posted by inri

Unless there's the seeing that you're not. Hehe.

But even that seeing is still occurring within the context of 'being human'...and as such, may be incomplete. We can never really know with certainty that anything we 'see' is actually being seen completely free from the context of our humanity...it can indeed 'seem' like it at times, but being that we have no passed from the human experience, it could be, that our seeing is still colored by it.

SEE, Beingist, this is what 'context' means to me...it's kind of like a framework of sorts.

[inri]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Yeah, content vs. context. That's toughie for me. How about an illustration?

I've always liked to cook, and ever since I could remember, I was always adamant about following the recipe to the tee--if it called for 2 tbsp. of butter, well, I was putting 2 tbsp. of butter in it, by gum.

Lately, I've been really interested in perfecting a beef stew. A friend of mine, with whom I share a cooking interest, put some red wine in his, and I thought I'd try that, so I asked him how much he put in. "Oh, about 1/2 a cup or so". But, when I put in 1/2 a cup, it didn't come out as well as I'd hoped. I mentioned this to my friend, and he said, "well, it could have been more than 1/2 a cup". I got a little peeved at this, and being the self-inquiring one that I am, suddenly realized that I'd been attached to this exact measurement thing. Since then, I don't measure stuff (except when baking, which is much more sensitive to measurement and temperature variations). And so, my last stew was, as far as I was concerned, finally perfected, though I still can't tell you how much red wine I put in it (the closest I can come to that is that it's about 6 or 7 "glugs" from a bottle).

The moral of the story (and I can cite numerous examples) is that when I paid such close attention to exact measurements, I was focused on content, whereas now, there is such a thing called "good enough". Before, I paid attention to every single, minute detail (content), whereas now, I realize that there's a bigger picture (context), that is infinitely more wonderful than the details of that picture, and without overlooking the details, themselves.

As applied to the current discussion here, the same thing seems to happening. You're saying "this is 'engaging mind'," or "this is what debate IS," and no one's disagreeing with you. But anyone who can see the bigger picture may notice that by paying such close attention to stuff, you're simply not seeing the forest for the trees (geez, I wish I had a dime for every time someone has said that to me ), and in relating to what you're exhibiting in being so intent on focusing on such detail, they're simply pointing it out to you, each in their own way. And yes, such observations are still seen through the lens of their own perception, but such is understood in the broader context of the whole conversation.

How's that? Make sense?

Well sort of. But there will still be times when we discuss these things where we'll find ourselves misunderstood or disagreed with and we'll want try to explain what we're really trying to say....there will indeed also likely be other times, where we know we're misunderstood and we'll just let it go...as we simply don't hold the interest or the point wasn't all that important to the discussion anyway.

I think perhaps the point I was attempting to make was entirely missed.....and BTW..the point only arose as a response to Raykilleen who seemed to want to challenge my assertions about my personal enjoyment of being challenged and the reasons for this (for the clarity it provided)....he had responded back by telling me that this indicated a 'like of mind'....I was simply trying to point out that we often engage in mind, and that there is absolutely nothing wrong with this, unless we believe there is something wrong with it.

There is a point along the way to deepening clarity where we come to see that attachment to mind and that which emanates from it (beliefs, concepts, etc) does indeed lead to suffering. And I think for many the response to this initial seeing is to then label all engagement of mind as 'bad'...something to be avoided.

When really, the 'seeing' of and awareness of mind and what it does, is often enough to prevent us from getting tied up within it's machinations....so long as we're aware of the fact that we're engaging mind, we can do it til our hearts content....it's neither good nor bad...just something that IS.