Stosh

Im thinking Karl, that we always Imply a raindrop. From the data in the preconscious.. and cant ever actually see the raindrop itself. If I am photographing birds in flight, I am ready to see them, and take note of ID marks. But if its not your hobby, and one is not prepared, all one assembles is a confused blur. Some folks are just amazing at this. Whether it equates to a snapshot.. that someone could examine later for new info ,that.. I dont know. But I figure some folks could do it, I cant. Just as I am limited when trying to parse memory of past experience, from experience happening in the present. I am not sure its discernable, since a memory is a little slice of reliving an event which has probably been filtered.... but I suppose some folks might be able to hold the data in raw form.

This an interesting sub topic, May I just pose a question ? If I look at the sky, then you ask me, if I am aware of it I would say yes. So then I might assume I was aware ,I was aware. But am I not aware of remembering, how it was to be aware of the sky, rather than actually being aware ,of being aware? So how would one know the difference? .... This would make awareness of awareness actually a memory function. And if any ! person reported they had been aware of being aware ,without a sky as subject, they would still have to be reliant on the memory,, to be describing the situation with a cognitive review, again ,, a memory. On the other hand if one meditated, then they should still be able to have memory , which they could review later,,that supplies, object and reviewer,,just not at the same time. ,but how would one know that they werent cognitive, at the time of the meditation? Moreover ,To assert they werent cognizant at the time , they would have to be aware of NOT being cognitive ,And how the heck could anyone be cognitive of a state of non cognition!

sly dog.

.

.

Ironic here , that a verdict of guilt- viciousness is attributed by the same quote suggesting a withheld verdict ,as virtue.

.

I agree, I didnt see that , but if I did , I'd say it was ...sub-par................. Nah, I'd said it was an arrogant pile of crap which would serve well as a vibrant 'Kick me' sign. Buut,, Im trying to be a bit more sensitive , and accept that some folks are beyond redress.

Everything else aside , He didnt say he spoke for all the taobums, just expressed his opinion that there is usually a level of intolerance for .. intolerance of the many.EX: I think its true , but I'm not speaking for you or him. Generally the idea is to be rather tolerant , so that the place can have many views.

Acceptance is a good antidote for suffering.

Trivium style study of meditation cant answer for anyone the mystery of what awareness itself is, nor why it exists , nor why we experience it . Under the headings of data rhetoric and grammar, all the processes of the human condition are sorted, but none of the components are gone. As Karl said to me earlier, its basically a sorting of what practitioners already describe. It isnt a universal trump card, just a tool. Youve lost nothing.

Whats this booting one past the sleeping goal keeper? You think you can implant something in My head ,right here, on forum? COOL, I wanna see this !

I dont suppose those hospital wards have bigger wings filled with broken meditators..?

Thats better, he intended to be cautionary, but in a stand alone un mitigated presentation it looks extremely negative. Doesnt he know thats bad karma ? Would I be right if I guessed the clinical style of dissection appeals to you? It does to me , but the conclusion part , as I said , didnt seem right. Your additional background info fixes that. As far as acting goes, .. we all play roles ,fill our lives with illusions we love and hate, and in the end it can be unclear as to which could be said to be realer. I hope these heavy clouds outside clear. Seems like they show up special for the weekends.

Well I gotta say its a good rebuttal.

Ok fine, you see yourself as part of a great whole, .. without me contesting that,, I pose that you have motivations, do you not? You execute actions , yes? Whatever the blip in the whole that you feel you are, ,you are acting in the interest of the whole which includes you, toward portions of the whole which I Stosh wouldnt call Manitou,,, and you consider Manitou\ whole therefore are benefitted, beyond what Manitou/ whole would have experienced ,otherwise. So Manitou cannot be kind to someone else, only to Manitou\whole,, Is that a fair recap? of your point. Mine goes this a way.., You drive to work and see a smashed raccoon. Which would Manitou consider to be closest to true ? A ,You are saddened or deflated.... B, you are more elated and joyous , .C, You are not emotionally budged about the raccoons fate. ,,D .. something else to be described.

Whatever else may be true, or untrue our subjective, Manitou, needs to wait, if its going to get proper consideration, each thing in its own context and time. Whats wrong with what it does say? If you think its false somehow go ahead and clearly say where it goes wrong. Thats fair and fine. But I cant see where Yutang or roadkill or meditation has anything to do with it. It's this log in my eye, you see.