Birch Posted August 1, 2009 The chicken/ego topic got me thinking (oh we don't want that;-)) What is this thing some of us have with trying to explain every thing (from the smallest to the biggest) that happens? Why do we do that? I have a couple of ideas: - To explain something is to control it (yes, even anxiety is a way of trying to control something) - To explain something is to fall in love with it I also have a question: - Since when did we start this explaining things - thing? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky7Strikes Posted August 1, 2009 The chicken/ego topic got me thinking (oh we don't want that;-)) What is this thing some of us have with trying to explain every thing (from the smallest to the biggest) that happens? Why do we do that? I have a couple of ideas: - To explain something is to control it (yes, even anxiety is a way of trying to control something) - To explain something is to fall in love with it I also have a question: - Since when did we start this explaining things - thing? What? The chicken pooped out the Ego? Preposterous!! . Observe, relate, explain...I guess these are natural functions of the human mind? The very reason I got into all these things is because the explanation society gave me about life was very much inadequate and I saw a lot of pain around me that showed it to be so. Still, I guess simple acceptance has its virtues as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky7Strikes Posted August 1, 2009 (edited) double. Edited August 1, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Birch Posted August 1, 2009 You know what I did? I posted the "Chicken -Ego" post BEFORE I read the whole Chicken - Egg post. It's actually much more interesting and fun than this one. So don't read or post any further! Go back to Chicken - Egg post!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sunya Posted August 1, 2009 (edited) you ever read Ken Wilber? though I don't agree with that silly bald man about some of his theories, he's quite a smart fuck and I think he has a lot to offer. whats relevant is what he teaches, based on research, in the interpretation of experience based on intellectual capacity. There are different 'levels' of intellectual awareness. I forgot the general scheme, but an example is a primitive man at the 'Magic' level will have a subtle energy realm experience and attribute that to a God that dwells inside a lake or something, whereas someone who is at the 'Mythic' level will have that experience and interpret it as Jesus coming to speak to him. [the ways in which these altered states will (and can) be experienced depends predominantly on the structures (stages) of consciousness that have developed in the individual (Wilber, 1983, 2000b). As we will see, individuals at, for example, the magic, mythic, and rational stages can all have a peak experience of a subtle realm, but how that subtle realm is experienced and interpreted depends in large measure on the structures of consciousness that are available to unpack the experience] these structural capacities are dependent upon the persons inquisition, general prowess of intellect, ethical evolution, and so on. this is why I don't like the whole 'anti-intellectual' camp that takes dis-identification with thoughts too seriously. Of course its important to realize that thoughts are not-self, but at the same time intellect should not be downplayed and it helps, more than it hurts, to try to interpret altered experiences into the primary conscious output: thinking. until you have achieved full enlightenment: its IMPOSSIBLE to truly have a non-conceptual experience. because whatever experience you have it will be conditioned by previous experiences, ideas, thoughts, and concepts. I'm not saying that the experience itself is wrong, its just not 'true' if by 'true' you agree that 'non-conceptual = truth'. non-conceptual does not mean having an experience and then never thinking about it or trying to put it into words, because concepts go deeper than words and thoughts. the mind has many layers of conditioning and if one just attempts to stop the conscious conditioning one does not address the subconscious / unconscious layers of conditioning. the conscious mind can be used as a tool to decondition all layers of mind, coupled with deep contemplation. Edited August 1, 2009 by mikaelz Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jesusfreak Posted August 1, 2009 (edited) you ever read Ken Wilber? though I don't agree with that silly bald man about some of his theories, he's quite a smart fuck and I think he has a lot to offer. whats relevant is what he teaches, based on research, in the interpretation of experience based on intellectual capacity. There are different 'levels' of intellectual awareness. I forgot the general scheme, but an example is a primitive man at the 'Magic' level will have a subtle energy realm experience and attribute that to a God that dwells inside a lake or something, whereas someone who is at the 'Mythic' level will have that experience and interpret it as Jesus coming to speak to him. [the ways in which these altered states will (and can) be experienced depends predominantly on the structures (stages) of consciousness that have developed in the individual (Wilber, 1983, 2000b). As we will see, individuals at, for example, the magic, mythic, and rational stages can all have a peak experience of a subtle realm, but how that subtle realm is experienced and interpreted depends in large measure on the structures of consciousness that are available to unpack the experience] these structural capacities are dependent upon the persons inquisition, general prowess of intellect, ethical evolution, and so on. this is why I don't like the whole 'anti-intellectual' camp that takes dis-identification with thoughts too seriously. Of course its important to realize that thoughts are not-self, but at the same time intellect should not be downplayed and it helps, more than it hurts, to try to interpret altered experiences into the primary conscious output: thinking. until you have achieved full enlightenment: its IMPOSSIBLE to truly have a non-conceptual experience. because whatever experience you have it will be conditioned by previous experiences, ideas, thoughts, and concepts. I'm not saying that the experience itself is wrong, its just not 'true' if by 'true' you agree that 'non-conceptual = truth'. non-conceptual does not mean having an experience and then never thinking about it or trying to put it into words, because concepts go deeper than words and thoughts. the mind has many layers of conditioning and if one just attempts to stop the conscious conditioning one does not address the subconscious / unconscious layers of conditioning. the conscious mind can be used as a tool to decondition all layers of mind, coupled with deep contemplation. Brother, why is KW silly? For being bald? Now you are accusing Dalai Lama of silliness brother. Bald was Buddha (bad genes) and was replaced by a bad Dalai Lama...KW might as well be the next Buddha...Boy how I shall miss the sight of a future Mikaelz taking up the cause of Ancient Buddha KW... Smart fuck...he fucked you? Was it good? Tell us more brother..and all this you say brother...it's all so smart...does it come from your hind brother...love you as always...I also learnt that it sounds powerful and angry and you know..all that...if you use profanities and fuck and all that...every topic you deal with is a great lesson Brother...love you again I also acknowledge your greatness brother in showcasing the stupidness of who we do't agree with and the such for that in every post we write here. Brilliant example with Ken Wilber. For sake of simplicity, shall we say we need to abuse one guy, in every post, who does not 100% agree with Dalai Lama/Namkhai Norbu/Buddha/VH? KW, Bill Bodhri, some Hindu guys I don't know much of...I now get how you guys earn Buddha points. I now know why I made no progress with Jesus love all message. What a waste of time brother...thank you for the lessons.. Edited August 1, 2009 by jesusfreak Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted August 1, 2009 LOL!! ok... that's enough... you proved yourself as king sarcasm.. very good. Here's a cookie. Man, that's huge!! That looks sooo good.... Oooohhh... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted August 1, 2009 LOL!!! Oh my... that tequila man... whew... what brand?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jesusfreak Posted August 1, 2009 LOL!!! Oh my... that tequila man... whew... what brand?? Buddha brand brother...but I was cheated...The God folks took away everything inside it...the essence...now I have the bottle alone...but its empty and so its good brother...I will fill it with water and drink brother...its not empty but I will imagine its empty and drink emptiness brother... Let the god folks tie themselves to samsara drinking that wine of fullness while I and you enjoy the emptiness with pure awareness that is empty - brother pardon my ignorance...but should I stare at the empty bottle and be aware of it and get a kick out of it? Does this confirm to the golden rule of dependent origination? Do I need to seek help from Xabir to understand awareness and its emptiness...brother..I need that tequila now...or else, I may lose control and slip to being a Jesuit again..help me ...brother Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted August 1, 2009 You must be dense like Silicon.... ??? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jesusfreak Posted August 1, 2009 (edited) You must be dense like Silicon.... ??? Yes brother, dense with silicon ...but less dense than diamond brother...you beat me there as well brother...in density.. brother do the three lols mean three jewels brother? Or Buddha/DL/NN... Is this symbolic of our unfailing faith in the triad brother? But I must warn you...the evil God folks will twist this to mean the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost...beware, Brother...and Mikaelz sure has made you proud again brother...man this MSN is awesome...brother, he may be waiting there to tell you something...please check...I will guard the fort here till you're back..dhamma is safe here... Edited August 1, 2009 by jesusfreak Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 1, 2009 Hi Mikaelz, I agree with your post above (#5) except for the following statement: until you have achieved full enlightenment: its IMPOSSIBLE to truly have a non-conceptual experience. I think it is possible for one who is 'unenlightened' to have a non-conceptional experience. It is the understanding of the experience that would be lacking. Be well! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted August 1, 2009 Hi Mikaelz, I agree with your post above (#5) except for the following statement: until you have achieved full enlightenment: its IMPOSSIBLE to truly have a non-conceptual experience. I think it is possible for one who is 'unenlightened' to have a non-conceptional experience. It is the understanding of the experience that would be lacking. Be well! I think that's what he means though, that even the non-conceptual experience would be clouded by so much conditioning that it wouldn't be FULLY non-conceptual. But, I agree with you as well Marblehead. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 1, 2009 In this case the chicken came first. The ego didn't arise until after the chicken realized it was a chicken and not a pig. Be well! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
