Hitting the Wall

[doc benway]

Perhaps you still believe that Jesus is your personal savior.

 

You made some very stupid and thoughtless remarks, so I replied in the same manner. Using words like "human nature," "acceptance," "desire," "the nature of the mind," "wu wei" without much inquiry into them, deserves a good slap to the face.

 

I was hoping you'd reply back in a thoughtful manner on some of the questions I have raised, but instead you replied in a pretentious and condescending manner. Do not confuse silence with wisdom, or stillness with peace (whatever that means). Linguistic jargon is a necessary field that needs to be investigated into, for words and thoughts are closely intertwined and they have forever conditioned us so.

Thank you for the lesson, master.

_/\_

[Lucky7Strikes]

Thank you for the lesson, master.

_/\_

 

aiiii....

 

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/picard-facepalm.jpg

 

Hahahahaha, the irony! . And I thought I was on the pedestal!

Edited December 19, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[doc benway]

aiiii....

 

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/picard-facepalm.jpg

 

Your reply to my first post simply contradicted everything I said yet it was all gratuitous.

When I made an effort to clarify, more of the same - all contradiction with no real foundation.

 

"Are you human?" "Desiring is not the root of suffering... " "In fact, there is no such thing as acceptance" followed immediately by "acceptance itself is a struggle against what is..." "Wu Wei is not acceptance"

:yawn:

 

It reminded me exactly of the Homer Simpson thread, hence my response.

 

There was a time not so long ago when I would commit the time and energy to defending each point and making an effort to convince you of my perspective. It's just not worth it to me currently - it's not where my head is at.

 

Ultimately, I am at fault because of my use of the word "sparring" - bad choice of words on my part. I actually tire of verbal sparring very quickly, lately, so I chose to disengage. I'm not really interested in trying to convince anyone of my point of view. It is only mine - certainly nothing special and probably not terribly valuable to anyone other than myself.

 

Be well

[Lucky7Strikes]

 

Your reply to my first post simply contradicted everything I said yet it was all gratuitous.

When I made an effort to clarify, more of the same - all contradiction with no real foundation.

 

"Are you human?" "Desiring is not the root of suffering... " "In fact, there is no such thing as acceptance" followed immediately by "acceptance itself is a struggle against what is..." "Wu Wei is not acceptance"

:yawn:

 

It reminded me exactly of the Homer Simpson thread, hence my response.

 

There was a time not so long ago when I would commit the time and energy to defending each point and making an effort to convince you of my perspective. It's just not worth it to me currently - it's not where my head is at.

 

Ultimately, I am at fault because of my use of the word "sparring" - bad choice of words on my part. I actually tire of verbal sparring very quickly, lately, so I chose to disengage. I'm not really interested in trying to convince anyone of my point of view. It is only mine - certainly nothing special and probably not terribly valuable to anyone other than myself.

 

Be well

 

Please read my post again, preferably in context. I tried to be as concise as best as I could.

 

I understand if you are busy, you do not have time to write lengthy explanations. But then, it is also not an opportunity for sarcastic and condescending humor.

 

I don't see discussions as sparring, they are discussions to deepen insight and question personal beliefs, and know why someone other has a different view or have come to the conclusions they have arrived at. I have gained much from discussions on this forum, which many simply dismiss as mere "word play" or "not practice" or ego sparring and do not actually work through the content. It is a dismissive attitude, just plain laziness, or worst of all, contentment.

 

Your views are valuable. Why not assert them, when they are challenged for the benefit of the rest of us who might agree and/or disagree? I picked up on your post, because I have noticed that your posts are often disguised under the cloud of respect and "acceptance" which are good traits but at times hindrances nonetheless. If you are going to engage, please engage fully. _/\_.

Edited December 20, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[doc benway]

Please read my post again, preferably in context. I tried to be as concise as best as I could.

 

I understand if you are busy, you do not have time to write lengthy explanations. But then, it is also not an opportunity for sarcastic and condescending humor.

 

I don't see discussions as sparring, they are discussions to deepen insight and question personal beliefs, and know why someone other has a different view or have come to the conclusions they have arrived at. I have gained much from discussions on this forum, which many simply dismiss as mere "word play" or "not practice" or ego sparring and do not actually work through the content. It is a dismissive attitude, just plain laziness, or worst of all, contentment.

 

Your views are valuable. Why not assert them, when they are challenged for the benefit of the rest of us who might agree and/or disagree? I picked up on your post, because I have noticed that your posts are often disguised under the cloud of respect and "acceptance" which are good traits but at times hindrances nonetheless. If you are going to engage, please engage fully. _/\_.

I appreciate your candor and I will give your points careful consideration.

Thank you

[goldisheavy]

Steve,

 

I think lucky7 was saying that ultimately there is no such thing as human nature. But you were saying that, relatively speaking, day to day, we have to contend with human nature. There is no contradiction.

 

For example, what is uniquely human? As we learn more and more things about animal and animal intelligence we realize that many things we thought were uniquely human turn out to be present in animals as well. But let's pick one -- cooking food and fire building. Ok, let's say that building a fire and cooking food is a uniquely human trait. Ok, that's one trait, right? I am sure we can find other traits like that. For example, in humans, there are enormous differences between trained and untrained individuals. For example, a trained individual can deadlift 600 lbs, while a non-trained one cannot deadlift even 300 lbs. I think humans are unique in that sense, because other animals are very close to each other. So animals either don't train as purposefully as humans, or whatever little training they do, doesn't produce any amazing difference. Thus, most chimps have the same levels of strength and most horses run about equally as fast, and so on. And the difference between the trained and the untrained horse is not as great as between a trained and untrained human. Or how about a trained and an untrained octopus? Or trained and untrained dolphins? Trained animals can have significant behavioral differences of course. Still, I think humans are the most intentionally malleable species. Another unique trait is endurance. Humans are built for endurance running, and out of all species we can run the longest. This is why humans can perform endurance hunting like no other animal in the world. At least not on land.

 

So maybe if we take all these unique traits together, in our mind, we can regard them as "human nature". It's what sets us, humans, apart from other life forms. This human nature is not absolute though. It's not ultimate. It's just a reflection of how things are NOW. It doesn't mean it will always and forever be like this.

 

For example, maybe octopuses will come out of the ocean and learn how to build fires? Or maybe chimps will learn how to build an airplane later on? There is no way to be absolutely certain that such things will never happen. And if we apply any understanding we currently have, it's actually entirely within the realm of possibility.

 

Alternatively, if we look at all the traits we have in common with other animals, I think we can see that we are more alike than we are different. So if we are more alike than different, can we still say we have "human" nature? Or is it just animal nature? Suddenly the idea of human nature is less obvious.

 

So I think lucky7 was pointing out that if we question just what is human in human nature and how definite and certain is it, we may find that the more we question, the less human humans seem to be. This points out that as we reach for the ultimate comprehension, labels begin to melt into each other. But at the same time, if we don't reach for the ultimate comprehension, but just do what we do day to day, there seems to be a clear difference between humans and other forms of life.

 

Humans are considered "stuck" by people considered "enlightened" because we dwell too much in day to day concerns and we don't reach for the ultimate concerns often and strongly enough. The difference between an ordinary person and an enlightened person is that an enlightened person has a balanced view between ultimate and day to day concerns, while an ordinary person is utterly lost in day to day concerns and is too lazy or too uninterested, or too mesmerized by day to day concerns to dwell on and comprehend the ultimate concerns.

 

This is why you hear talk of renunciation, non-attachments, etc... all these are tools to help shift from day to day concerns to ultimate concerns. However enlightenment is not a condition where only ultimate concerns are present or where ultimate concerns are dominant. Rather it's a condition of harmony between ultimate and relative concerns. Ordinary people live in a state of disharmony, because they are dominated by day to day concerns exclusively.

 

So I think that's what lucky7 was pointing at. I don't think luck7 was actually contradicting anything you were saying... he was just testing to see if you have a good appreciation for the ultimate concerns, that's all.