Considering

[Vmarco]

Edited May 8, 2012 by Vmarco

[Mokona]

The topic is,..."...consider externally always, internally never." Can Considering be a path to Tao (Full Spectrum Consciousness)?

 

"...consider externally always, internally never."

 

Easy, it can change your flavor on the way, but it won't lead you there by itself. There is a biological and an energetic element that needs to be addressed. There is no purely intellectual path to the Tao.

 

Lets say you - Vmarco sits at his desk, contemplating, and even goes into a cabin in the woods and writes down everything internal and believed to be true until he cut into the soul of what it meant to be Vmarco - This intellectual approach only takes you so far.

 

It's nice that your an activist that is pushing for what he/she believes to be right, but your not winning over any cosmic brownie points.

 

Cheers

[Vmarco]

you still havent defined a 'wish' that does not imply desire or dissatisfaction, because those sentiments are central to wishing.

 

P.S. Bro,suggestion, Lets address one point at a time, otherwise these things turn into a mess. Can you dig it?

 

Well, if post #11 above isn't adequate enough for you (in reference to the word wish, from an Eastern Ontosophy viewpoint), then defining "wish" in the context of this thread is useless.

 

However, I agree, "Lets address one point at a time." Lets address the topic,....Can Considering be a path to Tao (Full Spectrum Consciousness)? Was Gurdjieff correct saying, ,..."...consider externally always, internally never."

 

Did Shantideva have it right saying "All the joy the world contains, Has come through wishing happiness for others. All the misery the world contains, Has come through wanting pleasure for oneself."

 

 

Yes,...Let's address the theme of post #1. For example:

Gurdjieff had a term he called the Chief Feature; a persons largest barrier obscuring their spiritualized/actualized self. He said the Chief Feature is usually what one likes best about oneself. He also purportedly said that the Chief Feature for most people is Internal Considering.

[Stosh]

Well, if post #11 above isn't adequate enough for you (in reference to the word wish, from an Eastern Ontosophy viewpoint), then defining "wish" in the context of this thread is useless.

 

However, I agree, "Lets address one point at a time." Lets address the topic,....Can Considering be a path to Tao (Full Spectrum Consciousness)? Was Gurdjieff correct saying, ,..."...consider externally always, internally never."

 

Did Shantideva have it right saying "All the joy the world contains, Has come through wishing happiness for others. All the misery the world contains, Has come through wanting pleasure for oneself."

 

 

Yes,...Let's address the theme of post #1. For example:

 

I guess we just disagree, and since you do not wish to confine your use of english to the english definitions of words there is not likely any way for us to bridge the matter and find more common ground. Unfortunate.

And no, I certainly dont think Shantideva is is even close to being accurate or right in that quote above for the reasons I mentioned way back in the thread.

Maybe we can meet in the middle on another post.

[Vmarco]

Easy, it can change your flavor on the way, but it won't lead you there by itself. There is a biological and an energetic element that needs to be addressed. There is no purely intellectual path to the Tao.

 

Cheers

 

Is Internal Considering ever not intellectual?

 

Shantideva said, "The truth, therefore is this: That you must wholly give yourself and take the other's place. The Buddha did not lie in what he said, You'll see the benefits that come from it."

 

Is not the samething as "...consider externally always, internally never."

 

I disagree with the statement that: "There is no purely intellectual path to the Tao"

 

Lao Tzu said, "Who can enjoy enlightenment and remain indifferent to suffering in the world? This is not keeping with the Way?"

 

From post #1:

Would a World at Peace have signs that read "Beware of Dogs," or the ownership of vicious breeds for protection? Besides the non-peaceful vibrations of haunting fear, anger and subconscious aggression towards others that emanates from pet and owner - the protector and the needer of protection - What about the External Considering of the terror inflicted on Others through barking, attacks, and death? In the US alone, nearly 5 million people report being attacked by dogs every year, and 1,000 people go to emergency rooms every day as a result of a dog attack.

Of course the advocates of vicious breeds constantly say, "It's people who make vicious dogs, it's not the breeding." Like Pit Bull advocate Clifford Wright who was mulled to death by his lovng Achilles while watering his garden last week.

 

What about that suffering? The suffering that vicious breed owners inflict upon millions through the barking, intimidating, attacking, mulling, terrorism, etc. of their lovely pets.

 

Lao Tzu said, "there is nothing more futile and frustrating than relying on the mind. To arrive at the unshakable, you must befriend the Tao. To do this, quiet your thinking."

 

When "thinking" is quieted, Internal Consideringdissolves.

 

Lao Tzu said, "Intellectual knowledge exists in and of the brain. Because the brain is part of the body, which must one day expire, this collection of facts, however large and impressive, will expire as well"

 

Can we get more quickly through Conscious Considering? "...consider externally always, internally never."

 

Lao Tzu said, "A superior person cares for the well-being of all things..."

 

Does the owner of a vicious breed care for the Well-Being of All Things? Even if such an owner was to have this animal on a short-lease 24/7, is the Well-Beingness of Others cared for?

http://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?p=reported+attacked+by+dog

[Vmarco]

I guess we just disagree, and since you do not wish to confine your use of english to the english definitions of words there is not likely any way for us to bridge the matter and find more common ground. Unfortunate.

And no, I certainly dont think Shantideva is is even close to being accurate or right in that quote above for the reasons I mentioned way back in the thread.

Maybe we can meet in the middle on another post.

 

 

Stosh writes:

The dictionary is compilation of words derived from speech, and yes many words have multiple meanings.

 

However, you now appear to change your mind,...now you desire to have a narrow, limited conversation according to your dictionary, of which you have yet offered a year and title of.

 

Perhaps the real problem is that Stosh desires: "Maybe we can meet in the middle on another post." While VMarco is interested in the topic of the thread.

[Stosh]

Stosh writes:

 

The dictionary is compilation of words derived from speech, and yes many words have multiple meanings.

However, you now appear to change your mind,...now you desire to have a narrow, limited conversation according to your dictionary, of which you have yet offered a year and title of.

 

Perhaps the real problem is that Stosh desires: "Maybe we can meet in the middle on another post." While VMarco is interested in the topic of the thread.

 

Whats up with that dude ?

We couldnt agree on either language or point, you felt you had made yourself clear and I felt the same.

Points made , subject handled.

 

Additionally ..,I am just getting tired of folks intentionally ,or unintentionally, not "getting" points that seem as obvious as the nose on their face to me, folks whom I think have the wits to manage those points, but choose not to. It is tedious.

 

Furthermore .. I just decided to 'let it go' and try to make nice.

Futile and stupid of me I know,,,

Stosh

[Fū Yue]

I agree with you that one should consider all the worlds when choosing one's actions, since the taiji pole is the pivot of the whole universe. Most people don't look at a painting and see an alien planet with it's own sentient beings and their sufferings, just like they don't look at a forest and see family. Similarly, the subjective worlds that each individual inhabits, the advanced ecosystem of thought chains and archetypes that make up our human brothers should be similarly regarded with mindful compassion.

 

Seek understanding of the mechanism before drawing blueprints!

[Vmarco]

Edited May 8, 2012 by Vmarco

[zanshin]

http://kesdjan.com/exercises/ec.html

 

Interesting, trying to understand Gurdjieff and considering. Seem more similar to locus of control in psychology than to introspection. So Gurdjieff's idea is to work from internal locus of control through external considering.

Edited May 8, 2012 by zanshin

[Vmarco]

I agree with you that one should consider all the worlds when choosing one's actions, since the taiji pole is the pivot of the whole universe. Most people don't look at a painting and see an alien planet with it's own sentient beings and their sufferings, just like they don't look at a forest and see family. Similarly, the subjective worlds that each individual inhabits, the advanced ecosystem of thought chains and archetypes that make up our human brothers should be similarly regarded with mindful compassion.

 

Seek understanding of the mechanism before drawing blueprints!

 

Uncovering the mechanism (the Tao), without understanding what the mechanism (the Tao) is not, is folly.

 

Lao Tzu said, "The Tao gives rise to all form, yet is has no form of its own."

 

The "subjective worlds," if Lao Tzu was honest, if Buddha was honest, if the Mahasiddhas were honest,...the subjective world is not part of reality. To understand that, must we not dissolve the blueprints first, in order to uncover the mechanism?

 

The authentic seeker of truth does not seek truth,...but the false.

 

As Eckhart Tolle said, "we need to draw our attention to what is false in us, for unless we learn to recognize the false as the false, there can be no lasting transformation, and you will always be drawn back into illusion, for that is how the false perpetuates itself"

Edited May 8, 2012 by Vmarco

[Fū Yue]

The "subjective worlds," if Lao Tzu was honest, if Buddha was honest, if the Mahasiddhas were honest,...the subjective world is not part of reality. To understand that, must we not dissolve the blueprints first, in order to uncover the mechanism?

 

If you come to understand the mechanism, in the end you will discard the need to put it in words.

 

The subjective worlds or 'internal considering' arise from a misunderstanding in the first place, and so as the truth is revealed, the knots naturally come undone.

 

Is that not the purpose of zen koan? The deck of cards topple over and you see that it was just your shadow all along. Language is the ultimate koan - pursue it to the end of the known and there is a mystery. Pursue the merit in all of the sciences and chase after 'subjective truth' and soon you find that your boundaries were just a foolish assumption. Dissolution takes on many forms.

 

"Uncovering the mechanism (the Tao), without understanding what the mechanism (the Tao) is not, is folly." Agreed. Trying for candy, grasping for make-believe, accidentally swallowing manjushri's burning sword. It gets them every time. In the process of the journey, though, compassion is generated for the 'other' or 'others' and they naturally bring themselves in accord with the heavens. For regular people, it is a good path. Keeps the mind sharp and lessens the hold of stereotypes.

 

The path to knowledge is an unknowing... the more you learn, the less things 'make sense'! Eventually you are bound to give up 'senses' completely, holding on to the only thing that embraces all that your view now encompasses.

[Vmarco]

Is that not the purpose of zen koan?

 

The path to knowledge is an unknowing... the more you learn, the less things 'make sense'! Eventually you are bound to give up 'senses' completely, holding on to the only thing that embraces all that your view now encompasses.

 

Yes,...the purpose or answer of a koan is in the dissolution of the question.

 

Knowledge can be a tricky subject,...most believe that knowledge is power,...when in reality it's meaningless.

 

The Hua Hu Ching says, "he who desires admiration of the world will do well to amass a great fortune then give it away. The world will respond with admiration in proportion to the size of his treasure. Of course, this is meaningless."

 

More correctly put, the Path to Gnowledge is an Unknowing. Gnowledge does not arise from the monkey mind,...the human brain.

 

The topic however is who can even get to such a Path of Gnowing while attached to Internal Considering for their identity? To dissolve that question brings a recognition of External Considering. In the context of this thread, no one who has realized External Considering would possibly own a vicious dog breed.

 

V

[zanshin]

..

Edited April 19, 2020 by zanshin

[Vmarco]

"The work needs nothing external. Only the internal is needed."-Gurdjieff

 

How does external considering mesh with being true to your own nature (following your te)?

 

That appears relevant to me,...only the Internal is Needed,..to Consider Externally always.

 

Or as Shantideva said, "those desiring speedily to be A refuge for themselves and other beings,

Should interchange the terms of I and Other, And thus embrace a sacred mystery."

 

Or as Lao Tzu said, "If you wish to unite with the heart and mind of the Mysterious Mother, you must integrate yin and yang..."

 

Integrating yin and yang is ultimately an integration of the perception of self and other. To integrate with Other necessitates External Considering Always,...which does not imply that External Considering is needed,...only the Internal is needed. External Considering always, arises from an Internal that is Externally Considering Always, and Internally Considering Never.

 

Lao Tzu said, "...the world's religions serve only to strengthen attachments to false concepts such as self and other, life and death, heaven and earth, and so on. Those who become entangled in these false ideas are prevented from perceiving the Integral Oneness."

 

Shantideva said, "The truth, therefore is this: That you must wholly give yourself and take the other's place.

The Buddha did not lie in what he said, You'll see the benefits that come from it."

 

It's about the Internal, Externally Considering,...or as it is said, putting oneself in anothers shoes.

 

The vicious dog barks and intimidates a passer-by,...it's the vicious breeds job,...the owner says, oh, he doesn't bite (which is a fallacy), instead of putting himself in the terrorized persons shoes. The terrorized person isn't needed,....it is a fact,...what is needed is the Internal to Consider Externally.

[Vmarco]

You mean like a return of more female posters to the T'Bums? That would level the playing field a bit.

 

Actually, if you read the Sky Dancer topic, most females today are "posers," something the world could use less of.

 

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/20285-sky-dancers/

[Green Tiger]

 

"...consider externally always, internally never."

 

So you're saying "Be here now." No? Is external consideration different from the concepts of 'living in the moment' or mindfulness?

[Vmarco]

[Vmarco]

So you're saying "Be here now."

 

That can be a tricky subject for many, who believe that the perceived now, as in smell the coffee, is the real Now. There is no coffee in the Now. There is no Now in time.

 

V

Edited May 10, 2012 by Vmarco

[Green Tiger]

[Mokona]

Actually, if you read the Sky Dancer topic, most females today are "posers," something the world could use less of.

 

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/20285-sky-dancers/

I actually based that comment off my own experience, but thanks for trying.