Do (all) enlightened masters agree on any one single thing?

[s1va]

Last night, I was reading  "Tibetan Yoga of Dream and Sleep".

 

The author says, if you meet some one that has never tasted salt, it is impossible to describe in words, to convey the taste of salt, to that person.  If a person has tasted (experienced) salt already, then yes, we can talk to them about salt. 

[Stosh]

Last night, I was reading  "Tibetan Yoga of Dream and Sleep".

 

The author says, if you meet some one that has never tasted salt, it is impossible to describe in words, to convey the taste of salt, to that person.  If a person has tasted (experienced) salt already, then yes, we can talk to them about salt. 

Did you question whether the author was making a sound statement?

Without having an idea what the taste was,

 Could you say that salt was a mineral, made of sodium and chlorine ions , where it comes from , that you have health requirements relating to it , what it looks like , that Roman soldiers were once paid in blocks of salt , that the taste is both unlike and similar to potassium choride, etc ?

Conversely , that having two people both familiar with the taste of salt doesn't mean they agree on what constitutes too much ! And it stands to reason they have no reason to say any more on the subject matter being already familiar with the experience ,,Other ! than the ton of things discussable by non salt-knowers. 

Edited March 27, 2017 by Stosh

[rene]

Conversely , that having two people both familiar with the taste of salt doesn't mean they agree on what constitutes too much ! And it stands to reason they have no reason to say any more on the subject matter being already familiar with the experience ,,Other ! than the ton of things discussable by non salt-knowers.

This reminded me of:

 

Those who talk do not know,

Those who know do not talk...

 

.. unless they want to, just for fun

[rene]

Last night, I was reading "Tibetan Yoga of Dream and Sleep".

 

The author says, if you meet some one that has never tasted salt, it is impossible to describe in words, to convey the taste of salt, to that person. If a person has tasted (experienced) salt already, then yes, we can talk to them about salt.

Nice quote. It's very easy to talk about the physical properties of salt without knowing its taste. It's also very easy, having experienced the taste, to tell if someone who is discussing/describing the taste, has ever had it in their mouth. Especially with charlatans: they may use all the right words - but the underlying essence isn't there. IME.

[Stosh]

This reminded me of:

 

Those who talk do not know,

Those who know do not talk...

 

.. unless they want to, just for fun

Nice spin , 2 Points

[3bob]

Many secondary but also important and truthful things may be agreed upon, (a.k.a. common ground)

 

...but one will also find with a little study that the primary and most important realization is not agreed upon among the broad spectrum of major faiths as taught by their founders, - Not by the historic Buddha, not by Lord Jesus, not by Lord Krishna (or by other great Hindu Sages who do not proclaim a particular founder for Sanatana Dharma), not by Muhammad, not by Taoism (which would be making much ado if it did), not by atheists, agnostics, anarchists, philosophers or psychologists, not by modern day figures said to be realized, and probably not by any of those of many lesser known faiths or practices.

 

So what is a soul supposed to do to attain True realization? (with the idea of soul and or path not even being agreed upon!)  Well I feel that all one can really do is work with the more obvious common ground universal laws for in doing that certain forces will be put into motion to further help us and thus somehow we attain or uncover our own realization!  It's the only game in town as far as I know and even if we choose not to play we are still playing.

Edited March 27, 2017 by 3bob

[rene]

Many secondary but also important and truthful things may be agreed upon, (a.k.a. common ground)

 

...but one will also find with a little study that the primary and most important realization is not agreed upon among the broad spectrum of major faiths as taught by their founders, - Not by the historic Buddha, not by Lord Jesus, not by Lord Krishna (or by other great Hindu Sages who do not proclaim a particular founder for Sanatana Dharma), not by Muhammad, not by Taoism (which would be making much ado if it did), not by atheists, agnostics, anarchists, philosophers or psychologists, not by modern day figures said to be realized, and probably not by any of those of many lesser known faiths or practices.

 

So what is a soul supposed to do to find the True realization? (with the idea of soul and or path not even being agreed upon!) Well I feel that all one can really do is start with the more obvious common ground universal laws and thus somehow attain or uncover their own realization, for in doing that certain forces will be put into motion to help us. It's the only game in town and even if we choose not to play we are still playing.

3bob, hi

 

Would you kindly elaborate on what these 'common ground universal laws' are?

 

Thanks!

[s1va]

 It's the only game in town as far as I know and even if we choose not to play we are still playing.

 

I will add:  If we refuse to play, we will be made to play (sooner or later).  every one has to play --conciously.

Edited March 27, 2017 by kāvēri

[rene]

 

3bob, on 27 Mar 2017 - 10:45 AM, said:

 

It's the only game in town as far as I know and even if we choose not to play we are still playing.

I will add: If we refuse to play, we will be made to play (sooner or later). every one has to play --conciously.

To what game are you and 3bob referring?

 

Thanks!

[Stosh]

Im thinking the game is the common human condition and historical situation we find ourselves in , but I do want to know what these common ground universal laws Are and , potentially see it as good housekeeping to get those spread out and looked at. 

[3bob]

Rene, I imagine you know the answers to your apparent rhetorical questions - being that you have probably been around the block 'x' number of times?

Edited March 27, 2017 by 3bob

[C T]

Rene, I imagine you know the answers to your apparent rhetorical questions - being that you have probably been around the block 'x' number of times?

this must be one of the most effective conversation/knowledge killer ever to be thought up by the sheer brilliance of mental juggernauts. 

[rene]

Rene, I imagine you know the answers to your apparent rhetorical questions - being that you have probably been around the block 'x' number of times?

3bob, I dont ask rhetorical questions, nor do I assume (as you did) that what is obvious to me is obvious to anyone else.

 

If you have no answer, that is fine; my question was genuine, I just wanted to follow your ideas on this.

 

No harm, no foul. (-:

[rene]

this must be one of the most effective conversation/knowledge killer ever to be thought up by the sheer brilliance of mental juggernauts.

Could be, sure. Too bad he didn't want to answer; I enjoy hearing others' ideas about what we all have in common... seems to be a more peaceful thing then all the constant spewing over differences. Oh well. (-:

[Stosh]

Well, I'll jump in and make a few assumptions.

 

I think that the linguistic jabs that are included in each post are a cause for unnecessary strife. Questions put forward and followed up with a "Thanks!" put forward the expectation of an answer. Not only the expectation of an answer but it shapes the question so as to suggest that the answer is already known (hence the accusation that the question was rhetorical). If it was a straight question, no strings attached, then then enthusiastic thanks is kind of out of place. It might be my Asperger's like tendencies showing, but a more fitting question wouldn't be "what game" but rather "what are you specifically meaning when you say game?"

 

Regardless, there is an emotional and energetic subtext that goes with each of these posts. It is somewhat confusing to me as to why people don't try to say squarely, literally what they mean.

 

But then again, this is a rather universal phenomenon....

What do you mean by Universal? 

[rene]

Well, I'll jump in and make a few assumptions.

 

I think that the linguistic jabs that are included in each post are a cause for unnecessary strife. Questions put forward and followed up with a "Thanks!" put forward the expectation of an answer. Not only the expectation of an answer but it shapes the question so as to suggest that the answer is already known (hence the accusation that the question was rhetorical). If it was a straight question, no strings attached, then then enthusiastic thanks is kind of out of place. It might be my Asperger's like tendencies showing, but a more fitting question wouldn't be "what game" but rather "what are you specifically meaning when you say game?"

 

Regardless, there is an emotional and energetic subtext that goes with each of these posts. It is somewhat confusing to me as to why people don't try to say squarely, literally what they mean.

 

But then again, this is a rather universal phenomenon....

A&P, hi

 

Oops, small misread on your part. I always post Thanks! after asking a quick question that may only be tangental to the topic or ideas presented.

 

It's understandable that my doing so isn't familiar to you (or anyone else who hasn't known me for a long time) - because I usually know what is being talked about, so rarely have to ask, but this time I dont have a clue what they're pointing at with their word choices.

 

I'm glad you shared your interpretation of my salutations. Maybe it (and they) can be a good reminder to us all that we bring our own filters into what we read, and for me anyway a positive gentleness seems to bring the least distortion.

 

warmest regards (-:

[rene]

Im thinking the game is the common human condition and historical situation we find ourselves in , but I do want to know what these common ground universal laws Are and , potentially see it as good housekeeping to get those spread out and looked at.

Hi Stosh,

 

I thought maybe the game was something about the Soul, as that was what 3bob talked about, but still wasn't sure - especially after Kaveri's post of all having to play..?? And yes, not sure what the common ground universal laws are; your guess is interesting but there is so much diversity of experience, and the way we each approach our own environmental situations...I'm not sure if that's it.

 

Guess we'll just have to wait to see if they explain.

 

warm regards

[rene]

I guess I haven't seen enough of your posts with questions to specifically chart it.

 

But the stocatto cadence of one question and then another without adding something else carries the same quality of sub-text.

 

But, to speak for 3Bob, I think the sort of thing he had in mind was similar to Thomas Reid's ideas of the axioms of commonsense. Or something similar. General things that hold true for most of reality that we encounter. "The only game in town" was to mean that the only thing we can do is work with our experiences and the patterns that exist therein.

 

All established traditions were formed from this process and, for that reason, are capable of having faults.

 

People will probably tell me where I am wrong.

Hi A&P, thanks for your reply. Perhaps it would be better for 3bob to speak for himself, ok? If your guess is right, excellent! If it's not, well that's okay too...just more ideas for the discussion. It's all good. (-:

[3bob]

Common universal laws: namely and as well pointed to and demonstrated by the "laws of nature" which are also related to what A&P said so diplomatically...and which are also well pointed to in T.T.C. with additional human aspects and in parts of many other teachings where such make for and hold common ground!  

 

CT, Thanks for the comment from your peanut gallery, that was funny.

[Stosh]

Thanks for the elaboration, I can easily agree with sharing the same constraints of physical laws, Though, Im not so sure that any two individuals agree on what the precepts of the Ttc are, ,except by accident ,here and there.

I was hoping you might lay out some specific things upon which we all might agree, and so, be able to progress down a logical path together, and so doing, maybe uncover an underlying theme more uplifting than my own ,,which could be expressed as William Shakespeare put it, ' theres something fishy in the state of Denmark. '

Edited March 27, 2017 by Stosh

[rene]

Common universal laws: namely and as well pointed to and demonstrated by the "laws of nature" which are also related to what A&P said so diplomatically...and which are also well pointed to in T.T.C. with additional human aspects and in parts of many other teachings where such make for and hold common ground!

 

CT, Thanks for the comment from your peanut gallery, that was funny.

3bob, thanks, that part I figured out.

 

It was your ideas on how those forces 'helped', and the part about the 'soul' (as it relates to those forces) in your post - that made me wonder if we were talking about the same thing. I see that we are, so now I can respectfully disagree.

[s1va]

To what game are you and 3bob referring?

 

Thanks!

I was just talking about the game part on the last lines of bob's post.

I thought he was taking about the game of search that every one undergoes to find their true nature.

Assuming that was that.

I added, that every one has to play, sooner or later.

 

I meant evolutionarily, all of us will go through this process of unfolding and get enlightened. The 'search and unfoldment' that each one undergoes eventually -- this I called game.

 

People can run away, become politicians, rulers, this and that, forget completely about who they are and why they are here. get carried away on family life, etc.

 

But, life has this knack of bringing people back in the game. I guess, bob wrote that those who think they are not playing, are also still playing, they just don't know they are playing. Because this is the only game known in the universe.

 

I hope this explains

[rene]

I was just talking about the game part on the last lines of bob's post.

I thought he was taking about the game of search that every one undergoes to find their true nature.

Assuming that was that.

I added, that every one has to play, sooner or later.

 

I meant evolutionarily, all of us will go through this process of unfolding and get enlightened. The 'search and unfoldment' that each one undergoes eventually -- this I called game.

Looks like I get to respectfully disagree with you too.

 

People can run away, become politicians, rulers, this and that, forget completely about who they are and why they are here. get carried away on family life, etc.

 

But, life has this knack of bringing people back in the game.

I do agree that most people, in their later years - especially those near end of life - likely go through a self-examination of sorts, and possibly dwell on the big questions (meaning of life, why am I here, etc)... but to imagine the bulk of them rise to the level of 'search and unfoldment' might be a bit optomistic.

 

I guess, bob wrote that those who think they are not playing, are also still playing, they just don't know they are playing. Because this is the only game known in the universe.

Not all who travel are lost; not all who wander, seek.

 

Thanks for explaining and sharing your ideas, most appreciated. (-:

.

.

Edited March 28, 2017 by rene

[Jadespear]

Well this pattern seeking primate says that 1)  all the masters-referred-to , think that humanity is basically ,,, dysfunctional. Right? 2) there's some kind of hope that it might not unavoidably be the case.. IF..... something.

The differ as to what the cures are, but not the illness.

 

...I don't know what you are exactly talking about...  I don't believe that being human means that I am dysfunctional...  

 

It seems like you are referring to "society"  not humanity.  And the word dysfunctional - carries the opposite reflected meaning, in that when you say something is not functional "dysfunctional" , you are saying it is not functioning in the way it is supposed to.   Are people supposed to function in any way?  Is there anyway in which to judge something's functioning?  Yes.  Of course there is.   Being what we call " human" is meaningless unless one can actually describe the differences between a human and everything else.   The differences are pretty easy to see...   

 

The state of being alive as a human does not mean we are dysfunctional.  Runaway greed, endless stupidity, etc..  in short all the ills of hierarchical based social platforms are dysfunctional in their attempts to take the place in providing for us what we do not need, by continual social brainwashing, and worker slavery.  Every system of thought, every idea about what should be is what is dysfunctional in regards to that all these systems do not totally replace the real nature of what it is to be human, they obscure it, twist it, and bend it to their own biases aims and intentions.

 

In reality, there is only what is, what was, and what can be.... we are created beings with a plethora of "spiritual" skills... that if mastered would render everything that society gives us - as useless.  Think about it - what if you could live in extreme weather environments, materialize your food with your mind, absorb the energies of the universe to nourish yourself rather than eat nasty food.  

 

... I think the main end goal of being a human is to become one of these " enlightened masters" because there is really no other way to evolve but higher, and there is really no other way to be able to see the real truth of things unless you are such a person who has "elevated" abilities.  

[C T]

 

 

CT, Thanks for the comment from your peanut gallery, that was funny.

no worries, anytime. Its easy to comment when you speak straight.