11-26-2007, 12:38 PM
Well I did say that anyone who sees would know that we are already free.
You are thinking about being programmed so you are not seeing. Only by thinking do you become aware of items called "controlled folly" and "uncontrolled folly".
I agree that we are programmed. I don't agree that that makes us not-free. Everything that happens happens in the field of freedom. We are free to program and be programmed. We are free to control and not control our folly.
In other words, is not the island of the tonal existing in the infinite ocean of the nagual? Could the tonal appear if it were not for the ground of being that is the nagual? Is the nagual not free? Is the tonal not springing from the source of unconditional freedom?
Non-dualists are also known by the names Advaita (which means "not-two") and also zen would be considered non-dual... J. Krishnamurti... anyone who claims "all is consciousness" is stating a fact of non-duality... some aspects of yoga focus on non-duality... Gautama Buddha taught non-duality, but I wouldn't say buddhism is non-dual necessarily.
Naive: from the Latin Nativus meaning "natural"
unaffectedly simple, artless, unsophisticated.
Sophism: from the Greek Sophos meaning "clever"
a clever and plausible but fallacious argument.
Sophistry: misleading but clever reasoning.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Naive is the perfect word for zen's natural mind. And sophistication is a good word for the thinking mind.
Thinking that something is acceptable or unacceptable is just thinking. Do you think you can change something by thinking about it? Whether you think folly is acceptable or unacceptable doesn't change the basic fact that it is what is. I never said it is acceptable. You introduced that concept. I'm saying it is - that's all. Direct perception that folly is is nothing like thinking that it is acceptable. The concepts "acceptable" and "unacceptable" require an ego. Direct perception doesn't. "Stooge", "average", "less than our best", etc... all concepts... all ego... nothing to do with reality or the impersonal world of a warrior-seer.
By seeing every situation as complete in itself, perfect in its imperfection, one saves more energy than anyone trying to "get the best out of it". We're on par with the world and its situations. I'm certainly not trying to capitalise on anything.
Unnecessarily labelling things isn't saving you energy. Having opinions doesn't save energy. Trying to deny what is certainly doesn't save energy. Apparently, a rule is something that you don't take seriously. Or maybe you're taking it too seriously?
What if you meet someone who doesn't have any rules? Will you call them a fool or a sage?
You are thinking about being programmed so you are not seeing. Only by thinking do you become aware of items called "controlled folly" and "uncontrolled folly".
I agree that we are programmed. I don't agree that that makes us not-free. Everything that happens happens in the field of freedom. We are free to program and be programmed. We are free to control and not control our folly.
In other words, is not the island of the tonal existing in the infinite ocean of the nagual? Could the tonal appear if it were not for the ground of being that is the nagual? Is the nagual not free? Is the tonal not springing from the source of unconditional freedom?
Non-dualists are also known by the names Advaita (which means "not-two") and also zen would be considered non-dual... J. Krishnamurti... anyone who claims "all is consciousness" is stating a fact of non-duality... some aspects of yoga focus on non-duality... Gautama Buddha taught non-duality, but I wouldn't say buddhism is non-dual necessarily.
Naive: from the Latin Nativus meaning "natural"
unaffectedly simple, artless, unsophisticated.
Sophism: from the Greek Sophos meaning "clever"
a clever and plausible but fallacious argument.
Sophistry: misleading but clever reasoning.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Naive is the perfect word for zen's natural mind. And sophistication is a good word for the thinking mind.
Thinking that something is acceptable or unacceptable is just thinking. Do you think you can change something by thinking about it? Whether you think folly is acceptable or unacceptable doesn't change the basic fact that it is what is. I never said it is acceptable. You introduced that concept. I'm saying it is - that's all. Direct perception that folly is is nothing like thinking that it is acceptable. The concepts "acceptable" and "unacceptable" require an ego. Direct perception doesn't. "Stooge", "average", "less than our best", etc... all concepts... all ego... nothing to do with reality or the impersonal world of a warrior-seer.
By seeing every situation as complete in itself, perfect in its imperfection, one saves more energy than anyone trying to "get the best out of it". We're on par with the world and its situations. I'm certainly not trying to capitalise on anything.
Unnecessarily labelling things isn't saving you energy. Having opinions doesn't save energy. Trying to deny what is certainly doesn't save energy. Apparently, a rule is something that you don't take seriously. Or maybe you're taking it too seriously?
What if you meet someone who doesn't have any rules? Will you call them a fool or a sage?