|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 16, 2020 4:37:42 GMT
Oh, c'mon. Your path is guaranteed. You're assured of victory. Aren't you DWADling a bit?  No, I'm putting the words back into context. I can see how you've come to the conclusion you've come to, I just disagree with it.  Think back to what you've written about sincerity in the past, and compare that to "unconflicted desire". I think the term you used a few years back was something like .. "pure choice".
There is an important difference between saying that sincerity makes for a certain auspiciousness vs. saying that where there is sincerity, the path to enlightenment is guaranteed 'if you just follow these three (two, four, six..?) easy steps....'.... And where Sifting gets it wrong (again) is in saying that the seeker must sincerely 'want' to be enlightened, and he says if so, that guarantees victory.. enlightenment. The seeker has no actual idea what 'enlightenment' is, thus, his want for that means nothing. From the position of seeking, what we're talking then, is the seekers/SVP's want, and that is always for something personally gained/acquired. A sincere interest to look unflinchingly at the machinations of mind...to remain as consciously aware as possible to mind's movements, games, ways, is what's required, and even where that is in abundance, actual SR is still not a given/guaranteed. |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Apr 16, 2020 4:42:27 GMT
You see me defending his teachings, but what I feel I'm doing is simply replying, in a natural extension of conversation, from my expressing an opinion counter to yours. What I've been addressing are what I interpret as your subjective distortions about what he, and then, at one point, I've written along the way.
I agree that sifty is holding himself out to be a teacher, dangles the possibility of enlightenment, and that he promises simplicity. "Easy" is easily contradicted by interpreting the writings in context and in whole, and is essentially, a giraffe. "Guaranteed", while not contradicted, is also out of context, as he only offers the guarantee subject to certain conditions.  "Personally"? What's leading you to that distorted perspective? ...?  He does more than just 'dangles the possibility' of enlightenment. He pretty much assures, guarantees it. What he says below, is outright false.... misleading...do you agree or disagree?;  Now you're simply repeating yourself. It's as if you need to convince yourself that your opinion - which to me, you seem quite attached - is grounded in a sound basis.
I've already directly answered your yes/no question in the course of the dialog. To repeat that answer, the dichotomy is false: I wouldn't tell someone to ignore thought, but I can see where sifty is coming from. All one has to do to realize the existential truth is to stop constricting their mind on falsity, and as many people - not just sifty - have suggested, that requires sincerity, or as he put it, an "unconflicted desire". The only thing I'd add to that is that the realization will ultimately appear as a moment of grace.
Does that sound complicated, to you?  No, I'd never say that it's "guaranteed", but if you want an alternative interpretation of that notion not associated with your negative opinions, lookup the Zen aphorism of the "tiger's mouth".
Now, you imply that it should be obvious that I've somehow taken this personally, but you see, rather than just bare innuendo, I've given you specifics in what you've written that could objectively be considered personally insulting to sifty. That said, I can certainly understand how you might consider some of my opinions of your content and dynamic to have been unflattering, but I assure you that I don't feel insulted, just sometimes misunderstood. |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Apr 16, 2020 4:47:24 GMT
No, I'm putting the words back into context. I can see how you've come to the conclusion you've come to, I just disagree with it. Think back to what you've written about sincerity in the past, and compare that to "unconflicted desire". I think the term you used a few years back was something like .. "pure choice".
There is an important difference between saying that sincerity makes for a certain auspiciousness vs. saying that where there is sincerity, the path to enlightenment is guaranteed 'if you just follow these three (two, four, six..?) easy steps....'.... And where Sifting gets it wrong (again) is in saying that the seeker must sincerely 'want' to be enlightened, and he says if so, that guarantees victory.. enlightenment. The seeker has no actual idea what 'enlightenment' is, thus, his want for that means nothing. From the position of seeking, what we're talking then, is the seekers/SVP's want, and that is always for something personally gained/acquired. A sincere interest to look unflinchingly at the machinations of mind...to remain as consciously aware as possible to mind's movements, games, ways, is what's required, and even where that is in abundance, actual SR is still not a given/guaranteed. The human condition and the existential truth conspire to render conceptual fixed structures - especially those energized by opinion - as laughable folly. Any time you think you have a recipe for being right, you're waving your flag from atop a turret of sand. |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969 
|
Post by Enigma on Apr 16, 2020 4:50:27 GMT
***Checking pants.......*** Yup, I'm good to go.  Good to hear! Speaking of pants....wish my dog were wearing some.  Poor old guy must be getting dementia.....a few moments ago, wandered over, stood four-on-the-floor, not even a leg lift, and peed a river onto the rug next to me. He's pretty much completely blind....maybe he forgot he was in the house and figured the rug felt like grass...?  Or...Maybe he heard the news there was a really 'easy path' to liberation, and he took it.
That's probly it. It's Sifty's fault. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 16, 2020 4:56:37 GMT
There is an important difference between saying that sincerity makes for a certain auspiciousness vs. saying that where there is sincerity, the path to enlightenment is guaranteed 'if you just follow these three (two, four, six..?) easy steps....'.... And where Sifting gets it wrong (again) is in saying that the seeker must sincerely 'want' to be enlightened, and he says if so, that guarantees victory.. enlightenment. The seeker has no actual idea what 'enlightenment' is, thus, his want for that means nothing. From the position of seeking, what we're talking then, is the seekers/SVP's want, and that is always for something personally gained/acquired. A sincere interest to look unflinchingly at the machinations of mind...to remain as consciously aware as possible to mind's movements, games, ways, is what's required, and even where that is in abundance, actual SR is still not a given/guaranteed. The human condition and the existential truth conspire to render conceptual fixed structures - especially those energized by opinion - as laughable folly. Any time you think you have a recipe for being right, you're waving your flag from atop a turret of sand. Do you see any important difference between talking about/pointing to Truth vs. thinking you have a recipe for being right? Fwiw, I DO. |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Apr 16, 2020 4:58:19 GMT
No, I'm putting the words back into context. I can see how you've come to the conclusion you've come to, I just disagree with it. Think back to what you've written about sincerity in the past, and compare that to "unconflicted desire". I think the term you used a few years back was something like .. "pure choice".
There is an important difference between saying that sincerity makes for a certain auspiciousness vs. saying that where there is sincerity, the path to enlightenment is guaranteed 'if you just follow these three (two, four, six..?) easy steps....'.... And where Sifting gets it wrong (again) is in saying that the seeker must sincerely 'want' to be enlightened, and he says if so, that guarantees victory.. enlightenment.
The seeker has no actual idea what 'enlightenment' is, thus, his want for that means nothing. From the position of seeking, what we're talking then, is the seekers/SVP's want, and that is always for something personally gained/acquired.
A sincere interest to look unflinchingly at the machinations of mind...to remain as consciously aware as possible to mind's movements, games, ways, is what's required, and even where that is in abundance, actual SR is still not a given/guaranteed.
Great point. That's why words like sincerity, honesty and earnestness are used instead of wants, needs and desires. If one want's to be free, that's great, but stop short of figuring out what that needs to look like. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 16, 2020 5:07:36 GMT
Now you're simply repeating yourself. It's as if you need to convince yourself that your opinion - which to me, you seem quite attached - is grounded in a sound basis. I've already directly answered your yes/no question in the course of the dialog. To repeat that answer, the dichotomy is false: I wouldn't tell someone to ignore thought, but I can see where sifty is coming from. You've mis-characterized my question; He's doing more than just telling folks to ignore thought..he says if you keep ignoring thought (or self-inquiring) clarity will come...that is all it takes to awaken. Do you agree or disagree with that particular assertion? Yes or no will do. It's misleading/misconceived to say "all one has to do" to "realize" as it sets up the false idea that realization is in the hands of the person. It's not. I'm familiar with 'the tiger's mouth.' It is not synonymous with a path/practice that is causal to SR. It speaks to the idea of 'auspiciousness.' |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2020 5:18:48 GMT
No, I'm putting the words back into context. I can see how you've come to the conclusion you've come to, I just disagree with it. Think back to what you've written about sincerity in the past, and compare that to "unconflicted desire". I think the term you used a few years back was something like .. "pure choice".
There is an important difference between saying that sincerity makes for a certain auspiciousness vs. saying that where there is sincerity, the path to enlightenment is guaranteed 'if you just follow these three (two, four, six..?) easy steps....'.... And where Sifting gets it wrong (again) is in saying that the seeker must sincerely 'want' to be enlightened, and he says if so, that guarantees victory.. enlightenment. The seeker has no actual idea what 'enlightenment' is, thus, his want for that means nothing. From the position of seeking, what we're talking then, is the seekers/SVP's want, and that is always for something personally gained/acquired. A sincere interest to look unflinchingly at the machinations of mind...to remain as consciously aware as possible to mind's movements, games, ways, is what's required, and even where that is in abundance, actual SR is still not a given/guaranteed. You advocate sincerity. Sincerity about what? How is that self-help different from sifting's so called self-help. If you really believe that there is no path to realization, that it is completely out of your hands, that there is nothing you can do, what is the point in even discussing it? Why would you even have a hunger to debate? |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Apr 16, 2020 5:32:12 GMT
The human condition and the existential truth conspire to render conceptual fixed structures - especially those energized by opinion - as laughable folly. Any time you think you have a recipe for being right, you're waving your flag from atop a turret of sand. Do you see any important difference between talking about/pointing to Truth vs. thinking you have a recipe for being right? Fwiw, I DO. Yes, I do, and my assessment of which applies to your current set of opinions is quite clearly the latter. |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Apr 16, 2020 5:35:45 GMT
Now you're simply repeating yourself. It's as if you need to convince yourself that your opinion - which to me, you seem quite attached - is grounded in a sound basis. I've already directly answered your yes/no question in the course of the dialog. To repeat that answer, the dichotomy is false: I wouldn't tell someone to ignore thought, but I can see where sifty is coming from. You've mis-characterized my question; He's doing more than just telling folks to ignore thought..he says if you keep ignoring thought (or self-inquiring) clarity will come...that is all it takes to awaken. Do you agree or disagree with that particular assertion? Yes or no will do. It's misleading/misconceived to say "all one has to do" to "realize" as it sets up the false idea that realization is in the hands of the person. It's not. I'm familiar with 'the tiger's mouth.' It is not synonymous with a path/practice that is causal to SR. It speaks to the idea of 'auspiciousness.' You keep on trying to contrive these yes/no false dichotomies. It's just prosecutor mind, twirling in the breeze of a dreamscape. Interpreting the phrase that included the word "guaranteed" in terms of the tiger's mouth aphorism isn't the same sort of hard movement of mind that your analysis of "synonomizing" would suggest. Rather, it's simply a grant of poetic license.  |
|
No, I'd never say that it's "guaranteed", but if you want an alternative interpretation of that notion not associated with your negative opinions, lookup the Zen aphorism of the "tiger's mouth".
Poor old guy must be getting dementia.....a few moments ago, wandered over, stood four-on-the-floor, not even a leg lift, and peed a river onto the rug next to me. He's pretty much completely blind....maybe he forgot he was in the house and figured the rug felt like grass...? 
