UnbornTao

So what are you asking in this thread? Leave the absolute aside as the chitchat doesn't seem to help at all. It is an unknown possibility for us. Talk is easy and isn't the same as coming from a consciousness of what's what, and recognizing this difference can be tricky -- that's essentially my point here. But again, ask in a way that's real for you in your own experience and that would help you move toward something more genuine.

Cheer up. The role of yourself in creating whatever is experienced shouldn't be overlooked.

Stolen from admin.

You must see this is as a feeling you are generating, perhaps having to do with hopelessness, maybe in order to justify or defend a complacent attitude. But that's up for you to find out. A question that can be can continually asked is "What is this in front of me?" This referring to your experience of anything. "Is limitation bad, or is it rather a necessity for anything to exist? How could a possibility be actualized without limitation to ground it in reality?" Maybe the expectation that our every desire must be fulfilled sets us up for endless disappointment. "Is it possible for one to be happy and experience suffering -- or pleasure, joy, boredom, and so on?"

You are putting the cart before the horse. Once you realize that you truly don't know what anything is, you can begin questioning what's in front of your nose (experience) and move forward from there. Investigate this and that, generating insights, until you become a "Buddha". Then, you can return to the world to wrestle and dialogue with us.

At the same time, even seemingly universal agreements do not equate to understanding what is actually being agreed upon. What’s objective and what’s subjective? The laws of physics may apply universally, but notice that disagreement is rarely about “objective” realities. An apple is an apple, but what occurs if you consider it ugly? Is that the same world/experience for you and me? The act of complaining itself, as you mentioned, isn’t a fact of the universe but an action. It is likely experienced very differently from one person to another; it is not a “fixed” reality. Also, it is within this shared, taken-for-granted world that humanity, at some point, “knew” that the Earth was the center of the universe, that witches existed, that storms were caused by angry gods, etc. Notice that we live as if our cultures were “true,” but none of them are. They are invented worlds we unknowingly operate within and yet consider to be reality, much like fish don’t recognize they’re swimming in water. This suggests we have a hard time distinguishing between what’s objectively there and what’s subjectively added. For example, football fans watching a game share a particular “fantasy” of what’s happening -- it is a little world to engage in, not a fact of the universe, even though we think we’re just encountering what is there.

It depends on what you want to accomplish with the exposure. At the end of the day, what you can do is putting the word out, exposing others to the work. People will always interpret and handle the material in their own way -- kind of like the Telephone game. Obviously this is simplistic but the point is made.

If someone is profoundly conscious (which is not a given and rarer than we often think), there wouldn’t be much disparity between two such people. This isn’t to say their beliefs or opinions would necessarily be the same -- they might differ greatly -- but a consciousness of what’s true is a consciousness of what’s true. The issue seems to arise when attempting to communicate the absolute, along with the sheer rarity of an individual truly "listening" to that transmission. As a game, imagine if we were to put Ramana, Buddha, and Rumi in the same room (and they somehow understood each other through language), there wouldn’t be much disparity in their “view.” But I imagine this mutual recognition would be incredibly difficult to convey to us, who are ignorant of any ultimate truth. As for the disagreements between people, most of them are really just posturing; they believe something and conflate a statement with consciousness of existence. What they're up to for the most part is entertainment, defending their beliefs, and engaging in various social games. Another story: In a gathering of monks, the Buddha was giving a lecture. He is said to have raised a flower, at which point Ananda smiled and was said to have “got it.” He grasped what his cousin was trying to convey. That seems like a magical occurrence. We must admit that such a thing is a complete mystery to us. So, the issue isn’t simply about making claims, agreeing on them, or being convinced by them. Also, you seem to be talking about relative matters too.

Because a perspective isn't about what is there as a fixed or objective reality existing independent of the author. A perspective is a limited interpretation made in order to meaningfully approach what is encountered; otherwise it would be completely meaningless data. But the real nature of what's encountered is up for grabs. And that direct encounter itself isn't a perspective. Also, there are perspectives or ways of looking at the world that are more aligned with fact and functionality than others.

Your relationship to "the obvious" determines your degree of openness. What do you overlook about yourself, reality, culture, health, creativity, communication, emotion, and so on? What is it that you believe? What aspects of your experience do you consider to be obvious? Questioning requires getting over the seemingly automatic and arrogant posture we often adopt in regards to our knowledge. Our experience of reality is quickly deemed known and "true." We interpret, make sense of, categorize things. We value having a solid sense of self and reality. Yet, deep down, there lingers a sense that this relationship may be artificial. Opening up beyond the way we currently hold things tends to undermine our sense of certainty. What is it that we claim to know? Is it a personal encounter with something? Is it a dispassionate, unbiased observation? How can we move toward a more authentic experience of things?

Who doesn't?

Breathe, it's fine. I'd add that contemplating is more about "silence" and "waiting" than it is about thinking and intellect -- thus providing an opening or space rather than "knowledge" and constriction. So, that's something useful to consider. Of course, when contemplating, one's intent has to be directed at a particular subject so as to give the mind something concrete to focus on.

Duplicate thread:

More like a raccoon.

Christ Sutras by Bart Marshall -- recommended reading.

Are you defending suffering? It is as feasible as generating it.

Can "lying" be unconscious? It seems that ignorance may lie behind certain forms of "lying." But I'm holding lying as having a broader meaning than the norm, as in operating from untrue things. This would be a deeper investigation. For example, we tend to take our beliefs to be true. We do. Yet they are beliefs--the truth is unknown. We might assume that we are X or Y, and, while not false, it is untrue, which might be called unconsciousness, or in a sense, "lying." I might be taking creative liberties with the word, though.

But isn't pleasure something distinct from happiness? Can you find pain -- and thus, likely suffering -- underlying the search for pleasure? Can one suffer and still be happy regardless? That would certainly place "happiness" in an unconventional category relative to how it is commonly understood. Essentially, what are they?

Consider that.

Nice, thank you. If there's some genuine insight beyond the rhetoric instead of something that is subjective, then that's OK.

You need to see that this is something you're doing, and how you're doing it. Essentially, it is based on what you create with your mind (what you "think"). Stop generating those expectations, ideations, and demands, and the subsequent negative feelings that result from them won't occur. Catch your own conceptual activity at the beginning of these dysfunctional thinking loops.

Dani Smash-It?