09-10-2010, 12:00 AM
Well, Fool , you said words were empty. And its actually absurd to imbue essence into words, I agree! And equally absurd to take on identities as real and permanent, agree with that too. Its only folly. That's why its a worthy endeavor to talk about that which is not folly. It opens up the potential of that option.
And again, for me its not strict. Really the crux is how we perceive. If you perceive strict or if you perceive serious, that's what you perceive (but not what I or someone else necessarily will). And, regardless of what emotion is perceived, its not going to last anyway. Things are not fixed and permanent. Which is again due to emptiness.
So we can illusion being behind or in front of the finger, or we can see that all positions taken are empty. Then we laugh because nothing matters. By contrast, being behind the finger and laughing is a laugh of advantage (haha gotcha), and being in front of the finger and laughing is a laugh of surrender (oh I'm out of favor...I'll laugh it off). These link to the chain of cause and effect. So "identity" moves to the next point and next point. Laughing from emptiness laughs because neither position is viable as a 'real' option, and its actually quite funny. Not funny due to any social implications, but funny because it has nothing to do with any social implications. (No way to get back to Ixtlan).
And if you want to laugh in the social implications, fine, I've done my share of that too. But obviously I felt this topic here was important enough to not do that (give in to consensus). And its not that I don't have a clever come back, believe me I have loads of them (especially in the Bill Murray genre). But that's just it, its a hamster on a treadmill...it just keeps going and going until the parities involved get exhausted or satisfied which ever occurs first. Been there, done that, know all about that. Being that this is a Shamanic and Zen site, seems appropriate to discuss emptiness here. I like what Blue Totem started, it was intriguing. Its just that he had yet to elaborate on it. So it could be seen what he was referring to and if it vibed with our own experiences. You and Fool #2 (pardon the pun...oh I think that's a gotcha...oops) jumped a bit quick on the idea that emptiness is not fullness. Maybe theoretically that sounds absurd, but experientially not necessarily. I was wanting to hear how he would answer Lex's question, but he in fact chose not to answer, so that's still a big question mark...what he meant by fullness. I'm not sure it should just be dismissed though, called ****. That was a bit self-righteous on your part ya think?...sorry, there I go with the gotchas again. Don't accept that label under no circumstances. I only propelled it as a counter to your own suggestion propelled previously (remember cause and effect). To show we are all Spartacus (crucify the Bastard!)...but again don't accept that label either. You are not Spartacus. Nor am I. Nor was he nor was the actor who played him. Ohhhh, but if you want to get into social matters, yes we are all him. Absolutely. We have all sinned. Cannot cast any stones in innocence (virtue). But will try. If labels mean so much. That's why emptiness is much less strict than this! It does not demand a toll. Contrarily it offers no (social) reward either, except freedom from toll.
Will you call this woman's wisdom, ****, or otherwise? Regardless, I will not accept labels as absolutes, and I gather neither would you (and power to you for that!). That's why it's less strict to just focus on experiences. But, sigh, I understand the world (of intending) is as it should be, regardless, and may just keep that illusory social structure in operation. Folly folly folly, life is but a dream.
And again, for me its not strict. Really the crux is how we perceive. If you perceive strict or if you perceive serious, that's what you perceive (but not what I or someone else necessarily will). And, regardless of what emotion is perceived, its not going to last anyway. Things are not fixed and permanent. Which is again due to emptiness.
So we can illusion being behind or in front of the finger, or we can see that all positions taken are empty. Then we laugh because nothing matters. By contrast, being behind the finger and laughing is a laugh of advantage (haha gotcha), and being in front of the finger and laughing is a laugh of surrender (oh I'm out of favor...I'll laugh it off). These link to the chain of cause and effect. So "identity" moves to the next point and next point. Laughing from emptiness laughs because neither position is viable as a 'real' option, and its actually quite funny. Not funny due to any social implications, but funny because it has nothing to do with any social implications. (No way to get back to Ixtlan).
And if you want to laugh in the social implications, fine, I've done my share of that too. But obviously I felt this topic here was important enough to not do that (give in to consensus). And its not that I don't have a clever come back, believe me I have loads of them (especially in the Bill Murray genre). But that's just it, its a hamster on a treadmill...it just keeps going and going until the parities involved get exhausted or satisfied which ever occurs first. Been there, done that, know all about that. Being that this is a Shamanic and Zen site, seems appropriate to discuss emptiness here. I like what Blue Totem started, it was intriguing. Its just that he had yet to elaborate on it. So it could be seen what he was referring to and if it vibed with our own experiences. You and Fool #2 (pardon the pun...oh I think that's a gotcha...oops) jumped a bit quick on the idea that emptiness is not fullness. Maybe theoretically that sounds absurd, but experientially not necessarily. I was wanting to hear how he would answer Lex's question, but he in fact chose not to answer, so that's still a big question mark...what he meant by fullness. I'm not sure it should just be dismissed though, called ****. That was a bit self-righteous on your part ya think?...sorry, there I go with the gotchas again. Don't accept that label under no circumstances. I only propelled it as a counter to your own suggestion propelled previously (remember cause and effect). To show we are all Spartacus (crucify the Bastard!)...but again don't accept that label either. You are not Spartacus. Nor am I. Nor was he nor was the actor who played him. Ohhhh, but if you want to get into social matters, yes we are all him. Absolutely. We have all sinned. Cannot cast any stones in innocence (virtue). But will try. If labels mean so much. That's why emptiness is much less strict than this! It does not demand a toll. Contrarily it offers no (social) reward either, except freedom from toll.
Will you call this woman's wisdom, ****, or otherwise? Regardless, I will not accept labels as absolutes, and I gather neither would you (and power to you for that!). That's why it's less strict to just focus on experiences. But, sigh, I understand the world (of intending) is as it should be, regardless, and may just keep that illusory social structure in operation. Folly folly folly, life is but a dream.