Comments on “Yes”
Adding new comments is disabled for now.
Comments are for the page: Yes
Thanks; I stole it
Thank you! I like Wallace Stevens a lot.
I stole the form of the last bit from a pre-Buddhist Tibetan poem that appears in Stephan Beyer's The Classical Tibetan Language. Someday I will write a review of that book—it's a delight. It's a real work of philology in the original sense – he loved the language. It's immensely erudite, urbane, poetic, often very funny, and (most unusually, for books on Tibetan language) accurate.
David
"Yes— meaning is neither
“Yes— meaning is neither objective, nor subjective. (Meaning arises in the interaction between subject and object.)”
False. Because subjects are not separate from objects for one. And two, all meaning is intentional, meaning things have the meanings that they do so long as you continue to consent. Consent is effortless and habitual, so we don’t notice it. Still. Consent is there and you can withdraw it and thereby shatter this world either temporarily or even permanently, or alter significant parts of it. This assumes you feel comfortable with what is conventionally seen as insanity. If we define sanity as habitually familiar, it’s obvious why being willingly insane is important if you want to exercise your intent to the fullest extent possible. This is a fate scarier than death, because in death your body dies, but your mind dies believing same things it believed during life, you die sane. Your stupid tradition either doesn’t teach you about this, or vainly and wrongly keeps it a secret. It’s vain because none of these truths belong to you anyway. You are all thieves and impostors and none of you are really needed in the world. Wisdom will go on just fine with all of you gone, trust me. You won’t be missed.
^^^ what's with that guy
Enjoyed the page, but I feel like it detracts from the arguments if you let random megalomaniacs leave death wishes against you as the last comment for a whole decade. Don’t think much of his argument either; even if you don’t believe in a bear chasing you, it still believes in you.
Allowing confusion
Well, what they wrote doesn’t make much sense to me either. At a guess, this was a person who was experiencing significant emotional pain, leading to substantial conceptual confusion. Or, put less charitably, they were seriously depressed and slightly delusional.
I usually leave comments like that up. I hope they can be a reminder of readers’ own pain and confusion, and also our own OKness and sanity. We all experience all those things.
Saying “Yes!” to reality as a whole entails affirming darkness too.
Agreed
It’s as you say. What I should’ve said is that the above comment did deserve to be here, but didn’t deserve to be the final word - it feels too authoritative that way, and while I’ve been reading the site the comments have been equally valuable (which is rare!).
I’m here because of dissatisfaction with secular mindfulness, which certainly is consumerist but that’s not my critique of it - so let me continue on a more relevant page :)
Yes, Indeed!
“After the final no there comes a yes
And on that yes the future world depends.
No was the night. Yes is this present sun.”
(The Well Dressed Man with a Beard– Wallace Stevens)
The last section– particularly and formally– is wonderful poetry; that said, I realize that your writing generally, in spirit if not in form, is also poignantly poetic. That is, perhaps, how it is with Dzogchen.
Thank you so much for your labors on our behalf.