Comments on: We need a new model … http://www.johnsherman.org/2006/11/05/we-need-a-new-model/ Self-inquiry with John Sherman Sun, 07 Sep 2008 13:32:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: genny carr http://www.johnsherman.org/2006/11/05/we-need-a-new-model/#comment-1404 Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:31:48 +0000 http://www.johnsherman.org/2006/11/05/we-need-a-new-model/#comment-1404 John - do you ever come to San Diego area? The Philosophical Library would invite you to come and share yourself. Please contact me. John - do you ever come to San Diego area? The Philosophical Library would invite you to come and share yourself. Please contact me.

]]> by: Alex http://www.johnsherman.org/2006/11/05/we-need-a-new-model/#comment-1028 Wed, 25 Apr 2007 14:22:10 +0000 http://www.johnsherman.org/2006/11/05/we-need-a-new-model/#comment-1028 Thank You Thank You

]]> by: Ernie http://www.johnsherman.org/2006/11/05/we-need-a-new-model/#comment-936 Sat, 21 Apr 2007 03:15:13 +0000 http://www.johnsherman.org/2006/11/05/we-need-a-new-model/#comment-936 I love this entry. Maybe compassion for the worlds increasing misery and stupidity will force us to actually listen and learn (or remember) rather than worship ? Peace, Ernie I love this entry.

Maybe compassion for the worlds increasing misery and stupidity will force us to actually listen and learn (or remember) rather than worship ?

Peace,
Ernie

]]> by: Michwel http://www.johnsherman.org/2006/11/05/we-need-a-new-model/#comment-25 Fri, 24 Nov 2006 20:47:09 +0000 http://www.johnsherman.org/2006/11/05/we-need-a-new-model/#comment-25 This is a somewhat contrite sequel to my blog of Nov. 20. I feel the loose end of it is that: "there is a place for models, just as there is a place for problems," as well as for words, being that these are in (relatively) transient existence. Should they be therefore given any attention? No, to be true to John's teaching; no. And yet they partake of our attention, whether consciously or not. Being needs not fight them. And, we impartially allow (and even add) to their fulfilled lives, sometimes even as they begin or end as models. They appear, approach, and disappear as they get too close, unless we splice a personal storyline onto them so as to give them mass and duration. In the case of models, they appear, approach and disappear, unless we splice a personal or impersonal story onto their pretextual nature. If we do, the storyline has the added advantage of a pretextual value, increasing its potential for mass and duration. However, if we do not splice a personal storyline onto the arising model, the pretextual value of it is simply another pointer. As with any thought, a pointer, whether of greater or lesser perceivable consequence. So the question arises, is John pointing to a pointer of perceivable consequence, by suggesting that there is a pretextual value in intelligence and discernment. His words: "...a new model in which our own inherent intelligence and discernment can be relied upon to separate the wheat from the chaff." John is realy asking, are we ready to perceive the pointing value of a model (this model, in particular) without splicing a personal storyline onto it. Are we awake enough to distinquish intelligence and discernment without having to define them for ourselves in terms of a dissociated mental interpretation ("mind") and judgement-based perpetuation ("story"). Are we ready to perceive intelligence and discernment as issuing from being -- issuing from us as and for being. Can we "do" this beyond any context of mind or story? Yes, sure we can, John, because you have pointed us to at least that spot. The question remains, however, do these pre-phenomenal (even pre-vibrational) expressions of being comprise a "model"? For now, I would elect "no", because a model is generally understood to be a circumscription, separate from what/who it models for. Intelligence is the ongoing or intermittent touch of awareness in consciousness. Discernment is the perception of distinction in that touch. Neither appear to be circumscribed in themselves, or by anything. And, nor are they circumscribed in their actions of separating wheat from chaff. They are uncircumscribed points, independent of dimension. They are "permanent" ("can be relied upon"). They can be framed with a projected (transient)embodiment and thus be modelled, for either an instant or for an eon in mind. But I do not presently perceive them per se self-presenting as models. Should this blog response itself perchance "point" to a discernment, it will have pointed to a mirror. You have been pointed to by way of that mirror. But should it perchance "model" discernment, perhaps best let it go. Now. This is a somewhat contrite sequel to my blog of Nov. 20. I feel the loose end of it is that: “there is a place for models, just as there is a place for problems,” as well as for words, being that these are in (relatively) transient existence. Should they be therefore given any attention? No, to be true to John’s teaching; no. And yet they partake of our attention, whether consciously or not. Being needs not fight them. And, we impartially allow (and even add) to their fulfilled lives, sometimes even as they begin or end as models. They appear, approach, and disappear as they get too close, unless we splice a personal storyline onto them so as to give them mass and duration. In the case of models, they appear, approach and disappear, unless we splice a personal or impersonal story onto their pretextual nature. If we do, the storyline has the added advantage of a pretextual value, increasing its potential for mass and duration. However, if we do not splice a personal storyline onto the arising model, the pretextual value of it is simply another pointer. As with any thought, a pointer, whether of greater or lesser perceivable consequence. So the question arises, is John pointing to a pointer of perceivable consequence, by suggesting that there is a pretextual value in intelligence and discernment. His words: “…a new model in which our own inherent intelligence and discernment can be relied upon to separate the wheat from the chaff.” John is realy asking, are we ready to perceive the pointing value of a model (this model, in particular) without splicing a personal storyline onto it. Are we awake enough to distinquish intelligence and discernment without having to define them for ourselves in terms of a dissociated mental interpretation (”mind”) and judgement-based perpetuation (”story”). Are we ready to perceive intelligence and discernment as issuing from being — issuing from us as and for being. Can we “do” this beyond any context of mind or story? Yes, sure we can, John, because you have pointed us to at least that spot. The question remains, however, do these pre-phenomenal (even pre-vibrational) expressions of being comprise a “model”? For now, I would elect “no”, because a model is generally understood to be a circumscription, separate from what/who it models for. Intelligence is the ongoing or intermittent touch of awareness in consciousness. Discernment is the perception of distinction in that touch. Neither appear to be circumscribed in themselves, or by anything. And, nor are they circumscribed in their actions of separating wheat from chaff. They are uncircumscribed points, independent of dimension. They are “permanent” (”can be relied upon”). They can be framed with a projected (transient)embodiment and thus be modelled, for either an instant or for an eon in mind. But I do not presently perceive them per se self-presenting as models.
Should this blog response itself perchance “point” to a discernment, it will have pointed to a mirror. You have been pointed to by way of that mirror. But should it perchance “model” discernment, perhaps best let it go. Now.

]]> by: Frank W http://www.johnsherman.org/2006/11/05/we-need-a-new-model/#comment-24 Tue, 21 Nov 2006 12:33:29 +0000 http://www.johnsherman.org/2006/11/05/we-need-a-new-model/#comment-24 Dear John, I owe a gratitude that I cannot put to words for the absurd good luck of coming across Ramana Maharishi's not-a-teaching in my lifetime. Sitting at the feet of a teacher, Isaac Shapiro in my case, was the best thing that happened to me yet. I love <em>meeting in truth</em> - That's what Satsang is, right? However, meeting in truth does in no way imply the santaclausiness that a lot of people, ‘teachers’ and ‘students’ alike, seem to enjoy to no end. As a mushroom once told Terence McKenna, asking someone else for enlightenment is like one grain of sand on the beach asking another for directions. The greatness of Ramana's teaching is that there's really no teaching, no teacher, no student, there is only a meeting in truth. Belief is the old model. I see no distinction between <em>false</em> and <em>true</em> belief. It's usually true enough, as belief, that is. Our culture has belief and religion thoroughly mixed up. We're all raised in the belief that belief is a good thing. And <em>that</em> belief is never challenged. Now do we need a new model, or should we have a deep distrust of models in the first place? What kind of model would prevent my great-great-granddaughter twenty times removed burning a candle for a gilded bronze statue of Ramana Maharishi? I can't think of any. Only the love of truth could do that. Dear John,

I owe a gratitude that I cannot put to words for the absurd good luck of coming across Ramana Maharishi’s not-a-teaching in my lifetime. Sitting at the feet of a teacher, Isaac Shapiro in my case, was the best thing that happened to me yet. I love meeting in truth - That’s what Satsang is, right? However, meeting in truth does in no way imply the santaclausiness that a lot of people, ‘teachers’ and ‘students’ alike, seem to enjoy to no end.

As a mushroom once told Terence McKenna, asking someone else for enlightenment is like one grain of sand on the beach asking another for directions. The greatness of Ramana’s teaching is that there’s really no teaching, no teacher, no student, there is only a meeting in truth.

Belief is the old model. I see no distinction between false and true belief. It’s usually true enough, as belief, that is. Our culture has belief and religion thoroughly mixed up. We’re all raised in the belief that belief is a good thing. And that belief is never challenged.

Now do we need a new model, or should we have a deep distrust of models in the first place? What kind of model would prevent my great-great-granddaughter twenty times removed burning a candle for a gilded bronze statue of Ramana Maharishi? I can’t think of any. Only the love of truth could do that.

]]> by: Michwel http://www.johnsherman.org/2006/11/05/we-need-a-new-model/#comment-21 Tue, 21 Nov 2006 01:27:23 +0000 http://www.johnsherman.org/2006/11/05/we-need-a-new-model/#comment-21 Who or what could possibly be a model for this? Nothing can model this. We think Jesus or Satsang offers it, and yet, (as John once stated,) what you experience in Satsang is not what you're looking for (my paraphrasing). Maharshi didn't offer a model -- not insofar as John teaches Maharshi. It can only be your being, and there can be no model for that -- not even others' beingness, freely self-awakened as it may be. Therefore, as John suggests, bring the attention back to its source -- your being. Unfortunately, and luckily, being doesn't model itself, except to explore by way of self-amnesia, it seems. So, even models have a place, which is the same as to say that even problems have their place. In other words, perhaps the last thing we should be asking for is another model -- the which would probably just go through the historical social mind cycle described by John in this blog. The model in which "our own inherent intelligence and discernment can be relied upon to separate the wheat from the chaff" WAS Buddhism. That, as John states over and over, "we truly are what we seek" is beyond and apriori all modeling. Who or what could possibly be a model for this? Nothing can model this. We think Jesus or Satsang offers it, and yet, (as John once stated,) what you experience in Satsang is not what you’re looking for (my paraphrasing). Maharshi didn’t offer a model — not insofar as John teaches Maharshi. It can only be your being, and there can be no model for that — not even others’ beingness, freely self-awakened as it may be. Therefore, as John suggests, bring the attention back to its source — your being. Unfortunately, and luckily, being doesn’t model itself, except to explore by way of self-amnesia, it seems. So, even models have a place, which is the same as to say that even problems have their place. In other words, perhaps the last thing we should be asking for is another model — the which would probably just go through the historical social mind cycle described by John in this blog. The model in which “our own inherent intelligence and discernment can be relied upon to separate the wheat from the chaff” WAS Buddhism. That, as John states over and over, “we truly are what we seek” is beyond and apriori all modeling.

]]> by: Tobias http://www.johnsherman.org/2006/11/05/we-need-a-new-model/#comment-20 Sun, 19 Nov 2006 17:25:01 +0000 http://www.johnsherman.org/2006/11/05/we-need-a-new-model/#comment-20 Hello John, My favorite part is the last sentence: "we need a new model in which our own inherent intelligence and discernment can be relied upon to separate the wheat from the chaff." (and find the truth). If such model could be found, if this is possible (the same way science started to discover this universe, opposing religious belief)... it would change the world of humanity. If one looks to evolution, there have always been steps to a new understanding of the world, and oneself. Today, that what science does concerning this universe, has to find its fulfillment concerning the understanding of ourselves. Otherwise science seems to be the tool mankind will use to kill itself. It is somehow the missing point, where the philosophy of the "siècle de la lumière" stopped, wasn't able till now, to look behind. I. Kant stopped at the point where the world appears, and one is not able to say anything about the nature of the things appearing. It seems just only a little step, but somehow very difficult, to find this link of "I and world". Tobias Hello John,

My favorite part is the last sentence: “we need a new model in which our own inherent intelligence and discernment can be relied upon to separate the wheat from the chaff.” (and find the truth).

If such model could be found, if this is possible (the same way science started to discover this universe, opposing religious belief)… it would change the world of humanity.

If one looks to evolution, there have always been steps to a new understanding of the world, and oneself. Today, that what science does concerning this universe, has to find its fulfillment concerning the understanding of ourselves. Otherwise science seems to be the tool mankind will use to kill itself.

It is somehow the missing point, where the philosophy of the “siècle de la lumière” stopped, wasn’t able till now, to look behind. I. Kant stopped at the point where the world appears, and one is not able to say anything about the nature of the things appearing.

It seems just only a little step, but somehow very difficult, to find this link of “I and world”.

Tobias

]]> by: Don http://www.johnsherman.org/2006/11/05/we-need-a-new-model/#comment-19 Sun, 19 Nov 2006 13:45:34 +0000 http://www.johnsherman.org/2006/11/05/we-need-a-new-model/#comment-19 Life itself is teaching me, reminding me of what I seem to have forgotten. It's as if I am re-learning, over and over again, what I already know. One cannot help but love. Life itself is teaching me, reminding me of what I seem to have forgotten.
It’s as if I am re-learning, over and over again, what I already know.
One cannot help but love.

]]> by: Brad http://www.johnsherman.org/2006/11/05/we-need-a-new-model/#comment-15 Fri, 17 Nov 2006 04:35:37 +0000 http://www.johnsherman.org/2006/11/05/we-need-a-new-model/#comment-15 My favorite part of this post: We need a model that recognizes that while there certainly are those from whom the lie of false identity has been removed, those who might actually be of some practical help to those of us still caught in its grip, the only true teacher is the teacher that knows himself to be servant, not master. This is the only teacher I want. Brad My favorite part of this post:

We need a model that recognizes that while there certainly are those from whom the lie of false identity has been removed, those who might actually be of some practical help to those of us still caught in its grip, the only true teacher is the teacher that knows himself to be servant, not master.

This is the only teacher I want.

Brad

]]>