Middle way as the end of more

Submitted by freedom on
Printer-friendly version

If you settle with me, then the past is dropped. It is difficult and hard to drop the past, but unless you drop the past, the mind will never allow you freedom. The mind is your past; the whole accumulated past is your mind. Drop the past, and these moments will penetrate to the very core. And you will not think about "more," because you think about more only when these moments have not penetrated to the core. When they have penetrated to the core, there is nothing more. And when there is nothing more, there is bliss and benediction.

-- Osho, Ecstasy:The Forgotten Language, Talks on Songs of Kabir, Discourse # 4, Question #6

http://www.energyenhancement.org/kabir/Kabir-Ecstasy-The-Forgotten-Language-Ch-4-The-Way-Of-Religion-Question-6.html

This seems close to how folks are describing less is more sex. Without seeking, one arrives.

On a side note, if one wraps text between <code> and </code>, it will not be read as html code and unwanted emoticons can be kept at bay. The font changes. Anyone know another way to deal with this sort of problem: "end:-)" showing as "end:-)" ?

 

Comments

The text doesn't fully

The text doesn't fully capture his wit. Hearing his British? grammar structure, e.g., "why they should" versus "why should they" can make one wonder why we Americans do it our way. Perhaps, for him, it is was more than his schooling and instead an attempt at a Britsh-American English duality. 

It seems to be a great source for when Osho name drops and one has no idea what he's referring to.

Do your clients describe the Osho commune the way he describes it?

Sometimes one wants to use

Sometimes one wants to use words and not have auto-correct decide a parentheses with some other characters is an emotion itching for its day in the cyber-sun wearing emoticon swimwear. Talk about being caught with the wrong attire. 

Titanic going down calls for

Titanic going down calls for an emoticon. WWOAT - What would our ancestors' think? CQD, and later SOS, served some serious function. People wrote letters for ages without textual smiles. Are we reducing the value of a smile? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/04/opinion/04iht-edfield04.html

I was going to mention Lincoln and PowerPoint for an analogy. http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/19/hfo-emoticon

Oh really?

I'm mixed. People are getting worse at using words to express emotions. We can't interpret written emotion as well as we once could. Language is evolving for better or worse. Emoticons seem a language of impatience. Others assume everyone understands emoticons which isn't always the case. Isn't it to some extent like porn? Each smiling yellow pixel blob numbs us to real smiles and makes us expect these pixels over words and perhaps real smiles. Emoticon use narrows our range of emotions, prompts us to expect an emotional response more often than might be natural when at a distance, prompts us to wait for a response, and so on. We then have to express our emotions in louder ways for them to be detected by numbed people. And those that don't are cast out as strange when it is actually the typical that has consumed the normal.

On the flip side, there is the argument for harmless fun and an efficient way to express emotion.

Dem fighting smileys are making a ruckus

A replacement for penmenship in the days of bland printed text? Maybe the human eye hasn't evolved for so much print and this is a pushback. 

It's not a question of whether it restricts me. I'm fine not using them. I don't feel obliged or maybe I'd give in. It's a bit annoying when that confuses people. I'm fine expressing my idiosynchracies. Others seem less willing to question. Maybe that's some of my purpose. My username is freedom. Freedom from whom and what is the question. Maybe myself. That's a losing battle.