Essential Zen

Entertainment is a concept tacked on to the living reality. It is something extra added to the pure experience. To accept what is, as it is, one releases ideas of entertainment to perceive without opinion. If experience is perceived embellished with anything upon the pure reality, it is all together something other, an obscuration. With such obstructions before you what truly is cannot be accepted. Only a superficial surface level acceptance is achieved. So, one is only accepting a small corner of themselves, the part of them that adds to what is, not the what is as it is. If there is entertainment you have failed to see things as they are, if there is drama you have failed to see things as they are. What is accepted is only one’s own interference.

Affinity wrote:Entertainment is a concept tacked on to the living reality. It is something extra added to the pure experience. To accept what is, as it is, one releases ideas of entertainment to perceive without opinion. If experience is perceived embellished with anything upon the pure reality, it is all together something other, an obscuration. With such obstructions before you what truly is cannot be accepted. Only a superficial surface level acceptance is achieved. So, one is only accepting a small corner of themselves, the part of them that adds to what is, not the what is as it is. If there is entertainment you have failed to see things as they are, if there is drama you have failed to see things as they are. What is accepted is only one’s own interference.

~

“Entertainment is a concept tacked on to the living reality.”

Says who? ‘You.’ “I’ say so.” Who or what is this ‘I’? Who am I? What is me?

“It is something extra added to the pure experience.”

Dualistic ‘separation;’ What ‘is’ pure experience? Experience is experience. ‘Who’ is experiencing or entertaining experience?

“To accept what is, as it is, one releases…”

What ‘one’ is performing this releasing? Releasing ‘from what,’ to …..?

“ ideas of entertainment…”

Ideas. What’s an idea? ‘Who/Where’ does 'it' come from? ‘Where’ does ‘it’ go?

“…to perceive without opinion.”

Again, ‘who’ perceives? Also implied is that ‘without opinion’ is ‘better’ than with opinion.

String of assumptions, working backwards: Without opinion, being perceived, releasing ideas of entertainment, thus one may accept.

“If…”

Assumption based on false belief.

…although that is redundant; all belief is false, thus just an assumption.

‘If’ is the glue that ties beliefs together. Belief is belief, not truth, as most often assumed in comments that hold the word ‘if.’

“ …experience is perceived embellished with anything upon the pure reality….”

Experience is experienced. Perception is perceived. Who/what is perceiving, or, interpreting the perception or experience? ‘Pure reality?’ ‘Who’ perceives pure, or impure, reality? What IS pure reality?

“…it is all together something other, an obscuration.”

‘It?’ All together? Implies previous separation.

“With such obstructions before you what truly is cannot be accepted.”

Obstructions such as…? Before ‘you?’ (See previous.) Truly? Cannot? Accepted? Yet another long string of beliefs held together by………..?

“Only a superficial surface level acceptance is achieved.”

Another assumption. ‘Superficial surface’ implies also that there’s something, well, not superficial. Who/what is not superficial? As opposed to ‘superficial surface level’ I’m ‘assuming’ you also then imply profundus? What’s acceptance? Who/what is accepting? Achieved? In a game without stakes, achievement is redundant.

“So…”

Is that so?

"One…"

‘One’ who or one what?

“….accepting”

See previous comments….

“…a small corner of themselves….”

Answer ‘who am I.’ Also, first there was ‘one’ mentioned above, now there are multiple ‘themselves?’

“…the part of them… …,”

Which part? How many parts are there? One, not two.

“…that adds to what is not the what is as it is."

Redundant in the fact that there is only one, not two. Artificial separation and then combination is more delusional belief.

“If…”

Again, the beginning of a delusional assumption steeped in belief which is not understood.

“…there is entertainment you have failed to see things as they are,..."

How can one not see things as they are?

“…if there is drama you have failed to see things as they are.”

Redundant; see above comments.

“What is accepted is only one’s own interference.”

‘Who’ is accepting makes for a better question.

‘Who’ is accepting makes for a better question? ...Says who?

My post was in reference to accepting, not who. Everything you've shared here is great stuff if you're looking at your own who, but try to have a conversation without employing your who and you're quickly making no sense. Looking at your own who is your business and your work alone. Presuming to help others look at their own who is a molestation by your who and has everything to do with your who only. Your who's assumption is that other's have not questioned their own who to know delusion.

That said, let's talk about concepts. I for one really enjoy talking about concepts because they can be quickly understood, which is good. So, concepts plus me understanding equals good, really good. Me sharing my understanding with you is also good, quite good. But my best assumption is that you'll find it unpleasant and do your best to reply without using your who, which will make understanding what you have to say boring.

When you introduce "I" into the process, you are building a conceptual gap between the reality and the awareness viewing that reality. Thoughts such as "me," "my," or "mine" have no place in direct awareness. They are extraneous addenda, and insidious ones at that. When you bring "me" into the picture, you are identifying with the subject of observation. That simply adds emphasis to it. If you leave "I" out of the operation, the subject of observation is not identified with. It is just a pure surging of energy flow. If you find "I" insinuating itself in your experience of subjects or indeed any sensation, then just observe that mindfully. Pay bare attention to the phenomenon of personal identification with it.

Consider your own who as private or perhaps your very own dirty little secret. Knowing your dirty little secret is a private affair no one else can help you with, so presuming to know where others are at with their own dirty little who secret isn't going to do you or them any good. This is a thread about perception and acceptance, not who. However, if you'd like to discuses how to investigate your own who, or what the process surrounding doing so is like, lovely. Don't waste your time dissecting my conversational concepts and assumptions down to such a granular level when it's a concept I'm referring to, you'll always get stuck going line by line as you've demonstrated. You have your own who for that.

My who was generously employed in the construction of this response, and I say, damn it's a fine one! You see, my who also observed my who's experience without identifying with it, but my who identified with it also and I'm very proud.

When i tried to read the posts you both made , i instantly started trying to pick apart anything i could. How curious!
I gave up because i am lazy and you both seem bright. You'd both probably beat me in in intellectual argument and i dont enjoy feeling dumber than other people.
As for entertainment i am enjoying this forum and talking to people here.





I am even enjoying reading my own contributions, looking at them again after a short break away and feeling a little smug.
Ha! what conceit.

~

“My post was in reference to accepting, not who.”

To ‘accept’ there must be a ‘who’ to accept it. Acceptance and non-acceptance are dualistic terms, and redundant in a game without stakes, the same side of the same coin.

“Everything you've shared…”

‘My’ comments shared have nothing to do with ‘me;’ yet are in regards to the original post, thus most of ‘your’ comments are disgarded in this reply.

“….but try to have a conversation without employing your who and you're quickly making no sense.”

Perhaps this is an opportunity to explore.

“You, your, etc., etc.,” comments irrelevant to topic at hand. Dismissed. (Hint, hint, ask 'who's' dismissing the comments.)

“When you introduce "I" into the process, you are building a conceptual gap between the reality and the awareness viewing that reality.”

Assumption and artificial separation. Getting closer though….

“Thoughts such as "me," "my," or "mine" have no place in direct awareness.”

Then why did ‘you’ begin this post with, “My post…?”

“They are extraneous addenda, and insidious ones at that.”

Dualistic assumptions and judgement. You were discussing ‘direct awareness,’ right?

“When you…etc., etc.”

See above. Nothing to do with ‘me.’

“Consider your own who…etc., etc.”

See above.

“This is a thread about perception and acceptance, not who.”

As mentioned above, ‘who’ is perceiving and ‘who’ is accepting?

“However, if you'd like…”

See above.

Affinity wrote:‘Who’ is accepting makes for a better question? ...Says who?

My post was in reference to accepting, not who. Everything you've shared here is great stuff if you're looking at your own who, but try to have a conversation without employing your who and you're quickly making no sense. Looking at your own who is your business and your work alone. Presuming to help others look at their own who is a molestation by your who and has everything to do with your who only. Your who's assumption is that other's have not questioned their own who to know delusion.

That said, let's talk about concepts. I for one really enjoy talking about concepts because they can be quickly understood, which is good. So, concepts plus me understanding equals good, really good. Me sharing my understanding with you is also good, quite good. But my best assumption is that you'll find it unpleasant and do your best to reply without using your who, which will make understanding what you have to say boring.

When you introduce "I" into the process, you are building a conceptual gap between the reality and the awareness viewing that reality. Thoughts such as "me," "my," or "mine" have no place in direct awareness. They are extraneous addenda, and insidious ones at that. When you bring "me" into the picture, you are identifying with the subject of observation. That simply adds emphasis to it. If you leave "I" out of the operation, the subject of observation is not identified with. It is just a pure surging of energy flow. If you find "I" insinuating itself in your experience of subjects or indeed any sensation, then just observe that mindfully. Pay bare attention to the phenomenon of personal identification with it.

Consider your own who as private or perhaps your very own dirty little secret. Knowing your dirty little secret is a private affair no one else can help you with, so presuming to know where others are at with their own dirty little who secret isn't going to do you or them any good. This is a thread about perception and acceptance, not who. However, if you'd like to discuses how to investigate your own who, or what the process surrounding doing so is like, lovely. Don't waste your time dissecting my conversational concepts and assumptions down to such a granular level when it's a concept I'm referring to, you'll always get stuck going line by line as you've demonstrated. You have your own who for that.

My who was generously employed in the construction of this response, and I say, damn it's a fine one! You see, my who also observed my who's experience without identifying with it, but my who identified with it also and I'm very proud.

Mu