You are hereForums / Responsibility / Can fishing be a metaphor for life?

Can fishing be a metaphor for life?


19 replies [Last post]
RichardMiller's picture
User offline. Last seen 4 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 09/20/2009
Posts:

It’s a given that you go fishing to catch fish. You don’t go fishing to see the scenery or to prepare your tackle.

With life you can tell yourself all sorts of stories.  In a way, you are catering to all your tendencies built on what has seemed possible and impossible in your life. You are nursing all of your believed in inadequacies with your views on life.  You might have a philosophy that “I am here just to see what God delivers to me.”  In that case you can be pretty sure that God won’t deliver any fish. To catch fish you have to do what is right and what works for each situation. You have to be the major player in your own discovery process.

Some things are really basic.  If your hook is not in the water, or doesn’t have bait on it, you are not fishing.  What percentage of the time are you preparing your line, fixing your tackle or changing your position, and how much time are you really fishing?  Your life is right here, but for many we are convinced that we need to prepare some more in order to live.  We need to follow teachings and listen to “pointers” in order to live life correctly.

Some fishing is done with floats, sometimes called bobbers.  When a fish is checking your bait, he is moving your float around. That is your hint that something is happening in life. Let’s say that we have found a great teacher whom we want to emulate.  They have a sure fire method and they guarantee that you will progress through different levels of deepening experience.  But you will never never catch a fish by watching someone else’s float, or reciting someone else’s pointers.  You must watch only your own line to be fishing.  You must focus on the subtleties of your own life to discover something new. (Read More)

In fishing it’s a given to say you want to catch a big fish. A fish gets big by living long (not getting caught many years before you come).  Therefore older fish have learned quite a bit about how not to get caught.  They know more about fishing that you do. Catching a big fish is very subtile.  You have to watch your own line very intently and be undisturbed with extraneous thoughts of categories and pointers and judgements of how you are doing at it, or you are not fishing.

Fishing line has a memory.  It picks up twists from being stretched and especially if you are using spinning tackle.  If you make a false move and throw a lot of slack into your line those twists will wind up in an instant.  You will have a huge knot.  Your living also has strong tendencies which manifest problems when you make false moves.  Some people label it Karma, and make an external “entity” out of it. But it is only your tendencies that have accumulated from rote living.  Fishing often takes patient unwinding of the line on every false move.  Anger or frustration never helps untie a fishing knot.

What does “catching a fish” symbolize in life? Isn’t contentment and happiness what we are all looking for?  That is our big fish.  When we find ourselves “preparing to be content”, we are searching for contentment with the method of discontent. It never ever can work, can it? 

This realization casts doubt on every teaching and pointing method in the world, and puts them all in a proper perspective.  Can you teach someone to fish by having them watch your bobber? Absolutely not.  You have to convince them to stop watching any fish line other than their own.  Can someone be searching for an awakening experience when they are content?  Those are two diametrically opposite endeavors, aren’t they?  The very searching is a dismissal of what is here now to be content about. Can you practice contentment?  It is simpler than that.  Contentment is just your definition. Apply it to this moment, and to your thoughts and feelings that it now contains.

 

0
Your rating: None
n/a
User offline. Last seen 7 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 01/25/2010
Posts:
Hi Richard! I agree with Tony

Hi Richard!

I agree with Tony in that every situation in life can be used as a metaphor, but I`ll comment on yours about fishing.

If I`d need to go fishing right now, I wouldn`t know where to start or what to do, so I`d go to my neighbour fisherman to get some advice and help to get tools etc.
Preferably I`d choose to go to a fishermen family with a long fishing tradition to really get good practice.
And then, standing on the bank of the river with my equipment, I wouldn`t hesitate to ask the fellow fishing by my side how he manage getting more good fishing luck than I. And when I realize I`m quite good at this work maybe I can help others too.

No matter if we like or not, we are all standing on the shoulders of those who had walked the path before and when we feel mature, we can enjoy the process of our own experiences and discoveries.

RichardMiller's picture
User offline. Last seen 4 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 09/20/2009
Posts:
We learn a lot from others in so many areas

But what does it give us of real value?

Those that learn the most from others have been all the way through college.  I won't burden you with all kinds of statistics, but google suicide on campus.

Experts estimate 10888 suicides occur at colleges every year - that's roughly 7.5 per 100,000 students. According to an ACHA study in 2002, 1 in 12 college students has actually made a suicide plan at some point and 1.5 out of every 100 have actually attempted it.

They aren't getting the big fish, contentment, learning from others.

Ex Soviet Union are highest in suicide, Russia leads with 40 / 100,000, Slovenia 27 / 100,000.

n/a
User offline. Last seen 7 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 01/25/2010
Posts:
Indeed a strange reply. To

Indeed a strange reply.

To get such a strange reply, my comment must have been very off the tracks or silly or at least very unclear. Sorry for that.

Well, not having any opinion on colleges or education facilitating suicides or not I`ll try to extend my previous post:

Since the spiral dynamic of evolution proceeds including the "old" before transcending it in its way of creating novelties, I think we also gain more beeing inclusive rather than exclusive in discarding what we got from before. I think that without an inclusive spirituality we cannot reach the growth and transformation we would reach otherwise.

The novelty is the real value. The opposite is stagnation.

Sorry if it is still unclear, I did my best.

Anna

marcus's picture
User offline. Last seen 10 hours 29 min ago. Offline
Joined: 02/14/2010
Posts:
"big fish"

Hi Richard.

You only know a thought after it happens and know an action only after it happens, and never before. The present ‘now’ contains neither a thought nor an action. Therefore it is impossible for anyone to play a major role in his discoveries. Some things are basic to absolutely understand this, such as total logic and reason, similar to a hook and bait to be totally in water for fishing. The metaphor fishing is applicable to life. You may catch a fish or may not, the fish is in the water because of God or light and not because of man, no matter how meticulous the preparations for fishing are. What you intend should happen in life may or may not happen, for life or God makes it happen, and man does not, albeit illusory, no matter how meticulous the preparations for the intentions are. By the way, you are yet to explain your contradictions and what aliveness is, which were enquired in the previous forums.

And please answer only one more question: How can anyone be at peace if he needs the big fish happiness to be happy and there are not enough big fish in the ocean for everybody? Would this not mean that if you are happy, that someone else has to be unhappy because of your happiness? ???

True happiness is not a "big fish", it is independent from whatever swims in the ocean and whoever gets it, so to speak. And therefore happiness does not make anybody else unhappy.

Marcus Stegmaier

RichardMiller's picture
User offline. Last seen 4 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 09/20/2009
Posts:
Scientific man posits

Scientific man posits movements and spaces that are beyond the capability of the unaided five senses to be aware of.  If we think that we are modern we may believe in these things, and recount that our tissue lives in ways that we are unaware of. But the bio-computers that are Marcus and Richard are aware of limited time intervals, limited sizes and limited speeds, and that is all our daily life is based on.  Maybe it is blasphemous to complain that we're not given enough equipment for living in this world.  

All of those subtle realms are thoughts and fantasies for us. I could pretend that life is way more, but it never will be a known actuality, and has no practicality to individual, family or community.  Yes you might become “not a doer”, and rely more on welfare, or your wife doing all the cooking.

OK, you’re falling off of a mountain.  Half way down you say to yourself “you only know an action after it happens”.  Bullshit, you know you’re falling during the happening.

You think of a present now that has no thought or action.  It is only another thought based on a feeble logic. Extending a thought train to a limit, the calculus of the mind, and nobody lives there.  Why waste your time like this?  Why not give yourself totally to the limited bio computer that you are?  Then maybe you would have satisfaction, contentment, and the “big fish” would already be yours.

You’ve jiggered your life so that you have no major role in living it.  What a relief.  Now the only satisfaction is to preach it to others and screw up their lives like yours.  At least you won’t be alone.

n/a
marcus's picture
User offline. Last seen 10 hours 29 min ago. Offline
Joined: 02/14/2010
Posts:
Dear Richard, Scientific man

Dear Richard,

Scientific man posits movements and spaces that are beyond the capability of the unaided five senses to be aware of. If we think that we are modern we may believe in these things, and recount that our tissue lives in ways that we are unaware of. But the bio-computers that are Marcus and Richard are aware of limited time intervals, limited sizes and limited speeds, and that is all our daily life is based on. Maybe it is blasphemous to complain that we're not given enough equipment for living in this world.
RESPONSE: Man can only be aware of movements and spaces sensed by his five senses which are limited because the mind which perceives the signals from the five senses is limited. Tissues surely live in ways that we are not totally aware of. The five senses are incompletely aware of life. There are movements and spaces which cannot be detected by the five senses, which man can neither aid nor help the five senses to detect. A man who posits that five senses could be aided to be more aware is surely blasphemous. Life is intelligent enough to give every species enough equipment to life in this world. It is just not the mind that makes living possible, because the mind too is equipment given by life and controlled by life in every moment, albeit illusory.

All of those subtle realms are thoughts and fantasies for us. I could pretend that life is way more, but it never will be a known actuality, and has no practicality to individual, family or community. Yes you might become “not a doer”, and rely more on welfare, or your wife doing all the cooking.
RESPONSE: The aliveness that happens to man is the welfare, and the wife doing the cooking. Can man control aliveness or premeditate aliveness as a certainty? Even the laziest is alive and moving all the time. Non-doer therefore does not mean laziness. By the way, please ask me about my life and do not conclude about it without knowing.

OK, you’re falling off of a mountain. Half way down you say to yourself “you only know an action after it happens”. Bullshit, you know you’re falling during the happening.
RESPONSE: You know it the moment you fall off a mountain and during the fall too and not before you fall of the mountain, and you will know the fall is finished only after it is finished and not before that. To understand one needs to ponder: Do you know that you are falling exactly at the point when the falling begins? When you know that you are falling the fall has already begun. Therefore you only know after it has happened, meaning the action has started already. The same applies to the end of an action.

You think of a present now that has no thought or action. It is only another thought based on a feeble logic. Extending a thought train to a limit, the calculus of the mind, and nobody lives there. Why waste your time like this? Why not give yourself totally to the limited bio computer that you are? Then maybe you would have satisfaction, contentment, and the “big fish” would already be yours.
RESPONSE: Explain where the logic is feeble? Nobody surely lives in the mind. He lives where his two feet touch the ground. To do this and to do that is aliveness that man can neither premeditate nor control. I am totally contented with the limited bio-computer that I am, which is atoms and basically light, an optical illusion of light. I am contented every moment BECAUSE I understand that the mind‘s perception and experience is LIMITED – as you also say but don‘t understand as yet – and not real.

You’ve jiggered your life so that you have no major role in living it. What a relief. Now the only satisfaction is to preach it to others and screw up their lives like yours. At least you won’t be alone.
RESPONSE: My life is perfect as it is, as is yours, it‘s just that I am aware that it is perfect. It is not me, who preaches, it is you, because you are the one who tells people what they should do to become contented (and that they cannot be contented now already, unconditionally).

Marcus Stegmaier

RichardMiller's picture
User offline. Last seen 4 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 09/20/2009
Posts:
Mind is equipment given by life, GREAT START

 1.  You say that the five senses are limited to certain spaces and certain intervals because of mind which perceives the signals is limited.  Both mind and sense receivers are limited, but you don’t know which limits the other.  

 

You don’t know that mind limits the senses.  You just declare that as an unsupported statement, kind of a filler between topic one and topic two.  These declarations are not discussion, they are just you talking to yourself.  Here’s where I agree that your talking is often pretty much meaningless sounds.

 

Man can indeed aid the five senses to perceive.  You know of a microscope?  And a microphone can detect very small sounds.  Again your declarations to the contrary are not received by any listener, but just a rumble in a mass of words.

 

“Every species has enough equipment”.  Now we are getting somewhere.  You say that mind is equipment given by life. Then so is doing, and responsibility, and so is choice, and the experience that I am an actor, all are options given by life.  So everything I have been responding to you for years is there and operating for you too, but you add that it is given by life and illusory.  So what?  You must believe in a creator.  Do you have a certain religious preference?

 

Whether or not there is a creator or a life that is giving this or that, I have always suggested accepting your doing, making your choices, operating with your responsibility to create the actions of your life, and now you finally admit that that’s what you and everyone else is doing too. Whew, thanks for coming around.

 

2.  Let’s go back to fishing and say that the worm is too long for the hook.  So you cut it in half.  That’s experiential.  Then you decide to use a smaller hook, so you cut it in half again.  That’s experiential too.

 

Then you get the idea that I could keep cutting this worm in half forever.  After infinite cuts I would have a worm that is zero long.  That is only a thought, it will never be experienced, and it's a feeble logic if you are basing your life on that result.

 

All the spaces you suggest when falling off a mountain (or blinking your eye, or in any action) that are before, during, after; those spaces which now have no action and no thought because they are too short to contain anything, is feeble logic. It is not applicable to life, not to the individual, not the family nor the community.  It is a false teaching meant to disempower you in your normal day to day movements.

 

You say you don’t do anything, but yet much gets done while you are there and with your hands and feet moving as if they were in fact doing something.  What’s the use of backing off of life like this?  What’s the use of worshipping an unseen phantom doer, and cutting the balls off of the obvious seen doer?

 

If doing is happening without your thinking about it, then the pattern of that doing is certainly the same as yesterday.  You are acting out yesterday’s robotic actions.  Maybe your rote repertoire is big enough that you don’t notice, or that you are satisfied with no new choices.

 

3.  Now you say that nobody lives in the mind but only where his two feet touch the ground.  Great insight.  You say that you are content with your limited bio-computer, but then you immediately retreat to your mind and spout out about atoms and light, and optical illusions.  (Are there also kinesthetic illusions?  Like when you drive your car into a tree? Or is it all just vision?) You don’t know any of that stuff.  It is all just rote pablum that you keep repeating, and that is why it is basically unsatisfying to converse with you.  You speak in mind only (feeble logic which all mind is), and don’t talk of what is real for you.  Maybe you can’t distinguish what is real?

 

You are content only because someone told you a story that relieves you of any responsibility.  I guess creating your own life was a heavy burden for you.  Now you are free of that, and can bask in yesterday’s actions over and over again.  Real God will come to you when you finally get bored with yesterday, and strike out on the new adventure of today.

n/a
marcus's picture
User offline. Last seen 10 hours 29 min ago. Offline
Joined: 02/14/2010
Posts:
Dear Richard, Mind is

Dear Richard,
Mind is equipment given by life, GREAT START
1. You say that the five senses are limited to certain spaces and certain intervals because of mind which perceives the signals is limited. Both mind and sense receivers are limited, but you don’t know which limits the other.
You don’t know that mind limits the senses. You just declare that as an unsupported statement, kind of a filler between topic one and topic two. These declarations are not discussion, they are just you talking to yourself. Here’s where I agree that your talking is often pretty much meaningless sounds.
RESPONSE: You are certainly talking to yourself when you do not understand what is written. The five senses are not limited BECAUSE of the mind. The limitation of the five senses are perceived in the mind by the ego. Neither the senses limit the mind nor does the mind limit the senses. Limitation is the inherent characteristics of the two. Limitation is the aliveness of both the senses and the mind. The aliveness that cannot be controlled or premeditated. The point which you are unable to explain. The eye, e.g., only perceives a certain range of visible light, not the entire light which is present, as UV, X-rays, microwaves... This is scientific fact, not unsupported statement. And the mind does not report all that which is in front of the eye, but only thinks certain parts of it. You don‘t see a friend passing by on the street in front of your eyes, as long as you think about something different, even if his (unseen) image passes your eyes in form of light.

Man can indeed aid the five senses to perceive. You know of a microscope? And a microphone can detect very small sounds. Again your declarations to the contrary are not received by any listener, but just a rumble in a mass of words.
RESPONSE: Now you prove yourself that vision and mind are limited. If they were unlimited, a microscope would be meaningless. You contradict yourself. Magnifying is not aiding to be aware of the aliveness present in every moment. Similarly, a microphone doesn’t detect that sound waves are light waves too. A microscope and a microphone merely help to postulate theories of a minimal space of life. Neither the microscope nor the microphone help you to understand aliveness present in every moment of life.

“Every species has enough equipment”. Now we are getting somewhere. You say that mind is equipment given by life. Then so is doing, and responsibility, and so is choice, and the experience that I am an actor, all are options given by life. So everything I have been responding to you for years is there and operating for you too, but you add that it is given by life and illusory. So what? You must believe in a creator. Do you have a certain religious preference?
RESPONSE: Every equipment’s operation gives rise to the aliveness present every moment, which man cannot control or premeditate. The operation of the equipment that gives rise to the aliveness present in every moment is controlled by life and not by man. That he can is illusory. You have yet to come clean on aliveness, which you have admitted cannot be controlled by man. Every religion says that God is almighty, so you can choose the one you prefer, I don‘t choose but understand they are all the same. If the religions understood that God is truly omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, and what it means, there would be no conflict between religions and no need to choose the “right“ one.

Whether or not there is a creator or a life that is giving this or that, I have always suggested accepting your doing, making your choices, operating with your responsibility to create the actions of your life, and now you finally admit that that’s what you and everyone else is doing too. Whew, thanks for coming around.
Response: The difference is that you believe that you are doing, making choices, operating with your responsibility and create actions of your life, whereas I realise that it is the aliveness that happens to me and I do not do it.

2. Let’s go back to fishing and say that the worm is too long for the hook. So you cut it in half. That’s experiential. Then you decide to use a smaller hook, so you cut it in half again. That’s experiential too. Then you get the idea that I could keep cutting this worm in half forever. After infinite cuts I would have a worm that is zero long. That is only a thought, it will never be experienced, and it's a feeble logic if you are basing your life on that result. All the spaces you suggest when falling off a mountain (or blinking your eye, or in any action) that are before, during, after; those spaces which now have no action and no thought because they are too short to contain anything, is feeble logic. It is not applicable to life, not to the individual, not the family nor the community. It is a false teaching meant to disempower you in your normal day to day movements.
RESPONSE: I do not cut things up to live. I live with the way things are realising fully that is the aliveness that is happening to me as it does to all. I also realise that the understanding that life is illusory is the aliveness that has happened to me, and to you it is still real. An action or falling of the mountain is done by the complete body and not bits of it. They occupy enough space and time for the thought to register, only after it has begun, during and never before. If I say to live life in small microscopic bits of your body then it would be feeble logic. The whole body lives in every moment and in aliveness. The aliveness which you run away from crediting it. This is what was meant: Life is too fast for the mind to be controlled. Therefore my day to day movements are not powered by the ego but by life. I fully trust this and – all functions as it is meant to function nevertheless.

You say you don’t do anything, but yet much gets done while you are there and with your hands and feet moving as if they were in fact doing something. What’s the use of backing off of life like this? What’s the use of worshipping an unseen phantom doer, and cutting the balls off of the obvious seen doer?
RESPONSE: The hands and feet move and are moving as this is the aliveness of life. The aliveness of life interprets this movement as actions in the mind, albeit illusory. Illusory does not mean it does not exist. Admiration of life’s intelligence is not worshipping. If it were, then you are worshipping all that you do which in fact is done by life giving you aliveness, which can neither be controlled or premeditated by you. The obvious is obviously not the truth. The use of understanding is to wake up from the dream of doership.

If doing is happening without your thinking about it, then the pattern of that doing is certainly the same as yesterday. You are acting out yesterday’s robotic actions. Maybe your rote repertoire is big enough that you don’t notice, or that you are satisfied with no new choices.
RESPONSE: Yesterday never comes again. The body grows and never grows back again. So repetition is a thought in the mind and not in life. I live life, fresh as it is, you doubt that because you live the mind, believing in today as new whereas the “new“ in your mind is just the old. Without memory man would not experience anything. Memory is the past. You believe in experience, therefore you live in memory, i.e. the past. I live in the Now, fully aware that experience is memory, i.e. the past. If man can do anything, he can do it, because he knows what he can do and how to do it. For e.g. man knows that he has to brush his teeth every morning after he gets up. He knows it and also how to do it because he has done it the previous day. So he brushes his teeth every day. The same principle applies to anything that he can do, he can do it because not only does he know that he can do it but also how to do it. But, if he were honest he would know after he brushes his teeth that he has not brushed his teeth that way the day before. So, who could have brushed the teeth every day, or who actually does anything when it is done anytime, definitely not the man who claims to do it?

3. Now you say that nobody lives in the mind but only where his two feet touch the ground. Great insight. You say that you are content with your limited bio-computer, but then you immediately retreat to your mind and spout out about atoms and light, and optical illusions. (Are there also kinesthetic illusions? Like when you drive your car into a tree? Or is it all just vision?) You don’t know any of that stuff. It is all just rote pablum that you keep repeating, and that is why it is basically unsatisfying to converse with you. You speak in mind only (feeble logic which all mind is), and don’t talk of what is real for you. Maybe you can’t distinguish what is real?
RESPONSE: If I drive into a tree that would be the aliveness for that moment which no man can control or premeditate. Everything appears real but they are not. All that is required to realise this is reason and logic and it will happen as a phenomenon of aliveness and cannot be brought about by man. Man believes in his mind and therefore lives in his mind. In fact this is not true, everybody is alive in the timeless Now, even though he believes in the mind as real. Optical illusion means made up of light. All is light. Kinestetic or visual are thoughts in the mind. The mind is a manifestation of sound. Sound is light too, at a lesser speed. You are unsatisfied to converse with me because I don‘t share your believes in man as doer. Love is real for me. But love is not what the mind thinks it is.

You are content only because someone told you a story that relieves you of any responsibility. I guess creating your own life was a heavy burden for you. Now you are free of that, and can bask in yesterday’s actions over and over again. Real God will come to you when you finally get bored with yesterday, and strike out on the new adventure of today.
RESPONSE: The responsiblity and the actions happen to me. This is the relief, but I would never deny responsibility for the illusory actions that happen to me. If an action happens to me, responsibility too happens to me, and no force on earth can prevent it to happen. I am content because life disclosed that stories that get said by others are illusory and not real. My apparent responsibilities get enacted too and everything that needs to get done too gets done. If they do not get done they just do not get done, for I understand that is the aliveness of which I am not in control and so are you too. You have accepted this but fail to realise it as yet.

Marcus Stegmaier

marcus's picture
User offline. Last seen 10 hours 29 min ago. Offline
Joined: 02/14/2010
Posts:
Fishing a metaphor for

Dear Richard.
Fishing a metaphor for life
Words are used by a knowledgeable man to convey the "same" meaning to the other as he has in mind. "Follow my mind" is therefore a deception. It would not be possible as meanings are always private. If this is understood, the illusion reveals itself as illusion which is what a sage points to by using daily words and meanings, too. Truth is neither yours nor mine. Truth is truth. If one follows another mind and their beliefs are the same, the beliefs appear to be the truth, but beliefs are not the truth. If a mind has the absolute understanding that life is timeless and thoughtless and that the mind is full of time such as the past, present and future and thoughts about fishing and other distractions are illusory and not real, then that understanding will be invaluable. If not it is merely one mind confirming the other that what it believes is the truth. That is why one mind needs the other to follow it. A mind which has absolute understanding of life and mind would not need any mind to follow it.
Yes, everybody's illusion appears as if it were real. It is "our reality" meaning not absolute reality. This is meant by illusion. Illusoriness is the reality of our experiences that are real to us.
When you understand that a dream is illusory, you would never wish to paint another dream.
Life gives you many such dreams ever day in the waking state so that you may understand that a dream and the waking state is illusory and not real. More importantly, man can neither premeditate the aliveness of a fish with certainty nor can he premeditate his aliveness with certainty.

Marcus Stegmaier

mtony502's picture
User offline. Last seen 11 hours 39 min ago. Offline
Joined: 02/07/2010
Posts:
A momentary flash of clarity

I can't predict when I'll see what I see, but recognition happens spontaneously.

"Yes, everybody's illusion appears as if it were real. It is "our reality" meaning not absolute reality. This is meant by illusion. Illusoriness is the reality of our experiences that are real to us."

These words simply resonated and echoed and resonated and echoed. A momentary flash of clarity.

Namaste, Marcus.

Tony

YouTube Channel: Ordinary Consciousness
By: MTony502
http://www.youtube.com/user/Mtony502

RichardMiller's picture
User offline. Last seen 4 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 09/20/2009
Posts:
I'll go back to fishing, since that is the subject here.

Some points are obvious to all.  "You can't know what happened until it happened"."  Of course!

1. OK, the fish hits your bait and the float jumps.  Sorry, you missed him.  You didn't know what happened until it happened.  This is something that Marcus will appreciate, and life is made of incidents that happen when they happen.  You have no choice.  Your (doing) is ineffective.

2.  The fish hits your bait and then hits it again, "boop - boop", hey you have a chance.  On the second boop, if you moved on the first you could set the hook.

3.  This fish is insistant and "Boop - boop - boop" hits your bait three times. Now we enter into the window of time space and sequence that the human bio computer was designed to operate in. You've got him.  Haul that fish in.

What have we discovered?  Human tissure and your body operate moment to moment on their own infinitessimal protocall. AND, the human bio computer recognizes pattern, sequence and repitition. (Even fish are into pattern if your bait smells good.) There are two parts to life, the hardware (called reality by some) and the software, called mind by others. Individual, family and society (our civilization) are built on mind, sequence, repitition and agreement.

Speaking of a mind that has the "absolute understanding" that life is timeless and thoughtless is the bigest illusion, because the cognizing mechanism is in the software of life.  For that software, this absolute is just a thought.  You loose so much if you discout your softaware and profess only your infinitesimal hardware.  You base life on spaces and sequence that don't fit in with your window of perception.  It is just projection and speculation.  It is the logic of a mental life.

I take it that somehow this is a relief for those that profess it.  For me it is a slavery to someone else's idea, and the abdication of a marvelous part of human life.

n/a
marcus's picture
User offline. Last seen 10 hours 29 min ago. Offline
Joined: 02/14/2010
Posts:
Fisher, fishing and

Fisher, fishing and fish.

Thoughts and feelings are there and must be questioned without any assumption or conviction. For example the thought and feelings about a ‘fish’ is there and should be questioned without any assumption or conviction. So let us question the thoughts and feelings of ‘fisher, fishing and fish’: if the atoms, which are the building blocks of a ‘fish’ were fish, then the fish would really be a fish. If the atoms of a fish were basically light, then the fish would be an illusion of light and nothing besides that. If on scientific examination the atoms of a fish were found to be light, would you call the ‘fish’ real or illusory? The atoms of a fish is light, therefore the fish is an illusion of light and not real, and similarly for the same scientific reasons the fisher and the fishing too are an illusion of light and not real. Therefore the fisher, fishing and the fish are one and the division between the fisher, fishing and the fish is imaginary and not actual.

Man till today does not know how a single cell or a single cell amoeba functions in total. His soft ware (mind) only recognises isolated parts of a single cell functions and this recognition too is vague and not precise. The human bio computer with the software recognises patterns, sequence and repetition, if the computer (body) has been installed by the operating system and application programmes within it. The installation of the software (mind) into the body (hardware) and its operating system and applications are installed by life and not man. Even a fish as its own soft ware, operating systems and applications installed by life, that is why not all fish catch the bait. The two parts of life is the body (hardware) and the mind with its operating systems and applications (software) and both these parts are installed by life which is the reality. These two parts are not installed by man. Individual, family and society (civilization) are applications built on mind’s operating system, which is the sequence, repetition and agreement. This applications and operating systems is built by life to the mind and not man. The cognizing mechanism that life is timeless and thoughtless is the application system built for the operating system in the mind, by life and not man. It is an illusion to think that the mind has the capacity to build application system and operating systems. For the software in the mind absolute too is a thought but a wise thought.
You become wise when you recognise that your software (mind) does not control or operate infinitesimal hardware (cell) or the entire hardware (body). I base life on eternal space and not on spaces or sequence that fit in a window of perception like you do, which is the application and operating system (software) given by life to you (hardware). Your software is just projection and speculation. It is the logic of a mental life and it is right where you are, for you have not given the application and the operating system to your mind (software), life has.
MORE IMPORTANTLY NEITHER THE BODY AND MIND NOR THE COMPUTER AND ITS SOFTWARE CAN FUNCTION WITHOUT THE ATOM WHICH THEY BOTH ARE MADE UP OF. THEY ARE NOT (!) MADE UP OF HUMAN BODY STUFF NOR THE STUFF COMPUTER AND SOFTWARE IS MADE UP OF, RESPECTIVELY. THEY ARE MADE UP OF LIGHT WHICH IS LIFE.
Vijai S Shankar
www.acadun.com

Marcus Stegmaier

mtony502's picture
User offline. Last seen 11 hours 39 min ago. Offline
Joined: 02/07/2010
Posts:
The individuality of metaphor . . .

Hey Richard,

I've generally found that the impact of a metaphor is typically most profound on the one who experiences it as an epiphany, i.e., when it suddenly came to Dr. V.S. Shankar that he was only experiencing optical and auditory illusions of light and sound and not reality?

For me, a metaphor is useful if, among other things, it helps make sense of my experience and whether I can recognize patterns of predictability in my behavior and those of others and in the world at large. Maybe I write about it in a journal, or talk about it with others (to convince them or myself of its validity?) Maybe I present the metaphor as a potential teaching aid or maybe even as a teaching in its own right (Dr. V. S. Shankar?). I'm not always sure about the ultimate motivation I have for sharing a metaphor, except that in the heat of the moment, I know it has meaning for 'me' and maybe it might for others. However, if or when I decide it doesn't work for me, I discard it . . . in whole or in part.

So anything, including fishing, can be a metaphor for life . . . as long as I remember that every metaphor is open to multiple takeaways.

In your metaphor I sense distrust of, perhaps even a dislike for, or at least a significant uneasiness in heeding or relying too heavily on 'guides'. On the other hand, as far as fishing goes, it might be helpful to know where the fish are jumping and where they're not?

RM: "What does “catching a fish” symbolize in life? Isn’t contentment and happiness what we are all looking for? That is our big fish. "

Hmmm . . . maybe that's your Big Fish, it's not necessarily mine, but that's okay because this is your metaphor and it seems to work for you. (" . . . I will never catch a fish by watching someone else’s float, or reciting someone else’s pointers. I must watch only my own line to be fishing. I must focus on the subtleties of my own life to discover something new.")

In any event, I agree with your encouragement for direct experience when exploring how one creates one's perceptual reality.

Tony

YouTube Channel: Ordinary Consciousness
By: MTony502
http://www.youtube.com/user/Mtony502

RichardMiller's picture
User offline. Last seen 4 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 09/20/2009
Posts:
So much in the metaphor has been totally missed.

1.  You are alive to live life, not to prepare yourself to live.  Some could say preparation is also living, but it is a skewed focus, and not a relaxed openness to receive the gifts that are here. (Go fishing to catch fish.)

This fist sentence is huge, and an admonition to totally give up seeking of any kind.

2. “Nursing all of your believed in inadequacies” is also a whopper.  Every story that we tell ourselves is for this (perhaps only) purpose.

3.  You have to do what is right, what works for each situation. Whew, that gives you complete empowerment and life self-responsibility.  It says that you are the author of you, never again a victim.  Really big stuff.

4. “Really basic, hook, bait, in the water”.  This points to a complete practicality in life.  Are you practical at all in life, or rarely or never?  Do you do what works?  Do you expect what doesn’t work to finally come through?  Just hang in there?

5.  Watch your own float, wow, I hate my own float.  It is a miserable failure, boring, mundane, incapable.  Wake up folks. No, I’m going to learn by watching my neighbor catch fish.

6.  No judgments to cloud your attentiveness has to mean no believed in or honored external standards.  Have you noticed that judgments are automatic with adopted standards.

7. Karma is only memories of your rote living.  Rote is handy for tiring shoes, but watch where else you are applying it.

8.  To untie the knots of your false moves it takes patience and commitment.  That’s helpful.

9. Contentment is only a definition. Apply it to this moment, and to your thoughts and feelings that it now contains.

What a hugely helpful metaphor.  If it isn't true, it is certainly 9 topics for discussion. Did anyone get even a part of it?

n/a
Chris L's picture
User is online Online
Joined: 01/19/2014
Posts:
The fish and the fisher

Perhaps we need to consider the fish and the fisher. From the very start, or even before the start, of this analogy there is the tacit assumption that the fish and the fisher are distinct and separate and disconnected. Is this actually true?

There is the assumption that 'fishing' can connect these two 'separate' things, the fisher to the fish. Furthermore, 'fishing' is seen to be a process that is distinct and separate from the fish and the fisher. Is this actually true?

Similarly we say 'I am experiencing life'. As if 'I' and 'life' are distinct and separate and 'experiencing' is what stands between these two separate things, either as a connector or a divider. Are 'I', 'my life' and 'experiencing' actually distinct and separate in the first place?

The assumption that the fish, the fishing and the fisher are separate and different appears to be so obvious that we do not question this perceived distinction. Could it be that the 'obviousness' of this perceived division prevents us asking if this division is actually true?

Could it be that we are not deceived by the inscrutable but by that which is perceived to be obvious?

Chris

RichardMiller's picture
User offline. Last seen 4 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 09/20/2009
Posts:
Hi Chris

1. I submit the following, that there is a separation between the fish and the fisher.  The connection is that fish eat, and that the fisher tries to determine what they eat and how they eat it. He tries to present this type of food in a way that the fish won’t be spooked, but will partake of the bait.

Then fishing is the process that makes a fisher into a fisher.  For instance, at this time Anna’s comment indicates that she is not a fisher, and she would have to engage in fishing in order to become one.  Therefore the three are mutually interdependent, but not one and the same thing.

2. Same with I and experience and life.  Let’s say that there is no connector of I and life, but there is a divider.  That divider is that I do not use my attention solely for what is happening in life.  I use my attention also for judgments, comments, and daydreams.  I and life might be very close or similar, but attention is more free roaming.

If there was no separation between these three, there would be no room for growth or paying attention in a deeper way.  Then the experience of life wouldn’t change much.

3. Yes, we may not even question if fish or fisher are separate or the same, but how would anything change if we believed that fish and fisher are one and the same?  What is the practical side of this belief?

I still stand on the shore next to another guy engaged in fishing. I see the size of his hook, line, bait and the way he mixes it and attaches it, the depth at which he sets his hook; I do everything exactly like he seems to be doing it.

In a couple of hours he catches 50 fish.  I have had a couple of times my float moved and a fish was on the hook for a while, but he got away.

Something about fish and fisher is separate.

n/a
Chris L's picture
User is online Online
Joined: 01/19/2014
Posts:
this is how it seems

Hi Richard, I fully appreciate that the separation is what we experience as being real.

The fish I am trying to catch may or may not exist but I believe it is there even though I cannot see it.

I see the other fellow catching fish and I want a fish of my own. This indicates my desire for a fish and the fact that I consider myself to be fish-less. I see something lacking in my life. I compare the fish-less state with the state of having a fish and feel incomplete or lacking something important.

This leads me to your 3rd point about change - Seeing myself as fish-less, I think there has to be a change. I consider my present state to be inferior, something that has to change in order for there to be happiness, security, fulfillment etc. This is a turning away from what is in the present moment towards a hypothetical future state of fulfillment. I will be happy if and when I catch a fish, but here and now I consider my fish-less reality to be suffering. I pay little attention to my present reality because I am focused on the desire for a future reality that contains a whopping great fish. I become so focused on how to get 'there' that I consider 'here' to be worthless.

Does my present suffering arise from not having a fish, or does it arise because of my desire for the idea of what it would be like to have a fish in the future?

Desiring present-moment-awareness, I hypothesise and speculate about how I can attain this at some point in the future, totally ignoring the present moment.....

This is probably a bit simplistic but, if we are interested in reality, why don't we feel comfortable to just stay with the present moment as it is (fish-less or otherwise) and give it our full attention? If we think that reality will only be fully experienced once we have a fish, we are denying the reality of this as it already is.

Does reality require a fish in order to be fully real?

Am I really lacking anything that is required for reality to be what it already is?

Is the goal really over some future, distant horizon or is it already present here now?

RichardMiller's picture
User offline. Last seen 4 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 09/20/2009
Posts:
GONE-FISHING, I am in anxiety-free heaven

 

I feel fishing is such a good metaphor because it is one place in life where we can be clear that we are here to catch fish. You can also be sure that when someone is catching and you are not, you will be tempted (like in life) to redefine that you don’t really like that kind of fish anyhow.

 

But in life we have all sorts of excuses to say it would be worse suffering to apply my skills to attain a goal.  The fish are definitely there, because the other guy is hauling them in.  Many other fishermen are stuck, each on their own method and are also catching little or nothing.

 

Those of us that have studied non-duality have a tendency to define everything as suffering, even the joy of achievement.  Non-duality itself is built on dissatisfaction by suffering people.  Dissatisfaction is even elevated to holy yearning, or God calling you home.  With the magical component of it, if you get the complete right attitude about no fish, all abundance will be bestowed upon you.  The approach is always hand off. Don’t try anything.  This deprived state can last for decades, until you get somehow fed up and don’t care how many years you have invested (wasted) in this methodology.

 

Oh yes, I do think it is effective to move out of lessened anxiety. But is no motive power the only way to get there?

 

Engaging in process is so obvious and so all pervasive in everyone’s life that I can’t understand why anyone would think it is unnecessary. I don’t see what the point is of your original question, if we have considered that fish and the fisher are one.  They are not.  It is a relationship, but the fish are primary, the fisher is a consequence.

 

I think that above something of value was said, that mind is equipment given by life.  Therefore so is doing, and responsibility, and so is choice, and the experience that I am an actor, all are options given by life.  My fishless state is given by life and all my options and learning of how to fish more effectively are also given by life.

 

It is not a static fishless state that is given as this present moment awareness.  It also includes my intention and my goal and my moving toward that goal that are present moment awareness.  It is my fun and my joy and engaging with all of this activity and decision making.

  

Gone-Fishing is often used as an example of joy and peace and the epitome of stressless pleasure.  If you are in the habit of stressing even over that, what hope is there for you?  Where can you engage with life without a stream of complicated justifications?

n/a
Chris L's picture
User is online Online
Joined: 01/19/2014
Posts:
casting a line

Hello Richard,

I fully appreciate what you are saying here.

In my clumsy way I was trying to get to the root of what is desire. I am trying to find out why I feel fish-deprived prior to the desire to catch a fish.

I am probably wasting my time on the river bank trying to work out if I need a fish, what kind of fish, what tackle, what bait, is the tide right, should I be picking mulberries instead, etc, while another is tucking into a fish dinner.

Also, in my anxiety (to which I admit) I see there are so many different species of fish. Some fish seem to fill the eater with crazy thoughts and delusions. Some fish leave the eater feeling hungry no matter how many he eats. Some fish seem to induce madness and false beliefs. Some fish only exist in the imagination. Some fish seem to increase the hunger for more instead of satisfying any need.

Perhaps I am too analytical and overly cautious, thinking that I need to understand why I want the fish before casting my line.

Part of the Action

We remain committed to be on the forefront of what will support life, both in your family and on planet earth. 

 

My interaction with you is an Experiment to further enable this vision to be true, and up to the rhythm that you are a part of the action.  

 

Please contribute to make this vision real.  

With Heart Felt Thanks, Richard Miller.

  

 

Who's online

There are currently 1 user and 12 guests online.

Online users