Words Mean Things.

Have you undertaken the IP Khaos?

No.

It's not about teaching, its about opportunities to learn.

That's why I interact here. However, criticism of what is presented is not about teaching either

Peer review in the form of critique is good learning for everyone. Depending on one's ability to see opportunities to learn.

l I can think of why this would be an issue is perhaps some people aren't interested in real personal development, and instead are collecting styles of training - but that would be a shame as it misses the point entirely. No wonder vagueness and esotericism would be annoying in those circumstances

Vagueness and esotericism would be annoying for anyone seeking clarification, or deeper understanding of what is presented.

Surely, only those actually not interested in real earning or development at all would be okay with being vague...

vague [ vayg ]
not explicit: not clear in meaning or intention
not distinctly seen: not having a clear or perceptible form
not clearly perceived in mind: not clearly felt, understood, or recalled

Khaos wrote: Vagueness and esotericism would be annoying for anyone seeking clarification, or deeper understanding of what is presented.

Surely, only those actually not interested in real earning or development at all would be okay with being vague...

Of course, it goes to intention. Sometimes pre-requisite understanding needs to come from experience, and until that occurs things might appear vague to some, but not to others, so appearing vague in itself is not necessarily indication of the intention to be vague.

Khaos wrote:

Have you undertaken the IP Khaos?

No.

It's not about teaching, its about opportunities to learn.

That's why I interact here. However, criticism of what is presented is not about teaching either

Peer review in the form of critique is good learning for everyone. Depending on one's ability to see opportunities to learn.

l I can think of why this would be an issue is perhaps some people aren't interested in real personal development, and instead are collecting styles of training - but that would be a shame as it misses the point entirely. No wonder vagueness and esotericism would be annoying in those circumstances

Vagueness and esotericism would be annoying for anyone seeking clarification, or deeper understanding of what is presented.

Surely, only those actually not interested in real earning or development at all would be okay with being vague...

vague [ vayg ]
not explicit: not clear in meaning or intention
not distinctly seen: not having a clear or perceptible form
not clearly perceived in mind: not clearly felt, understood, or recalled

Interesting... Most of the time I've been here, I've come to learn and understand most things more clearly and more deeply through this "vagueness" of communication, or what some like to call "riddles", "koans", "poetry" etc. Precise, logical, analytical knowledge is something I have no trouble gathering around the temple nor outside of it. It tends to be that which I already have about most things. Yet, I've found this kind of knowledge falls short of tying a significant topic more fully to myself and the bigger picture. Technicality, logical definitions and explanations are easy to make and take, but they stop on the surface of understanding. It is only one small part. I see nobody insisting that any topic should omit logical definitions and explanations, only that further understanding tends to exist beyond its rather finite boundaries within traditional communication.

Adder wrote: Of course, it goes to intention. Sometimes pre-requisite understanding needs to come from experience, and until that occurs things might appear vague to some, but not to others, so appearing vague in itself is not necessarily indication of the intention to be vague.

No. That's not how that works. The first steps toward enlightenment are always easy to understand, easy to explain, and simply hard to do. You don't start with vaguaries and nonsense expecting that to lead to experience. The vaguaries are used to describe the experience afterward, not to lead to it. If you don't believe me, you can pick up any text from any real theological/philosophical/religious/spiritual teacher that isn't Watts or a Jedi. You'll notice initiation always starts with small, easily understood steps in clear language. Their difficulty is that they challenge the status quo, not the listener's comprehension.

steamboat28 wrote:

Adder wrote: Of course, it goes to intention. Sometimes pre-requisite understanding needs to come from experience, and until that occurs things might appear vague to some, but not to others, so appearing vague in itself is not necessarily indication of the intention to be vague.

No. That's not how that works. The first steps toward enlightenment are always easy to understand, easy to explain, and simply hard to do. You don't start with vaguaries and nonsense expecting that to lead to experience. The vaguaries are used to describe the experience afterward, not to lead to it. If you don't believe me, you can pick up any text from any real theological/philosophical/religious/spiritual teacher that isn't Watts or a Jedi. You'll notice initiation always starts with small, easily understood steps in clear language. Their difficulty is that they challenge the status quo, not the listener's comprehension.

I didn't say that is how it works, I said sometimes a person can run into examples of material which needs pre-requisite understanding. We are all at different points in training/learning in various different things.

Do you mean specific teachings here, which should be introductory, but you consider too vague? I might agree with you, but your previous post said 'we' so I thought you meant people's manner of talking here at the forum. It's a lot to expect people to stop their own progress to ensure the proverbial lowest common denominator is maintained, mostly because we all do not start at the same point, and can fluctuate back and forth or around in circles too!!

Thought this might be relevant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIA_-HgugAI

The only real contribution I feel I can make here at this point is that by not thinking about what I'm going to say and how I should say it, I've caused a lot of miscommunication, loss and heartache.

And that jestor used "there" instead of the more appropriate "their". :evil:

rugadd wrote: And that jestor used "there" instead of the more appropriate "their". :evil:

But we understood him regardless, didn't we? While it is true that "there" and "their" have two separate meanings, we understand the contextual framework of the sentence and were able to extrapolate the meaning of "there" to be the possessive "their". Frankly, while I personally have a love of linguistic precision and accuracy of grammar and spelling, these are almost completely arbitrary and it is only through repeated use that they have gained the structure we claim to be so important.

rugadd wrote: And that jestor used "there" instead of the more appropriate "their". :evil:

You know, that's how I get away with it when speaking.. No one can see my words when I misspell them or use the wrong one!!

:laugh: