Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2013 21:49:06 GMT -5
Greetings.. Speaking for myself tzu, I totally believe that you are indeed very simple (I mean who you think you are is simple)(I mean what you really are is simple)... Ahh never mind... I am more simple than most realize... Be well.. Okay, I'll bite...how simple are you??
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 9, 2013 5:29:54 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. You only hear what you want to hear.. the other part of my 'advice' is 'balance', a time for thinking, a time for stillness.. theory is interesting, as long as one doesn't become attached to it and make it their 'truth'.. it beyond my wildest imagination that so many self-proclaimed analysts, willing to analyze others based on the attachments they hold as 'true' themselves, find 'Tzu' to be so worthy of their attention.. but, carry on.. Be well.. It ain't Tzu' that we're interested in. That's not true.. Tzu's message reveals the flaws in the oneness/non-duality beliefs, so.. to silence the message, the disciples go after the messenger.. there's no contradiction to the reality of duality other than unsupportable denial.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 9, 2013 5:31:50 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. I am more simple than most realize... Be well.. Okay, I'll bite...how simple are you?? Just simple, not complex.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 9, 2013 8:07:06 GMT -5
Greetings.. It ain't Tzu' that we're interested in. That's not true.. Tzu's message reveals the flaws in the oneness/non-duality beliefs, so.. to silence the message, the disciples go after the messenger.. there's no contradiction to the reality of duality other than unsupportable denial.. Be well.. Tzu' using the word "True"? For one thing, this is a word that Tzu has explicitly disclaimed ... for another, Tzu' has a demonstrated history of deliberate deception ... but most importantly, Tzu' has a penchant for self-contradiction that can only be explained by self-deception. Tzu' stands up a straw man, hangs placards on it's neck, and then fumbles around with wet matches.
|
|
|
Post by serpentqueen on Jul 9, 2013 8:33:49 GMT -5
Greetings.. If these parts do not need to leave traces behind, then bubbles are just as good as footprints, no? I chose bubbles deliberately - I was thinking about multiverse theory, which my daughter brought up. She proposed that we each are our own individual universe of consciousness - "just like multiverse bubbles." And intuitively, I've always figured consciousness is just like that - a bubble which reflects everything, but its own self. Yes, things do happen all the time. A planet of organisms could evolve to perfection (whatever that may be) and the sun could go supernova and wipe them all out in an instant. An entire universe could evolve only for the bubble it is in to burst, wiping it all out in a blink of an eye (some of the theories are saying this happens quite often - disturbingly often). It seems to me there is just as much chaos as there is evolution. There is also just as much de-evolution. Chaos, de-evolution are "what is" just as surely as evolution. And of course if we're going to talk about evolution, we need to come up with a creation story, as this all must've started somewhere. And what need or purpose would an eternal infinite timeless Whole whatchamacalllit possibly have for evolution? What need would it have to "become" anything, when it's already everything? Why define this "evolution" in terms of human progress? Yes we have cool technologies and we're pretty smart creatures but we're certainly dumb enough to be destroying the planet. Maybe we are not the ideal example of evolution. Maybe dolphins are. Maybe the micro-organisms in our gut or the parasites in our brain are. Maybe humans, with our complex brains, are the evolutionary dead end. The reason I suggested it may be a clever rationalization is that when I ponder all this myself, I see that it's all a story I want to believe in, because I want to remain individual, separate, and somehow permanent/immortal. I want the comfort of believing that some part of me (my DNA, my memories, my achievements) live on after death.. or at least until the sun goes supernova. Unless we get off this planet before then. Or, okay... maybe we have souls and they reincarnate. Well isn't reincarnation just another way of wanting to hold on to a sense of separate self, and of specialness, even after death? Yes, it sure seems like it to me. This is a long ramble but where I'm at these days is inclined to believe there is a purpose, but it may be very simple. Hard to put into words but it may be more like... existence has no choice but to exist. The nothing can't live without the something. The individuated part arises automatically from the whole part. It just "is" - because it can't be otherwise. I'll have to work on the expression of it, but that's what I see, and it seems to make a lot more sense, it's all pretty elegant, and also downright brilliant in its simplicity. For me.. as far as one might use the term 'purpose', i understand that 'experience' is the purpose.. Life is experience, it is 'that which is' exploring its own existence, the purpose is self-discovery, experience is the vehicle.. you seem to have a delightfully simple awareness, i wish you well with the 'local crowd', the 'Oneness' disciples are not opposed to any tactic that might confuse or distract someone from simplicity and/or clarity.. Be well.. Okay, I was responding to your assertion that the purpose was evolution: I suppose we could say that evolution is just another experience, no better or worse than chaos or de-evolution, and that murder, rape, lying, cheating, destroying the planet are also just another experience, no better or worse than loving and kindness.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 9, 2013 9:07:30 GMT -5
Greetings.. Ha ha. I can't tell if you guys are agreeing or disagreeing or just writing about the same thing from slightly different perspectives. Silence wrote: "The moment you look out and distinguish anything from anything else, thought is involved." Yes, surely we can all agree that the act of distinction involves thought (cognition), but how about when we look and see WITHOUT cognition? What about when we see "what is" directly and without cognizing anything (any thing). When we look at the world in that way (non-cognitively/non-conceptually), we see without knowing (without distinguishing name or form). That kind of seeing is like seeing in the same way as the lens of a camera. What we see might best be described as "a seamless field of being" in which no objects (things) are distinguished or imagined. When we look at "what is" in that way, no verbal discursive thought occurs, and there is total mental silence. The body/mind thereby perceives and interacts with "what is" intelligently but without the mediation of cognition. The world is known directly through the body and the intellect is quiescent. I'm not suggesting that people need to see in this way, but I'm wondering if there is agreement that this is possible, and is this what Tzu is pointing to when he writes "I and many others can....(see in this way)"? If everyone agrees that both of these modes of seeing (cognitively and non-cognitively) are options, then what is being disagreed upon? Just curious. The 1872 Single Action Army Colt .45 was also called 'The Peacemaker'.. perception is a fickle mistress.. Be well.. ... ZD asks: The translation of Tzu's answer is: well, for me it is, but not for them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2013 10:04:00 GMT -5
Yea, so what could possibly prior to something else? I have nothing to say about anything prior to anything. Just be clear about what you are not and a conviction will naturally arise that doesn't need any of these questions answered. Yep.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 9, 2013 10:45:21 GMT -5
I have nothing to say about anything prior to anything. Just be clear about what you are not and a conviction will naturally arise that doesn't need any of these questions answered. Yep. (Yep) 2
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jul 9, 2013 11:02:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 9, 2013 16:49:12 GMT -5
Okay, for those who are interested here's a wall of text that deals with most of the issues in this thread.
Going back to the original post, and the followup post by Francis Lucille, it might be interesting to know how people on this forum would describe the body/mind's FIRST glimpse "of the non-dual nature of things?" Was it a direct experience, a logical conclusion, or a realization? Thought experiments can help us realize that all boundaries are illusory, but direct experience (glimpses of oneness) and realizations are usually far more powerful.
From the experience of this body/mind when the non-dual is directly perceived, there is no identifiable perceiver. Conceptual boundaries are absent, ordinary reasoning is suspended, and nothing is known in the usual sense because the intellect is quiescent. If the mind is not reflecting, the identity of the looker is not known. This is true whether the intellect is totally bypassed, as in a cosmic consciousness experience, or whether the body/mind is simply looking at the world non-conceptually (ATA). When Reality, in the form of a human being, perceives and interacts with Itself non-conceptually, there is only “what is” seeing “what is.” There is no act of distinction, so there is no separateness. This occurs every day for all human beings whether they realize it or not, and an adult human being can learn to purposely suspend reflective thought by shifting attention away from thoughts to direct sensory perception (ATA).
What we sarcastically call “woo-woo” experiences on this forum seem to be experiences during which the intellect is (biochemically/electrochemically?) bypassed, so that ordinary reflective thought becomes temporarily inaccessible/impossible. During such an experience even the body's name is sometimes forgotten, and that which is perceiving oneness cannot be imagined or grasped. Oneness is simply seen as the indisputable truth underlying all apparent separateness (appearances). In this state of oneness oneness becomes aware of oneness as oneness. The mind cannot grasp what is happening or to whom it is happening. The usual sense of selfhood disappears and cannot be volitionally recaptured. Later, after the sense of selfhood returns, and the experience is remembered, it seems as if the intellectual circuit of mind was temporarily bypassed/short-circuited--almost as if a switch had been thrown--in favor of some other more direct and intimate mode of perception and knowing. The realization that results from such an experience, if stated in language, is “Reality is alive, aware, unified, infinite, intelligent, mysterious, and benevolent despite any appearances that might suggest otherwise.” Reality/the Vastness/THIS is seen to care about every aspect of itself, from the tiniest thing to the largest, and every aspect of itself is seen to be functioning perfectly in accord with the nature of its inherent beingness. Nothing seems to be happening "by accident.”
Today, I often humorously say that “everyone is on iron rails” which expresses my sense of what’s going on. Based on past experiences, it feels to me as if there’s a fundamental “script” of reality, and everyone’s role in the playing out of that script unfolds in a specific but unknowable way.
Question has recently stated that I have claimed ATA will lead to enlightenment. To the best of my knowledge, I have never said that. I have only theorized, based on past experiences, reflective thought, and various realizations, that sustained ATA, zazen, and/or mental silence seems to be more closely associated with kensho experiences, insights, and realizations than intellectual reflection and/or cognitive activities.
People who shift attention away from thoughts to direct sensory perception, or people who sit in states of alert attention without a specific focus routinely report:
1. kryia 2. nadi 3. photistic experiences 4. samadhi 5. visions 6. kensho experiences 7. resolution of existential questions 8. insights and realizations 9. kundalini experiences 10. losing the usual sense of selfhood 11. penetrating the illusion of selfhood
and so forth. This suggests to me that meditative activities change the way the body/mind interacts with "what is" and leads to both unusual somatic phenomena amd also resolution of various existential questions (penetrations of cognitive illusions). Although kensho experiences and realizations can occur “out of the blue,” so to speak, they most often follow periods of extreme despair, meditation/ATA, or being alone in nature. This does not mean that meditation/ATA/internal silence CAUSES woo-woo experiences or realizations, but it suggests that meditation/ATA/internal silence is closely associated with such things.
Learning to speed read is not easy, but with practice a person can learn to look at a page of print and grasp the meaning directly without subvocalizing the words or mentally reading the words. One looks and instantly understands the meaning of the words. It is suggested that people can learn to look at the world non-conceptually in the same way that they can learn to speed read, and that such silent looking seems to increase the likelihood of penetrating illusions created by thought.
Anecdotally, some meditators have reported years of formal meditation that did NOT lead to insights and realizations (although I can't think of a single case where absolutely zero insights or realizations occurred). I usually suggest ATA as an alternative to formal sitting meditation because (1) unlike “hard sitting” there is no such thing as “hard ATA,” (2) ATA does not encourage “spiritual athleticism” or “spiritual competitiveness” because there is no “specialness” associated with the activity, (3) it can be pursued anywhere, anytime, and during any activity (4) it does not cause leg, neck, or back pain, (5) it is more likely to become an integral part of life than formal meditation practices (for all the reasons listed above), (6) it is more likely to become a sustained activity than formal meditation activities (for the same reasons), and (6) it is theorized that sustained focus upon “what is” is a probable factor in seeing through cognitive illusions.
Meditation/ATA/internal silence is, simply put, a crapshoot, and the efficacy of those activities with any particular human can only be discussed in quantum-mechanical terms—ie, probabalistically. Based on available spiritual literature, it appears that people who pursue meditation/ATA/internal silence have a greater likelihood of penetrating cognitive illusions than those who do not, but to the best of my knowledge no specific studies have ever been carried out to determine what kind of probabilities might apply.
Because (from my POV) there is no separate person at the center of what appears to be a decision-making process (concerning whether or not to meditate/ATA/become silent/etc), how a particular body/mind will respond to suggestions about pursuing ATA/etc, is unknowable. The body/mind providing suggestions is doing what it has to do, and the body/mind following the suggestions or ignoring the suggestions is also doing what it has to do. All such activity (from my POV) is simply an undulation in the vastness of THIS.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 9, 2013 17:48:05 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. That's not true.. Tzu's message reveals the flaws in the oneness/non-duality beliefs, so.. to silence the message, the disciples go after the messenger.. there's no contradiction to the reality of duality other than unsupportable denial.. Be well.. Tzu' using the word "True"? For one thing, this is a word that Tzu has explicitly disclaimed ... for another, Tzu' has a demonstrated history of deliberate deception ... but most importantly, Tzu' has a penchant for self-contradiction that can only be explained by self-deception. Tzu' stands up a straw man, hangs placards on it's neck, and then fumbles around with wet matches. LOL.. i have disclaimed the word 'truth', as used by the disciples of oneness,, as a fixed belief and an attachment.. i use the word 'true' as it relates to the the understanding of accuracy.. do you understand the difference? Laffy rushes to "try to make Tzu look foolish", again, wet matches and all.. just let go, it's so much simpler.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 9, 2013 18:03:02 GMT -5
Greetings.. Tzu' using the word "True"? For one thing, this is a word that Tzu has explicitly disclaimed ... for another, Tzu' has a demonstrated history of deliberate deception ... but most importantly, Tzu' has a penchant for self-contradiction that can only be explained by self-deception. Tzu' stands up a straw man, hangs placards on it's neck, and then fumbles around with wet matches. LOL.. i have disclaimed the word 'truth', as used by the disciples of oneness,, as a fixed belief and an attachment.. i use the word 'true' as it relates to the the understanding of accuracy.. do you understand the difference? Laffy rushes to "try to make Tzu look foolish", again, wet matches and all.. just let go, it's so much simpler.. Be well.. There's no "try" involved ... talk about needing to let go ... did you understand that threat to be one that was operative from then on and forever? But if there is a doer involved in this particular endeavor ... it ain't laffy!
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 9, 2013 18:06:37 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. LOL.. i have disclaimed the word 'truth', as used by the disciples of oneness,, as a fixed belief and an attachment.. i use the word 'true' as it relates to the the understanding of accuracy.. do you understand the difference? Laffy rushes to "try to make Tzu look foolish", again, wet matches and all.. just let go, it's so much simpler.. Be well.. There's no "try" involved ... talk about needing to let go ... did you understand that threat to be one that was operative from then on and forever? But if there is a doer involved in this particular endeavor ... it ain't laffy! Okay.. i'll 'try' again: i have disclaimed the word 'truth', as used by the disciples of oneness,, as a fixed belief and an attachment.. i use the word 'true' as it relates to the the understanding of accuracy.. do you understand the difference? Be well..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 9, 2013 18:09:41 GMT -5
Greetings.. There's no "try" involved ... talk about needing to let go ... did you understand that threat to be one that was operative from then on and forever? But if there is a doer involved in this particular endeavor ... it ain't laffy! Okay.. i'll 'try' again: i have disclaimed the word 'truth', as used by the disciples of oneness,, as a fixed belief and an attachment.. i use the word 'true' as it relates to the the understanding of accuracy.. do you understand the difference? Be well.. It's a bit puzzling why you would infer interest on my part in such a line of reasoning and the resulting rationalization. Turn your attention away from such movement. Just be.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Jul 9, 2013 18:51:53 GMT -5
LOL.. i have disclaimed the word 'truth', as used by the disciples of oneness Goooooooooo team oneness!
|
|