|
|
Post by topology on Jul 3, 2013 12:11:52 GMT -5
Posts should be restricted to: - Requests for definitions of specific terms
- Definitions of terms and their etymology
- Clarification of definitions and etymology
|
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jul 3, 2013 12:16:22 GMT -5
Posts should be restricted to: - Requests for definitions of specific terms
- Definitions of terms and their etymology
- Clarification of definitions and etymology
Hey, okay! I would like to hear everything - all about E's 'greasy little spot'. Everything. That sounds weird!  |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jul 3, 2013 12:25:08 GMT -5
Before anyone (or even if anyone) posts anything, here, thanks for the thread, top.  |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jul 3, 2013 14:44:35 GMT -5
Next up: clarity
I see the usual suspects arguing about what is clarity or what people mean by clarity.
What is clarity? What does it mean - compare 'regular use' clarity and - there really shouldn't be a dam.n difference. Apparently, there is a difference for Tzu, top, Trf - all the T's this morning, I guess. Would anyone like to clarify clarity?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2013 14:59:46 GMT -5
Next up: clarity I see the usual suspects arguing about what is clarity or what people mean by clarity. What is clarity? What does it mean - compare 'regular use' clarity and - there really shouldn't be a dam.n difference. Apparently, there is a difference for Tzu, top, Trf - all the T's this morning, I guess. Would anyone like to clarify clarity? You mean, like, Now? |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 3, 2013 15:23:47 GMT -5
Next up: clarity I see the usual suspects arguing about what is clarity or what people mean by clarity. What is clarity? What does it mean - compare 'regular use' clarity and - there really shouldn't be a dam.n difference. Apparently, there is a difference for Tzu, top, Trf - all the T's this morning, I guess. Would anyone like to clarify clarity? There are three major clarities. 1) There is the clarity of the mind's reasoning 2) There is the clarity of the mind in terms of how much it distorts perception. 3) There is the inherent clarity of that which is aware of the mind and everything else. (1) This pertains to clear thinking. Thoughts and decisions are "grounded". When someone with a clear mind speaks, they are often heard clearly if there is no distortion occurring in the mind of the hearer. (2) The other aspect of mind-clarity is how much the mind "gets out of the way" in perception. The mind should become like a translucent window which can be seen clearly through. The translucent mind is free from confirmation bias, free from attachment, free from addiction and need. (3) The third clarity is the inherent translucency of awareness. The existence of this clarity becomes clear when the mind is not translucent. When the mind is foggy, experiencing cognitive dissonance or mistaken perception. When the mind's lack of clarity is clearly seen, what is able to see and recognize that? When one identifies with the content of mind, then (2 & 3) cannot be seen clearly. When one identifies with the mind then (3) cannot be seen clearly. It is only in experiencing the "otherness" of the mind that we become aware of the space in which the mind exists. We miss noticing that space precisely due to its inherent translucency. Can you see air? Can you see the fluid or cornea in your eyeballs? Until a distortion occurs (heat wave in air) (floaters in the visual field) these things are translucent and go unnoticed. What is aware of any and all distortions? What is aware of the mind when the mind is distorted? |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jul 3, 2013 15:31:48 GMT -5
Next up: clarity I see the usual suspects arguing about what is clarity or what people mean by clarity. What is clarity? What does it mean - compare 'regular use' clarity and - there really shouldn't be a dam.n difference. Apparently, there is a difference for Tzu, top, Trf - all the T's this morning, I guess. Would anyone like to clarify clarity? There are three major clarities. 1) There is the clarity of the mind's reasoning 2) There is the clarity of the mind in terms of how much it distorts perception. 3) There is the inherent clarity of that which is aware of the mind and everything else. (1) This pertains to clear thinking. Thoughts and decisions are "grounded". When someone with a clear mind speaks, they are often heard clearly if there is no distortion occurring in the mind of the hearer. (2) The other aspect of mind-clarity is how much the mind "gets out of the way" in perception. The mind should become like a translucent window which can be seen clearly through. The translucent mind is free from confirmation bias, free from attachment, free from addiction and need. (3) The third clarity is the inherent translucency of awareness. The existence of this clarity becomes clear when the mind is not translucent. When the mind is foggy, experiencing cognitive dissonance or mistaken perception. When the mind's lack of clarity is clearly seen, what is able to see and recognize that? When one identifies with the content of mind, then (2 & 3) cannot be seen clearly. When one identifies with the mind then (3) cannot be seen clearly. It is only in experiencing the "otherness" of the mind that we become aware of the space in which the mind exists. We miss noticing that space precisely due to its inherent translucency. Can you see air? Can you see the fluid or cornea in your eyeballs? Until a distortion occurs (heat wave in air) (floaters in the visual field) these things are translucent and go unnoticed. What is aware of any and all distortions? What is aware of the mind when the mind is distorted? I would venture a guess and say that subconscious may be a part of our psyche/mind that is aware of the mind at all times including when perceptions are discovered by it to be distorted - in part lack to the best vantage point(s). And perhaps this part of the mind/psyche also recognizes the need for forgiveness. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 3, 2013 15:42:16 GMT -5
There are three major clarities. 1) There is the clarity of the mind's reasoning 2) There is the clarity of the mind in terms of how much it distorts perception. 3) There is the inherent clarity of that which is aware of the mind and everything else. (1) This pertains to clear thinking. Thoughts and decisions are "grounded". When someone with a clear mind speaks, they are often heard clearly if there is no distortion occurring in the mind of the hearer. (2) The other aspect of mind-clarity is how much the mind "gets out of the way" in perception. The mind should become like a translucent window which can be seen clearly through. The translucent mind is free from confirmation bias, free from attachment, free from addiction and need. (3) The third clarity is the inherent translucency of awareness. The existence of this clarity becomes clear when the mind is not translucent. When the mind is foggy, experiencing cognitive dissonance or mistaken perception. When the mind's lack of clarity is clearly seen, what is able to see and recognize that? When one identifies with the content of mind, then (2 & 3) cannot be seen clearly. When one identifies with the mind then (3) cannot be seen clearly. It is only in experiencing the "otherness" of the mind that we become aware of the space in which the mind exists. We miss noticing that space precisely due to its inherent translucency. Can you see air? Can you see the fluid or cornea in your eyeballs? Until a distortion occurs (heat wave in air) (floaters in the visual field) these things are translucent and go unnoticed. What is aware of any and all distortions? What is aware of the mind when the mind is distorted? I would venture a guess and say that subconscious may be a part of our psyche/mind that is aware of the mind at all times including when perceptions are discovered by it to be distorted - in part lack to the best vantage point(s). And perhaps this part of the mind/psyche also recognizes the need for forgiveness. This is a fundamental question to answer: Is that which is seen also that which is seeing? When you look at a car, is it the car that is looking at the car? When you look at your hand, is it the hand which is seeing the hand? When you look at your reflection in the mirror, is it the reflection that is seeing the reflection? When you look at your thoughts, is it your thoughts which are seeing and aware of your thoughts? When you look at and examine the psyche (conscious, subconscious, or unconscious) is it the psyche which is seeing the psyche? Do you understand the problemo in what you're proposing? If the psyche is seen, how is the psyche also that which is seeing the psyche? The seen is not what is seeing... The psyche is seen. We're not looking for guesses here. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jul 3, 2013 15:48:02 GMT -5
I would venture a guess and say that subconscious may be a part of our psyche/mind that is aware of the mind at all times including when perceptions are discovered by it to be distorted - in part lack to the best vantage point(s). And perhaps this part of the mind/psyche also recognizes the need for forgiveness. This is a fundamental question to answer: Is that which is seen also that which is seeing? When you look at a car, is it the car that is looking at the car? When you look at your hand, is it the hand which is seeing the hand? When you look at your reflection in the mirror, is it the reflection that is seeing the reflection? When you look at your thoughts, is it your thoughts which are seeing and aware of your thoughts? When you look at and examine the psyche (conscious, subconscious, or unconscious) is it the psyche which is seeing the psyche? Do you understand the problemo in what you're proposing? If the psyche is seen, how is the psyche also that which is seeing the psyche? The seen is not what is seeing... The psyche is seen. We're not looking for guesses here. You have nothing but guesses in the questions you're seeming to ask. Nobody really 'knows'. Right? What is the psyche, then? It's invisible. Cannot be seen, defined, caged. What part of our invisible self is that which CAN be caged? Is it any different than the mind/psyche? I tend to think they are one and the same. The mind is hooked up to our senses. And yet, at times it seems the mind is felt / sensed to be the same thing or akin to spirit/soul. I think if they're not one and the same, that they are very close friends. So, the last question about looking at etc. the psyche, the answer is not the same as for the rest. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2013 15:54:35 GMT -5
How am I complicating simplicity? see above  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2013 16:27:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 3, 2013 16:30:43 GMT -5
Here are a few words and definitions that are commonly used when discussing meditation, spiritual truth seeking, and psychic phenomena related to the path of non-duality:
Absolute samadhi: a state of mind in which there is pure non-conceptual awareness without any sense of being a separate observer (selfhood disappears). Zen describes this state as "the falling off of mind and body." Awareness is present, but there is no content of awareness, and therefore nothing can be known of, or said about, this state. This state is usually preceded by "the off sensation," a kind of skin-surface numbness that spreads over the hands, arms, shoulders, face, and head. It feels a bit like sinking to the bottom of deep sea and sitting there motionless while remaining highly aware. It has also been described as a feeling of becoming grdually solidified into a block of ice, and there is a distinct sense of coolness associated with it. Thoughts generally do not occur in samadhi. If more than one or two thoughts arise in close proximty, duality generally reappears, and it feels as if one "thaws out" in slow motion. Absolute samadhi usually occurs during sitting meditation when the body is still (little proprioceptive feedback), and usually involves some degree of breath regulation (diaphragmatic breathing rather than chest breathing).
Relative samadhi: a state of mind in which mind and body are unified in the midst of physical activity, but in which the ordinary sense of time, space, and selfhood is absent. The world is seen and responded to, but cognition is absent. This state is sometimes called "flow" or "being in the zone." Reflectivity is not extant.
Kensho: Zen writers describe kensho as "the experience of seeing into one's true nature." If minor, it is equivalent to what most people would call "an epiphany;" if major, it is what people would call "an experience of cosmic consciousness," or "oneness." The universe is perceived as infinite, unified, alive, intelligent, and whole.
Satori: Sometimes called "enlightenment," satori is the realization that the one seeking enlightenment does not exist and has never existed. Selfhood is seen to be an illusion created and sustained by thoughts. An individual realizes that she is not who she thought she was, and that who she is is what remains after the illusion is seen through. In short, she does not see who she is; she sees who she is not.
Kriya: Muscle jerks, spasms, and rippling precipitated by meditation.
Photistic experiences: There is a particular word for this (please fill in the blank if you know it_____________, but it manifests as flashes of intense bright light sometimes precipitated by meditation, and includes other light-related phenomena
There is also a word for aural experiences precipitated by meditation. These can include explosive sounds, voices, etc.
Universal sound: There may be a specific word for this, but it is the dull "seashell-like" roaring or ringing in the ears that is always present behind all other sounds. Most meditators can hear this sound any time they turn their attention to it.
Non-locality experiences: Psychic or physical experiences that defy common scientific explanation, and make sense only from the perspective that reality is inherently unified, and real separateness is illusory
Sunyata: a word that Buddhists use for emptiness, or the interpenetration of form and void.
Koan: Any existential question that cannot be answered using the intellect. The Rinzai Zen Sect utilizes about 1800 formal koans which are used for contemplation and deepening one's understanding, and also as a way of testing a student's existential understanding.
An experience: the act of living through an event or events; personal involvement in or observations of events as they occur. An experience has duration.
A realization: to make real or understand fully, A realization occurs instantly and has no duration.
Kundalini: Enigma is probably best qualified to write about this.
Chakras: Top and Enigma may both have input concerning these.
Chi: the electrical energy field that circulates through the body. This is a major factor in Chinese medicine and is utilized by acupuncturists.
|
|
|
|
Post by vacant on Jul 3, 2013 17:41:19 GMT -5
Posts should be restricted to: - Requests for definitions of specific terms
- Definitions of terms and their etymology
- Clarification of definitions and etymology
Apologies for posting out of restrictions guidelines, couldn't help myself. What is the value of narrowing definition when the topic at heart cannot be defined. Freedom by nature is free to be all and none. No meaning to what is and passing. But go on, keep rebuilding the walls of the fortress as they crumble down if you must and alright then, let's have a thread about semantics why not, just in case we had a chance to understand the whole darn thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jul 3, 2013 17:46:52 GMT -5
How am I complicating simplicity? see above Yes. Clarity (n., plural clarities) 1. The state, or measure of being clear, either in appearance, thought or style; lucidity. Clear (adj., comparative clearer, superlative clearest) 5. Free of ambiguity or doubt. He gave clear instructions not to bother him at work. Do I make myself clear? Crystal clear. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jul 3, 2013 17:52:07 GMT -5
Thx wren, we needed a little comic relief. Thx ZD - nice list of definitions to get the ball rolling.  |
|
