|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 4, 2013 12:25:34 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. The phrase 'still mind' is too much, but it's what best explains the condition for clarity.. 'pure awareness' is ambiguous, look at the wiki definition for awareness, a common person's understanding, and the difference used in beliefs like Advaita or your explanation of Zen.. it becomes apparent that the when we can stop the conceptualizing 'about' what this or that 'is', when we can stop thinking that 'thinking' about samadhi, or oneness, or non-duality, or duality, or pure awareness, or any of the mind-play that results in conflicts of 'beliefiness', when we can just look and see, and have the direct honesty to talk about what is 'seen' rather than 'imaginings' and 'beliefs about' what is seen, there is the chance we will liberate ourselves from this idea-feat.. 'Pure awareness with no content' has no meaning and points away from clarity.. the function of awareness is as a vehicle for information/content, rather than a romanticized attribute of zen and advaita's misunderstandings of mind and Life and of what is actually happening.. as a vehicle for information/content, awareness informs the experiencer of the experience whether internal or external.. belief-systems and religions use word-play to create the illusion of superiority, of having understanding superior to those not approved into their system of beliefs.. The phrase 'still mind' is fairly self-explanatory, until it is forced into a belief system, Zen, Advaita, Oneness, etc.. the 'still' mind is not 'actively' thinking.. shifting that fairly simple understanding to imply an ambiguous meaning like "pure awareness with no content", is a leap of faith employed by most belief-systems/religions, it shapes simplicity into a believer's preferred mental structure.. So, again we approach the threshold of clarity.. will it be based on special uses of words and meanings assigned to special belief systems?... or, is there the sincerity to let that go and just look, and just keep looking.. without the obstacles of creating new meanings for common understandings?.. is there the simple sincerity to let go of beliefs and word-play, and have simple discussions with commonly understood meanings?.. or, will the attachments to words/meanings unique to the beliefs serve the conflict they create.. common people understand common language and common meanings, to deviate from that simplicity employs the mind's thinking and believing processes.. " Time, space, causality, selfhood, thingness, change, and all other distinctions" do not vanish when the mind is quiescent/still, they become clear and are understood completely without reference to words/pointers.. in the complete understanding is complete release, no doubt as to what was 'pointed to'.. and that may seem like a vanishing act to some, liberation to others as freedom from the known.. when there is liberation from the ideas of Zen, Advaita, Oneness, non-duality, duality, separation, awareness, pure, truth, etc.. there is the the looking and the seeing with genuine curiosity, unbiased by those 'beliefs'.. how wondrous and awe-inspiring it would be to have discussions where people felt secure enough to openly and honestly discuss what they 'see', rather than insisting that the discussions conform to their beliefs 'about' what they see.. almost all discussions in this forum deteriorate into conflicts about which beliefs will govern how what is actually seen/experienced will be presented and why.. there is precious little open honest discussion at the level a common uninitiated or novice seeker could follow.. the level of 'thinking' necessary to understand the usual discussion format here far exceeds simplicity or clarity.. Be well.. When I read what you write I hear a lot of frustration. Here are the words of your invitation: "Nothing i say is true because i say it, it becomes true when you experience it as such." Yet when some people do not experience what you say, you chalk it up to them being blinded by beliefs. Why not give the benefit of the doubt to those who do not experience what you say and just put it aside as a misunderstanding or a completely different experience? Note, I am not suggesting your experience is wrong, or that your articulation of what you experience could be better. I am just saying that what you say you experience may not be shared. It's okay. It doesn't necessarily mean that those who are not sharing it are ignorant or blinded either. What i say i experience is the clarity of a still mind.. i can only help others to their own clarity, allowing them to realize their own actuality.. attachments to beliefs are contradictions to the claim of clarity or still mind.. if i am to help others to their own clarity, is it not worthy to point to obstacles? i don't tell others what to see/experience, Advaita, Buddha, Tao, Zen, beliefs, etc.. clarity dissipates those beliefs.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Sept 4, 2013 12:48:37 GMT -5
Yeah there seems to be a clamoring at the top of the spiritual mountain as to who can still the mind and what is seen from that imagined clarity... Seems to me that one voice claims to shout from the top of the mountain while the other is smiling silently with his back toward it as he walks away. This "smiling silently" is typical passive aggressive behaviour. We all know that it brings no good at all. The proper way is to either answer questions truthfully or not say anything at all. It's very easy once they learn to abandon the guru role and learn to admit that they genuinely don't know.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 4, 2013 12:53:24 GMT -5
Seems to me that one voice claims to shout from the top of the mountain while the other is smiling silently with his back toward it as he walks away. This "smiling silently" is typical passive aggressive behaviour. We all know that it brings no good at all. The proper way is to either answer questions truthfully or not say anything at all. It's very easy once they learn to abandon the guru role and learn to admit that they genuinely don't know. The most truthful answer to most questions is silence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2013 12:56:39 GMT -5
Greetings.. When I read what you write I hear a lot of frustration. Here are the words of your invitation: "Nothing i say is true because i say it, it becomes true when you experience it as such." Yet when some people do not experience what you say, you chalk it up to them being blinded by beliefs. Why not give the benefit of the doubt to those who do not experience what you say and just put it aside as a misunderstanding or a completely different experience? Note, I am not suggesting your experience is wrong, or that your articulation of what you experience could be better. I am just saying that what you say you experience may not be shared. It's okay. It doesn't necessarily mean that those who are not sharing it are ignorant or blinded either. What i say i experience is the clarity of a still mind.. i can only help others to their own clarity, allowing them to realize their own actuality.. attachments to beliefs are contradictions to the claim of clarity or still mind.. if i am to help others to their own clarity, is it not worthy to point to obstacles? i don't tell others what to see/experience, Advaita, Buddha, Tao, Zen, beliefs, etc.. clarity dissipates those beliefs.. Be well.. Pointing out attachments to beliefs and obstacles is quite popular on this site, if you've noticed, so I think you're in good company. It just so happens that what you see as beliefs and obstacles are seen by others as your beliefs and obstacles, and vice versa. It's a big mirror fest! Contrary to what you might imagine, I don't see the references to what various folks have said in various tradititons -- Advaita, Buddha, Tao, Jesus, George Carlin, Homer Simpson -- as attempts to get readers to become copies or religious followers of those (well maybe Homer Simpson). It's just along the principle of 'more heads are better than one' in that different ways of articulating things may be helpful. Perspectives are brought in to help articulate something or other. Why reinvent the wheel if a great one has already been created? When I hear your still mind I immediately think of Basho: Old pond/ frog jumps in/ Plop!
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Sept 4, 2013 12:59:17 GMT -5
This "smiling silently" is typical passive aggressive behaviour. We all know that it brings no good at all. The proper way is to either answer questions truthfully or not say anything at all. It's very easy once they learn to abandon the guru role and learn to admit that they genuinely don't know. The most truthful answer to most questions is silence. That's obviously wrong. You must approach a question as it was intended, and not as what it means to you from your enlightened perspective.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 4, 2013 13:04:35 GMT -5
The most truthful answer to most questions is silence. That's obviously wrong. You must approach a question as it was intended, and not as what it means to you from your enlightened perspective.(** shakes head sadly while snickering **)
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Sept 4, 2013 13:23:42 GMT -5
Tzu is right. All they want is play guru on an internet forum and have some folks tell them how awesome they are. When people like me point out to them their numerous inconsistencies then they totally refuse to even acknowledge it as a question, instead they keep repeating the same old refuted and worn out story that we've heard millions of times before. In this discussion I'm constantly referring to the qualia model in my own head. Where is time in the qualia model? Right there in patterning right? 'Still mind' would suggest minimal patterning going on. Patterning is also stuff like depth perception for which no time is necessarily required. Patterning is also a lot of God knows what other stuff, some of which so ingrained that we don't even know it's a patterning. My point is that you can't just switch off patterning, it's automatic, it's not controlled by thoughts, it's just normal body/mind functioning. Instead, and this is what I've been saying for ages but the idiots don't want to listen, I'm saying that there obviously must be a precise mechanism and a precise way to trigger it if you want your shítty enlightenment. It's nothing more than crazy stupid brainfart ideology when they talk about doing nonstop ATA, making still mind, releasing attachments, blah blah blah.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Sept 4, 2013 15:06:16 GMT -5
Greetings.. The phrase 'still mind' is too much, but it's what best explains the condition for clarity.. 'pure awareness' is ambiguous, look at the wiki definition for awareness, a common person's understanding, and the difference used in beliefs like Advaita or your explanation of Zen.. it becomes apparent that the when we can stop the conceptualizing 'about' what this or that 'is', when we can stop thinking that 'thinking' about samadhi, or oneness, or non-duality, or duality, or pure awareness, or any of the mind-play that results in conflicts of 'beliefiness', when we can just look and see, and have the direct honesty to talk about what is 'seen' rather than 'imaginings' and 'beliefs about' what is seen, there is the chance we will liberate ourselves from this idea-feat.. 'Pure awareness with no content' has no meaning and points away from clarity.. the function of awareness is as a vehicle for information/content, rather than a romanticized attribute of zen and advaita's misunderstandings of mind and Life and of what is actually happening.. as a vehicle for information/content, awareness informs the experiencer of the experience whether internal or external.. belief-systems and religions use word-play to create the illusion of superiority, of having understanding superior to those not approved into their system of beliefs.. The phrase 'still mind' is fairly self-explanatory, until it is forced into a belief system, Zen, Advaita, Oneness, etc.. the 'still' mind is not 'actively' thinking.. shifting that fairly simple understanding to imply an ambiguous meaning like "pure awareness with no content", is a leap of faith employed by most belief-systems/religions, it shapes simplicity into a believer's preferred mental structure.. So, again we approach the threshold of clarity.. will it be based on special uses of words and meanings assigned to special belief systems?... or, is there the sincerity to let that go and just look, and just keep looking.. without the obstacles of creating new meanings for common understandings?.. is there the simple sincerity to let go of beliefs and word-play, and have simple discussions with commonly understood meanings?.. or, will the attachments to words/meanings unique to the beliefs serve the conflict they create.. common people understand common language and common meanings, to deviate from that simplicity employs the mind's thinking and believing processes.. " Time, space, causality, selfhood, thingness, change, and all other distinctions" do not vanish when the mind is quiescent/still, they become clear and are understood completely without reference to words/pointers.. in the complete understanding is complete release, no doubt as to what was 'pointed to'.. and that may seem like a vanishing act to some, liberation to others as freedom from the known.. when there is liberation from the ideas of Zen, Advaita, Oneness, non-duality, duality, separation, awareness, pure, truth, etc.. there is the the looking and the seeing with genuine curiosity, unbiased by those 'beliefs'.. how wondrous and awe-inspiring it would be to have discussions where people felt secure enough to openly and honestly discuss what they 'see', rather than insisting that the discussions conform to their beliefs 'about' what they see.. almost all discussions in this forum deteriorate into conflicts about which beliefs will govern how what is actually seen/experienced will be presented and why.. there is precious little open honest discussion at the level a common uninitiated or novice seeker could follow.. the level of 'thinking' necessary to understand the usual discussion format here far exceeds simplicity or clarity.. Be well.. When I read what you write I hear a lot of frustration. Here are the words of your invitation: "Nothing i say is true because i say it, it becomes true when you experience it as such." Yet when some people do not experience what you say, you chalk it up to them being blinded by beliefs. Why not give the benefit of the doubt to those who do not experience what you say and just put it aside as a misunderstanding or a completely different experience? Note, I am not suggesting your experience is wrong, or that your articulation of what you experience could be better. I am just saying that what you say you experience may not be shared. It's okay. It doesn't necessarily mean that those who are not sharing it are ignorant or blinded either. You don't know how to figure out anything. He's saying the exact opposite of your 'translation'. We've been over this before - I don't know how you manage to do it, other than your mind and your opinions are already poisoned by what your 'faves' think of him, how they can't even begin to treat him or ANYthing he may say with any room or any respect whatsoever - it's always suspicious. It's your desire to make him 'wrong' or 'misguided' or whatever that turns something simple into crud.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2013 15:55:14 GMT -5
When I read what you write I hear a lot of frustration. Here are the words of your invitation: "Nothing i say is true because i say it, it becomes true when you experience it as such." Yet when some people do not experience what you say, you chalk it up to them being blinded by beliefs. Why not give the benefit of the doubt to those who do not experience what you say and just put it aside as a misunderstanding or a completely different experience? Note, I am not suggesting your experience is wrong, or that your articulation of what you experience could be better. I am just saying that what you say you experience may not be shared. It's okay. It doesn't necessarily mean that those who are not sharing it are ignorant or blinded either. You don't know how to figure out anything. He's saying the exact opposite of your 'translation'. I'm gonna have to take your word on that. Though I did just figure out how to have lunch, so that's somethin. I don't think that's it. There's some confusion over the use of the term 'still mind.' Many of us are trying to understand what Tzu means by it. Maybe if it is so simple and obvious to you you could explain to me where time fits into still mind? Remember, I don't know how to figure anything out, so you're going to have to speak real slow and clear.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2013 16:09:48 GMT -5
In this discussion I'm constantly referring to the qualia model in my own head. Where is time in the qualia model? Right there in patterning right? 'Still mind' would suggest minimal patterning going on. Patterning is also stuff like depth perception for which no time is necessarily required. Patterning is also a lot of God knows what other stuff, some of which so ingrained that we don't even know it's a patterning. My point is that you can't just switch off patterning, it's automatic, it's not controlled by thoughts, it's just normal body/mind functioning. Instead, and this is what I've been saying for ages but the idiots don't want to listen, I'm saying that there obviously must be a precise mechanism and a precise way to trigger it if you want your shítty enlightenment. It's nothing more than crazy stupid brainfart ideology when they talk about doing nonstop ATA, making still mind, releasing attachments, blah blah blah. Hmm, depth perception requires patterning? Okay, yea, then patterning goes real deep, not just thinking. But there must be different orders of patterning going on or something -- the patterning in depth perception is a whole different kettle of fish than the patterning involved in arguing about the real meaning of dadaism. The aim of ATA is a situation when that sort of higher order patterning is not obsessively partaken in, as I understand -- brainfart ideology. Time is in the patterning realm is it not?
|
|
|
Post by silver on Sept 4, 2013 16:12:29 GMT -5
You don't know how to figure out anything. He's saying the exact opposite of your 'translation'. I'm gonna have to take your word on that. Though I did just figure out how to have lunch, so that's somethin. I don't think that's it. There's some confusion over the use of the term 'still mind.' Many of us are trying to understand what Tzu means by it. Maybe if it is so simple and obvious to you you could explain to me where time fits into still mind? Remember, I don't know how to figure anything out, so you're going to have to speak real slow and clear. A busy man needs his lunch. Ah, okay...still mind problem, got it. The way you described it sounded a lot like you were re-discussing his signature 'claim', sorry 'bout that.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Sept 4, 2013 16:25:38 GMT -5
Patterning is also stuff like depth perception for which no time is necessarily required. Patterning is also a lot of God knows what other stuff, some of which so ingrained that we don't even know it's a patterning. My point is that you can't just switch off patterning, it's automatic, it's not controlled by thoughts, it's just normal body/mind functioning. Instead, and this is what I've been saying for ages but the idiots don't want to listen, I'm saying that there obviously must be a precise mechanism and a precise way to trigger it if you want your shítty enlightenment. It's nothing more than crazy stupid brainfart ideology when they talk about doing nonstop ATA, making still mind, releasing attachments, blah blah blah. Hmm, depth perception requires patterning? Okay, yea, then patterning goes real deep, not just thinking. But there must be different orders of patterning going on or something -- the patterning in depth perception is a whole different kettle of fish than the patterning involved in arguing about the real meaning of dadaism. The aim of ATA is a situation when that sort of higher order patterning is not obsessively partaken in, as I understand -- brainfart ideology. Time is in the patterning realm is it not? Patterning are all qualia that aren't colours, sounds, etc. I don't know and I don't care what's what exactly and how it works. We all know what the aim of ATA is, the point is that its "official" purpose is to make one "accident prone" for whatever accident it is that is responsible for realization or whatever. I'm saying let's ask the stupid obvious question, namely why not just figure out what the accident is and how to trigger it without wasting time on this obviously idiotic ATA.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2013 16:34:06 GMT -5
Hmm, depth perception requires patterning? Okay, yea, then patterning goes real deep, not just thinking. But there must be different orders of patterning going on or something -- the patterning in depth perception is a whole different kettle of fish than the patterning involved in arguing about the real meaning of dadaism. The aim of ATA is a situation when that sort of higher order patterning is not obsessively partaken in, as I understand -- brainfart ideology. Time is in the patterning realm is it not? Patterning are all qualia that aren't colours, sounds, etc. I don't know and I don't care what's what exactly and how it works. We all know what the aim of ATA is, the point is that its "official" purpose is to make one "accident prone" for whatever accident it is that is responsible for realization or whatever. I'm saying let's ask the stupid obvious question, namely why not just figure out what the accident is and how to trigger it without wasting time on this obviously idiotic ATA. Yea! It'll be the EXTRA SUPER EXPRESS PATH. Accident NOW.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 4, 2013 16:42:12 GMT -5
Patterning are all qualia that aren't colours, sounds, etc. I don't know and I don't care what's what exactly and how it works. We all know what the aim of ATA is, the point is that its "official" purpose is to make one "accident prone" for whatever accident it is that is responsible for realization or whatever. I'm saying let's ask the stupid obvious question, namely why not just figure out what the accident is and how to trigger it without wasting time on this obviously idiotic ATA. Yea! It'll be the EXTRA SUPER EXPRESS PATH. Accident NOW. Um ... but then like ... how would it still be an accident?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2013 16:44:19 GMT -5
I'm gonna have to take your word on that. Though I did just figure out how to have lunch, so that's somethin. I don't think that's it. There's some confusion over the use of the term 'still mind.' Many of us are trying to understand what Tzu means by it. Maybe if it is so simple and obvious to you you could explain to me where time fits into still mind? Remember, I don't know how to figure anything out, so you're going to have to speak real slow and clear. A busy man needs his lunch. Ah, okay...still mind problem, got it. The way you described it sounded a lot like you were re-discussing his signature 'claim', sorry 'bout that. I was referring to his sig line. What he says (referring to his sig line) is that there's something called 'still mind.' He also says that Time is something that is naturally observable in that still mind -- a 'self-evident actuality.' Also in his sig line he is saying that he is not really interested in people reading what he writes and taking it for the truth, he's more interested in people getting in touch with their own experience to verify if what he is saying is true (commendable, BTW). Folks have been saying that, from their experience, they haven't been seeing what he is saying about time and still mind. It is not true to them. So, according to the sig line, this is fine because what is more important is that folks are trusting their own experience. Yet what Tzu is then saying is that because peeps are not experiencing a validation of what he says, it implies that peeps are blinded by beliefs and ideologies -- unlike him. Do you see a contradiction? Again, this doesn't mean his experience is wrong. It doesn't mean that how he describes it is wrong for him. It just means that we seem to be having different experiences and/or communicating it differently.
|
|