Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2013 23:01:28 GMT -5
I see that about you, though at times you do seem to avoid more thoughtful exchanges via quick "run -n- gun one liners. Meaning that at times it seems like you are more interested in "dropping" your opinion than discussing it. But I don't remember ever seeing you poking at someone just to get a reaction and run off ;-) There are a few folks that seem to prefer what I call a strafing run versus conversation, meaning that the preference seems to be for coming in and dropping what seems to be a strong opinion into the thread and then leaving without engaging in a two way dialogue of any significance. Silence and OneHandClapping seem to be firmly in that camp, with Sharon sorta in that category. Many times I am more interested in just dropping my opinion where it can be entirely discarded or not. There's other times when I do become interested in a conversation. One of those instances was with your invitation to discuss drug addiction vs. Samadhi addiction. I'm still waiting for that one. Rephrase the question, and I may be able to answer it, as it is the question is misconcieved, and begins with an assumption that there is a such thing as Samadhi Addiction. As it is currently its like saying: "Can you explain why the sun blue on tuesdays and yellow on wednesday?" How do you answer a question like that lol
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2013 11:00:43 GMT -5
Cool, where did the "brain" come from, and how is it that awareness still manifests in deep sleep when the brain function is effectively shut down...or when folks have "flatlined" with no brain activity, and still report awareness an experiences occurring while no brain activity was manifest? If the brain is the instrument or means of perception, what is using that instrument to perceive with? There is no 'what is using the instrument'...it is the instrument that perceives the thought about 'what uses the instrument'...
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 8, 2013 11:13:15 GMT -5
Cool, where did the "brain" come from, and how is it that awareness still manifests in deep sleep when the brain function is effectively shut down...or when folks have "flatlined" with no brain activity, and still report awareness an experiences occurring while no brain activity was manifest? If the brain is the instrument or means of perception, what is using that instrument to perceive with? There is no 'what is using the instrument'...it is the instrument that perceives the thought about 'what uses the instrument'... In that context, the object cannot be the subject.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2013 11:34:22 GMT -5
There is no 'what is using the instrument'...it is the instrument that perceives the thought about 'what uses the instrument'... In that context, the object cannot be the subject. Then I will expand the context for you...the object and the subject have a common source...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2013 14:40:28 GMT -5
In that context, the object cannot be the subject. Then I will expand the context for you...the object and the subject have a common source... Which you believe is the brain?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2013 14:42:46 GMT -5
Cool, where did the "brain" come from, and how is it that awareness still manifests in deep sleep when the brain function is effectively shut down...or when folks have "flatlined" with no brain activity, and still report awareness an experiences occurring while no brain activity was manifest? If the brain is the instrument or means of perception, what is using that instrument to perceive with? There is no 'what is using the instrument'...it is the instrument that perceives the thought about 'what uses the instrument'... Where did the brain come from, along with the system in which it functions? also, if no brain exists anywhere, does the tree in the forest still exist, as it can be seen to be nothing more than a set of sensory inputs processed by the brain....what does the latter portend?
|
|
|
Post by silence on Oct 8, 2013 16:12:05 GMT -5
Many times I am more interested in just dropping my opinion where it can be entirely discarded or not. There's other times when I do become interested in a conversation. One of those instances was with your invitation to discuss drug addiction vs. Samadhi addiction. I'm still waiting for that one. Rephrase the question, and I may be able to answer it, as it is the question is misconcieved, and begins with an assumption that there is a such thing as Samadhi Addiction. As it is currently its like saying: "Can you explain why the sun blue on tuesdays and yellow on wednesday?" How do you answer a question like that lol Being addicted to a particular experience you call Samadhi would be samadhi addiction. I don't know what's so difficult about that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2013 16:48:02 GMT -5
Then I will expand the context for you...the object and the subject have a common source... Which you believe is the brain? No, I don't think that source is in the brain, sorry if that's how it comes across... To me, the brain or human is like the separate drops of water that form as the river goes over a water fall... The separate drop of water perceives a separate universe through the brains senses and thoughts... When the drop of water hits the bottom of the water fall it returns to it's source being the river...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2013 17:11:01 GMT -5
Rephrase the question, and I may be able to answer it, as it is the question is misconcieved, and begins with an assumption that there is a such thing as Samadhi Addiction. As it is currently its like saying: "Can you explain why the sun blue on tuesdays and yellow on wednesday?" How do you answer a question like that lol Being addicted to a particular experience you call Samadhi would be samadhi addiction. I don't know what's so difficult about that. A person gets addicted to a specific experience that a person can have In Samadhi there is no person that one is centered in that has a specific definable experience
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2013 17:48:30 GMT -5
There is no 'what is using the instrument'...it is the instrument that perceives the thought about 'what uses the instrument'... Where did the brain come from, along with the system in which it functions? also, if no brain exists anywhere, does the tree in the forest still exist, as it can be seen to be nothing more than a set of sensory inputs processed by the brain....what does the latter portend? All I know is what I perceive... and I'm perceiving the thought that if I didn't have a brain I wouldn't be able to do that.... I don't actually perceive a brain, or a body, or a mind, or things...I perceive the sense of sight, touch, hearing, taste, feeling and thought. No one can say where perceiving takes place, because the answer would only ever be just another perception. We can't get outside of our perceiving to see what it is or where it is that is perceiving... That transcendence game is always in front of us and not a reality in which perceiving arises...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2013 18:05:14 GMT -5
Where did the brain come from, along with the system in which it functions? also, if no brain exists anywhere, does the tree in the forest still exist, as it can be seen to be nothing more than a set of sensory inputs processed by the brain....what does the latter portend? All I know is what I perceive... and I'm perceiving the thought that if I didn't have a brain I wouldn't be able to do that.... I don't actually perceive a brain, or a body, or a mind, or things...I perceive the sense of sight, touch, hearing, taste, feeling and thought. No one can say where perceiving takes place, because the answer would only ever be just another perception. We can't get outside of our perceiving to see what it is or where it is that is perceiving... That transcendence game is always in front of us and not a reality in which perceiving arises... I like that answer :-) What happens when you try to perceive the perceiver? Have you ever tried that?
|
|
|
Post by silence on Oct 8, 2013 18:51:16 GMT -5
Being addicted to a particular experience you call Samadhi would be samadhi addiction. I don't know what's so difficult about that. A person gets addicted to a specific experience that a person can have In Samadhi there is no person that one is centered in that has a specific definable experience It clearly is a specific definable experience that you're having or else you would have absolutely nothing to say about it. There would just be nothing and the whole matter would be left alone. You don't yearn for nothing. You yearn for the release from that sense of a center and return to that again and again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2013 19:08:59 GMT -5
A person gets addicted to a specific experience that a person can have In Samadhi there is no person that one is centered in that has a specific definable experience It clearly is a specific definable experience that you're having or else you would have absolutely nothing to say about it. There would just be nothing and the whole matter would be left alone. You don't yearn for nothing. You yearn for the release from that sense of a center and return to that again and again. Actually, I've tried to communicate that there is nothing accurate to say about Samadhi, and words, even the words that have been used here, fail. There really isn't anything accurate to communicate about it :-) And "yearning" is a poor choice of words too, perhaps "being transfixed by a wonder and grace" of Samadhi is better than to say one yearns for it. Also, do you consider every "yearning" to be indicative of an addiction? I have frequently yearned to drive a formula one car at monaco....is that an addiction too?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2013 20:08:43 GMT -5
All I know is what I perceive... and I'm perceiving the thought that if I didn't have a brain I wouldn't be able to do that.... I don't actually perceive a brain, or a body, or a mind, or things...I perceive the sense of sight, touch, hearing, taste, feeling and thought. No one can say where perceiving takes place, because the answer would only ever be just another perception. We can't get outside of our perceiving to see what it is or where it is that is perceiving... That transcendence game is always in front of us and not a reality in which perceiving arises... I like that answer :-) What happens when you try to perceive the perceiver? Have you ever tried that? I am a perceiver so I only know how to place the attention on the senses, feelings and thoughts... If you consider the pereceiver to be one of those perceptions than yes...if not the answer is no.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2013 20:19:46 GMT -5
I like that answer :-) What happens when you try to perceive the perceiver? Have you ever tried that? I am a perceiver so I only know how to place the attention on the senses, feelings and thoughts... If you consider the pereceiver to be one of those perceptions than yes...if not the answer is no. Okay, but what happens when you try, have you ever tried? the perceiver receives sensory experiences no? Have you tried to perceive what receives those sensory experiences or what perceives the thoughts? And don't say you have perceived the brain receiving them, because unless your "instrumentation" is supernaturally sensitive, I don't suspect that you have perceived your brain receiving sensory perceptions...and even if you have, the next question will be: Have you tried to perceive the perceiver of the brain receiving sensory perceptions?
|
|