|
Post by earnest on May 19, 2015 3:31:37 GMT -5
Jay I appreciate the time you put into your replies but they are too long and complicated for me.
I can't do theories and long discussions. My interest is the Living Truth. The truth of this moment, not beliefs and models about this moment.
My inclination is to move towards simplicity and that has served me well.
Good luck in your explorations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 15:42:21 GMT -5
Like wren's comments about me, telling me why i am here, what i am using conversations for, and all the other wacky conclusions she believes are absolutely true. I've had the same amount of success in clearing up those erroneous claims as i would if i was talking to an alien from outer space who communicated with 'beep beep' noises. Speaking of aliens, also while i was on the traintrack, i actually saw a little green man. Just copied the photo to my puta, will upload it soon. Showed GG, who just doesn't believe in such things, and even she said how amazing it was. Here ya go. The little green man. He calls himself, Moss. Isn't he just the cutest thing eva ! Do you really believe that it calls itself Moss?
|
|
|
Post by silver on May 20, 2015 16:09:28 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 17:45:07 GMT -5
Here ya go. The little green man. He calls himself, Moss. Isn't he just the cutest thing eva ! Do you really believe that it calls itself Moss? Metaphorically speaking, Jays moss man is a stentorian matzo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2015 6:38:52 GMT -5
Does it resonate with you. Parts i do and parts i don't. 1. I agree, as long as 'direct' is taken out of the equation...that's it's not 'direct observation', it's simply 'observation'. 2. It has been my experience these last few years, that i only stop directing focus on the spoon when i choose to focus on the thoughts i have of the spoon. If there is an automatic moving of my focus from spoon to my thoughts, then that is a self awareness-self control\mastery issue. 3. I prefer 'focused seeing' than 'direct seeing'. And i see another reason why a person may go back to observing the spoon. One can still have the thought in one's mind, but one has simply moved focused attention back to the spoon, the thought can still be seen in one's periphery, but it is out of focus due to focused attention placed back on the spoon. 4. This statement conveys a lack of self control. ' The mind has constructed', 'thoughts have intruded'. Where is the self that is in control of one's mind and it's ability to construct thoughts? 5. I would cite 'gaps in perception' is due to the level of awareness one has of all aspects of oneself. If someone lashes out in anger, they may say, "I'm sorry, i have no idea where that came from", or, "I am sorry, i did not mean to do that." I take that as evidence the person lacks awareness to see the underlying thought mechanisms that drive the behavior, therefore they have no control and will react in anger instead of responding how they want to. One second they are calm, the next they are raging in anger...and as they look, they cannot see how they went from one state to the other. They are only aware they had, and they apologise because they actually did not want to behave in that manner. Constantly blaming one's mind for one's problems is simply avoiding responsibility of oneself. I don't have a problem with removing the direct from seeing. "Direct experience" was in the title of your thread, so I assume it was intended to contrast with something that is not direct. When you talk about choosing to focus on thoughts, this raises the question of who is the chooser. On the one hand it appears there is a person who is choosing what to think. You have the feeling of being a doer, of having a sense of a personal "I" which acts in the world. On the other hand, the practice of directing the attention back to awareness from which thoughts appear and disappear like images projected on a screen, causes identity to shift to an impersonal witnessing consciousness which sees thoughts appearing without a personal I directing the show so to speak. This personal sense of self becomes diffused and expands out to a non differentiated kind of awareness which appears to be uninvolved in action but at the same time experiences the unfolding of action. It is not easy to describe because the way mind and language deals with it ends up producing many apparent contradictions. It's important to say that if what I describe is not your experience, then there are only two choices for you. You either continue with the idea that there is an entity inside you who is also you, who can create something from nothing as the originator of thoughts and actions, or you explore the possibility that this is not true. You say that blaming one's mind is avoiding responsibility. But what does that mean. Are there two people inside you. You imply there is an "I" which is separate from mind but has control over it. But isn't I and mind one entity. You think of I as you and you think of mind as you, but there is some strange trick of mind that can create separate identities of both by having the I examine, judge and modify mind which is also the I. I wouldn't agree that you can focus on the spoon and have another thought in your periphery, whatever that means. The mind can only cognize one thought at a time. The idea of multitasking which seems to be the thing these days is actually not a reality. You cannot do several tasks at the same time. But switching very quickly between one task and another makes it appear so. Your posts are very analytical. There's nothing wrong with being analytical, but the truth of what you really are cannot be found by using this approach because the mind as an instrument for understanding is also the very obstacle that is preventing understanding. By understanding I now reintroduce the word "direct" to differentiate between the understanding of intellect and the understanding of just being what you are in its utter simplicity, which is also absolute freedom and the cessation of suffering.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 21, 2015 8:43:08 GMT -5
I am wondering how a direct experience can be described at all. As soon as you attempt to describe it, it becomes an indirect experience. Surely, when using common sense, this observation you have made suggests potential error in the structure(mental constructs) of 'direct experience'. Oh? How so, exactly?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 21, 2015 22:05:37 GMT -5
Ok. I gave you my answer a few pages back. Both direct and non-direct experience. I am wondering how a direct experience can be described at all. As soon as you attempt to describe it, it becomes an indirect experience. It's about as first-step as it gets: when writing about what is not two, language can't directly convey what is being written about. The classic example is the taste of honey, and it's what motivated philosophers to invent the word "qualia". Some people really just don't have an experiential reference for the differential between experience that is or isn't filtered by nouns. This sounds elitist and exclusionary, but it's really just what in the blazes is going on. The deficit of that reference doesn't make those peeps inferior in any way, just different. Butt, from my experience on these forums, they do tend to get curious, and then sometimes frustrated about it when that curiosity can't be addressed. The limitations of a remote media just compound this, as does the nominal expectation of anonymity.
|
|
|
Post by silver on May 22, 2015 22:05:36 GMT -5
I was wondering about something, Jay…..I see you've chosen not to respond to certain members here, but you still do on occasion, with the exception of Laughter…how come?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 24, 2015 3:08:01 GMT -5
I was wondering about something, Jay…..I see you've chosen not to respond to certain members here, but you still do on occasion, with the exception of Laughter…how come?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2015 6:06:25 GMT -5
Do you really believe that it calls itself Moss? Metaphorically speaking, Jays moss man is a stentorian matzo. A loud Jewish bread?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2015 11:33:04 GMT -5
Metaphorically speaking, Jays moss man is a stentorian matzo. A loud Jewish bread? (** face palm **)
|
|