|
Post by laughter on Nov 6, 2018 12:32:48 GMT -5
It is possible to conceive of an idea without believing it to be true or false -- to hold it in your mind, even to consider it from different angles .. all without taking any sort of position on it whatsoever. It's very similar to listening to someone you disagree with about politics, but not getting engaged emotionally with the disagreement. As far as the notion of absence goes, as I already said, there's no point arguing about it, so we'll just have to agree to disagree about that, because I already know there's no way to change your mind through any sort of dialog, much less a debate. One may be neutral on a subject, sure, but it doesn't change the fact that they believe IN, what they are neutral towards. Well, no, , even the neutrality of simple psychological detachment doesn't involve believing in an idea, and certainly, believing an idea to be false, isn't either. From the position of the witness, ideas are seen as completely void of any substance. Just movements of mind. Nothing more, nothing less. You see, an idea that crosses a mind is, ultimately, just passing through. Thoughts are the most wispy, impermanent of things. So to say that you believe in every thought that crosses your mind would put you in the exact opposite state that Niz suggested. I guess I can imagine a state like this, but I've never experienced it.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 6, 2018 12:43:46 GMT -5
One may be neutral on a subject, sure, but it doesn't change the fact that they believe IN, what they are neutral towards. Well, no, , even the neutrality of simple psychological detachment doesn't involve believing in an idea, and certainly, believing an idea to be false, isn't either. From the position of the witness, ideas are seen as completely void of any substance. Just movements of mind. Nothing more, nothing less. You see, an idea that crosses a mind is, ultimately, just passing through. Thoughts are the most wispy, impermanent of things. So to say that you believe in every thought that crosses your mind would put you in the exact opposite state that Niz suggested. I guess I can imagine a state like this, but I've never experienced it. Let's take an example such as the one you suggested. You may be 'neutral' in regard to Trump but you would have to believe IN Trump in order to be 'neutral' towards him. You can also choose to remain open-minded in regard to ideas about him, but first there is the belief e.g 'Trump is racist' and THEN there is the belief that, 'I'm not sure if that first idea is true'. Belief is multi-layered in that way. You can experience thought to be wispy, but that experience will be created through believing particular ideas about ideas! And there's a valid experience of detachment or non-attachment, but attachment is always the case. There's never an actual witnessing without belief, though there is the valid experience OF witnessing without belief. Belief and experience go together, always. In experience, you are never NOT believing. At most you are only believing that something is false. Again, for the fact that mind cannot conceive an absence, it can only say that what it knows, is false.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 6, 2018 13:04:12 GMT -5
Well, no, , even the neutrality of simple psychological detachment doesn't involve believing in an idea, and certainly, believing an idea to be false, isn't either. From the position of the witness, ideas are seen as completely void of any substance. Just movements of mind. Nothing more, nothing less. You see, an idea that crosses a mind is, ultimately, just passing through. Thoughts are the most wispy, impermanent of things. So to say that you believe in every thought that crosses your mind would put you in the exact opposite state that Niz suggested. I guess I can imagine a state like this, but I've never experienced it. Let's take an example such as the one you suggested. You may be 'neutral' in regard to Trump but you would have to believe IN Trump in order to be 'neutral' towards him. You can also choose to remain open-minded in regard to ideas about him, but first there is the belief e.g 'Trump is racist' and THEN there is the belief that, 'I'm not sure if that first idea is true'. Belief is multi-layered in that way. You can experience thought to be wispy, but that experience will be created through believing particular ideas about ideas! And there's a valid experience of detachment or non-attachment, but attachment is always the case. There's never an actual witnessing without belief, though there is the valid experience OF witnessing without belief. Belief and experience go together, always. In experience, you are never NOT believing. At most you are only believing that something is false. Again, for the fact that mind cannot conceive an absence, it can only say that what it knows, is false. No, not necessarily, and this is what mushin demonstrates. A genuinely quiescent body/mind reveals the comings and goings of the senses in a way that exposes belief and ideas for what they are. Stillness isn't founded on ideas, ideas come and go, but the stillness is always there. Anytime. 24/7. Just as it's not possible to talk you into what absence refers to, no amount of dialog on this forum will ever explain or reveal a quiet body/mind, and I know you too well to try to convince you to get interested in it.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 6, 2018 13:09:30 GMT -5
Let's take an example such as the one you suggested. You may be 'neutral' in regard to Trump but you would have to believe IN Trump in order to be 'neutral' towards him. You can also choose to remain open-minded in regard to ideas about him, but first there is the belief e.g 'Trump is racist' and THEN there is the belief that, 'I'm not sure if that first idea is true'. Belief is multi-layered in that way. You can experience thought to be wispy, but that experience will be created through believing particular ideas about ideas! And there's a valid experience of detachment or non-attachment, but attachment is always the case. There's never an actual witnessing without belief, though there is the valid experience OF witnessing without belief. Belief and experience go together, always. In experience, you are never NOT believing. At most you are only believing that something is false. Again, for the fact that mind cannot conceive an absence, it can only say that what it knows, is false. No, not necessarily, and this is what mushin demonstrates. A genuinely quiescent body/mind reveals the comings and goings of the senses in a way that exposes belief and ideas for what they are. Stillness isn't founded on ideas, ideas come and go, but the stillness is always there. Anytime. 24/7. Just as it's not possible to talk you into what absence refers to, no amount of dialog on this forum will ever explain or reveal a quiet body/mind, and I know you too well to try to convince you to get interested in it. All mushin demonstrates is that a particular kind of experience is available, it doesn't tell us that experience/beliefs don't go together. If we look closely at the structure of mushin, we would find the beliefs (looking closely at structure would probably ruin the experience, so it's not something I necessarily recommend). If you agree that mind cannot think in terms of an absence, then what I'm saying has to be correct here. First there is a belief in something. ThEN there can be a belief that the first belief is false. That's the only way the mind can reject what it knows. It cannot 'eliminate' what it knows (I guess 'forgetting' is the mind's way to eliminate). As an example, we don't 'eliminate' the belief in the SVP, instead we believe it to be false (and probably also re-contextualize it).
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 6, 2018 13:38:20 GMT -5
No, not necessarily, and this is what mushin demonstrates. A genuinely quiescent body/mind reveals the comings and goings of the senses in a way that exposes belief and ideas for what they are. Stillness isn't founded on ideas, ideas come and go, but the stillness is always there. Anytime. 24/7. Just as it's not possible to talk you into what absence refers to, no amount of dialog on this forum will ever explain or reveal a quiet body/mind, and I know you too well to try to convince you to get interested in it. All mushin demonstrates is that a particular kind of experience is available, it doesn't tell us that experience/beliefs don't go together. If we look closely at the structure of mushin, we would find the beliefs (looking closely at structure would probably ruin the experience, so it's not something I necessarily recommend). If you agree that mind cannot think in terms of an absence, then what I'm saying has to be correct here. First there is a belief in something. ThEN there can be a belief that the first belief is false. That's the only way the mind can reject what it knows. It cannot 'eliminate' what it knows (I guess 'forgetting' is the mind's way to eliminate). As an example, we don't 'eliminate' the belief in the SVP, instead we believe it to be false (and probably also re-contextualize it). Not once you've had it, no, like several other potential states and experience, after "no mind action", the issue can become very clear, but no debate will ever touch what the experience reveals. Your theory about how mind works in terms of absence is applying logic and reason to the ineffable: the absence of language and ideas to ever convey a gnosis. No movement of mind can ever capture the ineffable. I know this sounds like I'm describing mind in mechanistic terms, but there's a different way to understand this point: as a distinction between the mechanical and the holistic. But that's fine if you don't want to buy that, I'm not trying to sell it, after all. It's a freebie. But there's just no point in reasoning beyond that distinction.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 6, 2018 15:20:55 GMT -5
All mushin demonstrates is that a particular kind of experience is available, it doesn't tell us that experience/beliefs don't go together. If we look closely at the structure of mushin, we would find the beliefs (looking closely at structure would probably ruin the experience, so it's not something I necessarily recommend). If you agree that mind cannot think in terms of an absence, then what I'm saying has to be correct here. First there is a belief in something. ThEN there can be a belief that the first belief is false. That's the only way the mind can reject what it knows. It cannot 'eliminate' what it knows (I guess 'forgetting' is the mind's way to eliminate). As an example, we don't 'eliminate' the belief in the SVP, instead we believe it to be false (and probably also re-contextualize it). Not once you've had it, no, like several other potential states and experience, after "no mind action", the issue can become very clear, but no debate will ever touch what the experience reveals. Your theory about how mind works in terms of absence is applying logic and reason to the ineffable: the absence of language and ideas to ever convey a gnosis. No movement of mind can ever capture the ineffable. I know this sounds like I'm describing mind in mechanistic terms, but there's a different way to understand this point: as a distinction between the mechanical and the holistic. But that's fine if you don't want to buy that, I'm not trying to sell it, after all. It's a freebie. But there's just no point in reasoning beyond that distinction. I want to be ultra clear about something. I'm not denying at all there is a mushin state. Nor am I denying there are other 'spiritual' states (or non-states), such as non-attachment, detachment, no-mind, non-judgement etc. But all these states have a structure, and if we look closely at the structure, you will find belief there. You can't look at the experience itself and find the belief (because the experience itself seems 'absent belief'!), you have to examine the structure itself. Maybe you have never done that before, I don't know...I learned how to do it (here's one example: www.amazon.co.uk/Neurolinguistic-Programming-Structure-Subjective-Experience/dp/0916990079)I haven't mentioned 'the ineffable', what I have said is that what the mind believes/knows, it cannot deny or eliminate. The only way forward is to create another belief/knowing in relation to the first belief/knowing. I've given clear examples. If you want to bring 'the ineffable' into it, we could look at that, but we started talking about a belief in objective reality, not 'the ineffable'.
|
|
|
Post by bluey on Nov 6, 2018 18:31:43 GMT -5
Beautiful we are going to have Skype or phone each other Certainly. Just PM me if you want to do that. Tantra is a lovely thought. Don't know nearly as much as about it as I should. You're absolutely right that Ramana saw bhakti as a path -- well, for him that was all about surrender. Absolute surrender to whatever is the case. Like Osho said the future is Tantra. I agree with him. His works have been placed in the Indian parliament a privilege only granted to Ghandhi. I don't have a style just meet seekers where they are at. My first two teachers had been from a Tantric tradition having moved beyond non duality traditions of their initial teachers. My teacher Ian Wolstenholme and the great sage of non duality Tony Parsons passed through Oshos camp. Ian always jokes on Tony Parson. As they were grouped together. They are still good friends. Osho pointed at Zorba the Buddha. Enjoying the pleasures of this world as well as the silence. Holding hands, dancing 💃🏽 in all domains of experience. No inner or outer Just what is. This. Everything is This. Definitely we may meet up. I feel as my partner has many friends who were original students of Eckhart Tolle before he met Oprah. One Indian girl who was a gang member where her partner was shot dead over drugs met Eckhart. And she voiced over to my partner how he was a real gang leader in her language having been around gangs in her time. Before he met Oprah. How he would pull her to be more now than in the gang that was pulling her out. Most wouldn't look and see how Eckhart would connect with a gang member as they just at his book and connection to Oprah. But she explained to my partner he has no fear in his eyes. Every gang member ive been with has that fear in his eyes. Beautiful thing about my partner she always meets interesting characters from Bollywood greats from shah rukh Khan who stopped her in Vancouver to invite her to a party, the guy who got kicked out of Dubai for being too good looking as the teens chased his a#s. And Will Smith who I will have to words with as he held her hand and said I love beautiful women. Hey that's my partner lol I feel I will meet Eckhart as my partners friend are his good friends. So we may meet up. I want to show him your site what you posted on him and we can have a laugh over it over a cup of tea. As you enjoy Ramanas teachings you can email David Godman who has authored many books by him. Point out your website to him too. This applies to anyone too. david_godman@yahoo.co.uk He does answer back on your enquiry on Ramana and Papaji. Add your discussion with him on your blog. And maybe one day we can meet up and see Eckhart order food like a boss. Enjoy 😊 Night x
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 6, 2018 19:02:51 GMT -5
Eggsactly .. and amongst other things we were trying to ascertain why the tree disappears and Gopals misses disappears and how one minute the mountains are created through perceiving them, then God throws his voice to make it look like Gopals misses is alive and well when she is out of our perception range . Lolly understandably hasn't got a clue what we have endured through conversations of this nature, but for him to say he knows what's going on is just silly based upon his own admittance that he knows nuffin about what was spoken of and how morphed and twisted it became . It was borderline ridiculous . yes. There was a point reached at which each of the solipsists would state that they could only know for sure that they each existed as a 'nexus' point of perception...say 'Gopal' for example...who, as a 'nexus', has thoughts and feelings and bodily conscious capacity. This is in contrast to what they perceived outside of their 'nexus', which only appeared when they were perceiving it (hence the use of the word 'image'). But then they hit a problem, because if other 'nexus' points DO exist, then those other 'nexus' points can't just be an image. Instead they exist as 'nexus' points in their own right. So then we had this really weird scenario in which some people are just images that appear/disappear (so these 'people' don't have hearts or brains or backsides), whereas other people DO exist, complete with thoughts, feelings, bodily conscious capacity. Just a total context confusion. A nexus point is not an existing person with bodily organs. That's still an appearance, and it still isn't created if a nexus point is not perceiving it. This body doesn't appear if no point of perception is perceiving it.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 6, 2018 19:24:45 GMT -5
(** shakes head sadly **)Giraffe much dude? It's not a giraffe at all . You have based your conclusion in regards to what you think I mean by there is only what you are . Your not interested in what I mean by it . You have carried on saying what I mean is that you are a troll based on Gopal is . This would mean if andy lied about something then your a liar too . It's preposterous to suggest that . There is no foundation to your conclusion . If it's true that there is only what you are (and it is), then you are literally all individuations and you are responsible for all actions. If you truly understood what you've been saying, it would likely temper your judgement.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 6, 2018 19:36:17 GMT -5
More on Ramana's true position on the realness of the world: it is even more extreme (and more correct!) than the idea of the world as illusion (vivarta vada); it is the world as absolutely non-existent (ajata vada). It is not even true that it can be said to appear, in other words. Ramana on the (un)realness of the world, from Guru Vachaka Kovai (which, though compiled from Ramana's answers by his disciple Muruganar, Ramana edited for accuracy):Although Guru Ramana taught various doctrines according to the level of understanding of those who came to Him, we heard from Him that ‘Ajata’ alone is truly His own experience. Thus should you know. It is this same ‘Ajata’ that Sri Krishna revealed to Arjuna in an early Chapter [two] of the Gita, and know that it was only because of the latter’s bewilderment and inability to grasp the Truth, that other doctrines were then taught in the remaining sixteen chapters. (Sadhu Om (a commentator): ‘Ajata’ is the knowledge that nothing – neither the world, soul nor God – ever comes into existence, and that ‘That Which Is’ ever exists as IT is.) If one enquires to the very end, “Who is this jiva, ‘I’?” it will be found that he is non-existent, and Shiva will be revealed as being nothing but the Supreme Expanse of Consciousness. Thus, when the jiva – the seer, who with great desire saw this world – has disappeared, it is ridiculous to attribute reality to the world – the seen. From Talks with Ramana Maharshi:
The ajatavada is represented by no loss, no creation, no one bound, no sadhaka, no one desirous of liberation, no liberation. This is the Supreme Truth. From Be as You Are:
Q: Why should these three states [waking, dreaming, deep sleep] come and go on the real state or the screen of the Self? A: Who puts this question? Does the Self say these states come and go? It is the seer who says these states come and go. The seer and the seen together constitute the mind. See if there is such a thing as the mind. Then, the mind merges in the Self, and there is neither the seer nor the seen. So the real answer to your question is 'they neither come nor go.' The Self alone remains as it ever is. The three states owe their existence to non-enquiry, and enquiry puts an end to them. Seems clear enough.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 6, 2018 23:45:25 GMT -5
The distinction is between what you can know from your experience as opposed to what you assume. You assume the moon is still in the sky even when you are not perceiving it, and yet you agree that perception and creation are the same. What do you know about hidden backsides and brains that you can't perceive? By what means do you know this? Okay, so this is a great example of the context mix I just mentioned. In the context in which I would speak of being an apparently personal perceiver/creator, I know the moon is in the sky when I am not perceiving it. I know there is a sky when I am not perceiving it. The context of the personal perceiver/creator is the context of being in the apparent 'world of form'. In this world, brains do have function, human beings DO have hearts, and Marie does still have a backside when you are looking at her frontside. In this context, buses are likely to hurt you if they hit you, and butterflies tend to do no damage. In the context in which I would speak of appearances appearing in impersonal Consciousness, THEN I might speak of moon/sky appearing/disappearing, but in this context, there is no personal perceiver. Instead, creation/perception is whole. Your contexts were mixed up then, as they are now, because you hold the odd belief that you, as a personal creator/perceiver, might be 'God' i.e that you...as a personal creator/perceiver, are perceiving/creating the totality. It would be highly imaginative to ascertain that meaning from what Enigma has said.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 7, 2018 0:00:45 GMT -5
No, not necessarily, and this is what mushin demonstrates. A genuinely quiescent body/mind reveals the comings and goings of the senses in a way that exposes belief and ideas for what they are. Stillness isn't founded on ideas, ideas come and go, but the stillness is always there. Anytime. 24/7. Just as it's not possible to talk you into what absence refers to, no amount of dialog on this forum will ever explain or reveal a quiet body/mind, and I know you too well to try to convince you to get interested in it. All mushin demonstrates is that a particular kind of experience is available, it doesn't tell us that experience/beliefs don't go together. If we look closely at the structure of mushin, we would find the beliefs (looking closely at structure would probably ruin the experience, so it's not something I necessarily recommend). If you agree that mind cannot think in terms of an absence, then what I'm saying has to be correct here. First there is a belief in something. ThEN there can be a belief that the first belief is false. That's the only way the mind can reject what it knows. It cannot 'eliminate' what it knows (I guess 'forgetting' is the mind's way to eliminate). As an example, we don't 'eliminate' the belief in the SVP, instead we believe it to be false (and probably also re-contextualize it). It's more like recognising what you thought was true isn't. It is no longer a belief at all.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 7, 2018 3:02:29 GMT -5
Well not quite, you have been saying that there is a difference between 'really' experiencing and imagining . I have said to you before that you can't really be experiencing, you would simply be experiencing . The fact that you made the statement that you are really experiencing rather than simply experiencing, gave weight to the experience that wasn't imagined . Therefore there has to be a substance that differs from that which is really experienced and that which isn't . This difference has to be of a foundation that can sustain / facilitate those differences . If that foundation isn't real to begin with then the differences hold no weight either . This is why when peeps say to me this and that in regards to consciousness or the mind, I ask them is this consciousness or the mind real then? It's temporary because experience is momentary. When I experience the events of the world, sight, sound, thought etc, I am aware of whats going on with me physically as felt sensations. That's how I know myself as affected in the world. I'm grounded with awareness in the body as it is felt by me, and I know it is 'the way it already is'. The way I imagine things, as real or whatever, is not the 'way' things 'just are'. You know 'this reality' isn't real in any context because there is no endurance to your momentary experience. The essential self is beyond, untouched by experience, as if nothing even happened, is happening, or ever will. That is the basis for saying 'the universe is an illusion', 'The Thought', and not the imagined as an afterthought, but as the real living experience, and I haven't any idea of causes, creators, reflections, why, what and how it happens to be as it is - I only know what it's like in the way I experience it to be. There is no golden rule book that equates momentary experience as being unreal . You are also dividing Self from experience . There has to be a set president regarding the foundation of your momentary experience . That foundation has to be of real substance for anything experienced to hold weight . Ramana speaks of consciousness as being real, so if your experience is of this real substance then momentary experience is of that real substance . You can call it illusory or whatever word suits, but it will be of a real substance for the illusion to be perceived as that .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 7, 2018 3:03:01 GMT -5
Now form has structure and quality and it has been obvious all along Remind me to explain context to you sometime. No thanks your confused enough as it is .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 7, 2018 3:08:01 GMT -5
Not at my expense it isn't . He won't cause any permanent damage. He knows that about you as well, which is why he can let a conversation go with 'Okay' when he gets insulted or when there's no real understanding happening. If you get your facts straight, it was Gopal who was on the side lines cheer leading doing what he does best . He was laughing at my expense and I called him out . I asked him to answer questions based upon his foundation . There was no foundation, all he had was his agenda . I said don't say okay, answer the bloody question .. If he wants to laugh at me and call me out then he should pay me the courtesy in answering my question, otherwise he needs to keep his agenda to himself . Otherwise he is just living up to his troll like behaviour .
|
|