|
Post by enigma on Dec 6, 2018 21:15:27 GMT -5
Different context. Ramana is talking about human consciousness. Wow. I got lost on that one. It sounds to me as if Ramana is saying that there is only one consciousness, and that one consciousness is the only consciousness that is conscious of anything whether it is consciousness through humans or consciousness through Tenka's elephant. What other context is being discussed? Yes, that's what he's saying.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2018 1:21:20 GMT -5
Humility can't be taught and like nobility and respect, it is either innate or it isn't. I don't know what a Conceptualisation of Oneness would look like, though continually being told that "ALL that arises" are 'mere appearances' would, I imagine, encourage such a minor mental calamity. Real humility is neither taught nor is it innate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2018 1:32:34 GMT -5
I think part of the difficulty is that they are coming from quite different positions, but then there is a tendency to close ranks when necessary, thereby jumbling their own position and making it harder to understand. It's not 'closing ranks'. I've been flexible with Gopal languaging just as I have with Tenka's, but no more. Gopal specifically refused to extend me that same courtesy. He's not certain whether you're real so he doesn't have to. All he knows is how he feels, as is the case for you.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 7, 2018 2:47:01 GMT -5
What is it that I am actually trying to force others to see? That their wife is consciously aware and not just an appearance of a wife? That a real elephant will squash you? That an intellectual quandary has no bearing on how things are in regards to other's perceiving? That real people have real hearts? What I am saying and suggesting peeps can find out for themselves if they are honest, and it makes no odds to me they can take it or leave it . It's not a problem I have, that's pure speculation on your part . Again your speculating saying sometimes I feel my views/realizations are invalidated if others do not agree with me, I again don't need validations from peeps here on the forums to know what I have realized lol . What an unusual thing to say . You speak about saying it how I see it and move on, but I don't hear you saying that to others that have consistently continued the charade and counter questioned my thoughts for years on end .
I haven't heard Z.D. either suggest to these others to go sit in the silence when they question him about his theories .
Something not quite right with what is presented here by others at times and agendas are clearly seen and noted . .There's a reason for that, and it's not about their agendas. You can't possibly know what reasons lie at another's feet . You don't even know if they are mere appearances or not . You only seem to know certain things about others when it suits you to bolster your agenda .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 7, 2018 2:59:50 GMT -5
I think it's evident that no-one really seems to know wtf is going on in relation to appearances only and appearances that relate to a real peep with real eyes that can only see with the use of them although I have heard that it is the seeing through them that is creating the appearance of them at the same time hehe . The question is misconceived and cannot be answered as asked. There isn't an appearance that relates to a real peep with real eyes that can only see with the use of them. That's a story about what appears, but the appearance is empty. You need to confirm / explain your foundation regarding what constitutes a conscious aware Marie and an appearance of Marie . The conscious aware Marie has eyes just as the appearance only Marie has eyes . The appearance of Marie cannot see, just like the cartoon character cannot see . You have said that the eyes are created through the actual / seeing / through them (rough translation) So there is only perception had via sight through a conscious, aware peep . You have said that everything is an appearance in consciousness .. So to say there isn't an appearance that relates to a real peep with real eyes is incorrect isn't it because you have already made a distinction between an appearance only and an appearance that is consciously aware . I have seen of late that andy has asked you a good few times to explain yourself in regards to these differences .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 7, 2018 3:11:53 GMT -5
Sure .. and the funny thing is that consciousness is just one of those pointer things .. I haven't heard anyone say what the bugger is yet and peeps are arguing what it means in relation to a peep and what appears .. Something by Ramana .. Consciousness is always Self-consciousness. If you are conscious of anything you are essentially conscious of yourself. Unselfconscious existence is a contradiction in terms. It is no existence at allDifferent context. Ramana is talking about human consciousness. Consciousness is always Self-consciousness . Self is all that is . Self can only be conscious of Self . There cannot be Unselfconscious existence . This is why your theory of make believe appearances only running all over the earth plane don't actually exist . Like said it's just your fantasy . No foundation . No evidence . You haven't even said how your theory came about .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 7, 2018 3:30:48 GMT -5
What is it that I am actually trying to force others to see? That their wife is consciously aware and not just an appearance of a wife? That a real elephant will squash you? That an intellectual quandary has no bearing on how things are in regards to other's perceiving? That real people have real hearts? What I am saying and suggesting peeps can find out for themselves if they are honest, and it makes no odds to me they can take it or leave it . It's not a problem I have, that's pure speculation on your part . Again your speculating saying sometimes I feel my views/realizations are invalidated if others do not agree with me, I again don't need validations from peeps here on the forums to know what I have realized lol . What an unusual thing to say . You speak about saying it how I see it and move on, but I don't hear you saying that to others that have consistently continued the charade and counter questioned my thoughts for years on end . I haven't heard Z.D. either suggest to these others to go sit in the silence when they question him about his theories . Something not quite right with what is presented here by others at times and agendas are clearly seen and noted . . FWIW, I frequently suggest that people sit in silence because silence is generally the gateway to ND realizations, and when I can see that there is either disagreement or an unwillingness to make an effort to understand other peoples' perspectives, then silence offers the only possibility of reconciliation and/or deeper insight. The most important issue from my POV is attaining non-abidance in mind, and silence clearly leads to that. I think that everyone understands your general viewpoint, and we all know that Gopal, for example, doesn't waste any time wondering whether his wife is an appearance rather than a conscious flesh-and-blood human being. The context of what people on the forum discuss, however, goes far beyond the usual everyday context of human life. Anyone who has had a CC or a major ND realization knows that reality is NOT what philosophy terms "simple realism." Most of us have discovered that what we call "reality" is intellectually incomprehensible, and can only be pointed to with words. How we use words to point, and what we mean by our use of words, can be endlessly discussed, and sometimes we learn through these discussions that different people describe and understand what's going on quite differently. I learned, for example, that you consider a perception to be a thought whereas I only consider conscious verbal mental talk to be thoughts. Perhaps the most important secondary issue from my POV is how one's understanding of reality affects one's everyday life. The Zen POV can be summarized as "What you see is what you get", and "The less one engages in mind talk, the simpler and easier life becomes." This is why Zen is far more interested in direct action than any kind of reflective thought or abstract speculation. If I see the Tenka elephant charging toward me, for example, I guarantee that no verbal reflective thought will be necessary in order for me to move out of its way! ITSW, if I saw something big coming toward me that I had never seen or known about before, I would also move out of its way because what I am is intelligent, and THIS knows how to respond appropriately to whatever appears Sure, I have heard you speak about silence to others but I haven't heard you point silence to other members simply because they asked you straightforward question/s, such question/s that at the time went unanswered. Your thoughts of all things are imaginary was not concluded in silence was it . The koans of old are not concluded in silence . The philosophy of the gateless gate was not concluded in silence . All I wanted at the time was an acknowledgement of these simple facts but was instead fobbed off . In regards to no reflective thought regarding moving out of the way of the elephant .. How do you know it's an elephant when you move out of it's way? Why instead do you not run towards it shouting out I love you Mr Elephant? Are you going to answer me these questions or are you going to fob me off and point me to the silent corner again?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 7, 2018 5:00:57 GMT -5
FWIW, I frequently suggest that people sit in silence because silence is generally the gateway to ND realizations, and when I can see that there is either disagreement or an unwillingness to make an effort to understand other peoples' perspectives, then silence offers the only possibility of reconciliation and/or deeper insight. The most important issue from my POV is attaining non-abidance in mind, and silence clearly leads to that. I think that everyone understands your general viewpoint, and we all know that Gopal, for example, doesn't waste any time wondering whether his wife is an appearance rather than a conscious flesh-and-blood human being. The context of what people on the forum discuss, however, goes far beyond the usual everyday context of human life. Anyone who has had a CC or a major ND realization knows that reality is NOT what philosophy terms "simple realism." Most of us have discovered that what we call "reality" is intellectually incomprehensible, and can only be pointed to with words. How we use words to point, and what we mean by our use of words, can be endlessly discussed, and sometimes we learn through these discussions that different people describe and understand what's going on quite differently. I learned, for example, that you consider a perception to be a thought whereas I only consider conscious verbal mental talk to be thoughts. Perhaps the most important secondary issue from my POV is how one's understanding of reality affects one's everyday life. The Zen POV can be summarized as "What you see is what you get", and "The less one engages in mind talk, the simpler and easier life becomes." This is why Zen is far more interested in direct action than any kind of reflective thought or abstract speculation. If I see the Tenka elephant charging toward me, for example, I guarantee that no verbal reflective thought will be necessary in order for me to move out of its way! ITSW, if I saw something big coming toward me that I had never seen or known about before, I would also move out of its way because what I am is intelligent, and THIS knows how to respond appropriately to whatever appears Sure, I have heard you speak about silence to others but I haven't heard you point silence to other members simply because they asked you straightforward question/s, such question/s that at the time went unanswered. Your thoughts of all things are imaginary was not concluded in silence was it . The koans of old are not concluded in silence . The philosophy of the gateless gate was not concluded in silence . All I wanted at the time was an acknowledgement of these simple facts but was instead fobbed off . In regards to no reflective thought regarding moving out of the way of the elephant .. How do you know it's an elephant when you move out of it's way? Why instead do you not run towards it shouting out I love you Mr Elephant? Are you going to answer me these questions or are you going to fob me off and point me to the silent corner again? I've tried to answer your questions several times, but you didn't make any attempt to understand what I explained, so I gave up and quit trying to communicate. I've told you repeatedly that I consider thoughts to be mind-talk. When the mind becomes silent, and that almost always happens in threatening situations or accidents, the body functions without conscious reflective discursive verbal thought (mind talk) because that kind of thought is slow. The body instantly responds to threatening situations because it knows through subconscious mental functioning and memory what's going on, and it acts appropriately. This is why I've distinguished between body-knowing and head-knowing. One of the peripheral goals in Zen is to attain a state of mushin--which is a state of mental silence. When the mind is silent, there is still seeing and understanding, but not through intellectual reflection (not through mind talk). After someone surmised that you consider perceptions to be thoughts, I realized that all we could do was agree to disagree about how to use language to describe what's going on. AAMOF, the koans of old are all resolved totally through silence. No thought or even perception is involved. The body understands the answers to all koans, but the answers come from silence and from the body's innate intelligence. That's why when Zen students are given a koan as homework, they go and meditate in silence--from which the answer suddenly appears as a realization. The answers to many koans do not involve words; the answers require a physical response, and that response suddenly appears out of silence. The first time it happens, one is amazed, but then realizes that the body can be trusted to know what's going on in a different way than through thoughts or perceptions. FWIW the gateless gate is not a philosophy. It's a phrase that points to what happens when someone suddenly sees into their true nature via a CC. Only then does it become obvious that thingness is a cognitive/conceptual illusion, and that no real boundaries exist. How does the body suddenly manifest the answer to a koan in the absence of either thoughts or perceptions? This is like asking "how do blood cells know where to go as they move through the body? The cosmos is intelligent and reflective thought is not necessary for the body to function. In fact, at any moment the body is doing trillions of things of which we are totally unaware and for which thoughts and perceptions are utterly unnecessary. Just as a blood cell knows where to go as it moves through the body, the body, as a whole, knows what to do when an elephant charges. If you don't understand or appreciate what I'm pointing to with these words, then lets agree that there's no common ground for communication about this subject and we'll leave it behind. No harm, no foul.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 7, 2018 5:54:31 GMT -5
Sure, I have heard you speak about silence to others but I haven't heard you point silence to other members simply because they asked you straightforward question/s, such question/s that at the time went unanswered. Your thoughts of all things are imaginary was not concluded in silence was it . The koans of old are not concluded in silence . The philosophy of the gateless gate was not concluded in silence . All I wanted at the time was an acknowledgement of these simple facts but was instead fobbed off . In regards to no reflective thought regarding moving out of the way of the elephant .. How do you know it's an elephant when you move out of it's way? Why instead do you not run towards it shouting out I love you Mr Elephant? Are you going to answer me these questions or are you going to fob me off and point me to the silent corner again? I've tried to answer your questions several times, but you didn't make any attempt to understand what I explained, so I gave up and quit trying to communicate. I've told you repeatedly that I consider thoughts to be mind-talk. When the mind becomes silent, and that almost always happens in threatening situations or accidents, the body functions without conscious reflective discursive verbal thought (mind talk) because that kind of thought is slow. The body instantly responds to threatening situations because it knows through subconscious mental functioning and memory what's going on, and it acts appropriately. This is why I've distinguished between body-knowing and head-knowing. One of the peripheral goals in Zen is to attain a state of mushin--which is a state of mental silence. When the mind is silent, there is still seeing and understanding, but not through intellectual reflection (not through mind talk). After someone surmised that you consider perceptions to be thoughts, I realized that all we could do was agree to disagree about how to use language to describe what's going on. AAMOF, the koans of old are all resolved totally through silence. No thought or even perception is involved. The body understands the answers to all koans, but the answers come from silence and from the body's innate intelligence. That's why when Zen students are given a koan as homework, they go and meditate in silence--from which the answer suddenly appears as a realization. The answers to many koans do not involve words; the answers require a physical response, and that response suddenly appears out of silence. The first time it happens, one is amazed, but then realizes that the body can be trusted to know what's going on in a different way than through thoughts or perceptions. FWIW the gateless gate is not a philosophy. It's a phrase that points to what happens when someone suddenly sees into their true nature via a CC. Only then does it become obvious that thingness is a cognitive/conceptual illusion, and that no real boundaries exist. How does the body suddenly manifest the answer to a koan in the absence of either thoughts or perceptions? This is like asking "how do blood cells know where to go as they move through the body? The cosmos is intelligent and reflective thought is not necessary for the body to function. In fact, at any moment the body is doing trillions of things of which we are totally unaware and for which thoughts and perceptions are utterly unnecessary. Just as a blood cell knows where to go as it moves through the body, the body, as a whole, knows what to do when an elephant charges. If you don't understand or appreciate what I'm pointing to with these words, then lets agree that there's no common ground for communication about this subject and we'll leave it behind. No harm, no foul. I asked you straightforward questions that related to your theories being of the mind that is not of the silence and I spoke to you about the reality of the elephant squashing you regardless of what you think of it . There were no answers to these questions but rather more pointers, pointing me to the silence . The silence as said many times is not where your theories have derived from . The silence will not save you from the elephant . You didn't comment on any of these matters . Suggesting I made no attempt to understand what you explained is ridiculous based upon you not acknowledging a world I initially said . All I wanted was acknowledgement to these facts . The body as said before doesn't know what an elephant is . Only you do . You head-knowingly know that an elephant can squash you so there is an immediate response to get out of harms way . The cells in your eyes / lens / cornea do not know what an elephant is, only you do . And of course certain koans can be resolved by being silent, but the koans themselves are not born from the silence, this was the point I made . There is instead noise and theories upon theories where koans are concerned that are thought up in mind in order to contemplate upon .. Your theory of imagination like said is not conjured up from within the silence . It's just more noise created trying to counteract the noise created from another's theories .. This is what I was suggesting / questioning . This is why pointing me to the silence was inappropriate because you was too busy being deafened by your own noise that you didn't hear or take your own advice . No point in chatting away suggesting that the other would benefit from the silence lol . Do you see the irony? I don't need the silence or the suggestion of it . 25 years of daily meditation takes care of that thanks all the same . In regards to the blood cells doing their thing, they are designed to do their thing, just as the whole mind-body construct is designed to carry out certain functions . For the blood cells to carry out there duties is not likened to one having a thought about having a cup of tea or not . One has to have the thought to have a cup of tea and then get off their butt and put the kettle on . The legs don't respond on their own merits in regards to getting up through having some kind of memory that they have to walk to the kitchen in order to put the kettle on . If the spirit was not of the body, like when a peep is asleep then why doesn't the body cells move out of the way of danger? It doesn't because the ship requires a conscious captain at the helm in order to steer the ship out of dangers way . I understand what you have been saying for the record I just don't agree with what you say and have given my reasons for why, I can also appreciate what you say as much as you can appreciate what I say . I didn't however appreciate the ironic pointers made and ignoring what I had asked / suggested as previously stated butt I am not losing any sleep over it ..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2018 6:16:48 GMT -5
I've tried to answer your questions several times, but you didn't make any attempt to understand what I explained, so I gave up and quit trying to communicate. I've told you repeatedly that I consider thoughts to be mind-talk. When the mind becomes silent, and that almost always happens in threatening situations or accidents, the body functions without conscious reflective discursive verbal thought (mind talk) because that kind of thought is slow. The body instantly responds to threatening situations because it knows through subconscious mental functioning and memory what's going on, and it acts appropriately. This is why I've distinguished between body-knowing and head-knowing. One of the peripheral goals in Zen is to attain a state of mushin--which is a state of mental silence. When the mind is silent, there is still seeing and understanding, but not through intellectual reflection (not through mind talk). After someone surmised that you consider perceptions to be thoughts, I realized that all we could do was agree to disagree about how to use language to describe what's going on. AAMOF, the koans of old are all resolved totally through silence. No thought or even perception is involved. The body understands the answers to all koans, but the answers come from silence and from the body's innate intelligence. That's why when Zen students are given a koan as homework, they go and meditate in silence--from which the answer suddenly appears as a realization. The answers to many koans do not involve words; the answers require a physical response, and that response suddenly appears out of silence. The first time it happens, one is amazed, but then realizes that the body can be trusted to know what's going on in a different way than through thoughts or perceptions. FWIW the gateless gate is not a philosophy. It's a phrase that points to what happens when someone suddenly sees into their true nature via a CC. Only then does it become obvious that thingness is a cognitive/conceptual illusion, and that no real boundaries exist. How does the body suddenly manifest the answer to a koan in the absence of either thoughts or perceptions? This is like asking "how do blood cells know where to go as they move through the body? The cosmos is intelligent and reflective thought is not necessary for the body to function. In fact, at any moment the body is doing trillions of things of which we are totally unaware and for which thoughts and perceptions are utterly unnecessary. Just as a blood cell knows where to go as it moves through the body, the body, as a whole, knows what to do when an elephant charges. If you don't understand or appreciate what I'm pointing to with these words, then lets agree that there's no common ground for communication about this subject and we'll leave it behind. No harm, no foul. I asked you straightforward questions that related to your theories being of the mind that is not of the silence and I spoke to you about the reality of the elephant squashing you regardless of what you think of it . There were no answers to these questions but rather more pointers, pointing me to the silence . The silence as said many times is not where your theories have derived from . The silence will not save you from the elephant . You didn't comment on any of these matters . Suggesting I made no attempt to understand what you explained is ridiculous based upon you not acknowledging a world I initially said . All I wanted was acknowledgement to these facts .The body as said before doesn't know what an elephant is . Only you do . You head-knowingly know that an elephant can squash you so there is an immediate response to get out of harms way . The cells in your eyes / lens / cornea do not know what an elephant is, only you do . And of course certain koans can be resolved by being silent, but the koans themselves are not born from the silence, this was the point I made . There is instead noise and theories upon theories where koans are concerned that are thought up in mind in order to contemplate upon .. Your theory of imagination like said is not conjured up from within the silence . It's just more noise created trying to counteract the noise created from another's theories .. This is what I was suggesting / questioning . This is why pointing me to the silence was inappropriate because you was too busy being deafened by your own noise that you didn't hear or take your own advice . No point in chatting away suggesting that the other would benefit from the silence lol . Do you see the irony? I don't need the silence or the suggestion of it . 25 years of daily meditation takes care of that thanks all the same . In regards to the blood cells doing their thing, they are designed to do their thing, just as the whole mind-body construct is designed to carry out certain functions . For the blood cells to carry out there duties is not likened to one having a thought about having a cup of tea or not . One has to have the thought to have a cup of tea and then get off their butt and put the kettle on . The legs don't respond on their own merits in regards to getting up through having some kind of memory that they have to walk to the kitchen in order to put the kettle on . If the spirit was not of the body, like when a peep is asleep then why doesn't the body cells move out of the way of danger? It doesn't because the ship requires a conscious captain at the helm in order to steer the ship out of dangers way . I understand what you have been saying for the record I just don't agree with what you say and have given my reasons for why, I can also appreciate what you say as much as you can appreciate what I say . I didn't however appreciate the ironic pointers made and ignoring what I had asked / suggested as previously stated butt I am not losing any sleep over it .. It is good when you start to admit what you want from these exchanges. Do you see all of your ideas as solid facts?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 7, 2018 6:23:40 GMT -5
Here's a big difference....did you read what E said in 'Oneness'? Whereas you state that you, as Consciousness are looking (itself).....E quite specifically states that Consciousness is NOT looking (i.e is not conscious). I'm not clear yet though what E thinks is looking. Nobody's looking. There is awareness, there is consciousness. Below you said... ''Awareness is the act of being aware. Consciousness is the act of being conscious. To assign either to one who is perceiving, or one who knows, would be a mistake.'' Now, I understand what you mean by this, the word 'act' is key (because it bypasses the idea of a 'one' or 'something' that is aware/conscious. This is what I have been asking you to clarify for weeks. So the 'act of being conscious' and the 'act of being aware' IS prior to appearances/form. What do you see as the difference between the two 'acts'? Do these 'acts' have a beginning and ending? Are these acts like the 'ocean' i.e always Whole? Are they ever not Whole?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 7, 2018 6:24:24 GMT -5
Then is 'conscious' a quale? Like 'redness'? Exchange the word 'conscious' for 'know', 'look', 'aware' if you like. I'm asking HOW appearances are known. It seems that neither Consciousness nor Awareness 'knows' them, so.....? Gopal states clearly that Consciousness is Perceiving is Knowing. You don't seem to be taking that route. Consciousness is not a perceiver, neither is Awareness. Awareness is the act of being aware. Consciousness is the act of being conscious. To assign either to one who is perceiving, or one who knows, would be a mistake. see above.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 7, 2018 6:29:47 GMT -5
I used different words in case you balked at that term, but you didn't answer the question. If there are non-experiencing people around that have personalities, then in that regard, they are the same as experiencing people. Do non-experiencing people also have thoughts, feelings, hearts, lungs and backsides like experiencing people do? (By the way, the problem here isn't with the specific word 'figment', it's with the whole idea of there being 'non-experiencing people') Those who may be experiencing and those who may not are both appearances only and would be indistinguishable. Hence the statement that we can't know one from the other. The distinction is not in the context of form. Yes they are indistinguishable, hence why you don't know. But what we are talking about here is experiencing 'people' and non-experiencing 'people'. That was your word. So what are 'people' here? Does an experiencing 'person', have thoughts, feelings, heart, lungs? If not, can you describe an experiencing 'person'? And what is the difference between an experiencing 'person' and a non-experiencing person? Okay, I will be honest here and say that there is a level of disingenuousness to my questions. I KNOW the questions are bullsh/t, because I also know the theory is bullsh/t. I feel like I am asking you questions about Santa's reindeer. However, I guess my hope is that in you answering questions about the reindeer, you might suddenly remember that this is all nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 7, 2018 6:30:15 GMT -5
It's bleddy awful, and you have yet to explain what it associates with, and how it would do that. For example, could it associate with the image of a butt? Or could it perhaps reach out and grab hold of a real butt and decide to perceive through that butt? I guess it sounds like I'm being a butt there hehe, but it's kind of a humorous idea, and the whole thing doesn't make sense. Where do these random 'points' of perception come from? Whose making them? There's only two options that make sense, and they are widely discussed. Either a 'point of perception' is a result of very specific material and biological circumstances, or perception/Consciousness is fundamental and Whole. If we really wanted to then talk about 'points' of perception (and to go with an analogy) then the Whole 'ocean' is Consciousness and every 'wave' is a point of perception. No associating! I know you have strong (and understandable) concerns about the idea that a 'paperclip' is conscious, but the ocean/wave analogy avoids that, and the moment we pick out a specific object to talk about, we have already made a contextual mistake. Yup.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Dec 7, 2018 7:07:33 GMT -5
I've tried to answer your questions several times, but you didn't make any attempt to understand what I explained, so I gave up and quit trying to communicate. I've told you repeatedly that I consider thoughts to be mind-talk. When the mind becomes silent, and that almost always happens in threatening situations or accidents, the body functions without conscious reflective discursive verbal thought (mind talk) because that kind of thought is slow. The body instantly responds to threatening situations because it knows through subconscious mental functioning and memory what's going on, and it acts appropriately. This is why I've distinguished between body-knowing and head-knowing. One of the peripheral goals in Zen is to attain a state of mushin--which is a state of mental silence. When the mind is silent, there is still seeing and understanding, but not through intellectual reflection (not through mind talk). After someone surmised that you consider perceptions to be thoughts, I realized that all we could do was agree to disagree about how to use language to describe what's going on. AAMOF, the koans of old are all resolved totally through silence. No thought or even perception is involved. The body understands the answers to all koans, but the answers come from silence and from the body's innate intelligence. That's why when Zen students are given a koan as homework, they go and meditate in silence--from which the answer suddenly appears as a realization. The answers to many koans do not involve words; the answers require a physical response, and that response suddenly appears out of silence. The first time it happens, one is amazed, but then realizes that the body can be trusted to know what's going on in a different way than through thoughts or perceptions. FWIW the gateless gate is not a philosophy. It's a phrase that points to what happens when someone suddenly sees into their true nature via a CC. Only then does it become obvious that thingness is a cognitive/conceptual illusion, and that no real boundaries exist. How does the body suddenly manifest the answer to a koan in the absence of either thoughts or perceptions? This is like asking "how do blood cells know where to go as they move through the body? The cosmos is intelligent and reflective thought is not necessary for the body to function. In fact, at any moment the body is doing trillions of things of which we are totally unaware and for which thoughts and perceptions are utterly unnecessary. Just as a blood cell knows where to go as it moves through the body, the body, as a whole, knows what to do when an elephant charges. If you don't understand or appreciate what I'm pointing to with these words, then lets agree that there's no common ground for communication about this subject and we'll leave it behind. No harm, no foul. I asked you straightforward questions that related to your theories being of the mind that is not of the silence and I spoke to you about the reality of the elephant squashing you regardless of what you think of it . There were no answers to these questions but rather more pointers, pointing me to the silence . The silence as said many times is not where your theories have derived from . The silence will not save you from the elephant . You didn't comment on any of these matters . Suggesting I made no attempt to understand what you explained is ridiculous based upon you not acknowledging a world I initially said . All I wanted was acknowledgement to these facts . The body as said before doesn't know what an elephant is . Only you do . You head-knowingly know that an elephant can squash you so there is an immediate response to get out of harms way . The cells in your eyes / lens / cornea do not know what an elephant is, only you do . And of course certain koans can be resolved by being silent, but the koans themselves are not born from the silence, this was the point I made . There is instead noise and theories upon theories where koans are concerned that are thought up in mind in order to contemplate upon .. Your theory of imagination like said is not conjured up from within the silence . It's just more noise created trying to counteract the noise created from another's theories .. This is what I was suggesting / questioning . This is why pointing me to the silence was inappropriate because you was too busy being deafened by your own noise that you didn't hear or take your own advice . No point in chatting away suggesting that the other would benefit from the silence lol . Do you see the irony? I don't need the silence or the suggestion of it . 25 years of daily meditation takes care of that thanks all the same . In regards to the blood cells doing their thing, they are designed to do their thing, just as the whole mind-body construct is designed to carry out certain functions . For the blood cells to carry out there duties is not likened to one having a thought about having a cup of tea or not . One has to have the thought to have a cup of tea and then get off their butt and put the kettle on . The legs don't respond on their own merits in regards to getting up through having some kind of memory that they have to walk to the kitchen in order to put the kettle on . If the spirit was not of the body, like when a peep is asleep then why doesn't the body cells move out of the way of danger? It doesn't because the ship requires a conscious captain at the helm in order to steer the ship out of dangers way . I understand what you have been saying for the record I just don't agree with what you say and have given my reasons for why, I can also appreciate what you say as much as you can appreciate what I say . I didn't however appreciate the ironic pointers made and ignoring what I had asked / suggested as previously stated butt I am not losing any sleep over it .. It's kinda like if I clap suddenly and unexpectedly near your face, you jolt your head back and blink to protect your eyes. You already moved before you thought of anything. It's really the same as your breathing. You don't learn and practice that, but you can hold your breath or breathe faster, slower, deeper shallower - but that's when you think about breathing. When you don't think about it you already know how to breathe. Same as walking. You aren't born with it, but like a horse learns to walk in an hour, we learn to walk in a year. We arn't born with the strength, so we go through a process of lying, pushing and kicking, crawling, then walking. As soon as we have the strength and balance we are off and running. Yes you remember it, but you don;t have to think about walking. For example, if I say raise your hand above your head, you don't think, 'bend elbow, rotate shoulder, extend elbow and shoulder upward'. You just think hand above head and it moves accordingly with perfect fluidity. Similarly, when you want a cuppa tea, you don't think about walking. You 'just do it'. Now honestly, when an elephant charges you, your reflexes kick in just like the do when I clap up near your face, and you are already moving reflexively, and without thinking any more that if you were to raise a hand overhead.
|
|