|
Post by tenka on Oct 3, 2015 13:56:36 GMT -5
I have touched upon this a few times with Gopal and the frogman and haven't really got past first base with either of them . I have spoken about the mind and beyond mind as peeps know, some say there is no beyond mind some do butt relate to what's beyond mind to within mind . If we speak of the mind as likened to a mirror where Self is in reflection within experience of Self / self then surely one kant really compare beyond mind to within mind like for like .A reflection is a reflection and one kant emulate that beyond . There seems to be a lot of references regarding what we are that is nothing per se, and relating that to what we are that is something within mind . I suggest that tings are not the same and different environments govern our reality / experience . Just because what we are beyond doesn't cast a reflection or entertains form doesn't poo poo the experience of it's opposites .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2015 15:30:49 GMT -5
I have touched upon this a few times with Gopal and the frogman and haven't really got past first base with either of them . I have spoken about the mind and beyond mind as peeps know, some say there is no beyond mind some do butt relate to what's beyond mind to within mind . If we speak of the mind as likened to a mirror where Self is in reflection within experience of Self / self then surely one kant really compare beyond mind to within mind like for like .A reflection is a reflection and one kant emulate that beyond . There seems to be a lot of references regarding what we are that is nothing per se, and relating that to what we are that is something within mind . I suggest that tings are not the same and different environments govern our reality / experience . Just because what we are beyond doesn't cast a reflection or entertains form doesn't poo poo the experience of it's opposites . Reflections whatever they may be, are only thin veils covering Reality. The minds doing, through the objectification process makes those reflections into something they are not. No one ever imagines that they have the power to stop the mind from doing that, but they do. It's called stop doing that...
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 4, 2015 4:46:14 GMT -5
I have touched upon this a few times with Gopal and the frogman and haven't really got past first base with either of them . I have spoken about the mind and beyond mind as peeps know, some say there is no beyond mind some do butt relate to what's beyond mind to within mind . If we speak of the mind as likened to a mirror where Self is in reflection within experience of Self / self then surely one kant really compare beyond mind to within mind like for like .A reflection is a reflection and one kant emulate that beyond . There seems to be a lot of references regarding what we are that is nothing per se, and relating that to what we are that is something within mind . I suggest that tings are not the same and different environments govern our reality / experience . Just because what we are beyond doesn't cast a reflection or entertains form doesn't poo poo the experience of it's opposites . Reflections whatever they may be, are only thin veils covering Reality. The minds doing, through the objectification process makes those reflections into something they are not. No one ever imagines that they have the power to stop the mind from doing that, but they do. It's called stop doing that... Butt in regards to environment, reflections can only appear within mind . What peeps do however is compare these reflections to a realization had where there are none . This type of comparison is at the heart of one's understandings I would say and that's why those that realize they are 'nothing' for use of a word automatically relate to everything that is of the mind as illusory in some shape or form . Is it a fair comparison / evaluation to make? I am thinking in some way not .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2015 12:11:21 GMT -5
Reflections whatever they may be, are only thin veils covering Reality. The minds doing, through the objectification process makes those reflections into something they are not. No one ever imagines that they have the power to stop the mind from doing that, but they do. It's called stop doing that... Butt in regards to environment, reflections can only appear within mind . What peeps do however is compare these reflections to a realization had where there are none . This type of comparison is at the heart of one's understandings I would say and that's why those that realize they are 'nothing' for use of a word automatically relate to everything that is of the mind as illusory in some shape or form . Is it a fair comparison / evaluation to make? I am thinking in some way not . Yeah, I don't think it's a fair comparison/evaluation, because it's just swapping one description; the world is really out there, with another description;the world is an illusion. Descriptions aren't true interpretations of perceptions. Descriptions are what we have been taught about reality since birth. So, human beings learn only one way of perceiving because we haven't been taught another way, as a means of contrast. Spirituality teaches us a new way of perceiving reality, it's not better in comparison to the old way, it's just different. And the difference is that we perceive the world in a totally unfamiliar and awe inspiring way, which can be very humbling.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 5, 2015 2:03:08 GMT -5
Butt in regards to environment, reflections can only appear within mind . What peeps do however is compare these reflections to a realization had where there are none . This type of comparison is at the heart of one's understandings I would say and that's why those that realize they are 'nothing' for use of a word automatically relate to everything that is of the mind as illusory in some shape or form . Is it a fair comparison / evaluation to make? I am thinking in some way not . Yeah, I don't think it's a fair comparison/evaluation, because it's just swapping one description; the world is really out there, with another description;the world is an illusion.Descriptions aren't true interpretations of perceptions. Descriptions are what we have been taught about reality since birth. So, human beings learn only one way of perceiving because we haven't been taught another way, as a means of contrast. Spirituality teaches us a new way of perceiving reality, it's not better in comparison to the old way, it's just different. And the difference is that we perceive the world in a totally unfamiliar and awe inspiring way, which can be very humbling. ... and not only that, one is of an environment that entertains descriptions / conclusions / evaluations / concepts and all that jazz and then one is not (when realizing what you are beyond that) . One basis's their entire outlook upon that realization .. butt in a way the mind just makes what sense it can of it . I like to take onboard that what we are is both something and nothing because one has realized that . For some reason when 'what we are is' something there is in a way a distancing that occurs that is likened to a dream rather than something that is happening that doesn't illustrate any distancing at all .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2015 2:28:05 GMT -5
Yeah, I don't think it's a fair comparison/evaluation, because it's just swapping one description; the world is really out there, with another description;the world is an illusion.Descriptions aren't true interpretations of perceptions. Descriptions are what we have been taught about reality since birth. So, human beings learn only one way of perceiving because we haven't been taught another way, as a means of contrast. Spirituality teaches us a new way of perceiving reality, it's not better in comparison to the old way, it's just different. And the difference is that we perceive the world in a totally unfamiliar and awe inspiring way, which can be very humbling. ... and not only that, one is of an environment that entertains descriptions / conclusions / evaluations / concepts and all that jazz and then one is not (when realizing what you are beyond that) . One basis's their entire outlook upon that realization .. butt in a way the mind just makes what sense it can of it . I like to take onboard that what we are is both something and nothing because one has realized that . For some reason when 'what we are is' something there is in a way a distancing that occurs that is likened to a dream rather than something that is happening that doesn't illustrate any distancing at all . The biggest problem is your writings are not clear to understand, Infact my writings too . And you are not coming to the common usage of words too. That's another problem, If I say elephant, then you would understand buffalo, Said that, how can you able to communicate with people?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 5, 2015 2:56:38 GMT -5
... and not only that, one is of an environment that entertains descriptions / conclusions / evaluations / concepts and all that jazz and then one is not (when realizing what you are beyond that) . One basis's their entire outlook upon that realization .. butt in a way the mind just makes what sense it can of it . I like to take onboard that what we are is both something and nothing because one has realized that . For some reason when 'what we are is' something there is in a way a distancing that occurs that is likened to a dream rather than something that is happening that doesn't illustrate any distancing at all . The biggest problem is your writings are not clear to understand, Infact my writings too . And you are not coming to the common usage of words too. That's another problem, If I say elephant, then you would understand buffalo, Said that, how can you able to communicate with people? The thing is, my way of understanding and expressing such matters as discussed here on the forums reflects in the words I use . When I speak of what you are or the mind or awareness it will be in line with my own way of seeing things . . When I first read snippets of Niz, I thought what WTF is he going on about lols it seemed like riddle after riddle . If we were to speak of hands or feet then we will have common ground in that respect butt when we speak of Self, Awareness, Mind all in one sentence then it will make no sense to another unless they see things as I do . I kant really putt my understandings in another way nor can I use common terminology because it will not be how I see it . When you spoke of the mind just being the movement of thoughts for example I see it as much more than that . If I take your word for it's meaning then it would be rather me seeing through your eyes instead of my own . I don't think that discussion is all about coming to common term usage butt it does help in some ways . Perhaps in flipping the coin, common themes and terms are not helpful also .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2015 3:01:22 GMT -5
The biggest problem is your writings are not clear to understand, Infact my writings too . And you are not coming to the common usage of words too. That's another problem, If I say elephant, then you would understand buffalo, Said that, how can you able to communicate with people? The thing is, my way of understanding and expressing such matters as discussed here on the forums reflects in the words I use . When I speak of what you are or the mind or awareness it will be in line with my own way of seeing things . . When I first read snippets of Niz, I thought what WTF is he going on about lols it seemed like riddle after riddle . If we were to speak of hands or feet then we will have common ground in that respect butt when we speak of Self, Awareness, Mind all in one sentence then it will make no sense to another unless they see things as I do . I kant really putt my understandings in another way nor can I use common terminology because it will not be how I see it . When you spoke of the mind just being the movement of thoughts for example I see it as much more than that . If I take your word for it's meaning then it would be rather me seeing through your eyes instead of my own . I don't think that discussion is all about coming to common term usage butt it does help in some ways . Perhaps in flipping the coin, common themes and terms are not helpful also . I am just naming everything, You can use this to say what you are coming to say. For an example, Consciousness or perceiver => A movement of thought => B outer world Perception => C Now can you use this A,B or C to prove what you are saying? I am just naming the process, you can take this naming and prove it to me. Otherwise I can't get you!
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 5, 2015 3:47:03 GMT -5
The thing is, my way of understanding and expressing such matters as discussed here on the forums reflects in the words I use . When I speak of what you are or the mind or awareness it will be in line with my own way of seeing things . . When I first read snippets of Niz, I thought what WTF is he going on about lols it seemed like riddle after riddle . If we were to speak of hands or feet then we will have common ground in that respect butt when we speak of Self, Awareness, Mind all in one sentence then it will make no sense to another unless they see things as I do . I kant really putt my understandings in another way nor can I use common terminology because it will not be how I see it . When you spoke of the mind just being the movement of thoughts for example I see it as much more than that . If I take your word for it's meaning then it would be rather me seeing through your eyes instead of my own . I don't think that discussion is all about coming to common term usage butt it does help in some ways . Perhaps in flipping the coin, common themes and terms are not helpful also . I am just naming everything, You can use this to say what you are coming to say. For an example, Consciousness or perceiver => A movement of thought => B outer world Perception => C Now can you use this A,B or C to prove what you are saying? I am just naming the process, you can take this naming and prove it to me. Otherwise I can't get you! Butt kant you see the benefits for peeps discussing how they see things rather than not . This whole mind thing for example ... if you dig your heels in regarding the mind being the movement of thought and I suggest it is also the environment for thoughts to be, isn't there potential for further understandings had if you explain to me why the mind is not the environment for thoughts rather than trying to get me to relate to the mind as you see it ? Common ground has it's uses butt I would say it also keeps peeps inline .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2015 3:51:26 GMT -5
I am just naming everything, You can use this to say what you are coming to say. For an example, Consciousness or perceiver => A movement of thought => B outer world Perception => C Now can you use this A,B or C to prove what you are saying? I am just naming the process, you can take this naming and prove it to me. Otherwise I can't get you! Butt kant you see the benefits for peeps discussing how they see things rather than not . This whole mind thing for example ... if you dig your heels in regarding the mind being the movement of thought and I suggest it is also the environment for thoughts to be, isn't there potential for further understandings had if you explain to me why the mind is not the environment for thoughts rather than trying to get me to relate to the mind as you see it ? Common ground has it's uses butt I would say it also keeps peeps inline . If you don't want to name movement of thoughts as 'Mind', then Let's name movement of thought as 'buffalo', is that ok? I need to name to indicate a particular process, that's all.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 5, 2015 4:16:51 GMT -5
Butt kant you see the benefits for peeps discussing how they see things rather than not . This whole mind thing for example ... if you dig your heels in regarding the mind being the movement of thought and I suggest it is also the environment for thoughts to be, isn't there potential for further understandings had if you explain to me why the mind is not the environment for thoughts rather than trying to get me to relate to the mind as you see it ? Common ground has it's uses butt I would say it also keeps peeps inline . If you don't want to name movement of thoughts as 'Mind', then say Let's name movement of thought as 'buffalo', is that ok? I need to name to indicate a particular process, that's all. I see both the movement of thoughts and the environment for those thoughts to be of the mind . When you require my understandings to match yours in order for discussion to continue then all that does .... is that .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2015 4:21:49 GMT -5
If you don't want to name movement of thoughts as 'Mind', then say Let's name movement of thought as 'buffalo', is that ok? I need to name to indicate a particular process, that's all. I see both the movement of thoughts and the environment for those thoughts to be of the mind . When you require my understandings to match yours in order for discussion to continue then all that does .... is that . What is environment? why environment is required?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 5, 2015 4:40:59 GMT -5
I see both the movement of thoughts and the environment for those thoughts to be of the mind . When you require my understandings to match yours in order for discussion to continue then all that does .... is that . What is environment? why environment is required? If we were to speak of an experience had in a desert for example then one will take into consideration the deserts environment . One has to bare that in mind when there is evaluation had of the experience . Every realm or dimension has it's own environment that allows experience to be . Such experiences are governed by their environment . One would not have an earth experience is the environment was not suited to the experience of it . The mind is the environment for experience be it of the earth or the stars .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2015 4:45:26 GMT -5
What is environment? why environment is required? If we were to speak of an experience had in a desert for example then one will take into consideration the deserts environment . One has to bare that in mind when there is evaluation had of the experience . Every realm or dimension has it's own environment that allows experience to be . Such experiences are governed by their environment . One would not have an earth experience is the environment was not suited to the experience of it . The mind is the environment for experience be it of the earth or the stars . You meant to say environment as outer world?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 5, 2015 4:51:20 GMT -5
If we were to speak of an experience had in a desert for example then one will take into consideration the deserts environment . One has to bare that in mind when there is evaluation had of the experience . Every realm or dimension has it's own environment that allows experience to be . Such experiences are governed by their environment . One would not have an earth experience is the environment was not suited to the experience of it . The mind is the environment for experience be it of the earth or the stars . You meant to say environment as outer world? The mind is the environment for one to experience both inner and outer world . How can one experience the inner world without referencing the outer world . Therefore whatever one can be in experienced of will be of the mind .
|
|