|
Post by enigma on Jan 4, 2019 20:22:17 GMT -5
My dictionary says tns means transparent network substrate. He's using tns as TNS--the natural state. Okay. So, not transparent network substrate. Got it.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 4, 2019 20:33:29 GMT -5
enigma you try so hard and i'm sure you mean well but..lol...this is a simple question..DO NOT LISTEN TO THAT VOICE IN YER HEAD and just answer the question please... The underlined IS the answer to your question. You seem agitated. ZD can probably speak a little more to the following. If I recall correctly Gary Weber says there are two different kind of circuits in the brain. One kind concerns the self, the other, other stuff. It appears beliefs about the self can end (leaving tns), but other "beliefs" that make it easier to function in life can remain intact.
|
|
|
Post by etolle on Jan 5, 2019 0:05:41 GMT -5
if I have seen that what I am is beyond language( I being whatever it is that is aware of what i'm not.) and I have,wouldnt "Beliefs ' (and my definition of a belief is a thought,idea,etc manufactured by the mind) be counter productive?..why would I need to believe something that I know by experience? its not like I try not to have any beliefs but in tns there are none....what I am trying to do is understand my Christian type friends. Haha! There's no need to understand your Christian friends any more than you already do. What happened to you is exactly what happened to Byron Katie, but in her case, she had to spend a lot of time alone in the desert questioning the truth of her beliefs one at a time before she got free from them. It sounds like this happened to you all at once, which is very fortunate. Gangaji has often talked about the secondary issue you've raised, and most ND teachers have encountered it. After getting free, some past friends will feel uncomfortable around you because you no longer subscribe to the consensus paradigm. They'll regard you as a threat. Other people will be attracted to you. Some hard-core fundamentalists will think you're going to hell, and they'll want to proslytize you incessantly--especially if they're related to you. I've had to block people from my email account and write off people who couldn't stop babbling about their beliefs or trying to get me to subscribe to their beliefs. It goes with the territory. My advice? Don't sweat the small stuff. Simply accept that your relationships will change as a result of what you've realized, and let the chips fall where they will. Some people carry a lot of psychological baggage because of their beliefs ABOUT what's happened to them, ABOUT who they think they are, and ABOUT who they think they're supposed to be. In fact, if you're observant, you can see the physical effect that this kind of baggage has upon people. When I meet people who cannot smile or laugh, or who look like they're carrying the weight of the world on their shoulders, the reason can be found in their thoughts and beliefs. zen when you write it's obvious that youre functioning from tns because yer not tryin to prove how clever you are but tryin to be helpful. I experience THE NATURAL STATE exactly how you describe it.. as to yer last paragraph,have you ever been to wal mart?..lol...on the flip side of that,when I encounter someone who is obviously free I have no words to describe that feeling....doesn't happen often because I live in a small community(700) in ky and most folks in these parts have very strong "beliefs"..reason I know about their beliefs is every time I see one of them they "share" said beliefs with me.lol...zen I am most appreciative of yer service here. not because of what you know but because of what you know you don't know...gracias amigo
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 5, 2019 1:51:47 GMT -5
What "head stuff" or "proof", specifically, are you referring to, and how is it relevant to these two posts? I tried to help you but cant..good luck. Ah, well, do you really believe any of the mind stuff you wrote just there? Do you believe that ZD is in the natural state? How about enigma? Do you disbelieve that enigma is in the natural state? The only difference between a belief and a disbelief is the "not". The absence of belief, however, is a different matter. An absence of belief about what you (or anyone else) are, is, quite precisely, the gate to the natural state. Beliefs about mind stuff other than your sense of identity or reality will come and go, even in the natural state. 2+2=4 has nothing to do with the potential for that absence. It's just a true idea. But the limitlessness found in that absence of false identification, is eternal.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 5, 2019 1:53:08 GMT -5
Is it true that you are reading this sentence? No, I read it a few seconds ago. Now I'm answering it. oh, o.k. I believe you.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 5, 2019 10:43:12 GMT -5
The underlined IS the answer to your question. You seem agitated. ZD can probably speak a little more to the following. If I recall correctly Gary Weber says there are two different kind of circuits in the brain. One kind concerns the self, the other, other stuff. It appears beliefs about the self can end (leaving tns), but other "beliefs" that make it easier to function in life can remain intact. I don't see a need to divide it into two circuits. Beliefs about the self and others dissolve in the absence of self and others. The other beliefs are true in the context of our actual experiences. The later beliefs are not problematic.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 5, 2019 10:58:27 GMT -5
I tried to help you but cant..good luck. Ah, well, do you really believe any of the mind stuff you wrote just there? Do you believe that ZD is in the natural state? How about enigma? Do you disbelieve that enigma is in the natural state? The only difference between a belief and a disbelief is the "not". The absence of belief, however, is a different matter. An absence of belief about what you (or anyone else) are, is, quite precisely, the gate to the natural state. Beliefs about mind stuff other than your sense of identity or reality will come and go, even in the natural state. 2+2=4 has nothing to do with the potential for that absence. It's just a true idea. But the limitlessness found in that absence of false identification, is eternal. Zackly. The idea that thoughts of judgment are BS is no more TNS than thoughts that they are not. The absence of those thoughts is a kettle of fish of a different color.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 5, 2019 14:27:12 GMT -5
ZD can probably speak a little more to the following. If I recall correctly Gary Weber says there are two different kind of circuits in the brain. One kind concerns the self, the other, other stuff. It appears beliefs about the self can end (leaving tns), but other "beliefs" that make it easier to function in life can remain intact. I don't see a need to divide it into two circuits. Beliefs about the self and others dissolve in the absence of self and others. The other beliefs are true in the context of our actual experiences. The later beliefs are not problematic. I'm just saying that what Gary Weber found, physiologically.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 5, 2019 16:15:09 GMT -5
I don't see a need to divide it into two circuits. Beliefs about the self and others dissolve in the absence of self and others. The other beliefs are true in the context of our actual experiences. The later beliefs are not problematic. I'm just saying that what Gary Weber found, physiologically. If a brain isn't thought to exist, then brain functions won't make any sense.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 5, 2019 19:22:34 GMT -5
I don't see a need to divide it into two circuits. Beliefs about the self and others dissolve in the absence of self and others. The other beliefs are true in the context of our actual experiences. The later beliefs are not problematic. I'm just saying that what Gary Weber found, physiologically. To my knowledge, Gary isn't a neuroscientist. I assume the two circuits idea is metaphorical.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 5, 2019 19:28:45 GMT -5
I'm just saying that what Gary Weber found, physiologically. If a brain isn't thought to exist, then brain functions won't make any sense. I'm not having trouble understanding the idea. I'm just saying it unnecessarily complicates.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 6, 2019 7:23:00 GMT -5
I'm just saying that what Gary Weber found, physiologically. To my knowledge, Gary isn't a neuroscientist. I assume the two circuits idea is metaphorical. Gary isn't a neuroscientist, but he's written about dynamic imaging studies by neuroscientists concerning patterns of brain activity related to different kinds of mental processing. Meditation, for example, not only changes the way the brain processes information, but it causes certain parts of the brain to grow larger. There seems to be growing evidence of a default mode neural network that's associated with self-referentiality and the consensus paradigm--the usual way of thinking about the world. If I remember correctly, Weber has a video talking with a neuroscientist about three patterns of electrical brain activity related to three primary brain functions--problem solving, planning, and self-referential thinking. I haven't kept up with the latest work going on in this field of research, but many scientists don't consider the circuits idea metaphorical. I suspect that Gary got interested in this field of research after his own awakening and the unusual phenomena associated with it. I haven't read his book or looked at any of his videos in a long time, but he's an interesting guy.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 6, 2019 11:26:06 GMT -5
To my knowledge, Gary isn't a neuroscientist. I assume the two circuits idea is metaphorical. Gary isn't a neuroscientist, but he's written about dynamic imaging studies by neuroscientists concerning patterns of brain activity related to different kinds of mental processing. Meditation, for example, not only changes the way the brain processes information, but it causes certain parts of the brain to grow larger. There seems to be growing evidence of a default mode neural network that's associated with self-referentiality and the consensus paradigm--the usual way of thinking about the world. If I remember correctly, Weber has a video talking with a neuroscientist about three patterns of electrical brain activity related to three primary brain functions--problem solving, planning, and self-referential thinking. I haven't kept up with the latest work going on in this field of research, but many scientists don't consider the circuits idea metaphorical. I suspect that Gary got interested in this field of research after his own awakening and the unusual phenomena associated with it. I haven't read his book or looked at any of his videos in a long time, but he's an interesting guy. Self referential thoughts are a rather large category of thoughts that are vulnerable to what we call Self realization, and can therefore change radically. The rest of the thoughts are not so vulnerable, as least as a category changing all at once. That makes perfect sense to me as an explanation for why one category is more changeable than the other. I can also see how neuroscientists might see discrete patterns of brain activity on MRI scans. I can also see Gary filling in some blanks with his own cognitive patterns in order to derive his own conclusions. I'm also naturally suspicious of an 'interesting guy' who 'reads neuroscientific studys' and 'talks to neuroscientists',but really has a larger focus. I don't mean to offend anyone, just an opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 7, 2019 8:58:57 GMT -5
the question I am asking is this. can you be free and have "beliefs"?....not about re writing the dictionary. THIS IS YES OR NO..... Yes and no. To me the question is a bit misconceived. Obviously, in order to function in society you need a story and have to deal with beliefs. On the other hand, SR refers to a perspective from prior to mind and therefore prior to beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by etolle on Jan 7, 2019 10:40:16 GMT -5
the question I am asking is this. can you be free and have "beliefs"?....not about re writing the dictionary. THIS IS YES OR NO..... Yes and no. To me the question is a bit misconceived. Obviously, in order to function in society you need a story and have to deal with beliefs. On the other hand, SR refers to a perspective from prior to mind and therefore prior to beliefs. reefs you are correct that the question was misconceived because I did not say exactly what I meant and will address that later. good observation.
|
|