|
Post by zendancer on Nov 13, 2019 11:05:43 GMT -5
It is what I have said .. You are stressing over your own model's rules saying that it can't be as I have implied. No, I'm not using my model's rules. I'm using the way you critique other people's models. You say "explain it to me, I don't understand" -- and then you try to find logical contradiction. When in fact they are resting on a reference to what is beyond mind. Now, when I critique YOUR model that way, you do the exact same thing that you critique in others. You say "you're not going to understand without a reference." But somehow that is ok, but other people's doing that is not. The model is no better than anyone else's because you can't explain it logically without saying "you need a reference for Truth" to understand. Thus the model "encompasses" nothing. No one needs a model for Truth that depends on having the Truth realization to validate it. I'd argue the model is worse, since "you are all that is" is a pretty ineffective pointer. FWIW, Zen people avoid this entire issue by responding to existential questions is a different and more direct way. If someone asked a Zen Master if life is a dream, s/he would likely get whacked with the Zen stick. This response would either be understood or not depending upon the kinds of realizations that the questioner had had. In fact, such a whack with a Zen stick might very well result in a sudden existential realization regarding this issue!
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Nov 13, 2019 11:16:40 GMT -5
No, I'm not using my model's rules. I'm using the way you critique other people's models. You say "explain it to me, I don't understand" -- and then you try to find logical contradiction. When in fact they are resting on a reference to what is beyond mind. Now, when I critique YOUR model that way, you do the exact same thing that you critique in others. You say "you're not going to understand without a reference." But somehow that is ok, but other people's doing that is not. The model is no better than anyone else's because you can't explain it logically without saying "you need a reference for Truth" to understand. Thus the model "encompasses" nothing. No one needs a model for Truth that depends on having the Truth realization to validate it. I'd argue the model is worse, since "you are all that is" is a pretty ineffective pointer. FWIW, Zen people avoid this entire issue by responding to existential questions is a different and more direct way. If someone asked a Zen Master if life is a dream, s/he would likely get whacked with the Zen stick. This response would either be understood or not depending upon the kinds of realizations that the questioner had had. In fact, such a whack with a Zen stick might very well result in a sudden existential realization regarding this issue! Vedantins have a different view of things. They believe concepts are very useful to kill other concepts. Better concepts have to kill worse ones. And those better ones might be contextual -- depending on the person's temperament and background, the relevant model might change. But ultimately the concepts lead beyond concepts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2019 11:43:10 GMT -5
FWIW, Zen people avoid this entire issue by responding to existential questions is a different and more direct way. If someone asked a Zen Master if life is a dream, s/he would likely get whacked with the Zen stick. This response would either be understood or not depending upon the kinds of realizations that the questioner had had. In fact, such a whack with a Zen stick might very well result in a sudden existential realization regarding this issue! Vedantins have a different view of things. They believe concepts are very useful to kill other concepts. Better concepts have to kill worse ones. And those better ones might be contextual -- depending on the person's temperament and background, the relevant model might change. But ultimately the concepts lead beyond concepts. Yes. Advaita, Ramana, draws a conceptual map to illuminate the way. This can be useful. Zen just says "feel the path with your bare feet." The mind gets whacked when it tries to step in.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2019 12:15:29 GMT -5
It is what I have said .. You are stressing over your own model's rules saying that it can't be as I have implied. No, I'm not using my model's rules. I'm using the way you critique other people's models. You say "explain it to me, I don't understand" -- and then you try to find logical contradiction. When in fact they are resting on a reference to what is beyond mind. Now, when I critique YOUR model that way, you do the exact same thing that you critique in others. You say "you're not going to understand without a reference." But somehow that is ok, but other people's doing that is not. The model is no better than anyone else's because you can't explain it logically without saying "you need a reference for Truth" to understand. Thus the model "encompasses" nothing. No one needs a model for Truth that depends on having the Truth realization to validate it. I'd argue the model is worse, since "you are all that is" is a pretty ineffective pointer. I agree with your assessment of models. By themselves, they ALL miss the mark. Reading Michael James book, "Happiness and the Art of Being," he devotes hundreds of pages to the dream model. This is useful in that it facilitates the seeker's transition from focusing attention on objects to "I am." But this is only the beginning. The hard work comes next, abiding persistently. For some though, the pointer becomes the truth. They then use it as a litmus test for enlghtenment. If you don't know or see that the world is a dream, you're not enlightened. This seems to me the misuse of this model, pointer and in some cases a way of avoiding the hard work.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Nov 13, 2019 12:28:29 GMT -5
No, I'm not using my model's rules. I'm using the way you critique other people's models. You say "explain it to me, I don't understand" -- and then you try to find logical contradiction. When in fact they are resting on a reference to what is beyond mind. Now, when I critique YOUR model that way, you do the exact same thing that you critique in others. You say "you're not going to understand without a reference." But somehow that is ok, but other people's doing that is not. The model is no better than anyone else's because you can't explain it logically without saying "you need a reference for Truth" to understand. Thus the model "encompasses" nothing. No one needs a model for Truth that depends on having the Truth realization to validate it. I'd argue the model is worse, since "you are all that is" is a pretty ineffective pointer. I agree with your assessment of models. By themselves, they ALL miss the mark. Reading Michael James book, "Happiness and the Art of Being," he devotes hundreds of pages to the dream model. This is useful in that it facilitates the seeker's transition from focusing attention on objects to "I am." But this is only the beginning. The hard work comes next, abiding persistently. For some though, the pointer becomes the truth. They then use it as a litmus test for enlghtenment. If you don't know or see that the world is a dream, you're not enlightened. This seems to me the misuse of this model, pointer and in some cases a way of avoiding the hard work.Absolutely. The dream is just a metaphor. No metaphor is quite correct. It is not the case that the world is a dream. Nor is it the case that it is “real.”
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Nov 13, 2019 12:35:58 GMT -5
Vedantins have a different view of things. They believe concepts are very useful to kill other concepts. Better concepts have to kill worse ones. And those better ones might be contextual -- depending on the person's temperament and background, the relevant model might change. But ultimately the concepts lead beyond concepts. Yes. Advaita, Ramana, draws a conceptual map to illuminate the way. This can be useful. Zen just says "feel the path with your bare feet." The mind gets whacked when it tries to step in. And even the Zen thing is in its ritual and method, in its own way a concept.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 13, 2019 15:20:38 GMT -5
Yes. Advaita, Ramana, draws a conceptual map to illuminate the way. This can be useful. Zen just says "feel the path with your bare feet." The mind gets whacked when it tries to step in. And even the Zen thing is in its ritual and method, in its own way a concept. There's a few other posts I want to reply to at some point, but for now... yes.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 14, 2019 2:47:13 GMT -5
I have said at times the bigger picture is needed and at times I have fully explained my understandings. At times my understandings reveal a layered cake sky high, but that is irrelevant to the point at hand .. I have been pointing out what are single layers and what are not, what are simple pointers and what are not .. I don't see beyond mind as a bizarre statement at all, you seem to inflate stuff in your descriptors , you even made out I was attacking other's that spoke about the dream world reality .. Not sure why your playing your hand like this .. feels like a tactic of yours in order to try and put me down Pure projection. Has nothing to do with you and everything to do with your position. I have pointed out your remarks made that were over exaggerated and inflated to suit your own means. To say it has nothing to do with me and everything to do with my position isn't truthy. My so called position that you perceive isn't a truthy reflection because you have over exaggerated and over inflated in the first instance. If you don't want to own that energy, that's up to you but this is what happens a lot when things like this are pulled up on. Peeps then spend time posting all sorts of remarks, most of which don't actually relate to what was initially said. Now if you care to look back at your remarks what you will find is that is bears no resemblance to what has taken place. This is your pure projection.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 14, 2019 2:59:57 GMT -5
.. If you don't understand it that's fine, butt it just shows me that you haven't the comparison. I have said many times that beyond self and beyond mind there are no thoughts pertaining to self or this world . There is no awareness of self or this world. You keep asking me 'So which is it'? which brings to me the conclusion that you are either not listening or you toadally don't understand a word I am saying .. I have explained in many different ways and even gave you the waking up from a nights sleep analogy and spoke about andy's unconscious episode, but unless you have the comparison perhaps you are going to be left toadally confused .. Now in my eyes you need the comparison of self and no self like Bernadette Roberts speaks about because if all you know is self awareness then your not going to understand no self .. and you need to understand no self to understand self, that's why you have peeps running around thinking they have lost self and it's incorrect . Now your projection upon my understandings is based solely on your model and lack of comparison .. This isn't a put down, it is a fact is it not? If you had this comparison I speak of you would not have this confusion. Isn't that fair enough to say? So all the confusion is down to whom?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 14, 2019 3:08:01 GMT -5
.. It makes perfect sense to those that have the comparison . Your logic is your logic, it is your model based upon your belief . A belief that can't be true based upon your model that all these things are false . Your living in a whirlpool of falsities trying to breath an element of truthiness to them .. it doesn't work .. You have said before that the Truth of this derived or came about from where eggsactly? Care to speak about how something beyond the mind was realized in such a way where the mind knows that mindfulness is false. Was it a realization beyond self or was it a thought that was of the mind .. If this Truth was mindful then it is false, if it was beyond mind and beyond self then perhaps you would or should understand what I am saying about self and no self .. butt you clearly don't understand so I can only speculate from this that your in a mind meld of a model where on one hand you hold a mindful concept to be right even when your express a belief that reflects upon models and concepts to be all false.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 14, 2019 3:20:10 GMT -5
It is what I have said .. You are stressing over your own model's rules saying that it can't be as I have implied. No, I'm not using my model's rules. I'm using the way you critique other people's models. You say "explain it to me, I don't understand" -- and then you try to find logical contradiction. When in fact they are resting on a reference to what is beyond mind. Now, when I critique YOUR model that way, you do the exact same thing that you critique in others. You say "you're not going to understand without a reference." But somehow that is ok, but other people's doing that is not. .. You are . You base my model to be incorrect based upon your model that you think is correct .. If you abide by the laws of your model in that all things of the mind are false then like said, your model is false and from a position of falsity you are trying to find fault with my my model lol .. It's toadally bonkers to do that, it like trying to out box your shadow .. It's self defeating . It doesn't work . To say that you are not abiding by your own model's rules is false because you can't entertain that models can be true or correct . I am happy for you to critique my model as I do other's but you can only critique something when you already have a self reference in place .. Your self reference is based upon your own model of belief .. If you want to deny this, that okay, butt to do so is border line bonkers!! You would have to explain to me how you can point out something incorrect in another's theory while not entertaining a belief system in order to compare there's with .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 14, 2019 3:38:38 GMT -5
.. But even logic is a falsity by your own reckoning . Your using your false logic to try and understand my false logic . There is no better or worse when there is only falsity present . There is no better or worse dream, there is no better or worse illusion when all is dreamy and illusory. You are again abiding by your own model's rules and you need to get this point I am making because your not either seeing straight or your in denial . Stick to your foundation and don't deviate from it because it makes it look like the foundation isn't lived or truly believed . This is the layer cake that collapses because of it's weak foundation .. I don't find anything meaningful in trying to explain something to another when they supposedly come from a position where everything that is said is false . My model like said doesn't cater for all these dreamy illusory falsities
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 14, 2019 3:46:28 GMT -5
No, I'm not using my model's rules. I'm using the way you critique other people's models. You say "explain it to me, I don't understand" -- and then you try to find logical contradiction. When in fact they are resting on a reference to what is beyond mind. Now, when I critique YOUR model that way, you do the exact same thing that you critique in others. You say "you're not going to understand without a reference." But somehow that is ok, but other people's doing that is not. The model is no better than anyone else's because you can't explain it logically without saying "you need a reference for Truth" to understand. Thus the model "encompasses" nothing. No one needs a model for Truth that depends on having the Truth realization to validate it. I'd argue the model is worse, since "you are all that is" is a pretty ineffective pointer. I agree with your assessment of models. By themselves, they ALL miss the mark. Reading Michael James book, "Happiness and the Art of Being," he devotes hundreds of pages to the dream model. This is useful in that it facilitates the seeker's transition from focusing attention on objects to "I am." But this is only the beginning. The hard work comes next, abiding persistently. For some though, the pointer becomes the truth. They then use it as a litmus test for enlghtenment. If you don't know or see that the world is a dream, you're not enlightened. This seems to me the misuse of this model, pointer and in some cases a way of avoiding the hard work. No one has been saying that explanations and theories of the mind are hitting the mark precisely .. Butt put your hand in an open fire and see how it feels . You don't need theories and words to experience the pain of the fire .. The fire is of the mind and so is self awareness of the fire and of the pain so what exactly is false about the experience . Put your hand into a a bowl of cold custard, does it feel like the open fire .. Whatever you say about the comparison had will be toadally false based upon a model that everything referred to of the mind is false .. This model or train of thought about the falsities derives of the same mind that reflects all these falsities or does the model derive from somewhere beyond the concept of falsities?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 14, 2019 4:15:23 GMT -5
I agree with your assessment of models. By themselves, they ALL miss the mark. Reading Michael James book, "Happiness and the Art of Being," he devotes hundreds of pages to the dream model. This is useful in that it facilitates the seeker's transition from focusing attention on objects to "I am." But this is only the beginning. The hard work comes next, abiding persistently. For some though, the pointer becomes the truth. They then use it as a litmus test for enlghtenment. If you don't know or see that the world is a dream, you're not enlightened. This seems to me the misuse of this model, pointer and in some cases a way of avoiding the hard work. No one has been saying that explanations and theories of the mind are hitting the mark precisely .. Butt put your hand in an open fire and see how it feels . You don't need theories and words to experience the pain of the fire .. The fire is of the mind and so is self awareness of the fire and of the pain so what exactly is false about the experience . Put your hand into a a bowl of cold custard, does it feel like the open fire .. Whatever you say about the comparison had will be toadally false based upon a model that everything referred to of the mind is false .. This model or train of thought about the falsities derives of the same mind that reflects all these falsities or does the model derive from somewhere beyond the concept of falsities? Haha. This is exactly why Zen Masters occasionally use a stick--to bring people out of their imaginations and all models of reality to a direct real-world experience that results in...."OUCH!"
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 14, 2019 5:17:49 GMT -5
No one has been saying that explanations and theories of the mind are hitting the mark precisely .. Butt put your hand in an open fire and see how it feels . You don't need theories and words to experience the pain of the fire .. The fire is of the mind and so is self awareness of the fire and of the pain so what exactly is false about the experience . Put your hand into a a bowl of cold custard, does it feel like the open fire .. Whatever you say about the comparison had will be toadally false based upon a model that everything referred to of the mind is false .. This model or train of thought about the falsities derives of the same mind that reflects all these falsities or does the model derive from somewhere beyond the concept of falsities? Haha. This is exactly why Zen Masters occasionally use a stick--to bring people out of their imaginations and all models of reality to a direct real-world experience that results in...."OUCH!" Yes absolutely, but there are other theories as we know that speak of one's senses not giving a true reflection of reality and as always I will ask such a peep 'what is the comparison then for a reality that is a true reflection' and how did the theory come about . You will then potentially have the same conversations as I am having regarding a false concept trying to out trump another false concept lol . Then there is the issue of there being a Truth realization either of the mind or beyond mind to that effect, both of which are riddled with issues which I have highlighted .
|
|