|
Post by Reefs on Nov 16, 2019 0:53:32 GMT -5
The problem is that you believe your position is somehow the most logical or honest but you're unable to defend that idea. Yes. But as Tenka is rightly pointing out, this applies to your position as well. Which means you are both stuck in some kind of liar's paradox and accuse each other of being the bigger liar.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 16, 2019 0:57:44 GMT -5
I bet there's some Zen story about this somewhere. Well, there's the infamous 'shít stick' story in the Blue Cliff Record... (somehow the profanity filter doesn't allow me to post the wikipedia link, it changes 'shít' to 'nuts' even in the link! What the heck! )
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 16, 2019 1:18:52 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. That's the McKenna approach, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 16, 2019 1:25:14 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!" That puts an end to the brambling every single time.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 16, 2019 5:33:30 GMT -5
The problem is that you believe your position is somehow the most logical or honest but you're unable to defend that idea. Yes. But as Tenka is rightly pointing out, this applies to your position as well. Which means you are both stuck in some kind of liar's paradox and accuse each other of being the bigger liar. That would be true enough to say if I held the same position as shifting .. I don't necessarily see mindfulness as dreamy or false or illusory .. If I speak about something mindful that relates to self and this world I can be self assured in that what I say holds some weight and I am sure other's do including the teacher's and the master's otherwise they would save their illusory breath lol .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 16, 2019 5:38:47 GMT -5
I understand you, I was just emphasising that if one believes in the falsities of the mind then there is no absolute perspective either ... unless one can confirm this realization from beyond the mind lol .. We all know and agree that words are limiting, but as explained some pointers in my model of understanding are more to the point and on point than other's. To tar all pointers with the same brush that is either false or dreamy or illusory makes no sense when trying to present one's own theory as more correct than another's or holds more weight than other's .. There is either a foundation of something false and dreamy and illusory or there isn't, in my eyes you can't have one merging with the other when trying to suggest another's model is incorrect .. They have to be all incorrect if one abides by the foundation of falsities and illusions .. Do you see that or agree with that? My intent was not to tar pointers. But to point out the futility of debating which is better. It is really an equation that requires a value for the seeker variable, an understanding of where the seeker is at and of her/his background. That is, in my view, the key factor. After all, pointers are not relevant to the Self Realized. Yes it is futile to point out which pointer is better or more Truer than the next . This is what I have been pointing out because if there is nothing true or correct that passes one's illusory lips there is never going to be any model that out trumps another, even the model of there being no truth to the mind isn't true .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 16, 2019 5:43:10 GMT -5
Your model reflects everything mindful is false . Logic is mindful . How can false logic be used in order to speak about something that isn't false . You need to have a foundation that isn't false to begin with . Until you do, you are going round in circles trying to emphasise how correct your model is by using false logic . I am not sure why you can't see the logic in that . Because you don’t understand the meaning of false. It doesn’t mean what you think it does. You need a reference for it. What about that don’t you understand? You say it to me all the time. Pray tell, what false means to you because I have had many conversations with you in the past about this .. Everything I said in the past was false in your eyes but everything you said wasn't .. Every concept was false, the sense of self was false, there was no-one logging in to the forums and such likes, all were mindful concepts and not true or correct .. This is why I asked you why is what you say true and what I say not true ..
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 16, 2019 5:47:27 GMT -5
I am not bothered how you see yourself, I am not bothered if you see yourself as immortal, alien, pure consciousness or whatever, what is apparent however is that you have a self reference for what you are in reflection of your model ... and from this self point of reference you are able to say what you say .. Now what you are doing is using this reference to critique other references .. You can only do that when you have your own belief system in place . You speak about all models are incomplete ... this is your model, this is your theory, this is your belief . You believe that it is correct and true and this stance held is your banana skin .. I don’t need my own belief system. I can simply provisionally adopt yours and show how it’s inconsistent. I just showed how. You didn’t address the example, presumably because you cannot. You can't see inconsistencies without having a belief in what is consistent . You are either not understanding your own mind or your purposefully in denial for some reason .. How on earth can you critique another's theory without believing in your own lol . It's impossible to critique another's painting of the ocean if you don't already have a notion of what the ocean is .. To know what it is comes about through a belief in the ocean ..
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 16, 2019 5:56:04 GMT -5
You haven't been listening to what I have been saying as I have answered this many times about the comparison and returning to self awareness . There is no muddle from my end, all I see is someone trying to point out the logical falsities in my model while using false logic . As described above, no matter what you think, it will be false, so it really is self defeating .. You haven't explained to me how you realized your model . I need to be refreshed in regards to your realization of the mind or beyond the mind . Like said either way it's going to be seen through for being false because of your foundation and because of your lack of understanding and comparison had . You don't see or understand how there can be no self and yet there be a self that can make sense of their absence . This illustrates that you have no realization beyond mind . So your realization must be mindful and false .. Perhaps you should forget about telling me how flawed my logic and understanding is and concentrate on your own realization and explain yourself logically . Again, I’m just showing how using common sense logic your ideas fall down. You just fall back on having a reference. Ok, then the idea of life being a dream and things being false also is about having a reference. How do you realize what I’m talking about? Do more self-inquiry. I’m not questioning your realization. I don’t really care one way or the other. I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy of your mode of critique. When questioned you say to the other “you have no realization beyond mind.” You’re not able to explain it in any logical way except to say that I would understand it if I had a reference. Well, others are just saying the same thing back to you about life being dream-like. Then don't use simple logic to understand what I am saying . If simple logic is only what you have at your disposal then you will remain ignorant to what I am saying . Until then you will perhaps only see contradictions and hypocrisy because of your own reflection . No matter how many times I say it or explain, your not understanding - Your not understanding because you haven't the comparison. Can you confirm that this is the case otherwise were going to go round in circles. I have asked you many times now if you would please speak about your realisation that reflects everything being false of the mind .. I have also spoken about the mind and beyond mind in regards to 'realisation' so which is it .. was your realisation mindful or not? It's sounds mindful to me because you don't agree or have a reference for what I have been saying .
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Nov 16, 2019 10:04:50 GMT -5
Because you don’t understand the meaning of false. It doesn’t mean what you think it does. You need a reference for it. What about that don’t you understand? You say it to me all the time. Pray tell, what false means to you because I have had many conversations with you in the past about this .. Everything I said in the past was false in your eyes but everything you said wasn't .. Every concept was false, the sense of self was false, there was no-one logging in to the forums and such likes, all were mindful concepts and not true or correct .. This is why I asked you why is what you say true and what I say not true .. I'm just going to repeat what I said earlier: it's something you need a reference for. In the light of the true Self, language becomes meaningless -- but of course this very statement is in language. So to understand what I'm saying you need a reference. To get the reference, do more self-inquiry.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Nov 16, 2019 10:07:19 GMT -5
Again, I’m just showing how using common sense logic your ideas fall down. You just fall back on having a reference. Ok, then the idea of life being a dream and things being false also is about having a reference. How do you realize what I’m talking about? Do more self-inquiry. I’m not questioning your realization. I don’t really care one way or the other. I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy of your mode of critique. When questioned you say to the other “you have no realization beyond mind.” You’re not able to explain it in any logical way except to say that I would understand it if I had a reference. Well, others are just saying the same thing back to you about life being dream-like. Then don't use simple logic to understand what I am saying . If simple logic is only what you have at your disposal then you will remain ignorant to what I am saying . Until then you will perhaps only see contradictions and hypocrisy because of your own reflection . No matter how many times I say it or explain, your not understanding - Your not understanding because you haven't the comparison. Can you confirm that this is the case otherwise were going to go round in circles. I have asked you many times now if you would please speak about your realisation that reflects everything being false of the mind .. I have also spoken about the mind and beyond mind in regards to 'realisation' so which is it .. was your realisation mindful or not?Neither. The categories don't apply. But as you say, you need the realization to understand it.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Nov 16, 2019 10:07:32 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. That's the McKenna approach, isn't it? Might be, am not sure...
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Nov 16, 2019 10:08:31 GMT -5
I bet there's some Zen story about this somewhere. Well, there's the infamous 'shít stick' story in the Blue Cliff Record... (somehow the profanity filter doesn't allow me to post the wikipedia link, it changes 'shít' to 'nuts' even in the link! What the heck! ) Found it. Ha!
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 16, 2019 14:57:46 GMT -5
Pray tell, what false means to you because I have had many conversations with you in the past about this .. Everything I said in the past was false in your eyes but everything you said wasn't .. Every concept was false, the sense of self was false, there was no-one logging in to the forums and such likes, all were mindful concepts and not true or correct .. This is why I asked you why is what you say true and what I say not true .. I'm just going to repeat what I said earlier: it's something you need a reference for. In the light of the true Self, language becomes meaningless -- but of course this very statement is in language. So to understand what I'm saying you need a reference. To get the reference, do more self-inquiry. The true self is just a mindful concept that is false . We go round in circles here because you don't speak about your realisation . I can't have a reference of a true Self because beyond the mind is beyond the thought of anything true . You don't seem to understand your own theory . None of us are any the wiser unless you tell us about your realisation .. I don't need more self enquiry ..
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 16, 2019 15:00:48 GMT -5
Then don't use simple logic to understand what I am saying . If simple logic is only what you have at your disposal then you will remain ignorant to what I am saying . Until then you will perhaps only see contradictions and hypocrisy because of your own reflection . No matter how many times I say it or explain, your not understanding - Your not understanding because you haven't the comparison. Can you confirm that this is the case otherwise were going to go round in circles. I have asked you many times now if you would please speak about your realisation that reflects everything being false of the mind .. I have also spoken about the mind and beyond mind in regards to 'realisation' so which is it .. was your realisation mindful or not?Neither. The categories don't apply. But as you say, you need the realization to understand it. That's just silly mate .. You speak about the mind as being full of falsities .. so compared to what? beyond the mind where there is Truth lol . It makes no sense .. To then speak about me self enquiring again makes no sense unless you specify that self enquiry leads one to beyond the falsities .. which is where exactly? Do you have the comparison of mind and beyond mind .. I am asking you straightforward questions here .
|
|