|
Post by laughter on Jan 8, 2020 21:58:05 GMT -5
There is no "thing iself". Correct, but that requires a particular insight. (** zips lips and steps backward into the darkness of the evening **)
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 9, 2020 2:55:45 GMT -5
What's the expanded definition of words? In T's view, every distinction/experience has a 'word', so when a baby feels what we call 'hunger', that feeling has a word.so when folks here talk about 'raw perceptions'...those raw perceptions are 'words' I would just say that all experience/perception is 'meaningful' or 'in mind'. The conversation about 'words' or 'labels' is convoluting the discussion, or at least convoluting what Tenka is trying to convey (imo). Well it depends on if we are speaking about a grown up or babe or a rock . I have said that self references had can be of words or not, like a babes favourite teddy is not of words but it will have a reference for it, that's why it recognises it over and above the pink elephant, which again is not of words . When a grown up tells me that their reference has no words or cannot be put into words while they are typing on a keyboard the self reference doesn't mirror that because it is a false statement . This is why you don't get babies typing posts about non duality because their foundation doesn't support it . This is why after a 100 + times now no-one can answer how it is possible to write on a keyboard when they know it's a keyboard . The proof is in the pudding, peeps can sweep it under the carpet if they like and ignore the question all day long, put it is impossible to intentionally use a keyboard as a keyboard when they suggest they are perceiving what they are while there is no foundation in place that is word based or can be put into words in regards to what is perceived and what there self reference is . This is why without words you put your phone into your pocket because your foundation supports the knowing of what the phone is . I know you understand this .. I am just finding it weird that peeps dispute this fact while ignoring the questions relating to this .. It's a form of denial, that's why no-one wanted to do any of the experiments I suggested .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 9, 2020 3:03:09 GMT -5
I didn't use those words, that's tenka's creation. I said what sdp is can't be put into words. But I didn't even remember saying that. I spent over an hour yesterday trying to find tenka's reference for 'beyond words' (which he has used in relation to me over 20 times) which I didn't think I said and turns out didn't say. You have to watch that Tenka. He's a sly one. Not at all dear chap . The pilgrim dodged and deflected my direct questions and backed himself into a corner and then suggested that his self reference could not be put into words . For me to then say to the pilgrim that his reference is beyond words is a like for like saying . If something cannot be put into words then it is beyond words isn't it .. The Fact that Pilgrims references were put into words just illustrates the extents some peeps go to try and initially dodge questions and the last time I looked he didn't even want to explain how self references miraculously appeared as words when they couldn't be put into words . I have asked peeps to look at the keyboard and tell me what they see ... to say as an example what they see can't be put into words would make no sense if they then start to type a post on it ..
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 9, 2020 3:22:07 GMT -5
The impressions you had were all one sided, you said that it doesn't seem that I have an interest in understanding the implications of what Z.D was saying . But yet I have been exploring all of his premises even zen's premises . I have been speaking about most things that connect with one's actions and behaviours and for why we do things .. How in your opinion is that not being interested in understanding what Z.D. has said? ..And your impression in that I don't know the difference between beingness and thoughts about being comes about from where exactly? You didn't even answer my question about why you move out of the way of a hole in the ground . Isn't that ironic when it is you that suggests in that I have no interest in Z.D.'s thoughts when in fact it was you that shut down our conversation after just a few posts .. lol .. I must of spent 100 plus posts with Z.D. trying to get to the bottom of our conversations .. FWIW, I finally did understand what you were talking about, but because you define the word "thought" so broadly, I lost interest in trying to understand the way you use other words and phrases. .. I know this already Z.D. I have heard you say it many times over, but you failed to reply to what questions I raised in response to your posts .. You used the pointy finger as your get out of jail card but you failed to realise at the time of saying it that it was still a self reference that entertains the same premise as any other self reference . You failed to address this or answer this and until you do you can say you lost interest in the conversation based upon my definition of thought . I gave dozens of different examples relating to kissing the wife and knowing it was your wife and not the pet dog and explained my reasons for doing so in reflection of knowing the differences between objects and you still didn't answer how is it that you can do certain things without having a thought of yourself in reflection of something else . The whole not seeing things for the label didn't work either because you married the wife and not the dog or the tree . It doesn't add up . The fact that I had spent as long as I did understanding your premises and bothered to reply to every post means that what JLY said was a giraffe and simply not true . If peeps want to hear the truth about things that go on around here in these discussions let the games begin ..
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 9, 2020 3:40:34 GMT -5
SDP is something you have put into words to then say it is beyond words . You understand that what you are is beyond words . You only understand that premise from the same foundation as words, that is why you make sense of what you say . You are creating a false premise and you are putting the cart before the horse again . What I am saying and explaining to you is that you have a self reference had of sdp that is not beyond words . ( FACT).Beyond words is beyond the knowing of what words are and mean and refer too . The fact that you have cobbled up a post means that you have an abundance of knowings that relate to word meanings . Beyond words mean that you wouldn't know what a self reference means or refers too with or without words . It's like you are standing in mind pointing to beyond mind stating you are beyond mind when you are not . It's the same for peeps who think that a silent mind is beyond mind, or that they have lost self because they perceive self and the world in a different way . This is why I have asked you to explain to me how can you use a keyboard when you have a self reference beyond words . Another thing also here is that you have morphed my original question because I have only asked you for your self reference ..
Now you stated ''what sdp is cannot be put into words''. I haven't asked you what spd IS, I have asked you what self reference you have . E has a self reference of Consciousness, but he doesn't know what that is either ..It's not the point, one doesn't have to know, what the point has always been is what your self reference is . For the purposes of this discussion, a self reference must be a sense of individuation, not Consciousness. It need not be an identity, just a point of reference, but it is personal. Whatever you say about consciousness and what is personal I am not going to dispute but you would not of been able to write the post you just have without a self reference .. I believe you agree with me in this regard . Now if your self reference had could not be put into words then everything else couldn't either . This is what peeps don't seem to realize and this is why their foundation doesn't work .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 9, 2020 3:48:02 GMT -5
How do you know a tree is a tree prior to words? Because, barring any more peculiar definitions,the words are just labels for what is seen and known before a label is assigned. What?? You either know a tree as a tree or you don't . How do you know a tree is a tree prior to words?Do you understand the question? Prior to words you wouldn't know that a tree was a tree .. you would have some other reference for it .. agreed? I have asked you specifically about a tree, knowing you know what a tree refers too . It wouldn't be possible to relate what you perceive to be a tree would it? This is why Z.D's story about a man that saw trees for what is, still knew what a tree was because he could see a tree for what it really was . Prior to words there would be no distinction had between what a tree 'is' as 'what is' in comparison to when once perceived as simply a tree . You wouldn't be able to say 'what is' rather than tree . Do you understand?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 9, 2020 3:59:50 GMT -5
Well forget about the word label, it changes nothing about how a peep or a baby peep can still identify and acknowledge things without words . They still have a self reference regardless and this was the point in making . It makes no difference does it, a babe can be drawn to a teddy not knowing the word reference for it and andy can put a phone in his pocket knowing it is a phone and not a banana . I've been trying to make the same point to you. When you said this: "How do you know a tree is a tree prior to words?" wasn't that meant to suggest I couldn't know without words? Well you were not seeing eye to eye with me regarding what I said prior to using the word label . I was simply explaining how it is possible to have a self reference without words . Regarding the tree, I have just responded above .. I have said prior to words in this instance using your preferred word usage, you have have replied with without words . I have stated a thousand times now that peeps can put phones in pockets without thinking or without using words because their foundation supports the knowings of what things are . P R I O R to words that wouldn't be possible .. You wouldn't put a phone in your pocket prior to words because you wouldn't know it to be a phone . This is why I also ask peeps a lot, why do you do what you do and for reasons why will reveal their self reference . As seen, things that some peeps do, don't match their self reference .. It's easy to spot .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 9, 2020 4:29:26 GMT -5
So you understand / agree that there has to be a foundational thought that SDP is typing and you therefore understand / agree that if you wash the dirty dishes or take the dog out for a walk or shop for milk that it's impossible to do so if there is not a thought of SDP present in some shape or form . I AM trying to fathom out in advance how you would know you are typing if you implied that there wasn't a foundational thought had that you were even though you had established a self reference . You can't point to any [previous] post where I said there isn't a foundation that sdp operates from [this is now {2:19 PM} no longer true, but for different reasons. See last post, in response to you]. (I'm not responsible for what you try to constru from my posts, and I'm not interested [now] in trying to untangle any misundertstanding you might have from what I have posted). What?? I said I AM trying to fathom out in advance how you would know you are typing if you implied that there wasn't a foundational thought had that you were even though you had established a self reference . It's a hypothetic question based upon IF you implied __________ . I know you have agreed with a foundation, I have said that you have agreed with me on this already .. I am trying to fathom out as stated how would you know you are typing where there wasn't a foundational thought of self in place as a reference . You should of said, it would be impossible Mr. Tenka and that would of proved my point eggsactly . So I said .. ''So you understand / agree that there has to be a foundational thought that SDP is typing and you therefore understand / agree that if you wash the dirty dishes or take the dog out for a walk or shop for milk that it's impossible to do so if there is not a thought of SDP present in some shape or form''
Now if you agree with this, then you have in principle agreed with everything I have said from day one .
So if you agree with this you have spent near on a month now arguing with me and yourself for what good reason?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 9, 2020 4:43:39 GMT -5
Well I have clearly stated that one can see the tree as a tree with or without words, just like the pilgrim see's a keyboard as a keyboard . Peeps can see a tree as a tree can't they and they don't have to write the word down or say TREE out loud or have an internal chat about it . What I have been saying is that prior to words using your choice of word here you wouldn't know a tree was a tree . You wouldn't know a keyboard as a keyboard so it would be IMPOSSIBLE to use a keyboard and write a post with this self reference in effect . That's all I have said . Peeps need to get the self referential foundation correct to begin with otherwise it will crumble . As I see it, those two underlined sentences directly contradict. I obviously don't understand what you mean. No because you keep mixing up without words with prior to words . Prior to words there would be no reference had of a tree being a tree . Without using words one can still know it is a tree your looking at . This was the whole point about speaking about thinking doesn't transcend thought . Thinking is word based in all these instances . You can have a thought of the tree without thinking about it and without using any words ..
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 9, 2020 4:54:31 GMT -5
words, the meaning of them, the association had of them .. It's all one foundation of mindfulness and knowing through recognition and through identification . Beyond words or prior to words would mean that you wouldn't use a keyboard or go shopping for milk .When peeps mix these foundation up it gets so messy . Peeps just need to think about what they do and for why they do it . If one wants to associate their self reference to prior to or beyond words, then one would have to ask themselves the question how is it that I can type a post out on a keyboard and still recognise a keyboard as a keyboard . It's all one has to do is to examine their doings and their behaviour and see if it matches their self reference . Mine does . This is why the reflection as I have said all along is key . This is why when peeps who say they are not here still avoid holes in the ground there is something not quite right . Their actions don't mirror their supposed self reference . Andrew: Explain to me what sort of definition of words Tenka is using that makes this true for him. Just explain to me how it is so that you can use a keyboard as a keyboard prior too or beyond a foundation of knowings had that are word based as a self reference . Remember there is no foundation present that associates the keyboard as a means to communicate with me or other's . There is no knowledge of what any of the letters represent etc etc . Then if you actually think about this you will have your own answer and you won't need andy to translate for you . You can't use a keyboard as a keyboard prior to the foundation of words . If peeps actually answer this question as and when I ask it then there should be no further confusion .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 9, 2020 5:12:42 GMT -5
You can't refer to yourself as SDP and not have a self reference and say that it's not in your vocabulary . If you just work with your acknowledgement and your identified association had with SDP then there has to be a foundation present that will support that. Correct? You have just admitted SDP is typing, so there has to be a thought of SDP present as a foundation .. otherwise there would be no recognition or association had that you were typing and not Z.D... Your able to reply with what you do because this thought of yourself as SDP has opinions and views based upon what SDP thinks and feels in relation to experiencing what SDP does .. so if you please in your own words tell me how that sits with you regarding a foundational thought of SDP going to the fridge for milk or typing a post, you didn't answer .. I get into trouble (with you) trying to explain the basis (foundation) upon which sdp operates. (I've previously gone into this as deeply and clearly and as succinctly as possible). The words self reference do not really compute for me (' not in my vocabulary). I think we have made as much progress as possible. (I've spent a lot of my life talking to myself inside my head and when alone talking aloud to myself [at times]. Now, presently, I can consider options concerning branching possibilities, but I've learned not to trust *~>myself<~* {I think that's what you mean by foundational thought} as a basis for making good decisions. The space "sdp" occupies functions better, when *~>myself<~* is absent. Therefore, I prefer to ~operate~ outside the box 'labeled' sdp). This is sdp typing. This (following ...) is sdp not typing... I don't need to know the inner working of how a brain works for example or anything else of the sort, I have only been interested in a foundational thought that I AM and the self reference had that follows . It doesn't matter if you associate a self reference to being just a pointer or something that changes like the weather or something that can't be put into words because it is there regardless . The simple matter is that you have a self reference as SDP and you say SDP types . You can operate outside the box of the label of SDP that doesn't change a thing about what I have said and implied about my foundational premise/s . You have in principle agreed with everything I have said all along .. and for a time you didn't even knowledge that because you were too busy trying to refute everything I have said . It's not the first time I have had disagreements that turn out to be epic conversations on the forums that actually comes full circle . If you pay close attention to the journey you can see when and why this happens ..
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 9, 2020 5:19:30 GMT -5
Yes, sounds good to me .. Just to reiterate the importance of using a 'thought of I' as a self referential extension because beyond the mind there is no thought of yourself. The moment there is awareness of I AM there is a thought compared to not . Peeps might want to say it's awareness and not a thought but you can't be aware of I AM of the mind and not have a thought that I AM aware . In a way Awareness and thought are the same, you can't for the life of you separate them that's for sure . That's why I asked peeps to do the experiment . This is the whole foundation of self and mind and thought . It might sound unusual to some but to me it's foundational and I am pleased Ramana spoke of the I thought . The relationship begins the moment there is the first thought of I am . Some would say there is no beginning or end, and that could be true enough to say from a reference of what we are but not from a point of I AM as an individual . Some say that God has a God to infinity and (our) God was an individual at some point that was part of God's God, so from this point of view even what we are had a starting point . Also, in each incarnation we don't start again from the beginning of I AM awareness, it's not like that at all .. Some believe that individual souls are created so this would fit in with what I am saying somewhat . yes, thanks. I got a little lost at the end but no worries. Been thinking about it....you know the realization you speak of....would you agree your body remained present during the realization? If so, I would have to say that the self reference remained present in mind, but was held at a deeply unconscious level. What do you think? It's the only way I can see for your context to remain consistent.... Yes the body remained present (well, I assume it did) but there was no awareness of it nor was there a thought of it or this world . There was no awareness of I AM so how can there be a self reference retained in mind somewhere . What was 'perhaps' present was a body of this world, it was ticking over because there was a connection had of what I AM beyond the physical with the mind-body . It's like saying your spirit went to the moon and the body remained on earth to then ask was there a self reference had still on earth .. What is it that is of the earth that could entertain a self reference, the arm? the eyeball?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 9, 2020 5:20:49 GMT -5
In T's view, every distinction/experience has a 'word', so when a baby feels what we call 'hunger', that feeling has a word.so when folks here talk about 'raw perceptions'...those raw perceptions are 'words' I would just say that all experience/perception is 'meaningful' or 'in mind'. The conversation about 'words' or 'labels' is convoluting the discussion, or at least convoluting what Tenka is trying to convey (imo). Well it depends on if we are speaking about a grown up or babe or a rock . I have said that self references had can be of words or not, like a babes favourite teddy is not of words but it will have a reference for it, that's why it recognises it over and above the pink elephant, which again is not of words . When a grown up tells me that their reference has no words or cannot be put into words while they are typing on a keyboard the self reference doesn't mirror that because it is a false statement . This is why you don't get babies typing posts about non duality because their foundation doesn't support it . This is why after a 100 + times now no-one can answer how it is possible to write on a keyboard when they know it's a keyboard . The proof is in the pudding, peeps can sweep it under the carpet if they like and ignore the question all day long, put it is impossible to intentionally use a keyboard as a keyboard when they suggest they are perceiving what they are while there is no foundation in place that is word based or can be put into words in regards to what is perceived and what there self reference is . This is why without words you put your phone into your pocket because your foundation supports the knowing of what the phone is . I know you understand this .. I am just finding it weird that peeps dispute this fact while ignoring the questions relating to this .. It's a form of denial, that's why no-one wanted to do any of the experiments I suggested . yes, in regard to the specific keyboard example, I would say typing out 'words' requires thinking in 'words', by anyone's definition of the word.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 9, 2020 5:26:33 GMT -5
Well it depends on if we are speaking about a grown up or babe or a rock . I have said that self references had can be of words or not, like a babes favourite teddy is not of words but it will have a reference for it, that's why it recognises it over and above the pink elephant, which again is not of words . When a grown up tells me that their reference has no words or cannot be put into words while they are typing on a keyboard the self reference doesn't mirror that because it is a false statement . This is why you don't get babies typing posts about non duality because their foundation doesn't support it . This is why after a 100 + times now no-one can answer how it is possible to write on a keyboard when they know it's a keyboard . The proof is in the pudding, peeps can sweep it under the carpet if they like and ignore the question all day long, put it is impossible to intentionally use a keyboard as a keyboard when they suggest they are perceiving what they are while there is no foundation in place that is word based or can be put into words in regards to what is perceived and what there self reference is . This is why without words you put your phone into your pocket because your foundation supports the knowing of what the phone is . I know you understand this .. I am just finding it weird that peeps dispute this fact while ignoring the questions relating to this .. It's a form of denial, that's why no-one wanted to do any of the experiments I suggested . yes, in regard to the specific keyboard example, I would say typing out 'words' requires thinking in 'words', by anyone's definition of the word. This is why no-one answers the question . It really is full proof . It's a good example to use, that's why I have used it . Peeps are using a keyboard my means to converse on the forums so it is something peeps do often ..
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 9, 2020 5:32:12 GMT -5
yes, thanks. I got a little lost at the end but no worries. Been thinking about it....you know the realization you speak of....would you agree your body remained present during the realization? If so, I would have to say that the self reference remained present in mind, but was held at a deeply unconscious level. What do you think? It's the only way I can see for your context to remain consistent.... Yes the body remained present (well, I assume it did) but there was no awareness of it nor was there a thought of it or this world . There was no awareness of I AM so how can there be a self reference retained in mind somewhere . What was present was a body of this world, it was ticking over because there was a connection had of what I AM beyond the physical with the mind-body . It's like saying your spirit went to the moon and the body remained on earth to then ask was there a self reference had still on earth .. What is it that is of the earth that could entertain a self reference, the arm? the eyeball? Well, my thought is that because there's no hard line between conscious and unconscious mind, then all depths of mind come with a self referential thought. As the body is still present during the realization, blood is still flowing and breathing is happening etc....mind is still present and working. So, buried in there will be the self referential thought, same as in deep sleep. The only difference is that it is held too deep for there to be any kind of actual experience of that thought...there's no sense of 'I' or 'I am'. There's no 'entertaining' the thought, though the thought itself is present.
|
|