|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 28, 2019 19:55:37 GMT -5
I've never understood how it could be possible for an inorganic chemical primordial swamp soup to become life. To this day there's no hard explanation for how it happened that's been replicated in a lab. At least that I'm aware of. But, any serious interest in such a question is just one more opportunity for a sincere seeker. Correct.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 28, 2019 20:05:02 GMT -5
This is kind of an aside, but maybe not. This is how I was raised, the is how most of my family still see the world. Everybody born are born separated from God because of sin inherited all the way back to Adam (and Eve). We are all born in sin and are sinners. Now, I began to doubt this as a teenager, and in my 20's saw this just is not true, can't possibly be true, everybody is born innocent. In my 30's, more or less for curiosity sake, I decided to read the entire Bible looking for original sin. So I learned that the Bible does not teach that we inherit the guilt of Adam (and Eve). So I learned that what I was taught almost every Sunday, as a child and teenager, in church, just is not true, isn't even taught by the Bible. I later learned there is a lot to the story and I was essentially correct. I learned that Judaism does not have the concept of original sin, nor the Celtic Church nor the Eastern Orthodox Church. But yes, to affirm that one's view of the world alters everything we experience, everything we see and think we know. Yes, our view filters everything. Without the truth, it's impossible to be impartial. "original sin"/"knowledge of good and evil" == "ignorance of true nature"/"God falling into her own dream". Many author's have pointed out that "sin" doesn't necessarily imply a moral overlay. It just means "to miss the mark". It could be noted, correctly so, that various Christian institutions have misused the concept as a means of social control. Often to horrific result on a grand scale. And, it can also be added that there is a different parallel and opposite signal to that one: the unconditional grace and love of the Christian God. Yes. There is a distinction between information intended to be conveyed in the Bible and man's interpretation of the Bible. Jesus kept the Laws of the Torah, but he did not keep the traditions of men (basically, what the Pharisees taught). A good synopsis of what's intended is the Sermon on the Mount. That's a high standard.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 28, 2019 20:40:17 GMT -5
To this day there's no hard explanation for how it happened that's been replicated in a lab. At least that I'm aware of. But, any serious interest in such a question is just one more opportunity for a sincere seeker. Correct. Yep. That was one of my main existential questions that a kensho experience concretely answered. My question was, "How could life have come from non-living matter?" The answer to the question became crystal clear. Alan Watts in his book, "The Book," (or maybe his other book, "This Is It"), suggested imagining a race of aliens coming to earth 3 billion years ago. After examining the planet, they would have said, "It's just a dead piece of rock." If they then returned 3 billion years later, they would say, "Oh, we were mistaken. This was a peopling rock." As it turns out, THIS is a peopling THIS.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Dec 28, 2019 21:02:40 GMT -5
The body may react to danger reflexively, for sure. But there is no need to refer to myself to do so. None. Nothing self referential about reflexes. In fact, instinctive reflex happens faster than thought could ever. So the challenge here seems to be whether to accept that wherever that instinctive reflex is activated from, can now be called 'self'? Seems so.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 28, 2019 22:13:35 GMT -5
I'll ask again, what use is your realization? Are there any day-to-day real life consequences? Consequences had doesn't negate what you quoted me saying . Are you saying there is no self reference had when answering questions? You don't have to ask me anything again, I have addressed your questions . You said that Z.D's finger raising response was symbolic when it wasn't . So the question remains the same and the answer was actual . There cannot be a response to a question without there being a self reference . So it doesn't matter if you raise the silent finger or you drive to the store . It's the same self referential context . The mistake was in the saying that they were different contexts when they are not . Please answer my question. What use is your realization? Are there any day-to-day real life consequences?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 28, 2019 22:24:46 GMT -5
The bible discussion with Gopal has been moved here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2019 22:26:19 GMT -5
The bible discussion with Gopal has been moved here. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 29, 2019 5:40:46 GMT -5
Well no offence taken princess because I know you too well, but I think I am most flexible when I entertain other's foundations and work from there . I have said I will mirror their premise like for like butt for most their premises doesn't work and they fail to answer questions on it lol . I had a similar conversation today where I allowed another's premise to be encompassed within my premise in stating that any thought of oneself in any way will be suffice enough to say, but that wasn't good enough either and it was made out that I was to blame lol . I am no fool I watch peeps behaviour and responses and I am sure other's are aware of the denials, the morphs, the dodging of questions, you have experienced it yourself . The thing is I for one don't put up with it . yes I see clearly you are willing to entertain other people's premises, I really meant more your particular concept usage, but then again, I can be criticized for hopping around! What did you think about what I said to JLY....if we program a robot to have an I-thought and to step around a hole, does the robot have a self-reference? Or is the sentience - the felt sense of amness, intrinsic to the 'self reference'? Well when I first came here if I remember correctly there was a form of bullying going on because I didn't conform to the mainstream beliefs and my thoughts were too woo woo amongst other things and it took peeps like you to intervene because of the rigid thought patterns that were present could not be broken or spoken against . Now this really shows you where the stubbornness lies. I can't change my word usage because the words I use reflect my experiences and realisations had . I can't change what something means to me in these instances because it has a knock on effect to other meanings . No self no mind are all interconnected and reflects upon self and mind and a self reference . In regards to programming a robot to have an I thought, I am not sure exactly how artificial intelligence fits in with what we have been talking about, there has to be a real conscious aware individual to have a sense of themselves . If the foundation is artificial to begin with then the self reference is artificial also . I saw my first elexa last week and on the surface it appears that you are speaking to something intelligent but take a way it's core foundational program and it doesn't appear to do anything
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 29, 2019 5:49:46 GMT -5
Consequences had doesn't negate what you quoted me saying . Are you saying there is no self reference had when answering questions? You don't have to ask me anything again, I have addressed your questions . You said that Z.D's finger raising response was symbolic when it wasn't . So the question remains the same and the answer was actual . There cannot be a response to a question without there being a self reference .
So it doesn't matter if you raise the silent finger or you drive to the store . It's the same self referential context . The mistake was in the saying that they were different contexts when they are not . yes agree, but do you think there's any value to the 'raise one finger' response, i.e do you see what the zen dudes are trying to convey? There is value in many things and you pointed out seeing the value in other things as well in another post . What I have been trying to convey is the need to stick to the context at hand . Raising a finger as you correctly noted is the same premise as going to the shops for milk is . In this instance Z.D's two ways of answering my question reverts back to the same one premise . This is why his premise and and his two way option is false . He keeps banging on about how everyone understands what I have been speaking about for weeks on end butt this proves the opposite . There hasn't been anyone from his tag team that have because they can't say what they say about their own premise otherwise . As you can see that the pilgrims premise is as false as Z.D's because you can't have a self reference that is beyond words or sense while making sense of the world perceived using words . There as you have seen been endless of dodges present and untruthful accusations being made which are purely giraffe based . It seems that Giraffes are on the menu now and that is okay .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 29, 2019 6:01:30 GMT -5
So how can you make sense of the question without a self reference in place . It is no different than acting upon having no milk in a way where you go to the shops for more milk lol . Butt from the milk perspective you say you don't see milk, so from the silent finger perspective you wouldn't see the question as a question that made any sense . This is why you can't escape the self reference either way . The mistake you initially made was from the perspective of the milk scenario where you proclaimed not to see milk as milk . You gave me the ultimatum for use of a better word that the silent finger would put you in a different context to the milk but it doesn't it is the same . If you had started out with seeing milk for milk from the first perspective there would never of been a second thought from me about it . I asked you for why you go shopping for milk when you don't see milk, it is a non starter, so you have made a wrong turn from the very off . This is why there is confusion because there is no way out for you unless you back track to this actual point and start again . . Although many posters now understand your POV and the way you define various words and phrases, an understanding of alternative and equally valid POV's doesn't seem to have occurred. All that I can suggest is re-reading numerous posts over the last several pages that have repeatedly answered your questions and spelled out what the differences are. They don't understand that is why they keep on coming up with false premises of their own like you do . Do you understand that your two way option of answering my question has the same self reference present .Can you tell me how you manage to understand the question without a self reference . I don't need to reread your posts I have said this to you already . All that is present in your older posts are more of the same misunderstandings . You need to reread your posts and readdress your premises because they don't work do they . Please just acknowledge that your two way option of answering my questions are based upon the one and only premise that I presented . You said and implied something that was not true and incorrect and there isn't anything you can do or say that can change that. You have come up with a hundred different ways to skin the same cat here but nothing is working . You say you understand my premise but you don't otherwise you wouldn't of implied that pointing the finger is a different premise to what I originally asked you about when going for milk . There has only been one context and premise that is why you couldn't make any sense of noticing that you need milk even though you don't see milk as milk . You can't get out of this sorry you just can't, everything you have said from S.R. to C.C. to babies to pointy fingers hasn't worked because there is a self reference in place and like said it doesn't matter what it is .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 29, 2019 6:05:32 GMT -5
Consequences had doesn't negate what you quoted me saying . Are you saying there is no self reference had when answering questions? You don't have to ask me anything again, I have addressed your questions . You said that Z.D's finger raising response was symbolic when it wasn't . So the question remains the same and the answer was actual . There cannot be a response to a question without there being a self reference . So it doesn't matter if you raise the silent finger or you drive to the store . It's the same self referential context . The mistake was in the saying that they were different contexts when they are not . Please answer my question. What use is your realization? Are there any day-to-day real life consequences? Consequences had doesn't negate what you quoted me saying . Are you saying there is no self reference had when answering questions?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 29, 2019 6:09:53 GMT -5
It is you that doesn't get it . How can you raise a finger in response to a question if one hasn't got a self reference . Can you answer this very simple and straightforward question? Seriously? You literally took the finger pointing to the moon for the actual moon!
The finger raising response is symbolic, it's akin to giving you the zen stick treatment or Ramana staring right thru you. It essentially means, you are thinking too much, you won't get there by logic, only by direct reference. You need to get out of your head, Tenka. That's what it means. As far as I can tell right now, the vast majority here gets your point and agrees with your point. What everyone else is trying to tell you (and Satch, it seems) is that with the vocabulary you are using right now, you are never going to get what we trying to convey. So relax. Nothing sinister going on here. You have been understood. What you are proposing is not rocket science. And what we are proposing is not rocket science either. But it can't be explained/understood with your current concepts/vocabulary. That's why everyone is suggesting to adjust/modify your vocabulary, which you stubbornly refuse to do. The ball is in your court now. You are the only one to blame here for this kind of gross miscommunication. We've adjusted our vocabulary in order to understand your point. Now it's your turn. Seriously? You literally took the finger raising to be symbolic? So now you know that is wasn't symbolic, how can a peep make sense of a question without a self reference .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 29, 2019 6:12:55 GMT -5
My post to reefs in regards to his questions .
1) Why are you here? 2) What is the use that realization you speak of? 3) Why do you brush your teeth?
A self referential thought is a self referential thought, I don't know how many variants of this are out there, butt for me there is no confusion, you either have a self referential thought of yourself that is an extension of the I AM thought or you don't .
This is why going to the shops for milk has to involve a self referential thought that 'I' need milk, the I that needs milk that requires nourishment for the mind-body . I AM is the foundation and the need or the preference for milk is another . The thought of I AM by itself doesn't need milk and doesn't know what milk is or pants are .
Peeps have been dancing around this referential thought for weeks pretending they don't even see milk as milk, and don't answer why they go shopping for it .
You can say your definition can't be pointed too which doesn't make sense because you still see milk and that doesn't need beyond words or pointers ..
You see I do actually know the difference between a self reference and no self reference because of my self no self comparison, the mind and no mind comparison, so I will stick to my guns here in regards to my definition, I have even spoken about non functioning while being aware of the world but not integrating a self referential thought in a way where anything registers and again here lies another comparison that I speak about . Driving to the shops while not thinking is laughable in comparison to what I am saying and have always said because when you really don't have a self reference there is no putting on pants and no driving to the shops .
I will answer your questions though ..
1. Why am I here, where? Of the mind-body or here on ST?
2. What realization are your referring too here? S.R. If you are then I can only say that there is an understanding had that reflects being simply what you are and how that allows a specific understanding had that reflects upon everything else .
3. I brush my teeth because of many reasons, from being subjected to conditioning to understanding that personal hygiene is relevant in order to maintain a healthy body, but they all stem from there being a self reference in that there is someone-thing present that can brush teeth and benefit in someway from doing so .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 29, 2019 6:18:45 GMT -5
With or without a self reference? When you seek the questioner there is a space, an emptiness, absent mind. That's the sweet spot. No mind chatter, peace. Ramana says hold it, when a another thought comes disturbing this stillness, ask to whom does this thought occur. Seek the thinker. .. There has to be an initial self referential thought that there is a seeker and there is a thinker .. Otherwise there would be no thought to seek or self enquire . I am well aware of certain states beyond the thought of things that relate to searching and enquiring, butt the original context is buying milk because one has acknowledged that there is a self reference present that needs milk . It's only ever been that simple, butt it appears to have hard core non dual peeps truly stumped, tongue tied and camera shy .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 29, 2019 6:40:44 GMT -5
Nope. I am saying that one doesn't need to speak/hear words in the head in order to step around a hole one has come across on the sidewalk. It is enough to see the hole in the sidewalk for the body to wordlessly know and step around it. Nor are words spoken in the head necessary, such as - oh, I need milk! - in order to realize that one needs milk. Opening the fridge door and seeing the situation is often quite enough to know what needs attending to. Self-referential thinking is completely unnecessary in such cases. Maybe that isn't how it is for you, but based on how many "self-referential" "I" statements you've made in the last 15 posts here, as of my count yesterday - 96 - I wouldn't be surprised that you don't get the point or even recognize your own inner voice. Fwiw, ZD and SDP tied for second place in their last 15 posts in this thread as of yesterday, at 23 each, with 9 of ZD's being in the retelling of an experiential story. You can draw your own conclusions about this. the self reference can be 'wordless' too. The 'self reference' is kind of another word for 'identity' or 'ego'.Having read a fair bit of what tenka has said, I would explain it like this. A robot can be programmed to see a hole and step around it. We could even program that robot with an appropriate i-thought for posterity. But what we cant give it is sentience. so when tenka says that there is a self reference, he's really just saying that there is sentience. how does that work for you T? .. Yes, and I have explained this, butt when the door gets shut in your face it gets shut in your face . This is why I say tag team players don't want to listen to reason there is simply an agenda and dodges follow, giraffes follow . This is why I said to you that the self reference can be anything that one wishes to relate to being but there are consequences to this self referential thought .. What I mean is, you can have a self referential thought in that you can fly, but it will end badly for them . There has to be a self reference that actually works in reflection of the world perceived . I am a human being, there is an oncoming bus . Peeps can say all day long it's an illusory self reference and that's okay but what is present is a self reference that relates to what they are that isn't illusory . So then one has to realise what that is otherwise there is just a self referential thought had without any foundation .
|
|