|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 29, 2019 6:41:42 GMT -5
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? I'm not saying anything. I asked you a straightforward question in plain English. What use is your realization? Are there any day-to-day real life consequences? If you don't understand that question or can't answer that question then say so. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 29, 2019 6:48:55 GMT -5
Consequences had doesn't negate what you quoted me saying . Are you saying there is no self reference had when answering questions? I'm not saying anything. I asked you a straightforward question in plain English. What use is your realization? Are there any day-to-day real life consequences? If you don't understand that question or can't answer that question then say so. I have posted the answer to your question that I made the first time of you asking me it and I have also said that what you underlined doesn't negate what I have said in regards to your question . You made a statement about the pointed finger which was an incorrect assumption made . So I am asking you as straightforward question about it . What is difficult about the question? Let me post the answer again for the third time just so you don't miss it . Reefs question 2 . What use is your realization? T.
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 .
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 29, 2019 7:01:28 GMT -5
I'm not saying anything. I asked you a straightforward question in plain English. What use is your realization? Are there any day-to-day real life consequences? If you don't understand that question or can't answer that question then say so. I have posted the answer to your question that I made the first time of you asking me it and I have also said that what you underlined doesn't negate what I have said in regards to your question . You made a statement about the pointed finger which was an incorrect assumption made . So I am asking you as straightforward question about it . What is difficult about the question? I'm not interested in your theories. I'm only interested in the practical implications. So, what use is your realization? Are there any day-to-day real life consequences? If you keep dodging and deflecting, I'm not going to ask you again and have to conclude that there are none. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 29, 2019 7:22:28 GMT -5
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? i'll get back to you in a bit, but i guess what he is asking relates to what i asked when 'kinship with God' came up in convo. He's asking how the realization changed your experience qualitatively.... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2019 8:25:48 GMT -5
I'm not saying anything. I asked you a straightforward question in plain English. What use is your realization? Are there any day-to-day real life consequences? If you don't understand that question or can't answer that question then say so. I have posted the answer to your question that I made the first time of you asking me it and I have also said that what you underlined doesn't negate what I have said in regards to your question . You made a statement about the pointed finger which was an incorrect assumption made . So I am asking you as straightforward question about it . What is difficult about the question? Let me post the answer again for the third time just so you don't miss it . Reefs question 2 . What use is your realization? T. 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 I am and how that allows a specific understanding had that reflects upon everything else .Can you be anymore specific than just saying that you are now happy with what your mind is reflecting back to you? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 29, 2019 9:51:12 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 . This is not an attack; it is simply an observation. Reefs asked three questions. Questions can be asked and answered from either a conventional perspective or from an existential perspective. You answered all three questions as if they were asked from a conventional perspective. How would you answer them from an existential perspective? For example, when someone asks "Why are you here?" from a conventional perspective, the question can be answered in dozens of different ways, such as "I enjoy talking to people about non-duality on internet websites," or "I enjoy telling people my viewpoint on life," or "I'm here because my parents had sex and I was born as a result of that," etc. When someone asks the same question from an existential perspective, it's like asking, "Why did the organism named "Tenka" appear in the universe?" One possible existential answer is, "I don't know." This kind of answer is usually true, but it comes from the intellect, so it's not deep. If, however, one can leave the intellect behind and discover what Art Ticknor calls "the solid ground of being," a different kind of knowing and a different kind of answer will appear. Usually a realization must be attained for that kind of knowing, and that kind of knowing leaves no doubt whatsoever. ITSW, if someone asks, "Why did you fall in love with your wife?" you can give 1000 different logical-sounding reasons, but none of them will actually capture the truth. That's because the truth lies beyond the intellect. Sometimes people fall in love with each other, and from a logical standpoint it makes no sense at all. I've heard men say, "I don't understand why I didn't feel anything for the girl I recently met. She met all of my criteria; she was beautiful, intelligent, sociable, agreed with my outlook on politics and religion, etc, and she seemed to like me, but I felt nothing." These same men might meet a woman completely different than that, and they instantly fall in love with them. Why? It's the same kind of question as "Why are you here?" "Why do you brush your teeth?" is the same kind of question. Reefs wasn't asking that question from a conventional perspective, so no rational intellectual answers will be applicable. A different kind of answer is required. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2019 12:53:11 GMT -5
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 . Yes. I am not Ramana so I have a continuous stream of self (little s) referential thoughts. But here's Ramana's take on this. Now understand that Self cannot be referenced then it is an object. One can only be Self and that is even not completely accurate. ZD is right. Silence is best. From Godman's "Be As You Are?"... Q: You sometimes say the Self is silence. Why is this? A: For those who live in Self as the beauty devoid of thought, there is nothing which should be thought of. That which should be adhered to is only the experience of silence, because in that supreme state nothing exists to be attained other than oneself. Q: What is mouna [silence]? A: That state which transcends speech and thought is mouna. That which is, is mouna. How can mouna be explained in words? Sages say that the state in which the thought ‘I’ [the ego] does not rise even in the least, alone is Self [swarupa] which is silence [mouna]. That silent Self alone is God; Self alone is the jiva [individual soul]. Self alone is this ancient world. All other knowledges are only petty and trivial knowledges; the experience of silence alone is the real and perfect knowledge. Know that the many objective differences are not real but are mere superimpositions on Self, which is the form of true knowledge. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 29, 2019 14:53:57 GMT -5
I have posted the answer to your question that I made the first time of you asking me it and I have also said that what you underlined doesn't negate what I have said in regards to your question . You made a statement about the pointed finger which was an incorrect assumption made . So I am asking you as straightforward question about it . What is difficult about the question? I'm not interested in your theories. I'm only interested in the practical implications. So, what use is your realization? Are there any day-to-day real life consequences? If you keep dodging and deflecting, I'm not going to ask you again and have to conclude that there are none. I actually answered a direct question . To suggest I haven't is plain silly because I have posted it 3 times . To ignore my answer 3 times is also silly . If you acknowledge my answer as not an answer to your question then simply say, butt the way you have made it out is that you keep having me to ask me to answer the question when I clearly have . The fact that you have totally ignored my questions however is just playing your hand here . So you want me to answer a question that I have done so already 3 times and you don't want to answer my question put to you at all lol . Sorry dude, if your not willing to play ball with me at all, I am not interested, my question was ever so simple based upon what you incorrectly assumed regarding Z.D's statement . |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 29, 2019 14:56:38 GMT -5
Consequences had doesn't negate what you quoted me saying . Are you saying there is no self reference had when answering questions? i'll get back to you in a bit, but i guess what he is asking relates to what i asked when 'kinship with God' came up in convo. He's asking how the realization changed your experience qualitatively.... Cheers for the heads up, but I did answer the question and I posted it 3 times . If the answer is not inline with what he asked then Reefs should of said rather than continue to imply that I haven't answered the question . The bloody irony is beyond belief when he isn't interested in answering my question/s at all . A simple question that has everyone stumped lol . |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 29, 2019 15:02:38 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 . This is not an attack; it is simply an observation. Reefs asked three questions. Questions can be asked and answered from either a conventional perspective or from an existential perspective. You answered all three questions as if they were asked from a conventional perspective. How would you answer them from an existential perspective? For example, when someone asks "Why are you here?" from a conventional perspective, the question can be answered in dozens of different ways, such as "I enjoy talking to people about non-duality on internet websites," or "I enjoy telling people my viewpoint on life," or "I'm here because my parents had sex and I was born as a result of that," etc. When someone asks the same question from an existential perspective, it's like asking, "Why did the organism named "Tenka" appear in the universe?" One possible existential answer is, "I don't know." This kind of answer is usually true, but it comes from the intellect, so it's not deep. If, however, one can leave the intellect behind and discover what Art Ticknor calls "the solid ground of being," a different kind of knowing and a different kind of answer will appear. Usually a realization must be attained for that kind of knowing, and that kind of knowing leaves no doubt whatsoever. ITSW, if someone asks, "Why did you fall in love with your wife?" you can give 1000 different logical-sounding reasons, but none of them will actually capture the truth. That's because the truth lies beyond the intellect. Sometimes people fall in love with each other, and from a logical standpoint it makes no sense at all. I've heard men say, "I don't understand why I didn't feel anything for the girl I recently met. She met all of my criteria; she was beautiful, intelligent, sociable, agreed with my outlook on politics and religion, etc, and she seemed to like me, but I felt nothing." These same men might meet a woman completely different than that, and they instantly fall in love with them. Why? It's the same kind of question as "Why are you here?" "Why do you brush your teeth?" is the same kind of question. Reefs wasn't asking that question from a conventional perspective, so no rational intellectual answers will be applicable. A different kind of answer is required. Could you just answer my questions put to you rather than interject on Reefs post to me . I would like you just to answer me if you understand that the pointy finger has the same premise as the milk premise . Your totally ignoring my questions like several other's are . I am lost for words with you in this regard . You give examples of two premises but they are the same premise and you carry on regardless as if there are two ... There is no point in your trying to explain similar in regards to Reefs posts when your own premise isn't addressed . Reefs had your last post toadally incorrect, so perhaps for now lets stick to our own . Reefs won't even comment on his incorrect assumption . |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 29, 2019 15:12:40 GMT -5
.. 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 . Yes. I am not Ramana so I have a continuous stream of self (little s) referential thoughts. But here's Ramana's take on this. Now understand that Self cannot be referenced then it is an object. One can only be Self and that is even not completely accurate. ZD is right. Silence is best. From Godman's "Be As You Are?"... Q: You sometimes say the Self is silence. Why is this? A: For those who live in Self as the beauty devoid of thought, there is nothing which should be thought of. That which should be adhered to is only the experience of silence, because in that supreme state nothing exists to be attained other than oneself. Q: What is mouna [silence]? A: That state which transcends speech and thought is mouna. That which is, is mouna. How can mouna be explained in words? Sages say that the state in which the thought ‘I’ [the ego] does not rise even in the least, alone is Self [swarupa] which is silence [mouna]. That silent Self alone is God; Self alone is the jiva [individual soul]. Self alone is this ancient world. All other knowledges are only petty and trivial knowledges; the experience of silence alone is the real and perfect knowledge. Know that the many objective differences are not real but are mere superimpositions on Self, which is the form of true knowledge. I have my own understandings of Self that is beyond thought and beyond mind and beyond references, but we are not talking about Self in this way . You see where it is said that there is nothing which should be thought of ' That which should be adhered to is only the experience of silence' . There is a reference of silence isn't there . When you shop for milk without thinking you still see milk don't you . Ramana still see's milk, but there are states of mind where there is no thought of milk . The main problem as I have seen it Z is the total lack of peeps keeping the context true and present . When you look in your fridge and notice that there is no milk, I don't care if it is you or Ramana for if you notice there is the need for milk, there is a self reference for milk that is needed . If we keep within context there will be total agreement between you and I . You don't go shopping for milk and when you get to the shops you say you don't see it as milk .. The reason being because the reference is already there and there is a response and an action to that acknowledgement . There is only one course of action from the initial self reference had . The statement .. That silent Self alone is God .. is another reference isn't it . How can there be the notion presented as that without a self referential thought being present . Peeps can't say anything about anything unless there is a reference for it . Do you understand this? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2019 15:40:54 GMT -5
Yes. I am not Ramana so I have a continuous stream of self (little s) referential thoughts. But here's Ramana's take on this. Now understand that Self cannot be referenced then it is an object. One can only be Self and that is even not completely accurate. ZD is right. Silence is best. From Godman's "Be As You Are?"... Q: You sometimes say the Self is silence. Why is this? A: For those who live in Self as the beauty devoid of thought, there is nothing which should be thought of. That which should be adhered to is only the experience of silence, because in that supreme state nothing exists to be attained other than oneself. Q: What is mouna [silence]? A: That state which transcends speech and thought is mouna. That which is, is mouna. How can mouna be explained in words? Sages say that the state in which the thought ‘I’ [the ego] does not rise even in the least, alone is Self [swarupa] which is silence [mouna]. That silent Self alone is God; Self alone is the jiva [individual soul]. Self alone is this ancient world. All other knowledges are only petty and trivial knowledges; the experience of silence alone is the real and perfect knowledge. Know that the many objective differences are not real but are mere superimpositions on Self, which is the form of true knowledge. I have my own understandings of Self that is beyond thought and beyond mind and beyond references, but we are not talking about Self in this way . You see where it is said that there is nothing which should be thought of 'That which should be adhered to is only the experience of silence' . There is a reference of silence isn't there . When you shop for milk without thinking you still see milk don't you . Ramana still see's milk, but there are states of mind where there is no thought of milk . The main problem as I have seen it Z is the total lack of peeps keeping the context true and present . When you look in your fridge and notice that there is no milk, I don't care if it is you or Ramana for if you notice there is the need for milk, there is a self reference for milk that is needed . If we keep within context there will be total agreement between you and I . You don't go shopping for milk and when you get to the shops you say you don't see it as milk .. The reason being because the reference is already there and there is a response and an action to that acknowledgement . There is only one course of action from the initial self reference had . The statement .. That silent Self alone is God .. is another reference isn't it . How can there be the notion presented as that without a self referential thought being present . Peeps can't say anything about anything unless there is a reference for it . Do you understand this? And do you understand that the underlined is generally called a personal reference? Continually calling a personal reference a 'self-referential thought' and then complaining that there isn't anyone that can answer your question is why there is probably at least another 4 to 6 years in this.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2019 15:44:39 GMT -5
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 a personal reference about what is a seeker and what 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, but the original context is buying milk because one has acknowledged that there is a personal reference present that there is milk needed. It's only ever been that simple. (Your beliefs about what's going on isn't necessary and does nothing but cloud your mind.) And on that basis, I'll rewrite your post for you. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2019 15:51:23 GMT -5
This is not an attack; it is simply an observation. Reefs asked three questions. Questions can be asked and answered from either a conventional perspective or from an existential perspective. You answered all three questions as if they were asked from a conventional perspective. How would you answer them from an existential perspective? For example, when someone asks "Why are you here?" from a conventional perspective, the question can be answered in dozens of different ways, such as "I enjoy talking to people about non-duality on internet websites," or "I enjoy telling people my viewpoint on life," or "I'm here because my parents had sex and I was born as a result of that," etc. When someone asks the same question from an existential perspective, it's like asking, "Why did the organism named "Tenka" appear in the universe?" One possible existential answer is, "I don't know." This kind of answer is usually true, but it comes from the intellect, so it's not deep. If, however, one can leave the intellect behind and discover what Art Ticknor calls "the solid ground of being," a different kind of knowing and a different kind of answer will appear. Usually a realization must be attained for that kind of knowing, and that kind of knowing leaves no doubt whatsoever. ITSW, if someone asks, "Why did you fall in love with your wife?" you can give 1000 different logical-sounding reasons, but none of them will actually capture the truth. That's because the truth lies beyond the intellect. Sometimes people fall in love with each other, and from a logical standpoint it makes no sense at all. I've heard men say, "I don't understand why I didn't feel anything for the girl I recently met. She met all of my criteria; she was beautiful, intelligent, sociable, agreed with my outlook on politics and religion, etc, and she seemed to like me, but I felt nothing." These same men might meet a woman completely different than that, and they instantly fall in love with them. Why? It's the same kind of question as "Why are you here?" "Why do you brush your teeth?" is the same kind of question. Reefs wasn't asking that question from a conventional perspective, so no rational intellectual answers will be applicable. A different kind of answer is required. Could you just answer my questions put to you rather than interject on Reefs post to me . I would like you just to answer me if you understand that the pointy finger has the same premise as the milk premise . Your totally ignoring my questions like several other's are . I am lost for words with you in this regard .
You give examples of two premises but they are the same premise and you carry on regardless as if there are two ... There is no point in your trying to explain similar in regards to Reefs posts when your own premise isn't addressed . Reefs had your last post toadally incorrect, so perhaps for now lets stick to our own . Reefs won't even comment on his incorrect assumption. Ahhhh... we live in hope.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 29, 2019 17:45:13 GMT -5
I have my own understandings of Self that is beyond thought and beyond mind and beyond references, but we are not talking about Self in this way . You see where it is said that there is nothing which should be thought of 'That which should be adhered to is only the experience of silence' . There is a reference of silence isn't there . When you shop for milk without thinking you still see milk don't you . Ramana still see's milk, but there are states of mind where there is no thought of milk . The main problem as I have seen it Z is the total lack of peeps keeping the context true and present . When you look in your fridge and notice that there is no milk, I don't care if it is you or Ramana for if you notice there is the need for milk, there is a self reference for milk that is needed . If we keep within context there will be total agreement between you and I . You don't go shopping for milk and when you get to the shops you say you don't see it as milk .. The reason being because the reference is already there and there is a response and an action to that acknowledgement . There is only one course of action from the initial self reference had . The statement .. That silent Self alone is God .. is another reference isn't it . How can there be the notion presented as that without a self referential thought being present . Peeps can't say anything about anything unless there is a reference for it . Do you understand this? And do you understand that the underlined is generally called a personal reference? Continually calling a personal reference a 'self-referential thought' and then complaining that there isn't anyone that can answer your question is why there is probably at least another 4 to 6 years in this. Bingo. |
|
