|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 4, 2020 12:54:44 GMT -5
have you heard of 'charades'? Send us a video message.... Never heard. It's a party game. You have to reveal the name of something by acting it out without speaking by using bodily gestures and visual cues. Needless to say it requires a lot of thinking.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 4, 2020 15:10:44 GMT -5
Butt don't you see that there cannot be both ways of perceiving at the same time? On one hand you speak about oneness or beyond the object and on the other hand one still pours milk on their cornflakes . You cannot bypass the label and also abide by it . You see milk as milk or you don't . I can understand the duality of seeing milk as milk and also knowing that there is beyond the appearance, and therefore it doesn't stop you from pouring it on your cornflakes . To only imply you don't see milk as milk would mean that you have no reference for milk . Agreed? okay, well the way i see it, is that humans are out of balance in their perception/experience i.e they are overly 'object orientated'. What ZD is suggesting is kind of the reverse end of the scale, if we take his words as far as we can. so I would say that I tend to experience a better balance these days. Yes, I see 'milk' but I also see 'what is'. I am generally (not always) oriented quite equally between rational and irrational. This is why you shop for milk .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 4, 2020 15:14:41 GMT -5
But despite the levels of being alert or being conscious you still see the phone as the phone or the hotdog as the hotdog, you don't try and ring up the tax office on a hotdog do you? If you were perceiving beyond the object that is known as a hotdog and a phone, how on earth could you eat or phone someone? haha i still see the phone as the phone. We all do. But as per previous message, I think humans in general are out of balance...for many folks, the 'object' is too strong in their experience. We can aim for better balance, achieved through meditation, releasing unhealthy attachments, realizations etc. And then we see the phone and we see what is. eggsactly, and you see the phone because of a self referential thought had . You don't roll out of bed and put ya pants on and check your phone if you don't see pants as pants and a phone as a phone . I wouldn't say that all admit that they see a phone as a phone though . I mean if the self referential thought is beyond words then recognition of the phone won't be that it a phone . A phone reference is not beyond words, this is partly why I asked peeps what do they see when they look at a keyboard . Most didn't answer this question either lol .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 4, 2020 15:28:32 GMT -5
I understand that Z.D. didn't relate to thought in the same way as I did but it makes no difference because he didn't see milk as milk when asked about why he would go shopping in the first place for something that he didn't see as being that . I have spent an age giving loads of different examples of how it's not possible to do things in the ways described and he never answered me . My context has always been the same and his pointy finger reference given also fell under my same contextual umbrella and he didn't even admit to that either because he was adamant it wasn't . I never had an answer of how it is possible to understand a question that would relate to a pointy finger answer . It's been a string of dodges from the start because the initial statement was incorrect, that is why he also never answered my question about knowing that his wife is his wife and not the pet dog . These conversations had is in the top five of silly conversations had in all the time I have been here . All because there was an incorrect statement made initially and he hasn't been able to turn it around since . Not my fault, but I point out these things when peeps want to make out that I can't understand what they say or don't have a reference for that .. (can you believe the irony in that statement alone lol) tenka, I've kept up with the conversation enough to know zd has given you an adequate answer on this (as have I). You either were not paying close enough attention and it just zipped past you or it didn't register because it didn't fit your exact requirement for an answer. The fact that you missed it does not obligate zd to answer again. At this point he is most likely not reading anything by tenka, so it does absolutely zero good to keep baggering and smearing zd. Do you even realize you are baggering and smearing zd? Do you think you cannot be kicked off your own thread? I have been paying close enough attention to what all the tag team players have said . I am not smearing or badgering Z.D. He made a statement and from that statement onwards there has been many deflections and unanswered questions . You are welcome to dig up a 100 old posts if you like .. What I have asked of Z.D. is to point out the posts he say's he has answered in relation to my direct questions and he doesn't answer nor does he point me to where he supposedly has . It's not difficult to answer a post but he ignores my questions and then days later he makes a general statement saying to look back at his older posts . I then ask him the same questions again and tell him that there are no answers to my direct questions and ask him to stop telling me to look at old random posts .. As an example, he gave a reason for a mixed context by giving the silent finger answer as a means to describe what he mean't .. and yet it was the same context as my initial question .. Show me where he addressed this for example . The initial mistake was not mine here and I have said to Z.D. that it is better if he just doesn't bother anymore, but more and more koans followed and examples given that didn't add up for reasons given and explained . Don't make me out to be the dufus guy here trying to discredit anyone . I am not responsible for what other peeps write .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 4, 2020 15:31:05 GMT -5
you've obviously followed your own conversation with ZD much closer than me, but I was under the impression that once he understood your definitions and context, he agreed that it's true to say that there is a self reference and he sees milk....? Have I got the wrong impression? If not, I don't see a problem with what he is also often keen to talk about and convey... Precisely. Bingo, Bingo, Bingo. Exactly. tenka, quit baggering zd for something he has already answered. It's not zd's fault that tenka does not understand how unconscious brain processing works, and that self reference can operate other than the way tenka sees it to operate. Stop playing tag team mate . You don't even understand your own premise .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 4, 2020 15:33:20 GMT -5
Isn't that a self reference still I don't know what the term means. I said to you that you proclaimed once upon a time that everything is consciousness therefore your self reference would be that . Do you understand now?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 4, 2020 15:34:36 GMT -5
Well the pilgrims self reference was initially 'beyond words' so there can't even be an self reference initially had that would prompt the action of buying milk in the first place . Autopilot is irrelevant here because one would not even get the plane off the ground with a foundation in place that was beyond words . I don't remember what he said about the reference being beyond words and I don't know what that means. If it means not thinking the words, I agree with him. Same for unconscious mental activity. In what way do you think words are necessary for a self reference? No problem if you don't know what that means or that you don't remember . It's just as well I do .
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 4, 2020 15:36:04 GMT -5
At least Whynot understood the issue, and didn't have to use words to express it. No he doesn't understand the issue and I don't think you do either. Expression is a function of mind or mental processing. satch, the more I read your posts the more I think you have not had much body-oriented experience. Not sports much, no martial arts, no dancing. Surely you've been to a doctor and had your reflexes checked? There's a sweet spot right below your kneecap tha tthe doctor hits with a little rubber hammer, and your knee automatically kicks. If you tried to stop your knee you can't even stop it from kicking up. Have you ever had someone throw something right at you saying simultaneously, "Think fast"? Haven't you ever dropped something and automatically reached out and caught it, without thinking? Reflex actions, but a kind of learned reflex action. This is similar to the example of doctor checking reflexes, but not exactly the same. The action doesn't go all the way to the fore-brain. The lizard-brain preforms the action. I remember the day I learned to catch a fly ball. I was nine years old. An older family friend had gone to the County Fair and paid a dollar to get three chances to knock down bottles. Well, he just walked away with the balls. Now, they weren't baseballs, but were stitched like baseballs, but were very soft and almos tthe size of a baseball. So one afternoon Jim started throwing me fly balls. I didn't have any fear of the ball hitting me because the balls were soft. In about an hour I learned to judge distance and run to the ball and catch it. Now, this is simple body-learning. Yes, the mind helps coordinate, but the body essentially catches the ball. It's the same with all sports and any body activity. There was a time when you didn't know how to walk. You learned to walk and now you just walk, your mind doesn't control the action, the mind doesn't tell the leg, lift up off the ground and push off with the other foot and when that foot comes to the ground then push off withe other foot, and then repeat. Now, what zd is talking about is similar, but no not exactly the same. But yes, the body is preforming the action. The body in a certain way, is more intelligent than the neo-cortex. There are actually four different functions in the mind-body, each with their own intelligence. The instinctive functions that a baby is born with and doesn't have to learn. The body breathes, the heart pumps blood throughout the body, etc., the body has a vast intelligence. Then there are bodily-moving functions. These are learned, and learned with a certain body intelligence and once learned this function has a certain body-knowledge. Same with the emotions, they have a certain intelligence the other three don't have. And then we come to what we call the mind, the neo-cortex. In a certain way, this mind is the most stupid of the four. But you can't know what zd is talking about unless and until you experience it in yourself. And then also something related but again, not precisely the same. Gut knowing. Some people get a knowing ~in their guts~, and cannot articulate in words how they know what they know, but they know that they know. Women are generally better at this than men, so I would also hazzard a guess that you have never been married, either.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 4, 2020 15:44:20 GMT -5
haha i still see the phone as the phone. We all do. But as per previous message, I think humans in general are out of balance...for many folks, the 'object' is too strong in their experience. We can aim for better balance, achieved through meditation, releasing unhealthy attachments, realizations etc. And then we see the phone and we see what is. eggsactly, and you see the phone because of a self referential thought had . You don't roll out of bed and put ya pants on and check your phone if you don't see pants as pants and a phone as a phone . I wouldn't say that all admit that they see a phone as a phone though .
I mean if the self referential thought is beyond words then recognition of the phone won't be that it a phone .A phone reference is not beyond words, this is partly why I asked peeps what do they see when they look at a keyboard . Most didn't answer this question either lol . I've been considering this. I would say when zd sees phone he doesn't think phone, unless he needs to use the phone or unless it's ringing. Then the unconscious [self reference] mental processing has the body pick up the phone. Life is then much less cluttered. (Suggestion, this time don't just say or write no!, no!, no!, it doesn't work this way!)
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 4, 2020 15:46:03 GMT -5
I didn't hear ZD say he doesn't see milk. I heard that from Reefs. I think we both said it, and probably for the same reason, though it's not that important. See explanation about phone above. (It works for milk also).
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 4, 2020 15:53:01 GMT -5
Peeps who try and dismiss the relative self end up in denial, confused and find that whatever they say in these instances create an awful amount of contradictions amongst other things, this is why you get peeps saying there is no one here .. I have had many chats with sifting as have other's where he was adamant that anything word based and conceptual isn't true, now he is trying to use an analogy of a falling rock to bolster up his theory . You can't make this up to be honest . When a foundation is wrong to begin with nothing much will make sense eventually because the way of self and the word will reveal to them in someway that their premises doesn't add up . This is why not seeing milk as milk doesn't work either, especially when you are caught with milk in your shopping trolley . Very few of the posters here dismiss the relative self, but people's experiences vary, and their use of language also varies, and these things affect how they use language to point to various spiritual or psychological issues. Most adults live in their heads, so they will often be unable to understand the words or actions of other adults who DO NOT live in their heads. A complicating factor on a forum like this is that people define words differently, and that leads to a lot of added confusion. As an example, it took almost two years for me to understand how you define the word "thought." After I understood that, I finally understood your POV. Nevertheless, because I'm only interested in the effects of thought if defined as mind talk, we will always be talking past each other because you have a much broader definition of that word than I do. Neither definition is wrong, but it makes communication difficult when there's no agreement about what the word means. From what I've seen it's very hard for most adults to look at an object, such as a glass of milk, and not think "glass of milk." If the intellect is silent, however, it's very easy to look at a visual field containing objects without naming what's seen or commenting verbally about what's seen. This is why I prefer to say that I see "what is." "What is" is what's seen if the intellect remains silent. A glass of milk may be part of "what is," but it's not distinguished conceptually or consciously as a separate thing. The entire visual field is seen and understood via what most of us would call "subconscious mental processing" rather than "thinking." Your term for "subconscious mental processing" appears to be "thinking," and your term for verbally naming what's seen is apparently "active thinking" or something like that. FWIW, I don't want to spend a lot of time trying to translate exactly what you mean by your use of various words even though I do understand your general outlook. I'd rather communicate with people whose definitions are more conventional and easier to understand. In your world the term "no mind" doesn't make any sense because from your POV mind is always present. In the Zen world the term "no mind" is referring to how life is lived and how the world is perceived and interacted with if the intellect is quiescent. IOW, for Zen people "no mind" refers NOT to a total absence of mental processing but to a direct body-knowing non-intellectual interaction with the world. Different definitions; different meanings. No harm, no foul. I know all this Z.D. and I have said form the very start that you are a decent guy, I genuinely feel that butt you can be honest with yourself here or not that is your shout, but you made out from the start that you roll out of bed without a thought of yourself and you put ya pants on and brush teeth and you look in the fridge without explaining why you do . I couldn't emphasise it any more than I have over the weeks, I ask you why you shop for milk when you declared you don't see milk as milk . If you had said I see milk as milk but I see beyond milk also then I would of agreed with you in an instant just like I did with Andy earlier on, but you gave the impression that you just see what is and you never gave a straight answer that made any sense in regards to why you don't go to the shops naked or why you kiss your wife when you don't see your wife as your wife . I have given you ample of opportunities to answer me why you wash dirty dishes and shop for milk . Saying you see what is and not milk gives me the impression that you don't see milk . You actually said you don't see milk as milk so I asked you why you pour it on your cornflakes then . You have been so evasive and now your crew members are making me out to be the dufus guy with an agenda . If you had answered the questions and addressed your silent finger context as and when asked there would never have been this ridiculous conversation had . Your recent admittance to having a self reference as said doesn't even make sense using my understanding of thought or not because recognising your wife is thought based isn't it and you didn't answer me when I said to you why do you kiss the wife if you don't have a thought of her as being your wife and not the pet dog . Your reluctance to answer these straightforward questions hasn't helped your case at all despite the differences had in our meanings of certain words .
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 4, 2020 15:57:49 GMT -5
tenka, I've kept up with the conversation enough to know zd has given you an adequate answer on this (as have I). You either were not paying close enough attention and it just zipped past you or it didn't register because it didn't fit your exact requirement for an answer. The fact that you missed it does not obligate zd to answer again. At this point he is most likely not reading anything by tenka, so it does absolutely zero good to keep baggering and smearing zd. Do you even realize you are baggering and smearing zd? Do you think you cannot be kicked off your own thread? I have been paying close enough attention to what all the tag team players have said . I am not smearing or badgering Z.D. He made a statement and from that statement onwards there has been many deflections and unanswered questions . You are welcome to dig up a 100 old posts if you like .. What I have asked of Z.D. is to point out the posts he say's he has answered in relation to my direct questions and he doesn't answer nor does he point me to where he supposedly has . It's not difficult to answer a post but he ignores my questions and then days later he makes a general statement saying to look back at his older posts . I then ask him the same questions again and tell him that there are no answers to my direct questions and ask him to stop telling me to look at old random posts .. As an example, he gave a reason for a mixed context by giving the silent finger answer as a means to describe what he mean't .. and yet it was the same context as my initial question .. Show me where he addressed this for example . The initial mistake was not mine here and I have said to Z.D. that it is better if he just doesn't bother anymore, but more and more koans followed and examples given that didn't add up for reasons given and explained . Don't make me out to be the dufus guy here trying to discredit anyone . I am not responsible for what other peeps write . This very post is basically baggering and smearing. You have told zd and me more than once that we are basically stupid if we can't understand your point. If zd answers you even just once AFAIAC if you don't get it, then he has zero responsibility to go back and look up his posts and link to where he answered your question. And he has zero responsibility to answer you a second or third time something you will probably still not get. And I would advise if you don't want zd to reply anymore, quit smearing him, quit referring in any way to zd. I'm sure then he would leave you alone. Nobody is calling you dufus guy for not understanding their POV. You're doing that to others. It's called projection, google it.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 4, 2020 15:57:50 GMT -5
This is new to me. A self reference is used to initiate action, then it goes on autopilot? The good thing about autopilot in planes is that there isn't much, other than other planes, to interfere with the programmed flight plan. Back on the ground, what happens if the store is out of the preferred brand of milk? Does autopilot get switched off, self reference activated, and a new flight plan followed involving a different brand of milk, then self reference switched off and autopilot switched back on again? What if there are 20 or 30 new flight plans to be filed before returning home with a quart of milk? Is this ultimately going to involve multiple cake layers and such? tenka seems to think a self reference is there and necessary almost constantly, maybe at least every minute. In the second paragraph I said most of my postings to tenka were to give example examples of exceptions to his rules. I would say you describe a very good scenario. Driving is a good example. We can be bouncing along mostly on autopilot, but a cat runs in front of the car, awareness has to kick in. But even in this case I wouldn't say a self reference is necessary. But if you were going to get milk and you come to a crossroads and the the thought opos up, Oh, if I go straight 1/2 mile I can pick up stamps needed, self reference is necessary. My main point was I don't think most people know how much we operate on autopilot, and tenka is even less self-aware, lees knowledgable of self, because the way he posts he seems to think he almost never operates on autopilot. And another thing, because of his persistence tenka got zd to admit something I could never get him to admit, a self reference is necessary, even if it is only unconscious brain processing, to go get milk. For years I kept bringing this up with zd, he would only keep saying, no self here, self is illusory. No multiple cake layers necessary here. Possible, but not necessary. (Probably most likely a kind of reservoir for samskaras and vasanas dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?t=30601 exists on a higher plain [middle layer]. This is generally called the causal body, this is what carries over from incarnation to incarnation. The *person* does not carry over, the small s self. The causal body supersedes the small s self. So we do not incarnate with a clean slate. If the energy is not taken out of the vasanas and samskaras, exhausted, burnt up, they cause a next incarnation, form the basis of the next small s self). But all this isn't necessary for our present discussion. Basically, if one can remain calm and unmoved during a s**tstorm (like being crucified), they've probably done a lot of work on their vasanas and samskaras. But if "Why me?" pops up, probably a lot of work left to do. For example, not mentioning any names, if you always have to be right, never apologize, never admit a mistake, if you always say you know more about everything than anybody else, and if you tweet dozens of times a day to defend yourself and attack others, you have a s**tload of vasanas and samskaras, and shouldn't be president, of anything, especially the USA, especially shouldn't be the most powerful man in the world. Not mentioning any names, of course.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 4, 2020 15:59:25 GMT -5
eggsactly, and you see the phone because of a self referential thought had . You don't roll out of bed and put ya pants on and check your phone if you don't see pants as pants and a phone as a phone . I wouldn't say that all admit that they see a phone as a phone though .
I mean if the self referential thought is beyond words then recognition of the phone won't be that it a phone .A phone reference is not beyond words, this is partly why I asked peeps what do they see when they look at a keyboard . Most didn't answer this question either lol . I've been considering this. I would say when zd sees phone he doesn't think phone, unless he needs to use the phone or unless it's ringing. Then the unconscious [self reference] mental processing has the body pick up the phone. Life is then much less cluttered. (Suggestion, this time don't just say or write no!, no!, no!, it doesn't work this way!) When I want to make a phone call I grab my phone not a banana . Your still barking up the wrong tree about thinking .. One doesn't have to think about grabbing your phone . There is the foundational thought present that reflects I am that wants to make a phone call . You said yourself you don't understand the difference of entertaining a thought and thinking .. You see your phone and you know it's your phone . You pick it up and you do what you have to do . There is the self reference there in effect . You said your self reference was beyond words, so in your case, you wouldn't know it was a phone because the knowing it is a phone is not beyond words .
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 4, 2020 16:00:55 GMT -5
Very few of the posters here dismiss the relative self, but people's experiences vary, and their use of language also varies, and these things affect how they use language to point to various spiritual or psychological issues. Most adults live in their heads, so they will often be unable to understand the words or actions of other adults who DO NOT live in their heads. A complicating factor on a forum like this is that people define words differently, and that leads to a lot of added confusion. As an example, it took almost two years for me to understand how you define the word "thought." After I understood that, I finally understood your POV. Nevertheless, because I'm only interested in the effects of thought if defined as mind talk, we will always be talking past each other because you have a much broader definition of that word than I do. Neither definition is wrong, but it makes communication difficult when there's no agreement about what the word means. From what I've seen it's very hard for most adults to look at an object, such as a glass of milk, and not think "glass of milk." If the intellect is silent, however, it's very easy to look at a visual field containing objects without naming what's seen or commenting verbally about what's seen. This is why I prefer to say that I see "what is." "What is" is what's seen if the intellect remains silent. A glass of milk may be part of "what is," but it's not distinguished conceptually or consciously as a separate thing. The entire visual field is seen and understood via what most of us would call "subconscious mental processing" rather than "thinking." Your term for "subconscious mental processing" appears to be "thinking," and your term for verbally naming what's seen is apparently "active thinking" or something like that. FWIW, I don't want to spend a lot of time trying to translate exactly what you mean by your use of various words even though I do understand your general outlook. I'd rather communicate with people whose definitions are more conventional and easier to understand. In your world the term "no mind" doesn't make any sense because from your POV mind is always present. In the Zen world the term "no mind" is referring to how life is lived and how the world is perceived and interacted with if the intellect is quiescent. IOW, for Zen people "no mind" refers NOT to a total absence of mental processing but to a direct body-knowing non-intellectual interaction with the world. Different definitions; different meanings. No harm, no foul. I know all this Z.D. and I have said form the very start that you are a decent guy, I genuinely feel that butt you can be honest with yourself here or not that is your shout, but you made out from the start that you roll out of bed without a thought of yourself and you put ya pants on and brush teeth and you look in the fridge without explaining why you do . I couldn't emphasise it any more that I have over the weeks, I ask you why you shop for milk when you declared you don't see milk as milk . If you had said I see milk as milk but I see beyond milk also then I would of agreed with you in an instant just like I did with Andy earlier on, but you gave the impression that you just see what is and you never gave a straight answer that made any sense in regards to why you don't go to the shops naked or why you kiss your wife when you don't see your wife as your wife . I have given you ample of opportunities to answer me why you wash dirty dishes and shop for milk . Saying you see what is and not milk gives me the impression that you don't see milk . You actually said you don't see milk as milk so I asked you why you pour it on your cornflakes then . You have been so evasive and now your crew members are making me out to be the dufus guy with an agenda . If you had answered the questions and addressed your silent finger context as and when asked there would never have been this ridiculous conversation had . Your recent admittance to having a self reference as said doesn't even make sense using my understanding of thought or not because recognising your wife is thought based isn't it and you didn't answer me when I said to you why do you kiss the wife if you don't have a thought of her as being your wife and not the pet dog . Your reluctance to answer these straightforward questions hasn't helped your case at all despite the differences had in our meanings of certain words . I read the first three paragraphs, don't care to read any more. zd has answered all these questions. (Quite well and quite understandable AFAIAC). You still don't get it.
|
|