|
Post by tenka on Jan 4, 2020 16:01:03 GMT -5
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. Nah mate this is your tag team agenda in effect here .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 4, 2020 16:01:31 GMT -5
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. Tag team agenda in effect here ..
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 4, 2020 16:02:13 GMT -5
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 stardustpilgrim on Jan 4, 2020 16:06:42 GMT -5
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 . I read only the first two sentences. You still don't get it. End of story. It doesn't mean anything more than that. Nobody is calling you dufus guy for not getting it. You just can't understand zd's POV. End of story. Let it end, at that.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 4, 2020 16:14:57 GMT -5
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. Actually it doesn't. Some of the best players respond intuitively and instantly.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 4, 2020 16:18:26 GMT -5
Speaking of Niz, I recall him saying the 'I Am' comes with consciousness. IOW, all that is required for a sense of self (self reference) is consciousness. It does not imply anything about what that self is, only that you exist. Using yours and niz's choice of word reference this is similar to what I said about Awareness becoming consciousness in the presence of a mind-body . In this instance there is only a witness where there is self . To see the lighters flame there I AM . One could say using your terms that the flame is consciousness and I AM aware of self in reflection of that . To exist as you say doesn't necessarily have to have an in-depth explanation of what that is, that is why I have spoken about the non functioning state where there is perception had butt nothing is recognised because the self identity isn't integrated . So when a peep buys milk or washes the dishes or kisses wifey there is a self reference had that makes sense to them otherwise they wouldn't do any of these things . To wash the dishes and say you don't see the dishes as dishes is false . The foundation of self reference and recognition doesn't support these types of actions . tenka, What's more basic, this state you describe or your ordinary sense of self? What's more basic means what is the foundation of your sense of self?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 4, 2020 16:20:08 GMT -5
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 . What premise would that be?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 4, 2020 16:22:04 GMT -5
Exactly. When there's a felt sense of oneness (with neither an inside nor an outside), and self-referential subconscious mental processing is in the background, so to speak, one interacts with the world directly, and uses whatever words seem most appropriate to convey that sense of unity. If someone asked me what I see, I could also say, "I see THIS," or "I see The Infinite," or "I see 'what is.' All of those words and phrases are equivalent in meaning. This kind of answer won't be satisfying or understandable to some people, but it will be to others. Exactly. And this is an adequate answer AFAIAC and zd said this pages ago and weeks ago. tenka, just let it go, stop the constant baggering and smearing. zd doesn't need to answer any further, and I'm sure will not, he doesn't need to. tenka, have you ever gone to the store, bought milk, went home and poured it on your frosted corn flakes, taken a bite, and the milk was sour? Is the sour milk still milk in your view? In your view it was milk up to the very point you tasted it, but you were wrong all along, you just didn't know it. In your view, when did the milk stop being milk? (It at least became sour milk). You probably spit it out. Your body-knowing knew it wasn't milk before "tenka" did. Comprende? It did? How does the body know?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 4, 2020 16:34:17 GMT -5
Using yours and niz's choice of word reference this is similar to what I said about Awareness becoming consciousness in the presence of a mind-body . In this instance there is only a witness where there is self . To see the lighters flame there I AM . One could say using your terms that the flame is consciousness and I AM aware of self in reflection of that . To exist as you say doesn't necessarily have to have an in-depth explanation of what that is, that is why I have spoken about the non functioning state where there is perception had butt nothing is recognised because the self identity isn't integrated . So when a peep buys milk or washes the dishes or kisses wifey there is a self reference had that makes sense to them otherwise they wouldn't do any of these things . To wash the dishes and say you don't see the dishes as dishes is false . The foundation of self reference and recognition doesn't support these types of actions . tenka, I don't think you understand that there is probably not one single person here, now, who would disagree with you on this. And I think everybody who has dialogued with you on this has said so. The fact that you don't seem to understand this, is the current problem. No, I disagree with it, and quite profoundly, but I've understood years ago that dialog to change his mind or to try to get him to understand where I'm coming from is futile. Nothing wrong with that.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 4, 2020 16:51:39 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. heh heh .. sometimes it sure seems as though it's pretty mindless ...
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 4, 2020 16:58:10 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 . The way I would express it is to say that all experience is meaningful, and this is true also for babies and animals that have no 'words' (in the traditional sense of the word). So I meaningfully know a phone is a phone, but whether that knowing is 'wordy' or not, will depend on the context/situation (self reference is present either way)
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 4, 2020 17:10:51 GMT -5
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 . I'll re-tell a story that I've told once before. One day about 35 years ago I began wondering what a baby or an animal sees when it looks at the world. They have no names for things, so they have no words that represent things. It dawned on me that they must see and understand the world differently than I. I knew that a dog does not walk into a tree, but when it sees what we call "a tree" it sees whatever a tree is in a different wordless way. I was driving to a distant city that day, and as I pulled onto the interstate highway, I began looking at the world with great intensity and great curiosity. My question was like a koan, "What do babies and animals see when they look at the world?" Mile after mile I looked at different things--a bridge overpass, clouds in the sky, trees, other cars on the highway, etc--and kept wondering, "What do they see without the concept of name and form?" They obviously interacted with the world intelligently, but they did so without words or symbolic thoughts. I drove about 75 miles staring at things in a deeply contemplative questioning way. As I approached an airport near my destination, a jet airliner coming in for a landing passed overhead. I looked at the airliner and thought, "A baby would not see the airliner as a separate object; it would see the airliner and the sky in some unified way, so what would it see?" Suddenly, something weird happened inside me that is hard to describe. Some sort of shift started to take place, and I felt twisted internally. It felt as if the space between me and the airliner was on the verge of collapsing. At the same time, some sort of deep emotional thing started to happen, but before it progressed beyond the initial feeling of strangeness, I started to second-guess what was happening, and reverted to intellectual reflection. I began to imagine that I had imagined something weird had begun to happen. I didn't know what to make of that experience, but in remembering the feeling I had and the sense that something was about to shift, it seemed like I was on the edge of some new kind of understanding. A few days later, after three nights spent in a deep state of nirvikalpa samadhi, I went to work and at mid-morning a mind-boggling CC occurred. After it ended, I happened to look at some trees on the side of the road where I was driving, and I then knew what babies and animals see when they look at the world without words or concepts. They see the same world that adults see, but they see it as it IS rather than how it is usually imagined. They simply see whereas adults think-see. They do not need words or concepts for what they see, and they know what they see without words and concepts. Their knowing is direct and unmediated by cultural conditioning or symbolic thought. Some people will understand what these words mean, and some won't. The bottom line is that an adult can learn to see without words or concepts, and understand the difference between seeing that way and think-seeing like most adults, but it apparently requires a kind of psychological shift in order to do so. Norio Kushi spent two weeks in psychological silence (no mind talk at all) while driving his big rig, yet he had no trouble maneuvering through traffic and dropping his trailers wherever they were supposed to go. In the terminology that most of us are using, Norio was intelligently doing what had to be done via subconscious mental processing rather than discursive thought. After spending two weeks in this empty state of mind, he suddenly had a startling realization that he stated as, "I don't exist!" Some people will understand what he realized that day, and what he meant by those words. They will also understand why he has been laughing about what he discovered ever since.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 4, 2020 17:12:23 GMT -5
No he doesn't understand the issue and I don't think you do either. Expression is a function of mind or mental processing. heh heh .. sometimes it sure seems as though it's pretty mindless ...
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jan 4, 2020 18:31:48 GMT -5
I knew that a dog does not walk into a tree, but when it sees what we call "a tree" it sees whatever a tree is in a different wordless way. I wonder how many peeps, on the scale of things, are able to look at a tree without saying the word "tree" to themselves when they do?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 4, 2020 19:12:38 GMT -5
Exactly. And this is an adequate answer AFAIAC and zd said this pages ago and weeks ago. tenka, just let it go, stop the constant baggering and smearing. zd doesn't need to answer any further, and I'm sure will not, he doesn't need to. tenka, have you ever gone to the store, bought milk, went home and poured it on your frosted corn flakes, taken a bite, and the milk was sour? Is the sour milk still milk in your view? In your view it was milk up to the very point you tasted it, but you were wrong all along, you just didn't know it. In your view, when did the milk stop being milk? (It at least became sour milk). You probably spit it out. Your body-knowing knew it wasn't milk before "tenka" did. Comprende? It did? How does the body know? You've never tasted sour milk? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taste
|
|