|
Post by inavalan on Jan 19, 2024 15:54:22 GMT -5
An example is the telepathic connection established by a fetus, then newborn, small child, with his parents and the physical environment / reality. We were, and are connected unconsciously to everything, and according to our individual level of evolvement interpret it, and use it. I agree in regards to evolvement for use of a better word, this is why I speak about frequencies and vibrations that reflect upon how we perceive ourselves. You spoke about beliefs stemming from other's so would you say there isn't a unique belief had that stems from yourself alone based upon your own unique experience. Say for instance you were in solitude for 10 years and had a string of realisations. Are they still references of other's? I suppose in a way whatever is established would be filtered through a conditioning that one is brought up on unless one breaks the mold, but then when contemplated upon we have to refer back to what was initially established. We are connected to everything at inner level, and that's how we get inputs and for beliefs, even in solitude, even in the womb. The way I see it, all realizations are beliefs, meaning they aren't truths. They are layers of assumptions based on which the self tentatively expands, not necessarily and always correctly, in which case beliefs' adjustment will follow.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jan 19, 2024 21:13:15 GMT -5
I asked AI about this. Thought this part was interesting. ChatGPT: The statement seems to carry a somewhat disdainful tone towards non-dualists, suggesting that the one making the statement sees them as a bit "eccentric" for failing to grasp what the speaker perceives as a more sensible viewpoint. Within this dismissive stance, the claim that a non-dual pointer is just another belief is presented as a way to underscore the perceived absurdity of non-dual perspectives. It's as if the speaker is ridiculing the non-dualists, implying that their approach is nothing more than a convoluted form of conceptual belief, and that their failure to understand the speaker's viewpoint is a testament to the supposed lack of coherence in non-dual thinking. Question: What might one say to the writer of the statement about the difference between a conceptual belief and non-dual realization? ChatGPT: In engaging with the writer about the difference between a conceptual belief and a non-dual realization, you could express that while language and concepts are inherent tools in communication, a non-dual realization is often described as a direct, experiential understanding that transcends conceptual frameworks. Here's a response you might consider: "While I understand the concern about conceptual beliefs, it's crucial to differentiate between conventional beliefs rooted in conceptual thought and the nature of non-dual realization. Non-dual perspectives often emphasize direct, experiential understanding beyond the limitations of conceptual language. Unlike conventional beliefs that rely on conceptual frameworks, a non-dual realization is described as a direct apprehension of reality that transcends the confines of conceptualization. It's not merely another belief; instead, it's an invitation to experience and understand beyond the boundaries of traditional conceptual thinking." It's a little odd that from a straightforward statement of fact that The thing here is that you are pointing to what is non-conceptual etc, but that is a conceptual belief isn't it. Can conclude that is a disdainful tone towards non-dualists. Make no sense at all. Does AI know the difference between what is conceptual and what isn't without predudice? I did mention that this was a part...but I didn't say of an exploration of your belief system. It examined a number of your comments and stated beliefs and this is where it ended up. What part of it do you disagree with?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 19, 2024 21:36:24 GMT -5
Ah, now you want to hypermind on "knowing". Aces. "Not-knowing" is a way, a part of a path. It's the smoke of the Zen fire you mocked, and the verve that drives one up the flagpole. It can also, come to an end. At that end, is an absence. Not really, I am just explaining that what you say is ineffable reflects a belief in what it conceptually means. Beyond the conceptual meaning you wouldn't know what ineffable refers too beyond the meaning of it. This is obvious. There has to be meaning to what is said and referred too. If one doesn't believe in all these conceptual references, then one can't say anything about anything, but you do. Just as any other N.D. peep does. I think this is so straightforward. Not so much, really. If it was a belief it would be quite effable.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 19, 2024 21:44:32 GMT -5
The belief that the pain, is "mine"? Is that the "belief" you think I have? Hey, is that doooooooooofus guy I see comin' round the corner?? .... So if a bloke came round your house and said I claim this to be my house and not yours, would you say, yer mate no worries, I don't have a belief in that the house is mine. So then he asks you for the money in your bank account, and you transfer it over to him cos you don't have a belief in that it is your money. Peeps who declare they don't have a belief in a mine or a me or a you doesn't wash with me unless their behaviour matches. There he is (heh heh)! We already covered this ground recently here (and here). And did you notice this? Of course it's "my house", but ultimately that's just a concession to common-mind. Sometimes the concession is quite relevant, but it has no existential meaning.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 20, 2024 3:16:55 GMT -5
So if a bloke came round your house and said I claim this to be my house and not yours, would you say, yer mate no worries, I don't have a belief in that the house is mine. So then he asks you for the money in your bank account, and you transfer it over to him cos you don't have a belief in that it is your money. Peeps who declare they don't have a belief in a mine or a me or a you doesn't wash with me unless their behaviour matches. There he is (heh heh)! We already covered this ground recently here (and here). And did you notice this? Of course it's "my house", but ultimately that's just a concession to common-mind. Sometimes the concession is quite relevant, but it has no existential meaning. Notice how in the examples there is a house (while ownership is cited as the belief)?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 20, 2024 7:30:17 GMT -5
I agree in regards to evolvement for use of a better word, this is why I speak about frequencies and vibrations that reflect upon how we perceive ourselves. You spoke about beliefs stemming from other's so would you say there isn't a unique belief had that stems from yourself alone based upon your own unique experience. Say for instance you were in solitude for 10 years and had a string of realisations. Are they still references of other's? I suppose in a way whatever is established would be filtered through a conditioning that one is brought up on unless one breaks the mold, but then when contemplated upon we have to refer back to what was initially established. We are connected to everything at inner level, and that's how we get inputs and for beliefs, even in solitude, even in the womb. The way I see it, all realizations are beliefs, meaning they aren't truths. They are layers of assumptions based on which the self tentatively expands, not necessarily and always correctly, in which case beliefs' adjustment will follow. I suppose it's like the Borg and the one mind scenario in your eyes which I wouldn't disagree with in some respects. I was more asking if you believed that there could be a unique belief in something based upon a unique experience had that wasn't tainted by other's. Perhaps the term original thought might help, I mean someone has to get the ball rolling at some point I dare say for something to be adopted by millions in their belief system. A bit like the meaning of non Duality. It came from somewhere and then millions integrated it within their noggins.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 20, 2024 7:33:51 GMT -5
There he is (heh heh)! We already covered this ground recently here (and here). And did you notice this? Of course it's "my house", but ultimately that's just a concession to common-mind. Sometimes the concession is quite relevant, but it has no existential meaning. Notice how in the examples there is a house (while ownership is cited as the belief)? Not really. A previous example was given by another who referenced stubbing their toe. The belief in the toe is of the same context as the house. Ownership of both to varying degrees reflects the relationship of what you are that can experience a stubbed toe and ownership of a house. A belief system incorporates that relationship.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 20, 2024 7:42:28 GMT -5
It's a little odd that from a straightforward statement of fact that The thing here is that you are pointing to what is non-conceptual etc, but that is a conceptual belief isn't it. Can conclude that is a disdainful tone towards non-dualists. Make no sense at all. Does AI know the difference between what is conceptual and what isn't without predudice? I did mention that this was a part...but I didn't say of an exploration of your belief system. It examined a number of your comments and stated beliefs and this is where it ended up. What part of it do you disagree with? I don't find much of an interest dissecting something that another peep programmed into an AI programme based upon their beliefs to what Non Duality supposedly is and what other subjects mean to them. An AI programme only reflects that initial input, so if the beliefs are integrated into the programme AI can only respond in one way that reflects them beliefs as a foundation. The foundation of the programmer is the foundation of AI. What is regarded as disdainful and dismissive are reflections of the programmer.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 20, 2024 7:46:12 GMT -5
Not really, I am just explaining that what you say is ineffable reflects a belief in what it conceptually means. Beyond the conceptual meaning you wouldn't know what ineffable refers too beyond the meaning of it. This is obvious. There has to be meaning to what is said and referred too. If one doesn't believe in all these conceptual references, then one can't say anything about anything, but you do. Just as any other N.D. peep does. I think this is so straightforward. Not so much, really. If it was a belief it would be quite effable. Only if you believe conceptually in what existential beliefs refer to in the first place that matches your definition. A common mind response as you put it is suffice enough to use as a foundation here. Like said without these common mind responses that is integrated within our belief systems one wouldn't say anything about anything. And yet here we all are saying lots of things. Beliefs are effable that's why we can associate the stubbed toe with a self reference in toe (excuse the pun) Making sense of what effable refers to is a belief had that relates to how one can understand and experience life as we do.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 20, 2024 8:00:36 GMT -5
So if a bloke came round your house and said I claim this to be my house and not yours, would you say, yer mate no worries, I don't have a belief in that the house is mine. So then he asks you for the money in your bank account, and you transfer it over to him cos you don't have a belief in that it is your money. Peeps who declare they don't have a belief in a mine or a me or a you doesn't wash with me unless their behaviour matches. There he is (heh heh)! We already covered this ground recently here (and here). And did you notice this? Of course it's "my house", but ultimately that's just a concession to common-mind. Sometimes the concession is quite relevant, but it has no existential meaning. Well when I asked you about YOU stubbing your toe you answered 'The belief that the pain, is "mine"? Is that the "belief" you think I have'? So based upon what you said above regarding the house it would be safe enough to say in the same context which I haven't been changing around as a foundation that it is equally your toe as it is your house. So you have a belief that reflects what you are that can own and live in a house and bash your toe on the skirting board. You have a belief in a self reference that refers to what you are because you don't know 100% what is True regarding what it is that you are in the grand scheme of things. This is all that I have been saying to you for a while now. I don't know why we have gone to the moon and back several times just to get to this straightforward point.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 20, 2024 9:12:21 GMT -5
Notice how in the examples there is a house (while ownership is cited as the belief)? Ownership of both to varying degrees reflects the relationship of what you are that can experience a stubbed toe and ownership of a house. That's either beyond my comprehension, or it's a load of codswallop. Either is possible.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 20, 2024 9:19:41 GMT -5
There he is (heh heh)! We already covered this ground recently here (and here). And did you notice this? Of course it's "my house", but ultimately that's just a concession to common-mind. Sometimes the concession is quite relevant, but it has no existential meaning. Well when I asked you about YOU stubbing your toe you answered 'The belief that the pain, is "mine"? Is that the "belief" you think I have'? So based upon what you said above regarding the house it would be safe enough to say in the same context which I haven't been changing around as a foundation that it is equally your toe as it is your house. So you have a belief that reflects what you are that can own and live in a house and bash your toe on the skirting board. You have a belief in a self reference that refers to what you are because you don't know 100% what is True regarding what it is that you are in the grand scheme of things. This is all that I have been saying to you for a while now. I don't know why we have gone to the moon and back several times just to get to this straightforward point.Because some people keep beating a dead horse. Some people define "thoughts" so broadly that they include feelings and direct sensory perceptions, but most of the posters on this forum define them to ONLY mean mind talk or images seen in "the mind's eye", and they make a distinction between (1) images, ideas, and symbols that appear in the mind and (2) "non-verbal subconscious mental processing." That's no problem as long as we all understand how people are defining these things. People who make that distinction will claim that when the mind is totally silent, there are no thoughts at all even though the body continues to function intelligently and appropriately. ITSW, some people define "beliefs" so broadly that they include existential realizations and direct experiences, but most of the posters on this forum define them to ONLY mean conceptual reflections ABOUT realizations and direct experiences rather than the realizations and experiences themselves. For this reason most posters on this forum who have had significant realizations about the nature of existence would claim that they have no beliefs because mind was not involved in what was seen or experienced. That's no problem as long as we all understand how people are defining these words and thinking about these words. Comprende amigo?
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jan 20, 2024 10:14:50 GMT -5
People who make that distinction will claim that when the mind is totally silent, there are no thoughts at all even though the body continues to function intelligently and appropriately. My first conscious, alert, aware moment in existence at 14 months old was as internally silent as it gets. When the lights came on and the world appeared, there was only pure, silent, observation of; hands on the railing of a baby crib, two dressers with mirrors, linoleum flooring with an odd stain on it, two open windows with floor length sheer curtains billowing gently with a warm spring breeze bright with sun, and birdsong heard from beyond the open windows. There was some degree of felt astonishment and wonder present, but it was completely wordless, thoughtless, beliefless. Pure awareness needs no support from anything like a thought or a belief system. Pure, silent, aware beingness is the ground, the foundation upon which everything else in the human experience, like thinking and belief systems, are built upon.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 20, 2024 11:52:04 GMT -5
People who make that distinction will claim that when the mind is totally silent, there are no thoughts at all even though the body continues to function intelligently and appropriately. My first conscious, alert, aware moment in existence at 14 months old was as internally silent as it gets. When the lights came on and the world appeared, there was only pure, silent, observation of; hands on the railing of a baby crib, two dressers with mirrors, linoleum flooring with an odd stain on it, two open windows with floor length sheer curtains billowing gently with a warm spring breeze bright with sun, and birdsong heard from beyond the open windows. There was some degree of felt astonishment and wonder present, but it was completely wordless, thoughtless, beliefless. Pure awareness needs no support from anything like a thought or a belief system. Pure, silent, aware beingness is the ground, the foundation upon which everything else in the human experience, like thinking and belief systems, are built upon. Exactly!
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 20, 2024 14:00:46 GMT -5
We are connected to everything at inner level, and that's how we get inputs and for beliefs, even in solitude, even in the womb. The way I see it, all realizations are beliefs, meaning they aren't truths. They are layers of assumptions based on which the self tentatively expands, not necessarily and always correctly, in which case beliefs' adjustment will follow. I suppose it's like the Borg and the one mind scenario in your eyes which I wouldn't disagree with in some respects. I was more asking if you believed that there could be a unique belief in something based upon a unique experience had that wasn't tainted by other's. Perhaps the term original thought might help, I mean someone has to get the ball rolling at some point I dare say for something to be adopted by millions in their belief system. A bit like the meaning of non Duality. It came from somewhere and then millions integrated it within their noggins. I believe that "borg" describes probes connected and operated by a single mind. My view is about an endless number of minds, on endless number of levels, that are interconnected but have individual free will, and that associate dynamically according to their affinities and purposes. I don't know exactly what you're asking, because our different views. I don't think there is a unique experience that would be the basis of a unique belief, in the way I think you mean it. In the school analogy, every student that joins the school believes he is a student, but each one understands that differently, comes with a different background and different abilities. When you say "get the ball rolling at some point" that implies a linear time. I subscribe to the hypothesis that the physical reality emerged all at once, in all its potentialities, and that it doesn't follow an evolution, but it can be accessed in any order as time, space, probability, identity. A widely shared belief system was established in some probable realities and not in others according to the free will of the individuals and the groups that are currently part of those realities.
|
|