|
Post by onehandclapping on Aug 6, 2013 11:20:20 GMT -5
Believe... No. Know.... Yes. Of course that isn't the "know" you think it is.... Believe.... No. is a belief... Know... Yes. is a belief... Of course that isn't the "know" you think it is.... is a belief... By your label then any words used are beliefs.... By that definition then yes those are beliefs. But your definition is just a belief so it's not true either. So what 's your point? Or is this just your way to re-enforce your belief system that everything is a belief by latching on to every sign post given and calling it a belief? Even though that's not what it is no matter how many times you say it is....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2013 11:34:21 GMT -5
Believe.... No. is a belief... Know... Yes. is a belief... Of course that isn't the "know" you think it is.... is a belief... By your label then any words used are beliefs.... By that definition then yes those are beliefs. But your definition is just a belief so it's not true either. So what 's your point? Or is this just your way to re-enforce your belief system that everything is a belief by latching on to every sign post given and calling it a belief? Even though that's not what it is no matter how many times you say it is.... The point is you cannot not engage belief even when it points to the abstract... And calling a belief not a belief is in fact a belief... Saying you don't believe in beliefs is a belief... The world is real to us because we believe it is... We can't help it, it's where the attention is fixated and it's perfect.
|
|
|
Post by onehandclapping on Aug 6, 2013 11:47:27 GMT -5
By your label then any words used are beliefs.... By that definition then yes those are beliefs. But your definition is just a belief so it's not true either. So what 's your point? Or is this just your way to re-enforce your belief system that everything is a belief by latching on to every sign post given and calling it a belief? Even though that's not what it is no matter how many times you say it is.... The point is you cannot not engage belief even when it points to the abstract... And calling a belief not a belief is in fact a belief... Saying you don't believe in beliefs is a belief... The world is real to us because we believe it is... We can't help it, it's where the attention is fixated and it's perfect. Awareness is not a belief. Being is not a belief. The noun versions of the words are but the verb versions are not. I speak of the verb. You get stuck on the noun. To Be requires no belief. It's just an action. And it's not even that..... This Tzu love juice on your fur doesn't suit you very well.....then again maybe it does. Enjoy the sticky mess. *leans back and sips green tea*
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2013 12:01:30 GMT -5
Believe.... No. is a belief... Know... Yes. is a belief... Of course that isn't the "know" you think it is.... is a belief... Belief is an anagram for Be Life. and of course: Eel fib. Those eels are perpetually rascally.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Aug 6, 2013 12:04:02 GMT -5
Belief is an anagram for Be Life. and of course: Eel fib. Those eels are perpetually rascally. They must be the ones causing double posts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2013 12:14:32 GMT -5
The point is you cannot not engage belief even when it points to the abstract... And calling a belief not a belief is in fact a belief... Saying you don't believe in beliefs is a belief... The world is real to us because we believe it is... We can't help it, it's where the attention is fixated and it's perfect. Awareness is not a belief. Being is not a belief. The noun versions of the words are but the verb versions are not. I speak of the verb. You get stuck on the noun. To Be requires no belief. It's just an action. And it's not even that..... This Tzu love juice on your fur doesn't suit you very well.....then again maybe it does. Enjoy the sticky mess. *leans back and sips green tea* If Awareness and Being are verbs, or if they are 'Real' for you, then they are beliefs... Proverb...... When is a belief not a belief? When OHC believes it isn't...
|
|
|
Post by onehandclapping on Aug 6, 2013 13:17:05 GMT -5
Awareness is not a belief. Being is not a belief. The noun versions of the words are but the verb versions are not. I speak of the verb. You get stuck on the noun. To Be requires no belief. It's just an action. And it's not even that..... This Tzu love juice on your fur doesn't suit you very well.....then again maybe it does. Enjoy the sticky mess. *leans back and sips green tea* If Awareness and Being are verbs, or if they are 'Real' for you, then they are beliefs... Proverb...... When is a belief not a belief? When OHC believes it isn't... TRF, you are creating a lawyer trap here. No matter what I say it isn't what is truly meant. So how do I express something to you that is un-expressable with words? *holds index finger up* And you have yet to acknowledge your own belief that it's all beliefs...... interesting that similarly Tzu does the same thing....
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Aug 6, 2013 13:21:37 GMT -5
Greetings.. If Awareness and Being are verbs, or if they are 'Real' for you, then they are beliefs... Proverb...... When is a belief not a belief? When OHC believes it isn't... TRF, you are creating a lawyer trap here. No matter what I say it isn't what is truly meant. So how do I express something to you that is un-expressable with words? *holds index finger up* And you have yet to acknowledge your own belief that it's all beliefs...... interesting that similarly Tzu does the same thing.... What 'Tzu' does is observe the beliefs being posted, then suggest ways to avoid the attachments associated with those beliefs.. how you and/or others choose to pretend otherwise is purely your imagined belief.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 6, 2013 13:42:31 GMT -5
Nonduality is not fundamentally a philosophy or belief system, and so 'nondualism' already seems like a mischaracterization. Nonduality simply says there is not two. We can and do go on infinitely talking about the implications of that, but there (purposely) isn't any more to it. Welcome back to the unmoderated moderated section! This is hard for many folks to understand. Especially when viewed through the mind.... To them it sure looks like you believe something. True. It can be useful to make the distinction between knowing something about one, and unknowing something about many. I don't know anything about one, though I can see there's nothing to know. I also don't know anything about two except that it appears as a mirage on the horizon and can never quench anybody's thirst. This is what is meant by knowing nothing. Separation is an illusion that can be seen through. After all, it was your idea, wasn't it? Your mind conceived the notion and accepted it without question. Now we turn around and question a belief that has seemed so obvious and foundational for our entire lives.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 6, 2013 13:52:39 GMT -5
jeez OHC, that's an impossible task isn't it? I mean, E and Laffy gave as good a 'definition' as you'll likely get ... "Not-Two" but what does that mean, what does it 'point to'? I haven't had the Realization which dissolves the question, so I don't know what any of this nonduality talk really means, or what "to do" about it (which as we've all heard, is "nothing") so I've decided to relax and enjoy the show, try to 'see clearly' as much as possible, and then gently resume focus and attention when I 'fall off the wagon'. ;-) as an aside, Tzu's crusade against "beliefs" seems comical at this point. This whole shlemiel is a rather well thought out plan. You said "try to see clearly as possible." How the hell are you gonna do that? Try to pick up a pencil. You either pick it up, or you do not. There is no "try." This isn't Star Wars and you aren't Yoda. Yes, realization dissolves the questions. He said "Tzu's crusade against "beliefs"".
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 6, 2013 14:02:09 GMT -5
Greetings.. If you 'think' that's comical, you should have the clarity to see 'what is'.. you should observe individuals agreeing to 'believe' there is 'not two', even as their agreements and the disagreements of others confirms the absurdity of attaching to the belief of a condition described as 'not two'.. unless they simply don't understand how to articulate awareness beyond 'two', so.. what 'is', is oneness AND manyness existing simultaneously, and which or both are experienced by virtue of where we choose to place our attention/awareness.. Be well.. Yes, oneness and manyness are inextricably and forever interdependent, and cannot exist without the other.. I like to think about it in terms of math. There's also the "zero" which is nothing, but everything: it's the relative point which anchors all the other infinite numbers... So there's, like, a codependency thang goin on?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2013 14:11:20 GMT -5
Welcome back to the unmoderated moderated section! This is hard for many folks to understand. Especially when viewed through the mind.... To them it sure looks like you believe something. True. It can be useful to make the distinction between knowing something about one, and unknowing something about many. I don't know anything about one, though I can see there's nothing to know. I also don't know anything about two except that it appears as a mirage on the horizon and can never quench anybody's thirst. This is what is meant by knowing nothing. Separation is an illusion that can be seen through. After all, it was your idea, wasn't it? Your mind conceived the notion and accepted it without question. Now we turn around and question a belief that has seemed so obvious and foundational for our entire lives. Yes, and I did it all.. for you. If I put the you, in quotations, will anyone get the message?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 6, 2013 16:56:20 GMT -5
Welcome back to the unmoderated moderated section! This is hard for many folks to understand. Especially when viewed through the mind.... To them it sure looks like you believe something. True. It can be useful to make the distinction between knowing something about one, and unknowing something about many. I don't know anything about one, though I can see there's nothing to know. I also don't know anything about two except that it appears as a mirage on the horizon and can never quench anybody's thirst. This is what is meant by knowing nothing. Separation is an illusion that can be seen through. After all, it was your idea, wasn't it? Your mind conceived the notion and accepted it without question. Now we turn around and question a belief that has seemed so obvious and foundational for our entire lives. These dialogues are sometimes a hoot. They remind me of a party I once attended hosted by a friend of mine who's a college professor. He teaches a course titled "Higher Order Thinking" (ha ha--yes, I've even taught a class in this myself, but it's still a funny course title). I mentioned to someone at the party that thinking is not as necessary as most people believe, and that beliefs are also not necessary. I explained that if someone is walking down a street, and a car suddenly swerves toward them, the body will attempt to jump out of the way, and thinking will be absent until things calm down again. My professor friend overheard me, and strongly disputed what I had said. I replied that it's possible to learn how to suspend thought, and that when the mind is silent, the body is still aware, and can intelligently respond to whatever is happening. He disputed even this, and began to get a bit hot under the collar, so I further explained that jet pilots use simulators to train the body to respond in emergencies because when an engine fails, there is often no time for the luxury of discursive thought--that body knowledge becomes essential. The professor became even more upset at this claim and said, "No! Thinking still occurs; the thoughts just occur faster!" Having never experienced a silent mind, the professor had no experiential basis for understanding what I was talking about, so I gave up and went to pour myself another glass of wine. On this forum it seems obvious that several folks are in the same boat with the professor.
|
|
|
Post by hybrid on Aug 6, 2013 17:50:05 GMT -5
True. It can be useful to make the distinction between knowing something about one, and unknowing something about many. I don't know anything about one, though I can see there's nothing to know. I also don't know anything about two except that it appears as a mirage on the horizon and can never quench anybody's thirst. This is what is meant by knowing nothing. Separation is an illusion that can be seen through. After all, it was your idea, wasn't it? Your mind conceived the notion and accepted it without question. Now we turn around and question a belief that has seemed so obvious and foundational for our entire lives. These dialogues are sometimes a hoot. They remind me of a party I once attended hosted by a friend of mine who's a college professor. He teaches a course titled "Higher Order Thinking" (ha ha--yes, I've even taught a class in this myself, but it's still a funny course title). I mentioned to someone at the party that thinking is not as necessary as most people believe, and that beliefs are also not necessary. I explained that if someone is walking down a street, and a car suddenly swerves toward them, the body will attempt to jump out of the way, and thinking will be absent until things calm down again. My professor friend overheard me, and strongly disputed what I had said. I replied that it's possible to learn how to suspend thought, and that when the mind is silent, the body is still aware, and can intelligently respond to whatever is happening. He disputed even this, and began to get a bit hot under the collar, so I further explained that jet pilots use simulators to train the body to respond in emergencies because when an engine fails, there is often no time for the luxury of discursive thought--that body knowledge becomes essential. The professor became even more upset at this claim and said, "No! Thinking still occurs; the thoughts just occur faster!" Having never experienced a silent mind, the professor had no experiential basis for understanding what I was talking about, so I gave up and went to pour myself another glass of wine. On this forum it seems obvious that several folks are in the same boat with the professor. its a greater hoot to derive the authority to claim ones superior understanding on the basis of some experience. its like saying sex is good and you have no right to disagree because your a virgin. the truth is thinking is just one occurance in the body. the one who stills the mind is also a thought. ay what you probably meant was conscious thinking is inefficient and too much logical analysis is useless or somethin belief is inescapable and faith is always necessary. conscious thinking is a reflection of ones mind. a feedback system use by the brain for greater control.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Aug 6, 2013 18:12:54 GMT -5
On this forum it seems obvious that several folks are in the same boat with the professor. Who? The professor was right btw. Thoughts obviously do occur even in situations where extremely quick reaction is required. Apparently you have this strawman that thoughts are only those that are spelled out in one's mind, but the essence of a thought is a movement of mind prior to its expression in language. I don't believe you that the professor was angry, he was probably just getting impatient because you didn't get his point, and I can't blame him. You have a condescending attitude about everyone who doesn't agree with you and then you even imagine stories that present them in a bad light.
|
|