|
Post by jasonl on Sept 22, 2011 7:38:09 GMT -5
Accurate words tath. If there is a belief that there is nothing left to understand, I imagine that the environment of the relative mind would be more rigid than malleable. If we were talking about erections, this would be a good thing, but in terms of delusion transcendence, just the opposite.
Just the "idea of belief" is a stomping ground for the delusion posse and probably deserves a thread of its own. Beliefs, ideas, concepts, these are all "static pointers" to "mental phenomena", which happens to indicate motion. The question isn't whether someone believes in something, but whether delusion/unconsciousness is operating, and if so, how and why. Witnessing, or becoming conscious of, or noticing, could be looked at as the timeless step on the beginningless never ending journey. Understanding is set in motion from that step, and never from anywhere else.
You mention using the statement in the name of rejection. I think that's a pointed observation. I would also add the caveat of the rejection being motivated by fear. Understanding is "most fruitful" when weaving through the unknown depths, meaning it can lead to freedom, but for who I don't claim to know. As far as mind goes, unconscious mind is implicitly not known and thus likewise feared, meaning, unconscious mind actually is known on a certain level, just not a conscious one. And this is where ripping into the psyche through dissecting the thought mechanics can eviscerate the tendency to delude oneself that one doesn't know what one clearly does know, even if unconsciously.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2011 9:24:54 GMT -5
geez -- it's like battle of the titans over here.
but i realize you're all playing in the sand box.
who's digging to China?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2011 11:00:42 GMT -5
You can have the experience of bliss, because you have an idea of bliss... So there is an association between what is experienced and what is known about that experience. You cannot experience knee pain if you don't know what a knee is...heh It's significant for me to see the difference between the experience of the conceptual mind and the experience of the non conceptual mind or nothing. Is that a special experience or the difference between seeing what is real and what is not... Peace Seeing that difference is a noticing. Experiencing the difference is an experience that the conceptual mind is having as an expression of that seeing, as you suggest. Nothing at all wrong with experience, BTW, but it can be noticed that noticing is what is transformative, not the experience itself. If experience becomes the goal, this can be formed entirely out of imagination and there may be no noticing involved.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2011 11:11:29 GMT -5
I'm not calling a mind state knowledge. The experience of 'nothing' is a mind state. All experiences are mind states. One does not have an experience of 'no self' or 'no mind' since it is self/mind that is experiencing. The egoic state is a mind state. Bliss is a mind state. Somebody is having the experience of 'nothing' and can teach you to have that experience too. Does anything smell bad about that? Possibly the difficulty here is the idea that there is something wrong with experience as it is, and so somehow we have to have a 'special' experience, and then we're enlightened or sumthin. It's true that practices will make it possible to experience all sorts of woo woo mind states. An endless variety. Hallucinogenics are probly more effortless. Hehe. My question is, so what? A very powerful "Straw Man" argument LOL...but it has nothing to do with this technique, only your perception of the technique....techniques are for doing not for talking LOL You just can't help yourself I think LOL...everytime a practice is suggested that stops mind and transcends mind you can't help but to categorize it, define it, then dismiss it LOL...no practice other than noticing is a useful practice Lmao....but noticing is something the mind can do endlessly without ever stopping and moving beyond the mind and I amness into Stillness LOL...anything that might take you beyond mind you call woo woo LOL.... In any case, be careful TRF....he is very clever at drawing you into a debate that has nothing to do with the point of focus in the original conversation LOL...one has to wonder why you consistantly debate things that go beyond mind by inventing an idea about something and then arguing the point enigma lol....your mind grasps at any life preserver it can find when a technique for going beyond mind is mentioned lol...you can't help yourself...its like an impulsion you can't resist...not only do you make an argument to yourself to avoid a technique that stops and transcends mind, you argue against the whole world trying it lol...in fact, I have never seen you support any technique other than the one you think you invented lol....I wonder, how do you feel about the techniques Ramana or Niz recommended? Practices are needed until it's noticed that practices are not needed, just as effort is required until it's noticed that effort is not required and suffering is necessary until it's noticed that suffering is not necessary. Probly for the last time, I don't have an issue with any of that, I'm just pointing out the common denominator.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2011 11:20:19 GMT -5
T reminds me of the kid in the sandbox who found a long piece of straw and is having fun trying to get a rise out of the other kids by poking the straw in their ears when they're not looking.
It's the straw man straw man. [cue: it's the straw man straw man straw man....]
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2011 11:26:28 GMT -5
What is one to do? Go sip some coffee. That's where the pearly gates are. AHA! I always suspected Nirvana was under those golden arches. Hehe.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2011 11:36:29 GMT -5
geez -- it's like battle of the titans over here. but i realize you're all playing in the sand box. who's digging to China? I think some good stuff has been said by everybody involved here, and I appreciate everybody's input. If one were to stand back from the 'sandbox' a bit, something useful is bound to be noticed, or maybe a new practice learned. Hehe.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2011 11:44:05 GMT -5
T reminds me of the kid in the sandbox who found a long piece of straw and is having fun trying to get a rise out of the other kids by poking the straw in their ears when they're not looking. It's the straw man straw man. [cue: it's the straw man straw man straw man....] Interestingly (or not) the notion that I'm arguing against or resisting practices here rather than pointing to noticing, followed by long dissertations as to why that approach is wrong and why I'm motivated to do that, is what a straw man argument actually is, and referring to that made up argument as a straw man is what projection actually is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2011 12:01:35 GMT -5
projection is truly an amazing thing. like our own hidden trickster.
for example my whole characterization of T needling people...hmmm........<pokes self in eye>
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Sept 22, 2011 15:44:43 GMT -5
T reminds me of the kid in the sandbox who found a long piece of straw and is having fun trying to get a rise out of the other kids by poking the straw in their ears when they're not looking. It's the straw man straw man. [cue: it's the straw man straw man straw man....] Nansen saw the monks of the eastern and western halls fighting over a cat. He seized the cat and told the monks: `If any of you say a good word, you can save the cat.' No one answered. So Nansen boldly cut the cat in two pieces. That evening Joshu returned and Nansen told him about this. Joshu removed his sandals and, placing them on his head, walked out. Nansen said: `If you had been there, you could have saved the cat.'
|
|
enda
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by enda on Sept 22, 2011 16:29:08 GMT -5
Language is beautiful. Words can express so much, sometimes even achieving the paradoxical heights of expressing what is beyond words. Very often 2 people think, because they are using different words that they are talking about different things when in fact they are expressing the same things in different ways. Other times people using different language think they are talking about the same thing when they are not. That is what I was pointing to and the recent contributions have verified that for me. Does it matter? Of course not! It is just an observation. If I thought it mattered then I'd be missing the point too. It's just great fun to sit here in in my living room in the west of Ireland and participate in a very enjoyable pastime with some very interesting people from around the world!
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 22, 2011 16:54:59 GMT -5
Two monks were arguing about a flag. One said: `The flag is moving.' The other said: `The wind is moving.' The sixth patriach happened to be passing by. He told them: `Not the wind, not the flag; mind is moving The sixth patriarch made a big mistake. If you had been there, how could you have made the situation perfectly clear?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 22, 2011 16:58:23 GMT -5
T reminds me of the kid in the sandbox who found a long piece of straw and is having fun trying to get a rise out of the other kids by poking the straw in their ears when they're not looking. It's the straw man straw man. [cue: it's the straw man straw man straw man....] Nansen saw the monks of the eastern and western halls fighting over a cat. He seized the cat and told the monks: `If any of you say a good word, you can save the cat.' No one answered. So Nansen boldly cut the cat in two pieces. That evening Joshu returned and Nansen told him about this. Joshu removed his sandals and, placing them on his head, walked out. Nansen said: `If you had been there, you could have saved the cat.' This story is usually accompanied by the following two koans: 1. If you had been there, how could you have saved the cat? 2. Why did Joshu place his sandals on his head before walking out?
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Sept 22, 2011 17:55:14 GMT -5
Two monks were arguing about a flag. One said: `The flag is moving.' The other said: `The wind is moving.' The sixth patriach happened to be passing by. He told them: `Not the wind, not the flag; mind is moving The sixth patriarch made a big mistake. If you had been there, how could you have made the situation perfectly clear? He could have put his sandels on his head and walked away.
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Sept 22, 2011 18:03:43 GMT -5
Nansen saw the monks of the eastern and western halls fighting over a cat. He seized the cat and told the monks: `If any of you say a good word, you can save the cat.' No one answered. So Nansen boldly cut the cat in two pieces. That evening Joshu returned and Nansen told him about this. Joshu removed his sandals and, placing them on his head, walked out. Nansen said: `If you had been there, you could have saved the cat.' This story is usually accompanied by the following two koans: 1. If you had been there, how could you have saved the cat? I would have said..."a good word", and then chopped the cat in half. 2. Why did Joshu place his sandals on his head before walking out? Nansen should have chopped himself in half.
|
|