|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 30, 2011 21:08:02 GMT -5
How transcending thought would even be a possibility in the first place...heh Why would you see it as an impossibility? |
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Sept 30, 2011 23:29:13 GMT -5
How transcending thought would even be a possibility in the first place...heh Why would you see it as an impossibility? Well it's 'not' an impossibility as a 'thought' is it?... There's enough information out there in the form of books and teachers that will attest to that, as you well know. There's not really the interest though, in experiencing what truth points to as a thought. Theres more interest in experiencing the awareness of 'This', before thought gets a hold of it. Besides, to point at something as being the truth, seems to do a disservice to that awesome power, that creates our experience of the universe... Wouldn't that power also be considered a truth, as an aspect of reality? Peace |
|
|
|
Post by question on Oct 1, 2011 5:56:00 GMT -5
I still don't see what MIND's function is supposed to be. In ZD's account it seems like the first appearance of MIND is the distinction between 'me' and 'm(other)'. But prior to that distinction we have only perception, independent of MIND and mind. Your definition of MIND seems to be that it already preceeds even the infant's perception, and that even before MIND manifests in the form of thoughts (mind) it already has defined, or at least impacted, the infant's non-conceptual perceptions. I don't like the MIND term, and I think I'll officially stop using it.  Fine, but the word 'MIND' isn't the problem. What I don't understand is why you say that sense perceptions are expressions of ideas. |
|
|
|
Post by question on Oct 1, 2011 6:12:43 GMT -5
I think 'transcendence' is a misleading word in this context. It's not like you're 'within' thought and then you somehow need to transcend the boundaries of thought like you would need to transcend the borders of the state of Ohio if you want to enter Kentucky.
I think thought is more like a chewing gum which, if it doesn't taste good anymore, you can spit out. You drop 'thought', you don't 'transcend' it.
I also don't think that we can exhaust the reality of 'knowing' or 'understanding' by using thought, because 'understanding' is fundamentally prior to its formulation within the framework of thought, which is why I would say that thinking and knowing are different things. You can't think your way towards 'getting' a joke.
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 1, 2011 9:55:03 GMT -5
I don't like the MIND term, and I think I'll officially stop using it. Fine, but the word 'MIND' isn't the problem. What I don't understand is why you say that sense perceptions are expressions of ideas. In a similar way to how your nightly dreams are ideas expressed as 'sense perceptions'. It's just a larger context. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 1, 2011 10:02:21 GMT -5
I think 'transcendence' is a misleading word in this context. It's not like you're 'within' thought and then you somehow need to transcend the boundaries of thought like you would need to transcend the borders of the state of Ohio if you want to enter Kentucky. Actually, it's very much like that. You don't have to drop thought in order to realize your nature prior to thought. That nature is present even in the presence of thought. That Stillness/Nothingness is what thought appears in, it's just that turning attention away from the stuff that appears within you may make it more likely to notice what it appears in. |
|
|
|
Post by question on Oct 1, 2011 12:20:58 GMT -5
Fine, but the word 'MIND' isn't the problem. What I don't understand is why you say that sense perceptions are expressions of ideas. In a similar way to how your nightly dreams are ideas expressed as 'sense perceptions'. It's just a larger context. Even if thoughts are causally related to perceptions, thoughts aren't phenomenologically related to sense perceptions (nightly dreams or not). In the same way how a 'taste:spicy' is phenomenologically unrelated to a 'colour:yellow'. And I doubt that they are causally related, because even in absence of thoughts you still do see colours and stuff, don't you? But my main point is tht thoughts and sensory perceptions aren't phenomenologically related. You don't have to drop thought in order to realize your nature prior to thought. That nature is present even in the presence of thought. That Stillness/Nothingness is what thought appears in, it's just that turning attention away from the stuff that appears within you may make it more likely to notice what it appears in. Well, I have no idea what one has to do to realize the true nature prior to thoughts, I wouldn't dare to speculate about that. I'm simply saying that 'transcending' thoughts isn't an available option. Transcendence implies some kind of a topology of crossing a context into an equivalent context. 'Transcending thoughts' would be like saying that in order to hear a sound one would need to transcend the seeing of colours. As far as I can see, the available options are to switch attention or to cease thinking. The cessation is the dropping. I'm not saying that when we stop thinking we enter the land of non-thinking. When I drop a penny into the well, I don't gain a non-penny. |
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Oct 1, 2011 12:50:11 GMT -5
In a similar way to how your nightly dreams are ideas expressed as 'sense perceptions'. It's just a larger context. Even if thoughts are causally related to perceptions, thoughts aren't phenomenologically related to sense perceptions (nightly dreams or not). In the same way how a 'taste:spicy' is phenomenologically unrelated to a 'colour:yellow'. And I doubt that they are causally related, because even in absence of thoughts you still do see colours and stuff, don't you? But my main point is tht thoughts and sensory perceptions aren't phenomenologically related. You don't have to drop thought in order to realize your nature prior to thought. That nature is present even in the presence of thought. That Stillness/Nothingness is what thought appears in, it's just that turning attention away from the stuff that appears within you may make it more likely to notice what it appears in. Well, I have no idea what one has to do to realize the true nature prior to thoughts, I wouldn't dare to speculate about that. I'm simply saying that 'transcending' thoughts isn't an available option. Transcendence implies some kind of a topology of crossing a context into an equivalent context. 'Transcending thoughts' would be like saying that in order to hear a sound one would need to transcend the seeing of colours. As far as I can see, the available options are to switch attention or to cease thinking. The cessation is the dropping. I'm not saying that when we stop thinking we enter the land of non-thinking. When I drop a penny into the well, I don't gain a non-penny. They are phenomenogenically related....you can observe this yourself....whenever you have a sexual arousal and are having a little sex fantasy in your head if the fantasy is visceral enough you have physical sensations down below...but the same is true of every sense....if you think about your favorite dish viscerally enough you can smell and taste it, and science has shown that you brains mirror circuits fire the same way whether you are actually tasting something or just intensely thinking about tasting something....so the evidence does not in fact indicate that sensory perseption and thought are phenomenogenically seperate. |
|
|
|
Post by question on Oct 1, 2011 13:01:39 GMT -5
They are phenomenogenically related....you can observe this yourself....whenever you have a sexual arousal and are having a little sex fantasy in your head if the fantasy is visceral enough you have physical sensations down below...but the same is true of every sense....if you think about your favorite dish viscerally enough you can smell and taste it, and science has shown that you brains mirror circuits fire the same way whether you are actually tasting something or just intensely thinking about tasting something....so the evidence does not in fact indicate that sensory perseption and thought are phenomenogenically seperate. What I mean by phenomenologically unrelated is that you can't hear a yellow colour, in the same way you can't think a spicy taste. In your example we may have a causal relationship, but not phenomenological equivalence. Now when we say that sensory perceptions are expressions of thoughts, does that mean that thoughts and sensory perceptions are causually related, or that they are phenomenologically equivalent in that sensory perceptions are actually merely variations of thoughts? The latter scenario would imply that there aren't any sensory perceptions, only thoughts that masquerade themselves as sensory perceptions. |
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Oct 1, 2011 13:03:47 GMT -5
In a similar way to how your nightly dreams are ideas expressed as 'sense perceptions'. It's just a larger context. Even if thoughts are causally related to perceptions, thoughts aren't phenomenologically related to sense perceptions (nightly dreams or not). In the same way how a 'taste:spicy' is phenomenologically unrelated to a 'colour:yellow'. And I doubt that they are causally related, because even in absence of thoughts you still do see colours and stuff, don't you? But my main point is tht thoughts and sensory perceptions aren't phenomenologically related. You don't have to drop thought in order to realize your nature prior to thought. That nature is present even in the presence of thought. That Stillness/Nothingness is what thought appears in, it's just that turning attention away from the stuff that appears within you may make it more likely to notice what it appears in. Well, I have no idea what one has to do to realize the true nature prior to thoughts, I wouldn't dare to speculate about that. I'm simply saying that 'transcending' thoughts isn't an available option. Transcendence implies some kind of a topology of crossing a context into an equivalent context. 'Transcending thoughts' would be like saying that in order to hear a sound one would need to transcend the seeing of colours. As far as I can see, the available options are to switch attention or to cease thinking. The cessation is the dropping. I'm not saying that when we stop thinking we enter the land of non-thinking. When I drop a penny into the well, I don't gain a non-penny. It is often best to practice a cessation of thought to become aware of what is beyond thought...but once you are aware of what is beyond thought there is no need to cessate thought in order to be aware IN thought....however, awareness needs to be exercised when thinking even after thought has been transcended....Becuase you can still become "lost in thought". |
|
|
|
Post by popee2 on Oct 1, 2011 13:05:49 GMT -5
Said in different ways, by different people
but the essence is the same
What you think, you become
Become what you will, it's your choice
ut oh there's that choice word again
|
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Oct 1, 2011 13:15:08 GMT -5
They are phenomenogenically related....you can observe this yourself....whenever you have a sexual arousal and are having a little sex fantasy in your head if the fantasy is visceral enough you have physical sensations down below...but the same is true of every sense....if you think about your favorite dish viscerally enough you can smell and taste it, and science has shown that you brains mirror circuits fire the same way whether you are actually tasting something or just intensely thinking about tasting something....so the evidence does not in fact indicate that sensory perseption and thought are phenomenogenically seperate. What I mean by phenomenologically unrelated is that you can't hear a yellow colour, in the same way you can't think a spicy taste. In your example we may have a causal relationship, but not phenomenological equivalence. Now when we say that sensory perceptions are expressions of thoughts, does that mean that thoughts and sensory perceptions are causually related, or that they are phenomenologically equivalent in that sensory perceptions are actually merely variations of thoughts? The latter scenario would imply that there aren't any sensory perceptions, only thoughts that masquerade themselves as sensory perceptions. I could answer this and make the case that many genius level musicians actually here in color and many genius level visual artists see in musical notes and sounds....but here is the kirfuffle...none of this conversation is helping you to transcend thought...in fact it is a philosophical discussion that can get one MORE lost in mind....my best advice to you is to try and trancend mind and thought....the radiate way is through observation and cessation...this is valuable Becuase when you transcend something you can clearly see its nature as a whole. |
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Oct 1, 2011 13:17:12 GMT -5
Even if thoughts are causally related to perceptions, thoughts aren't phenomenologically related to sense perceptions (nightly dreams or not). In the same way how a 'taste:spicy' is phenomenologically unrelated to a 'colour:yellow'. And I doubt that they are causally related, because even in absence of thoughts you still do see colours and stuff, don't you? But my main point is tht thoughts and sensory perceptions aren't phenomenologically related. Well, I have no idea what one has to do to realize the true nature prior to thoughts, I wouldn't dare to speculate about that. I'm simply saying that 'transcending' thoughts isn't an available option. Transcendence implies some kind of a topology of crossing a context into an equivalent context. 'Transcending thoughts' would be like saying that in order to hear a sound one would need to transcend the seeing of colours. As far as I can see, the available options are to switch attention or to cease thinking. The cessation is the dropping. I'm not saying that when we stop thinking we enter the land of non-thinking. When I drop a penny into the well, I don't gain a non-penny. They are phenomenogenically related....you can observe this yourself....whenever you have a sexual arousal and are having a little sex fantasy in your head if the fantasy is visceral enough you have physical sensations down below...but the same is true of every sense....if you think about your favorite dish viscerally enough you can smell and taste it, and science has shown that you brains mirror circuits fire the same way whether you are actually tasting something or just intensely thinking about tasting something....so the evidence does not in fact indicate that sensory perseption and thought are phenomenogenically seperate. Hey Tat, I see what your saying and it seems to make sense. Your saying there's no difference between being aware of the perception of a raging fire in a fire pit and the awareness of the 'thought' of a raging fire in the minds eye, absent of a perception. Except that there's just one problem with that and it's the experience of putting the perception of your hand in a fire and the experience of putting your imaginary hand in the fire of the mind. And it's the difference between experiencing a burnt hand and not experiencing a burnt hand. That scenario speaks about the tangibility between direct perception and the perception of a 'thought'. Somehow that tangibility becomes known in the awareness and that's why we don't stick our hands in raging fires...heh But I don't really want to pursue the perception of thoughts so much, as much as pursuing the awareness of direct perception, before thought acts like a swiffer on it... Peace |
|
|
|
Post by question on Oct 1, 2011 13:19:55 GMT -5
I could answer this and make the case that many genius level musicians actually here in color and many genius level visual artists see in musical notes and sounds....but here is the kirfuffle...none of this conversation is helping you to transcend thought...in fact it is a philosophical discussion that can get one MORE lost in mind....my best advice to you is to try and trancend mind and thought....the radiate way is through observation and cessation...this is valuable Becuase when you transcend something you can clearly see its nature as a whole. Still no phenomenological equivalence. In synesthesia you see colours and hear sounds at the same time and they may systematically and consistently coincide with each other, but you don't actually hear a colour our see a sound. |
|
|
|
Post by popee2 on Oct 1, 2011 13:21:15 GMT -5
firewalkers don't get burned
how they do that?
|
|
