|
Post by enigma on Feb 25, 2012 14:38:54 GMT -5
I would say there's no sharp dividing line between thinking and realizing, though in the spiritual world there is a strong bias against the former because thought is viewed as the problem and so is rejected. It's thought structures that constitute the problem and which are being collapsed, and a contemplative focus is likely required. Don't beat me if it's not helpful, by my way was always to form a contemplative focus on the basis of an insatiable curiosity, and then to bring it all to a sudden halt and simply look. It was not a meditative practice, it was, and still is, a way of life. It's how I fix my car and my computer and solve all problems in my practical life. It's how I post on forums. Thinking is not a problem. Falling into river and getting dashed against the rocks is. What?! No enlightened powers to fix your car? No, I usually just teleport myself where I want to go until I get the car fixed. ;D
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 25, 2012 14:40:34 GMT -5
My computer is behaving strangely, every time I go to 'page 2' it logs me out so I am having to reply on page but I then cant see exactly what you said. God is trying to tell you something. Listen up! ;D[/quote Don't laugh, but I just tried to quote &post something and computer froze, it was a bit rubbish anyway...I aways think it's a sign not to post it when it happens lol! HAHAHA!........I mean........Oh, that's interesting.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 25, 2012 14:43:31 GMT -5
Aah man, first popee, now freejoy's gone too. I wonder if Tat is making his students delete their account. Maybe we're considering being done with distractions?
|
|
|
Post by question on Feb 25, 2012 14:48:24 GMT -5
WALL OF TEXT I'm very open to all kinds of possibilities. I measure all ideas against direct experience, not vice versa. Therefore your argument is invalid.
|
|
|
Post by nobody on Feb 25, 2012 14:50:32 GMT -5
Aah man, first popee, now freejoy's gone too. I wonder if Tat is making his students delete their account. Maybe we're considering being done with distractions? What do you mean? Or, maybe we both know what you mean.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 25, 2012 14:58:22 GMT -5
WALL OF TEXT I'm very open to all kinds of possibilities. I measure all ideas against direct experience, not vice versa. Therefore your argument is invalid. When you say you measure all ideas, what are you measuring exactly...for example, are you measuring the truth (or falsity) of an idea? Or, the usefulness of an idea? Or....
|
|
|
Post by question on Feb 25, 2012 15:08:53 GMT -5
I'm very open to all kinds of possibilities. I measure all ideas against direct experience, not vice versa. Therefore your argument is invalid. When you say you measure all ideas, what are you measuring exactly...for example, are you measuring the truth (or falsity) of an idea? Or, the usefulness of an idea? Or.... Truth and falsity. If you say there is a monster under my bed then I look under my bed to see if there really is a monster there.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 25, 2012 15:23:23 GMT -5
When you say you measure all ideas, what are you measuring exactly...for example, are you measuring the truth (or falsity) of an idea? Or, the usefulness of an idea? Or.... Truth and falsity. If you say there is a monster under my bed then I look under my bed to see if there really is a monster there. Okay...thanks....so when you measure the truth/falsity of an idea against 'direct experience', do you mean that you use the senses (or what the senses tell you) as the measurer? i.e. the senses tell you there is no monster under the bed so you decide the idea that there is a monster there is false?
|
|
|
Post by question on Feb 25, 2012 15:39:42 GMT -5
Truth and falsity. If you say there is a monster under my bed then I look under my bed to see if there really is a monster there. Okay...thanks....so when you measure the truth/falsity of an idea against 'direct experience', do you mean that you use the senses (or what the senses tell you) as the measurer? i.e. the senses tell you there is no monster under the bed so you decide the idea that there is a monster there is false? Pfft... of course not! I pull out my night vision goggles, infrared detector, motion detector, atomic quark measurement device, and of course my parallel-universe quantum-entropy detector. Sometimes I also scan for temporal anomalies and traces of tachyon particles.
|
|
|
Post by runstill on Feb 25, 2012 15:44:26 GMT -5
Hahahah I could never do something like that in a million years, I would just die, oh maybe that's the point lol...
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 25, 2012 15:52:58 GMT -5
Okay...thanks....so when you measure the truth/falsity of an idea against 'direct experience', do you mean that you use the senses (or what the senses tell you) as the measurer? i.e. the senses tell you there is no monster under the bed so you decide the idea that there is a monster there is false? Pfft... of course not! I pull out my night vision goggles, infrared detector, motion detector, atomic quark measurement device, and of course my parallel-universe quantum-entropy detector. Sometimes I also scan for temporal anomalies and traces of tachyon particles. Can I take that as a yes? In which case, how would you decide that the idea that there are unicorns on the planet is false? If you havent seen one, fair enough, so do you base your decision on what other people also havent seen? I guess that to you this might sound silly, but I am genuinely interested in how you decide whether an idea is true or false.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 25, 2012 16:26:10 GMT -5
Maybe we're considering being done with distractions? What do you mean? Or, maybe we both know what you mean. I think maybe we do.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 25, 2012 16:29:50 GMT -5
Okay...thanks....so when you measure the truth/falsity of an idea against 'direct experience', do you mean that you use the senses (or what the senses tell you) as the measurer? i.e. the senses tell you there is no monster under the bed so you decide the idea that there is a monster there is false? Pfft... of course not! I pull out my night vision goggles, infrared detector, motion detector, atomic quark measurement device, and of course my parallel-universe quantum-entropy detector. Sometimes I also scan for temporal anomalies and traces of tachyon particles. Hehe. But what if it just happened to be using the bathroom when you're looking under the bed??
|
|
|
Post by question on Feb 25, 2012 16:41:18 GMT -5
Pfft... of course not! I pull out my night vision goggles, infrared detector, motion detector, atomic quark measurement device, and of course my parallel-universe quantum-entropy detector. Sometimes I also scan for temporal anomalies and traces of tachyon particles. Hehe. But what if it just happened to be using the bathroom when you're looking under the bed?? Good question. A recently moved body is detectable by its graviton particle residue in subspace, which is what the quantum-entropy detector is scanning.
|
|
|
Post by question on Feb 25, 2012 16:43:03 GMT -5
Pfft... of course not! I pull out my night vision goggles, infrared detector, motion detector, atomic quark measurement device, and of course my parallel-universe quantum-entropy detector. Sometimes I also scan for temporal anomalies and traces of tachyon particles. Can I take that as a yes? No. I can't say it any clearer this: If you say there is a monster under my bed then I look under my bed to see if there really is a monster there.
|
|