|
Post by Reefs on Apr 15, 2013 0:11:35 GMT -5
Greetings.. I know why it makes no sense to you.. the same reason you think like this: LOL.. it is observable as a request because it 'moves' like a request.. i do not need to access the mental filing cabinet to search for meaning, direct experience through a still mind reveals the 'isness' of what is happening.. You are still admiring your self-image rather than looking at what is actually happening.. i doubt that you have even considered the question, rather you have postured a way to demonstrate your beliefs.. Be well.. If a request is allowed to be a movement of your mind while it is still, since that is how you know you experience a request while your mind is still. Why can your mind not also move in response while being still, thus allowing you to participate in actual dialogue while maintaining stillness? It seems to me that what you are calling stillness is forced passivity of the mind. If you can't be still while the mind responds, then your stillness is conditional and can be disturbed and agitated. Dear Dude/Dudette, "The Still Mind" model could be just a conclusion drawn from his no-thought experience he once shared with us, an experience of supreme clarity. Seeing it that way it is similar to the extraordinary bliss/joy/ecstasy experiences other members told us about. What is also similar is that there seems to be a strong motivation to "go back to that place" - in Tzu's case back to that supreme clarity, in the other members case back to that extraordinary bliss/joy/ecstasy. The difference between the two is only in appearance, "clarity" has a neutral tone while "bliss/joy/ecstasy" has clear woo-woo connotations. But if it's about recreating experiences, then it really is the same. Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2013 2:02:44 GMT -5
Greetings.. I know why it makes no sense to you.. the same reason you think like this: LOL.. it is observable as a request because it 'moves' like a request.. i do not need to access the mental filing cabinet to search for meaning, direct experience through a still mind reveals the 'isness' of what is happening.. You are still admiring your self-image rather than looking at what is actually happening.. i doubt that you have even considered the question, rather you have postured a way to demonstrate your beliefs.. Be well.. If a request is allowed to be a movement of your mind while it is still, since that is how you know you experience a request while your mind is still. Why can your mind not also move in response while being still, thus allowing you to participate in actual dialogue while maintaining stillness? It seems to me that what you are calling stillness is forced passivity of the mind. If you can't be still while the mind responds, then your stillness is conditional and can be disturbed and agitated. Yeah, his filing cabinet isn't, made out of Mercury.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 15, 2013 4:43:33 GMT -5
Greetings.. Tzu', You are in complete control as to whether or not these conversations take the form of a battle. You expressed perception of a forum consensus on the notion of "too much thought", and my take on this is that the consensus that you perceive isn't there. I'm willing to go into it if you're curious but with the caveat that it's nothing more than idea-mining and a sort of ironic expression of what it would be an exploration of. Suffice it to say that if I indulge in consideration of the idea of this consensus, I would describe it as very very narrow: attention to certain movements of thought is futile and can lead to a self-reinforcing spinning of the thinking mind. You've also both expressed your own motivation for participating in the conversation and have flat out asked me mine and expressed interest in it in more that one post. If you really want me to construct and tell a story of why I'm in this I will but first you'll have to answer this: Where in the conversation since (starting from here) have I asked you your motivation? It's ok if your answer is "nowhere". Hi Laughter: As time permits, it's 5:30 am and i preparing for a long day of wetlands delineation and mapping in hot Florida swampland.. But, no.. i won't be coerced into conditional conversations.. if you're sincerely want to "tell a story of why [you're] in this", just do it.. if you want to explore, let's do it.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 15, 2013 5:11:13 GMT -5
Dear Dude/Dudette, As Tzu said in one of his youtube videos about stress benefists (pun intended) of Tai Chi: The "Still Mind" OHDM is exactly that. A posture. A comfortable position that allows him to respond to anything that presents itself in a comfortable way. You mean that he can always base his delusions on the pretense of still mind clarity? Yeah, as I say, it's all projection all the time, so there's never a time when the self is explored openly and honestly or it would block the projection. As you 'say', but.. will not engage me in an open honest direct discussion.. all you have are excuses when you can't convince someone that your illusion is valid.. then, you get the gang together and have a good ol' Tzu bashing.. try engaging me honestly, directly.. let go of your attachment to excuses.. have the sincerity you claim is so important. Be well..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2013 7:04:43 GMT -5
You mean that he can always base his delusions on the pretense of still mind clarity? Yeah, as I say, it's all projection all the time, so there's never a time when the self is explored openly and honestly or it would block the projection. As you 'say', but.. will not engage me in an open honest direct discussion.. all you have are excuses when you can't convince someone that your illusion is valid.. then, you get the gang together and have a good ol' Tzu bashing.. try engaging me honestly, directly.. let go of your attachment to excuses.. have the sincerity you claim is so important. Be well..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2013 7:13:35 GMT -5
hey guys
i am new here
been reading a bit though before i registered
i see there are some doubts as to wether Mr Tzujanli is the real thing or pretending some state of mind,
stillness
i am a psychic,
and i am not going to engage in any discussions here
free your mind, open you third eye, and you will see, EXPERIENCE, the place Mr Tzujanli comes from.
very glad to meet you sir, thanks
hi five here ! AND a deep bow
i admire your patience with these people. They could really learn something from you.
i just felt i should say this.
all the best !
FREEDOM !!!!
sunshine
|
|
|
Post by topology on Apr 15, 2013 9:33:54 GMT -5
hey guys i am new here been reading a bit though before i registered i see there are some doubts as to wether Mr Tzujanli is the real thing or pretending some state of mind, stillness i am a psychic, and i am not going to engage in any discussions here free your mind, open you third eye, and you will see, EXPERIENCE, the place Mr Tzujanli comes from. very glad to meet you sir, thanks hi five here ! AND a deep bow i admire your patience with these people. They could really learn something from you. i just felt i should say this. all the best ! FREEDOM !!!! sunshine Hi butterfly/sunshine.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 15, 2013 10:42:42 GMT -5
Greetings.. Tzu', You are in complete control as to whether or not these conversations take the form of a battle. You expressed perception of a forum consensus on the notion of "too much thought", and my take on this is that the consensus that you perceive isn't there. I'm willing to go into it if you're curious but with the caveat that it's nothing more than idea-mining and a sort of ironic expression of what it would be an exploration of. Suffice it to say that if I indulge in consideration of the idea of this consensus, I would describe it as very very narrow: attention to certain movements of thought is futile and can lead to a self-reinforcing spinning of the thinking mind. You've also both expressed your own motivation for participating in the conversation and have flat out asked me mine and expressed interest in it in more that one post. If you really want me to construct and tell a story of why I'm in this I will but first you'll have to answer this: Where in the conversation since (starting from here) have I asked you your motivation? It's ok if your answer is "nowhere". Hi Laughter: As time permits, it's 5:30 am and i preparing for a long day of wetlands delineation and mapping in hot Florida swampland.. But, no.. i won't be coerced into conditional conversations.. if you're sincerely want to "tell a story of why [you're] in this", just do it.. if you want to explore, let's do it.. Be well.. Well I certainly understand the basis for that choice and hope you had a good day mapping. I respectfully disagree with you on the applicability of the word "coercion". Rather, I see it as holding you to a certain standard of addressing what is in the content of the conversation. Likewise, I have no "want" to tell such a story I was rather responding to your request.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 15, 2013 20:28:11 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. Hi Laughter: As time permits, it's 5:30 am and i preparing for a long day of wetlands delineation and mapping in hot Florida swampland.. But, no.. i won't be coerced into conditional conversations.. if you're sincerely want to "tell a story of why [you're] in this", just do it.. if you want to explore, let's do it.. Be well.. Well I certainly understand the basis for that choice and hope you had a good day mapping. I respectfully disagree with you on the applicability of the word "coercion". Rather, I see it as holding you to a certain standard of addressing what is in the content of the conversation. Likewise, I have no "want" to tell such a story I was rather responding to your request. Hi Laughter: The day went well, i watched a small gator attack a water moccasin (gator won).. i was treated to a pair of Swallow-tailed Kites frolicking in aerial love-play.. and, a generally productive day.. My statement, "if you're sincerely want to "tell a story of why [you're] in this", just do it", was posted hopefully.. To what 'standard' of 'what is' are you referring? Between your 'imitial question', "So my question is this: do you feel that you participate here at least in part because you like a good fight?", which is a question of motive, and.. your choice of enormous bold fonts, both bold font instances referencing 'motives', i applied my stupendous powers of speculation, and ciphered curiosity of motive on your part.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by silence on Apr 15, 2013 20:53:58 GMT -5
hey guys i am new here been reading a bit though before i registered i see there are some doubts as to wether Mr Tzujanli is the real thing or pretending some state of mind, stillness i am a psychic, and i am not going to engage in any discussions here free your mind, open you third eye, and you will see, EXPERIENCE, the place Mr Tzujanli comes from. very glad to meet you sir, thanks hi five here ! AND a deep bow i admire your patience with these people. They could really learn something from you. i just felt i should say this. all the best ! FREEDOM !!!! sunshine Thanks for clearing up the confusion. Since you did say you were a psychic it looks like this case is closed.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 16, 2013 1:08:07 GMT -5
Greetings.. Well I certainly understand the basis for that choice and hope you had a good day mapping. I respectfully disagree with you on the applicability of the word "coercion". Rather, I see it as holding you to a certain standard of addressing what is in the content of the conversation. Likewise, I have no "want" to tell such a story I was rather responding to your request. Hi Laughter: The day went well, i watched a small gator attack a water moccasin (gator won).. i was treated to a pair of Swallow-tailed Kites frolicking in aerial love-play.. and, a generally productive day.. My statement, "if you're sincerely want to "tell a story of why [you're] in this", just do it", was posted hopefully.. To what 'standard' of 'what is' are you referring? Between your 'imitial question', "So my question is this: do you feel that you participate here at least in part because you like a good fight?", which is a question of motive, and.. your choice of enormous bold fonts, both bold font instances referencing 'motives', i applied my stupendous powers of speculation, and ciphered curiosity of motive on your part.. Be well.. Well, any day outside and active, right? I can see where you inferred a question of motive in the opener because of the use of the word "because". What I was more interested in was the qualities of experience (as in the components of what is experienced, not a rating) rather than any causal link, but that's what was in the words, so I won't explain or challenge any further on whether that opener qualifies as a question about intent and shall keep my part of the bargain forthwith. As far as the font-play was concerned, that was simply to bring to light the contradiction. The curiosity I expressed was generalized in one sense in that it wasn't focused into a specific question, but nowhere do I ask you a motive -- it was only about the dissonance. Whether or not being ultra-specific about what someone conveyed during these correspondence qualifies as "tmt" aside, the words are all we have in this medium. Here, the words are "what is", and the standard that I referred to is addressing only what is rather than what isn't. My motive at the outset here was the same motive for any conversation: to converse. The story starts here, with a genuine curiosity on my part about what myself and others perceive as combativeness on your part. Conversations are fluid things Bob so don't expect that you can infer this motive as a constant. There's been quite a bit of water under the bridge since the revival of this thread and that original curiosity is long gone. The disagreement between yourself and others here on the conceptual point of the nature of the individual is likely to persist as long as you participate here. In my experience, this doesn't necessarily have to lead to the constant expressions of negativity that topo' and I have have referenced as combativeness: healthy, well-adjusted adults can always choose to agree to disagree. The nature of the conversation here, however, has certain unique facets with regard to the nature of identity that can render such agreement ineffective.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Apr 16, 2013 1:26:25 GMT -5
Greetings.. I know why it makes no sense to you.. the same reason you think like this: LOL.. it is observable as a request because it 'moves' like a request.. i do not need to access the mental filing cabinet to search for meaning, direct experience through a still mind reveals the 'isness' of what is happening.. You are still admiring your self-image rather than looking at what is actually happening.. i doubt that you have even considered the question, rather you have postured a way to demonstrate your beliefs.. Be well.. If a request is allowed to be a movement of your mind while it is still, since that is how you know you experience a request while your mind is still. Why can your mind not also move in response while being still, thus allowing you to participate in actual dialogue while maintaining stillness? It seems to me that what you are calling stillness is forced passivity of the mind. If you can't be still while the mind responds, then your stillness is conditional and can be disturbed and agitated. Tzujanli, I must have missed where you responded to this. Is it possible to be still while responding and not lose the stillness of the mind?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 16, 2013 5:02:18 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. Hi Laughter: The day went well, i watched a small gator attack a water moccasin (gator won).. i was treated to a pair of Swallow-tailed Kites frolicking in aerial love-play.. and, a generally productive day.. My statement, "if you're sincerely want to "tell a story of why [you're] in this", just do it", was posted hopefully.. To what 'standard' of 'what is' are you referring? Between your 'imitial question', "So my question is this: do you feel that you participate here at least in part because you like a good fight?", which is a question of motive, and.. your choice of enormous bold fonts, both bold font instances referencing 'motives', i applied my stupendous powers of speculation, and ciphered curiosity of motive on your part.. Be well.. Well, any day outside and active, right? I can see where you inferred a question of motive in the opener because of the use of the word "because". What I was more interested in was the qualities of experience (as in the components of what is experienced, not a rating) rather than any causal link, but that's what was in the words, so I won't explain or challenge any further on whether that opener qualifies as a question about intent and shall keep my part of the bargain forthwith. As far as the font-play was concerned, that was simply to bring to light the contradiction. The curiosity I expressed was generalized in one sense in that it wasn't focused into a specific question, but nowhere do I ask you a motive -- it was only about the dissonance. Whether or not being ultra-specific about what someone conveyed during these correspondence qualifies as "tmt" aside, the words are all we have in this medium. Here, the words are "what is", and the standard that I referred to is addressing only what is rather than what isn't. My motive at the outset here was the same motive for any conversation: to converse. The story starts here, with a genuine curiosity on my part about what myself and others perceive as combativeness on your part. Conversations are fluid things Bob so don't expect that you can infer this motive as a constant. There's been quite a bit of water under the bridge since the revival of this thread and that original curiosity is long gone. The disagreement between yourself and others here on the conceptual point of the nature of the individual is likely to persist as long as you participate here. In my experience, this doesn't necessarily have to lead to the constant expressions of negativity that topo' and I have have referenced as combativeness: healthy, well-adjusted adults can always choose to agree to disagree. The nature of the conversation here, however, has certain unique facets with regard to the nature of identity that can render such agreement ineffective. All points valid. You are curious as to 'why' the combativeness, motive.. when i first arrived here it easy to identify my old sparring partner, Phil, and to notice that he was still pushing his agenda (yes, i push my own, too..).. so, i posted some 'probing' posts, to see if he was any more agreeable to open honest direct discussion, to which he offered the illusion that he was, but.. there were several members that responded rather aggressively, and it seems to be the standard operating procedure at this forum.. a good conversation about oneness, non-duality, neo-advaita, etc.. compared to letting go of all beliefs, all knowing, in favor of what i understand to be clarity, is nearly impossible.. What i observe, is an avoidance of this discussion, an avoidance of looking at the core beliefs compared to no beliefs.. and, i find myself frequently being pushed at aggressively by several members at once, and frankly.. i am not inclined to spend so much time here soothing everyone's wounded egos with pages of delicate minding, it's a word-fest without a beneficial result.. so, this 'club/gang' has conditioned me as it has conditioned others on this forum to be prepared for a group assault when i post understandings that contradict their understandings.. If we were to meet and have these discussions in person i am certain you and others would be very surprised, based on your current expressions of your opinion of 'Tzu'.. i am honestly interested in exploring the relationship of 'my' existence with the totality of existence, and.. as i'm sure you've noticed, i am not interested in 'beliefs about' these relationships, i'm interested in those willing to look directly at what 'is happening'.. when someone starts telling me "it's all a dream", or "it's all imagined", or "my guru says this".. it is clear they are no longer 'looking directly at' what is actually happening, they are looking through the lens of beliefs.. Anyway, there you have it.. the short answer, is that when i am in hostile territories i conduct myself accordingly.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 16, 2013 5:24:17 GMT -5
Greetings.. If a request is allowed to be a movement of your mind while it is still, since that is how you know you experience a request while your mind is still. Why can your mind not also move in response while being still, thus allowing you to participate in actual dialogue while maintaining stillness? It seems to me that what you are calling stillness is forced passivity of the mind. If you can't be still while the mind responds, then your stillness is conditional and can be disturbed and agitated. Tzujanli, I must have missed where you responded to this. Is it possible to be still while responding and not lose the stillness of the mind? Hi Top: i do not differentiate between 'you and mind', if the mind responds 'i' respond.. the stillness i refer to, the stillness of mind while experiencing existence, allows the experience to by-pass the mind's filing/judgment/categorizing system and the experience is absorbed in who/what we 'are'.. in this way, rather than engage 'minding' as a response, a natural and resonant response emerges from that which we have become, and it emerges from stillness.. This is a difficult understanding for those that are used to 'minding' as their mode of understanding.. even those that believe that their beliefs represent the process i have described, they are still separating themselves from the actual process, allowing their beliefs and their minding about those beliefs to become an attachment.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by topology on Apr 16, 2013 7:24:41 GMT -5
Greetings.. Tzujanli, I must have missed where you responded to this. Is it possible to be still while responding and not lose the stillness of the mind? Hi Top: i do not differentiate between 'you and mind', if the mind responds 'i' respond.. the stillness i refer to, the stillness of mind while experiencing existence, allows the experience to by-pass the mind's filing/judgment/categorizing system and the experience is absorbed in who/what we 'are'.. in this way, rather than engage 'minding' as a response, a natural and resonant response emerges from that which we have become, and it emerges from stillness.. This is a difficult understanding for those that are used to 'minding' as their mode of understanding.. even those that believe that their beliefs represent the process i have described, they are still separating themselves from the actual process, allowing their beliefs and their minding about those beliefs to become an attachment.. Be well.. Suppose two people were both able to speak from stillness, would it be possible that each would perceive the other as minding?
|
|