Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2013 12:51:02 GMT -5
IMO, the mind or rather the EGO cannot 'know' the truth, because it is in direct opposition to the truth. The EGO can only attack the truth, which justifies it's very own existence. Dear Dude/Dudette, nouns = mind stuff truth = noun ---> truth = mind stuff Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize LOL...truth is an equation?? Maybe you have a formula for LOVE too?...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2013 13:37:58 GMT -5
What were you doing when you were 'giving attention to silence?' Meditation?? There wasn't some sort of formal practice, rather just that I became more and more fascinated with what people often coin "that space between thoughts". That interest would assert itself at all different times, including at work or even in the middle of a conversation with someone. There wasn't some sort of concrete line where too much interest in silence was scary but there seemed to be a threshold where "something" would begin to feel threatened. It didn't make much sense at the time but I understand now. It's also that sort of imaginary line where spirituality crossed over from a sort of theoretical "wow, this stuff is interesting and stuff" type of attitude to something very real and very serious. I don't mean to say that a serious attitude is necessary because really the whole thing is kind of halarious but it was a necessary transition. The halarity obviously due in part to the fact that this whole sort of journey I'm describing was also not what it seems. In other words Max, he was living in the NOW...
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 6, 2013 15:27:03 GMT -5
I'm curious about this 'falling away'. Do you mean to say there's no clarity involved? Stuff just doesn't happen anymore? As what I call "natural focus" or child like focus becomes the primary way with which a form interacts, there is a "falling away" of previous egoic structures. Structures that were kept in place through incessant mental reinforcement; the me, my wants, my plans, my ideas about things, etc..., lose momentum and eventually no longer appear in the field of awareness. So there is clarity involved, but not the mental arrangement of words into clear sentences and sign posts, clarity. That kind of clarity comes along through thinking about how to use limitating words to explain an unlimited topic. Then writing/saying some to see if they work. They trying some more. Then some more. 18,000 posts later....... When I talk about clarity, I'm never referring to conceptual clarity or the kind of clarity that comes through thinking and involves effective wording. I'm talking about realization, which is needed for stuff to 'fall away'. I don't know what 'non-trying clarity' is, nor do I know what 'youthful clarity' is. What it sounds like is that the term 'clarity' has been kidnapped and forced into a box at gunpoint. To be blunt, i don't believe you because I see the mind labeling machine operating in auto mode, which is inevitable,and that's why some clarity about those labels is necessary. Can one see the truth from within delusion, resulting in the delusion falling away? This seems to suppose there is something to see beyond the falsity of beliefs. What is this thing you recognize "which all our words try to point to"? I dunno. Seems irrelevant to the conversation, really.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2013 19:57:41 GMT -5
Dear Mr Goat, In your signature you’ve got a quote by Mr Nhat Hanh "Mindfulness refers to keeping one's consciousness alive to the present reality. It is the miracle by which we master and restore ourselves." Mr Nhat Hanh, being a Buddhist, would be well aware of the three marks of existence. Anicca (impermanence), Dukkha (dissatisfaction), and Anatta (no-self). And quoting from Wikipedia Anatta (Sanskrit anatman) or "non-Self" is used in the suttas both as a noun and as a predicative adjective to denote that phenomena are not, or are without, a self; to describe any and all composite, consubstantial, phenomenal and temporal things, from the macrocosmic to microcosmic, be it matter pertaining to the physical body or the cosmos at large, as well as any and all mental machinations, which are impermanent. From what I can tell so far, and especially from your reply to ZD, you don’t seem to buy into this non-dual stuff. But then you go and quote a well known Buddhist in your signature, and Buddhists are into no self in a BIG WAY. How can you believe there is a self if you are referencing Buddhist teachings which state that there is no self? Kind Regards, Earnest. "Mindfulness refers to keeping one's consciousness alive to the present reality. It is the miracle by which we master and restore ourselves." - Thich Nhat Hanh
I have never said i believe there is a self. I cannot explore if i am tied down with beliefs, i cannot see clearly if my sight is clouded with beliefs. My sig quote speaks of self restoration and mastery, i see no reference to self not existing. There are no references to buddhist teachings in my sig, there is just one thought by a person who is a buddhist. I am not a buddhist, i am not restricted or controlled by the beliefs of any philosophy or religion. I have profoundly benefited from eastern philosophy, but not the teachings of no self or all is illusion. I am an observer and listener of Buddha, not a buddhist. I choose to do what eastern philosophy teaches, observe and reason for myself. If another has a different interpretation of the sig or of eastern teachings, then they do.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 6, 2013 20:26:56 GMT -5
Greetings.. As what I call "natural focus" or child like focus becomes the primary way with which a form interacts, there is a "falling away" of previous egoic structures. Structures that were kept in place through incessant mental reinforcement; the me, my wants, my plans, my ideas about things, etc..., lose momentum and eventually no longer appear in the field of awareness. So there is clarity involved, but not the mental arrangement of words into clear sentences and sign posts, clarity. That kind of clarity comes along through thinking about how to use limitating words to explain an unlimited topic. Then writing/saying some to see if they work. They trying some more. Then some more. 18,000 posts later....... Tzu: But.. you are conceiving the effective words to communicate how you redefine 'clarity' to suit what you want it to mean.. which is odd, considering that the words 'clarity' and 'realization' have different meanings.. Tzu: So, it seems that rather than clarity (freedom from indistinctness or ambiguity) you prefer to create your own meaning and create ambiguity where the word clarity is sufficient for its own meaning.. if you wanted to talk about 'realization' why not just use that word rather than use a word that doesn't mean realization? or, in case you aren't familiar with the usual usage of the word 'realization', here's how most folks understand the word:Tzu: Considering your own attempt to redefine the meaning of clarity to be the same as your understanding of 'realization', it seems more like it is 'you' trying to "kidnap" the term 'clarity'..To be blunt, i don't believe you because I see the mind labeling machine operating in auto mode, which is inevitable,and that's why some clarity about those labels is necessary. Can one see the truth from within delusion, resulting in the delusion falling away? This seems to suppose there is something to see beyond the falsity of beliefs. What is this thing you recognize "which all our words try to point to"? Be well..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 6, 2013 20:58:14 GMT -5
Greetings.. Tzu: But.. you are conceiving the effective words to communicate how you redefine 'clarity' to suit what you want it to mean.. which is odd, considering that the words 'clarity' and 'realization' have different meanings.. Tzu: So, it seems that rather than clarity (freedom from indistinctness or ambiguity) you prefer to create your own meaning and create ambiguity where the word clarity is sufficient for its own meaning.. if you wanted to talk about 'realization' why not just use that word rather than use a word that doesn't mean realization? or, in case you aren't familiar with the usual usage of the word 'realization', here's how most folks understand the word:Tzu: Considering your own attempt to redefine the meaning of clarity to be the same as your understanding of 'realization', it seems more like it is 'you' trying to "kidnap" the term 'clarity'..To be blunt, i don't believe you because I see the mind labeling machine operating in auto mode, which is inevitable,and that's why some clarity about those labels is necessary. Can one see the truth from within delusion, resulting in the delusion falling away? This seems to suppose there is something to see beyond the falsity of beliefs. What is this thing you recognize "which all our words try to point to"? Be well.. I don't define clarity to mean the same as realization. I said I'm talking about realization, as realization leads to clarity. There are many words used in a spiritual context that don't carry quite the same meaning as the dictionary defines them. I know this is a source of frustration for you and some other literalists, but that's the consequence of trying to talk about such spiritual matters that are sufficiently uncommon in everyday conversation that most dictionaries don't see fit to include a reference that we can use directly. As such, it's often necessary to clarify what each of us means by certain terms, which is what I did. The way I use 'clarity' is not radically different from the dictionary definition, but "non-trying clarity" and "youthful clarity" is a major departure. Why is it you aren't having this conversation with OHC instead of wagging your finger at me for pointing out that departure? (Rhetorical question)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2013 23:27:23 GMT -5
EDIT: MG, This is an invitation to play a game: What is Topology trying to say/convey? I want to see if we can communicate on a different level, more through intuition. There are 3 distinct messages or levels of meaning, each one building on the one before it. If you choose not to play, I'll open the game up for anyone to contribute. Spectators are free to PM me if you want to play now. I'd like to see if you can communicate on the ground level of using words. I'll pass on your game and will not bother to ask for an explanation of why you posted all this in response to my observations and queries of zendancer's post.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Apr 7, 2013 0:08:46 GMT -5
EDIT: MG, This is an invitation to play a game: What is Topology trying to say/convey? I want to see if we can communicate on a different level, more through intuition. There are 3 distinct messages or levels of meaning, each one building on the one before it. If you choose not to play, I'll open the game up for anyone to contribute. Spectators are free to PM me if you want to play now. I'd like to see if you can communicate on the ground level of using words. I'll pass on your game and will not bother to ask for an explanation of why you posted all this in response to my observations and queries of zendancer's post.To give a maladapted apropism, suture yourself. floor is open for anyone who wants to stab at the message.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 7, 2013 0:09:50 GMT -5
Dear Dude/Dudette, nouns = mind stuff truth = noun ---> truth = mind stuff Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize LOL...truth is an equation?? Maybe you have a formula for LOVE too?... Dear Dude/Dudette, There is. It's the same universal formula: nouns = mind stuff love = noun ---> love = mind stuff Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 7, 2013 0:37:56 GMT -5
I'd like to see if you can communicate on the ground level of using words. I'll pass on your game and will not bother to ask for an explanation of why you posted all this in response to my observations and queries of zendancer's post. To give a maladapted apropism, suture yourself. floor is open for anyone who wants to stab at the message. Dear Dude/Dudette, What's the point in posting such disgusting pictures? Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2013 0:42:14 GMT -5
LOL...truth is an equation?? Maybe you have a formula for LOVE too?... Dear Dude/Dudette, There is. It's the same universal formula: nouns = mind stuff love = noun ---> love = mind stuff Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize I Love your Love formula...
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 7, 2013 0:44:09 GMT -5
Dear Dude/Dudette, There is. It's the same universal formula: nouns = mind stuff love = noun ---> love = mind stuff Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize I Love your Love formula... Dear Dude/Dudette, Yes, not sweet, but simple. Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 7, 2013 0:50:17 GMT -5
I'd like to see if you can communicate on the ground level of using words. I'll pass on your game and will not bother to ask for an explanation of why you posted all this in response to my observations and queries of zendancer's post. To give a maladapted apropism, suture yourself. floor is open for anyone who wants to stab at the message. I'll leave what I see as the most direct level unsaid for others who come along. A second level that I see that is a bit less obvious is that M-G took what myself and what I would speculate several other readers took as words sourced from life and containing, as much as words can, the essence of that life, and dealt with them as something inert. Is the third level an ironic iconic? (... I think I can leave this at least on the edge of the table as well ...)
|
|
|
Post by topology on Apr 7, 2013 3:27:20 GMT -5
To give a maladapted apropism, suture yourself. floor is open for anyone who wants to stab at the message. Dear Dude/Dudette, What's the point in posting such disgusting pictures? Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize The picture was disgusting?
|
|
|
Post by topology on Apr 7, 2013 3:39:22 GMT -5
To give a maladapted apropism, suture yourself. floor is open for anyone who wants to stab at the message. I'll leave what I see as the most direct level unsaid for others who come along. A second level that I see that is a bit less obvious is that M-G took what myself and what I would speculate several other readers took as words sourced from life and containing, as much as words can, the essence of that life, and dealt with them as something inert. Is the third level an ironic iconic? (... I think I can leave this at least on the edge of the table as well ...) Just to be clear, it had nothing to do with the boards own phroggy. The frog = ZD's message. What you posted was half way between the 2nd and 3rd points I was trying to convey. The 3rd is a more general moral to our Aesop's Fable. The 2nd still relates to the condition of the message/post (it's now dead, Jim).
|
|