|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 12, 2013 11:18:53 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. Hi Top: My understanding is simple.. just let go of attachments like beliefs, even 'knowing'.. i experience clarity when i suspend the mind's 'thinking' processes.. i experience some challenges when intentionally recalling those direct experiences for the purposes of fitting them into my private mindscape's 'intentional' interaction with its environment.. this is when it is useful to have experience with 'feeling' energetic resonance, such that fitting experiences into the mindscape's 'understanding' is energetically coherent with what is actually happening.. that same sensitivity to energetic resonances also counsels the mind's adjustments and revisions to the mindscape and the understandings.. I don't understand/believe that i am different or have different abilities than others, i understand that others have the same capacity to suspend their thinking processes.. i hear many different 'perspectives', and when hearing those perspectives i 'see clearly' that they are influenced by people's beliefs/attachments.. and, i 'see clearly' that the conflicts between beliefs/attachments are a source of suffering in the human experience.. I suggest that what people think 'about' their direct experience, i.e.: Life happening as an interconnected functioning whole, but thought 'about' as 'oneness' excluding the obvious parts interacting.. that is a degree of separation from clarity..There's an open honest account of my understanding, i'm trusting you are sincere.. we'll see how others interact, too.. Be well.. My experience with the mind has shown me that suspending thinking isn't enough. There are filters still active when looking out in the world and what is seen "clearly" can still be heavily interpreted and susceptible to confirmation bias. Even if the mind being silent for a while (absent of thinking) when the mind becomes active again, it usually picks up right where it left off. Energetic resonance of the mind I have found is more a product of coherence between beliefs and interpretations. A thought or idea resonates and coheres to other pre-existing thoughts or ideas. It is in having to wrestle with cognitive dissonance that I have found the most advancement in my own thinking and perceptive processes. You advocate letting go of beliefs, attachment and knowing. How is the underlined not something you yourself could take your own advice on? Are you supposing/theorizing i do not take my own advice? I largely agree with your understanding of the mind's distortion functions, and.. it is my experience that it is not nearly as difficult as you portray to mitigate those distortion functions.. 'feeling' resonance is especially revealing, and once understood it transcends the mind's distortion functions as a barometer of what is actually happening.. i am fairly diligent in accounting for attachments while recalling and 'thinking about' what 'is'.. sometimes, it's easy to be influenced by beliefs we 'think' are true, or to deny experiences we haven't personally verified.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 12, 2013 14:25:41 GMT -5
It's the same dilemma that Figs and Andrew encounter repeatedly. It occurs to me that peeps prone to analyzing the finger don't recognize that something is being pointed to that mind isn't going to be able to fully wrap itself around. Something like 'Nothing is ultimately true' or 'oneness is not the integration of parts' may not sound like pointers to realizations. They're taken to be mental conclusions and so mind feels free to analyze and logically argue them and ask for proof and such. FWIW, I vouch for JLU, that doesn't apply to him ... don't want to put words in his mouth beyond that. Okay. I don't remember what he said, so all I know is that I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 12, 2013 14:34:06 GMT -5
It's the same dilemma that Figs and Andrew encounter repeatedly. It occurs to me that peeps prone to analyzing the finger don't recognize that something is being pointed to that mind isn't going to be able to fully wrap itself around. Something like 'Nothing is ultimately true' or 'oneness is not the integration of parts' may not sound like pointers to realizations. They're taken to be mental conclusions and so mind feels free to analyze and logically argue them and ask for proof and such. Dear Dude/Dudette, Yup. That's the usual hick-up, or as I call it, where certain folks tend to 'hit a wall' over and over again. Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize Yes, it's become more apparent to me lately as peeps keep asking the question 'How do you know?' and apparently expect a logical answer.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 12, 2013 14:38:23 GMT -5
The problem isn't so much that its a contradictory and deceitful thing to say, the problem is how you then go on to use the idea that 'nothing is ultimately true' to uphold knowledge. You can't, which is what I was addressing here:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2013 14:45:48 GMT -5
Greetings.. My experience with the mind has shown me that suspending thinking isn't enough. There are filters still active when looking out in the world and what is seen "clearly" can still be heavily interpreted and susceptible to confirmation bias. Even if the mind being silent for a while (absent of thinking) when the mind becomes active again, it usually picks up right where it left off. Energetic resonance of the mind I have found is more a product of coherence between beliefs and interpretations. A thought or idea resonates and coheres to other pre-existing thoughts or ideas. It is in having to wrestle with cognitive dissonance that I have found the most advancement in my own thinking and perceptive processes. You advocate letting go of beliefs, attachment and knowing. How is the underlined not something you yourself could take your own advice on? Are you supposing/theorizing i do not take my own advice? I largely agree with your understanding of the mind's distortion functions, and.. it is my experience that it is not nearly as difficult as you portray to mitigate those distortion functions.. 'feeling' resonance is especially revealing, and once understood it transcends the mind's distortion functions as a barometer of what is actually happening.. i am fairly diligent in accounting for attachments while recalling and 'thinking about' what 'is'.. sometimes, it's easy to be influenced by beliefs we 'think' are true, or to deny experiences we haven't personally verified.. Be well.. If you did take your own advice then you would know that there is no-one there, who can let go.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 12, 2013 14:48:20 GMT -5
The problem isn't so much that its a contradictory and deceitful thing to say, the problem is how you then go on to use the idea that 'nothing is ultimately true' to uphold knowledge. You can't, which is what I was addressing here: Finally got round to this eh? You do use the idea that 'nothing is ultimately true' to uphold knowledge and I showed how. Creating the idea of an 'ultimate' (or greasy spot) to collapse all other ideas into is merely medicine for the mind, a panacea for mental pain. It creates the impression that a full cup of knowledge IS being emptied, but its just an impression....an illusion. Your cup is never actually empty. Mind is never transcended.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 12, 2013 14:48:50 GMT -5
It just means no idea has a solid foundation. Forget the word 'ultimate' and it won't keep you up at night anymore. The realization that ideas are absent of solid foundation is a useful one, unfortunately you have turned it into TMT by affirming and concluding the existence of an ultimate, and then out of that, you claim that 'knowledge is true in its context'. If the 'ultimate' is just alleged, i.e. is just another idea, then there are no objective contexts for knowledge to be true in. It means that 'context' is just another free floating idea. Its just alleged. Do you understand this? The moment you affirm an ultimate, you affirm context. The moment you affirm context is the moment you justify knowledge being true and mind is fully established in the driver's seat. You're not going to stop over-thinking cuz it's your nature, but really we can't discuss this.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 12, 2013 14:53:18 GMT -5
The realization that ideas are absent of solid foundation is a useful one, unfortunately you have turned it into TMT by affirming and concluding the existence of an ultimate, and then out of that, you claim that 'knowledge is true in its context'. If the 'ultimate' is just alleged, i.e. is just another idea, then there are no objective contexts for knowledge to be true in. It means that 'context' is just another free floating idea. Its just alleged. Do you understand this? The moment you affirm an ultimate, you affirm context. The moment you affirm context is the moment you justify knowledge being true and mind is fully established in the driver's seat. You're not going to stop over-thinking cuz it's your nature, but really we can't discuss this. The great irony is that 'nothing is ultimately true' is TMT. You turned a simple realization into a mental conclusion to give yourself some temporary and artificial relief from mind being in the driver's seat. I am engaging you at the level of TMT because that is the level at which you function at. The only reason you create a greasy spot, and the only reason you focus on collapsing ideas down, is because you are constantly engaged in TMT. In not-knowing there is no reason to collapse ideas. Sure a bit of quiet meditation might be appropriate sometimes, but there is no need to create the idea of some kind of 'greasy spot' in order to experience some temporary relief.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 12, 2013 14:54:41 GMT -5
It's the absolute truth that I do not go around declaring absolute truths. It doesn't appear that nothing is happening. It appears that all sorts of stuff is happening, but without time, space, inside and outside as actualities, there can't really be 'happenings'. Isn't the everything/nothing thingy just the two sides of the same coin thingy? You guys seem to be arguing for one side of the coin. We were talking about happenings.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 12, 2013 14:57:10 GMT -5
The realization that ideas are absent of solid foundation is a useful one, unfortunately you have turned it into TMT by affirming and concluding the existence of an ultimate, and then out of that, you claim that 'knowledge is true in its context'. If the 'ultimate' is just alleged, i.e. is just another idea, then there are no objective contexts for knowledge to be true in. It means that 'context' is just another free floating idea. Its just alleged. Do you understand this? The moment you affirm an ultimate, you affirm context. The moment you affirm context is the moment you justify knowledge being true and mind is fully established in the driver's seat. I foresee an ongoing argument on "the concept of a contextless context is just an idea" or somethingorother coming up. Glad you're back andrew. Hope your hiatus was, shall we saaaaay, fruitlessly fruitful. It's likely to be a coversationless conversation. Hehe.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 12, 2013 15:02:39 GMT -5
The realization that ideas are absent of solid foundation is a useful one, unfortunately you have turned it into TMT by affirming and concluding the existence of an ultimate, and then out of that, you claim that 'knowledge is true in its context'. If the 'ultimate' is just alleged, i.e. is just another idea, then there are no objective contexts for knowledge to be true in. It means that 'context' is just another free floating idea. Its just alleged. Do you understand this? The moment you affirm an ultimate, you affirm context. The moment you affirm context is the moment you justify knowledge being true and mind is fully established in the driver's seat. FWIW, andrewperm, the way I understand 'no idea is ultimately true' isn't a reference to an ultimate or absolute case. It's just another way of saying that one shouldn't get too invested in their thoughts. It's a reminder to relax the focus a little, open up, smell the roses. It's a pointer to the fact that ideas are just ideas. What it is not is an invitation to spin with it and say, 'But that's just an idea.....and that.....and that!
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 12, 2013 15:08:11 GMT -5
You're not going to stop over-thinking cuz it's your nature, but really we can't discuss this. The great irony is that 'nothing is ultimately true' is TMT. You turned a simple realization into a mental conclusion to give yourself some temporary and artificial relief from mind being in the driver's seat. I am engaging you at the level of TMT because that is the level at which you function at. The only reason you create a greasy spot, and the only reason you focus on collapsing ideas down, is because you are constantly engaged in TMT. In not-knowing there is no reason to collapse ideas. Sure a bit of quiet meditation might be appropriate sometimes, but there is no need to create the idea of some kind of 'greasy spot' in order to experience some temporary relief. If I may, Andrew, would you at all care to define 'mind' for me? (just trying to grasp what you're saying, here).
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 12, 2013 15:19:24 GMT -5
Yep I can see how telling ourselves that could trigger a relaxing of the focus a little, an opening up, smelling the roses. In that sense, its a nice 'sentiment', a mental strategy to deal with the pain of mind. It does presuppose and affirm an alleged 'ultimate' though which means that it has nothing to do with not-knowing. I don't agree that your last sentence there necessarily follows. It's actually pointing out that there are limits of knowing and that it's probably best to accept not-knowing. That's how I read it anyhoo. To know something presupposes an absolute conceptual truth; some knowledge about something that has a solid foundation beyond the imaginary movements of mind. There is no such truth, and there is nothing to know. The idea that there is nothing to know might imply that no realization is needed, but realization is not the realization of some conceptual knowledge. It's basically the realization of what is NOT so, which not a gain of knowledge but rather a loss.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 12, 2013 15:20:36 GMT -5
FWIW, andrewperm, the way I understand 'no idea is ultimately true' isn't a reference to an ultimate or absolute case. It's just another way of saying that one shouldn't get too invested in their thoughts. It's a reminder to relax the focus a little, open up, smell the roses. It's a pointer to the fact that ideas are just ideas. What it is not is an invitation to spin with it and say, 'But that's just an idea.....and that.....and that! You are correct that the idea that 'no idea is ultimately true' does not lead to a self-referencing spin because an 'ultimate' is consistently affirmed. This is a problem. When it comes to a realization about the nature of ideas, a spin is essential. You may sometimes find yourself in a position of 'I dont know', but you couldn't find yourself in a position of 'I don't even know if I dont know. And neither do I care'.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 12, 2013 15:31:23 GMT -5
FWIW, andrewperm, the way I understand 'no idea is ultimately true' isn't a reference to an ultimate or absolute case. It's just another way of saying that one shouldn't get too invested in their thoughts. It's a reminder to relax the focus a little, open up, smell the roses. It's a pointer to the fact that ideas are just ideas. What it is not is an invitation to spin with it and say, 'But that's just an idea.....and that.....and that! So there's this rumor of a really fun party and no invitations are sent out ... whaddya' 'xpect ta' happen when ya' see ur neighbors on the street?
|
|