Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2013 16:34:13 GMT -5
I honest to god don't get the connection. And if you want childish - I mean, if you really really want childish, I've seen worse than verbed's recent post that you wagged your finger at. All you have to do is look. It isn't hard. ![http://bartrage.com/files/dugger_you_mad.jpg](http://bartrage.com/files/dugger_you_mad.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by silence on Jul 6, 2013 22:18:27 GMT -5
Ha ha. I can't tell if you guys are agreeing or disagreeing or just writing about the same thing from slightly different perspectives. Silence wrote: "The moment you look out and distinguish anything from anything else, thought is involved." Yes, surely we can all agree that the act of distinction involves thought (cognition), but how about when we look and see WITHOUT cognition? What about when we see "what is" directly and without cognizing anything (any thing). When we look at the world in that way (non-cognitively/non-conceptually), we see without knowing (without distinguishing name or form). That kind of seeing is like seeing in the same way as the lens of a camera. What we see might best be described as "a seamless field of being" in which no objects (things) are distinguished or imagined. When we look at "what is" in that way, no verbal discursive thought occurs, and there is total mental silence. The body/mind thereby perceives and interacts with "what is" intelligently but without the mediation of cognition. The world is known directly through the body and the intellect is quiescent. I'm not suggesting that people need to see in this way, but I'm wondering if there is agreement that this is possible, and is this what Tzu is pointing to when he writes "I and many others can....(see in this way)"? If everyone agrees that both of these modes of seeing (cognitively and non-cognitively) are options, then what is being disagreed upon? Just curious.[/quote] Right and absent cognition denies the vault of conclusions tzu derives from within the "still mind experience".
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 6, 2013 23:44:29 GMT -5
I have noticed when a situation arises like this, both reefs and e are always more than happy to choose being right over being happy. Another choice they won't make, is taking discussions to the unmoderated section. I haven't yet been informed that that there is a need to do so. If I am, I will.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 6, 2013 23:45:48 GMT -5
Greetings.. Another choice they won't make, is taking discussions to the unmoderated section. I'm not going there, either.. we don't need a slug-fest to communicate successfully.. language is an art-form.. i've visited the 'un-moderated area' and seen what it could descend into, not interested.. some of it reminds me of when teenagers get out of their parent's house, then they can use their juvenile language.. there's enough ambiguity with civil language, enough emotional intensity without adding inflammatory language.. Be well.. I agree.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 6, 2013 23:50:18 GMT -5
I see mind as a process of cognition. Hi enigma, Does that process have a purpose in your functioning? For example if you are criticized or rejected does the mind consider what response to give if any. What might be involved in those considerations for you? If you could elaborate it may save a lot of unnecessary Q and A. amit Mind obviously has a purpose. I don't know what you're getting at.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 6, 2013 23:57:40 GMT -5
Ok cool, so yes 'it's just more threads under a different heading' is something to work with. The 'over there' has a lot of associative ideas written into it, that can be jostled for, complained about and can get you into a tidy old mess trying to get people to post where you think they ought to. The only stipulation that I've seen, that has any value about an unmoderated section, is that Peter cannot get drawn into anything written. I don't have any illusions about controlling other peeps' 'associative ideas' that they have written into whatever the heck ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) I said. I don't care where peeps post their stuff in the least. I don't know where you would get that idea from, tbh. I let others handle their own messes. Why do you think I care or Why? Do you think I care? heheh. Maybe because you said "Another choice they won't make, is taking discussions to the unmoderated section."
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 7, 2013 0:01:15 GMT -5
I honest to god don't get the connection. I honest to God don't believe you. You're too intelligent to not get it.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 7, 2013 0:19:31 GMT -5
Greetings.. I honest to god don't get the connection. I honest to God don't believe you. You're too intelligent to not get it. And, you think your beliefs about someone else is more valid than someone's word about their own self? you really don't understand human relationships, do you? it really is all about 'you', and what 'you' want.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jul 7, 2013 0:34:45 GMT -5
I honest to god don't get the connection. I honest to God don't believe you. You're too intelligent to not get it. See, this is how and when you totally get away with insulting people - back-handed compliments. Calling people liars. I don't have an explanation because I really don't get what you are on about - well, you and co. Makes no sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jul 7, 2013 1:54:40 GMT -5
Greetings.. In that "both" answer, are you one part or all parts? I am this part, and the collective whole.. Be well.. Hi tzu, I'd be interested to know if you are saying that there is only Mind? Did you have a feeling of disconnection (use your own term if that's not it) that ended by the seeing that Mind is the collective whole? Is that the profound effect you were talking about in your main post about mind? amit
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 7, 2013 2:38:04 GMT -5
Greetings.. I honest to God don't believe you. You're too intelligent to not get it. And, you think your beliefs about someone else is more valid than someone's word about their own self? you really don't understand human relationships, do you? it really is all about 'you', and what 'you' want.. Be well.. Sometimes, yes. Haven't you ever come to the determination that someone is not telling you the truth? Why is that so hard to understand?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 7, 2013 2:39:19 GMT -5
I honest to God don't believe you. You're too intelligent to not get it. See, this is how and when you totally get away with insulting people - back-handed compliments. Calling people liars. I don't have an explanation because I really don't get what you are on about - well, you and co. Makes no sense to me. It wasn't a compliment, backhanded or otherwise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2013 6:19:52 GMT -5
Greetings.. I honest to God don't believe you. You're too intelligent to not get it. And, you think your beliefs about someone else is more valid than someone's word about their own self? you really don't understand human relationships, do you? it really is all about 'you', and what 'you' want.. Be well.. Are you saying that you, tzujanli, understand human relationships?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2013 6:23:33 GMT -5
I honest to God don't believe you. You're too intelligent to not get it. See, this is how and when you totally get away with insulting people - back-handed compliments. Calling people liars. I don't have an explanation because I really don't get what you are on about - well, you and co. Makes no sense to me. Will you still be writing posts that tell people to write in the unmoderated section?
|
|
|
Post by serpentqueen on Jul 7, 2013 8:25:08 GMT -5
FWIW ATA is not a strategy for getting anything. It is simply the shifting of attention to what is already here and now. Most people would rather spend their time thinking, telling themselves stories, chasing figments of their imagination, and getting angry that reality does not conform to their ideas than looking at the world and interacting with it directly. But often (more often than not for some of us, ahem), thinking, telling stories, chasing figments of imagination and getting angry IS what is already here and now. The implication from your wording here is that is not okay, that's a problem, that is what one is doing wrong, if only that could be fixed, if only the mind could be stilled, something will finally be achieved, and that reality will be revealed. It may be more constructive instead to suggest that all of those activities are just fine, they are part of what is, they are part of reality in that here/now moment too. I just saw this forum has an "Add Attachment" button and that made me laugh so hard I lost my train of thought.
|
|