|
Post by silence on Aug 30, 2013 17:02:52 GMT -5
Greetings.. I don't have a problem with talking about choices being made and people exploring what they want to explore because that's actually what's happening. There's no vengeful god or universe not willing to allow you to have a realization or forcing you to look in dark corners. From my perspective, most if not all spiritual seeking is the direct result of not actually perceiving a choice in the matter. There's just this tool called thought to understand things and what the hell else am I going to use to resolve all these matters at hand?As i choose, i take counsel from what is actually happening, allowing balance to reveal the wisdom in these translated words from thousands of years ago: " For everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven".. "thought" is balanced by stillness and silence, each relevant to the understanding of 'what we are'.. the awareness that stillness and silence presents clear undistorted information with which thought can understand its relevance seems self-evident, yes? Be well.. Thought is not only entirely irrelevant to understanding what you are but literally the only distraction that stands in your way. Which doesn't mean you need to stop thinking or anything. It just means you need to stop looking to thought for any sort of clarity about yourself. This process of thought, about yourself is what is referred to as ego and it is an unnatural role for mind. It creates incessant stress and ongoing delusion. Balance returns to mind when it is released from this role. Thought functions when it is necessary for it to function and no more. This is called sanity.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Aug 30, 2013 22:07:32 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. As i choose, i take counsel from what is actually happening, allowing balance to reveal the wisdom in these translated words from thousands of years ago: " For everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven".. "thought" is balanced by stillness and silence, each relevant to the understanding of 'what we are'.. the awareness that stillness and silence presents clear undistorted information with which thought can understand its relevance seems self-evident, yes? Be well.. Thought is not only entirely irrelevant to understanding what you are but literally the only distraction that stands in your way. Which doesn't mean you need to stop thinking or anything. It just means you need to stop looking to thought for any sort of clarity about yourself. This process of thought, about yourself is what is referred to as ego and it is an unnatural role for mind. It creates incessant stress and ongoing delusion. Balance returns to mind when it is released from this role. Thought functions when it is necessary for it to function and no more. This is called sanity. And yet, here you are, inextricably attached to thought.. every word spoken begins as thought, and every understanding.. there is no 'understanding' in the silent stillness, just clarity.. i'm not 'looking to' anything for understanding, it's a natural occurrence.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Aug 31, 2013 5:51:49 GMT -5
The layers of thought is like the depth of the mind, but we usually refer to the superficial notions of thought, and like to trivialize it, but there's not really a disparity between the thinker and the thought, they're basically the same, but there's the dissemination of depths and a distinction between what one can regard as themselves and what is not that. It's not actually a steeped reality, it's all within thought processes... so you can say it really is a thought, but not what the thought really is.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 31, 2013 10:08:11 GMT -5
Absent perspective there is nothing to have perspective on, which is to say, that there would be nothing.
That there is something rather than nothing is self-evident, as is the point that a perspective, by nature, has the twin characteristics of uniqueness and limitation.
That the mind can integrate doesn't negate the generality that the mind is a function of and a generator of distinction, as any integration inescapably results in the distinctions between integrator, what was integrated, and what wasn't integrated.
Since limitation will ever obscure the unbounded, the mind, which is limited to generating limitation, can ever only be on notice of that limitlessness, but of course, can never grasp it. Giving this notice is referred to as pointing.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 31, 2013 10:09:39 GMT -5
Greetings.. As i choose, i take counsel from what is actually happening, allowing balance to reveal the wisdom in these translated words from thousands of years ago: " For everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven".. "thought" is balanced by stillness and silence, each relevant to the understanding of 'what we are'.. the awareness that stillness and silence presents clear undistorted information with which thought can understand its relevance seems self-evident, yes? Be well.. Thought is not only entirely irrelevant to understanding what you are but literally the only distraction that stands in your way. Which doesn't mean you need to stop thinking or anything. It just means you need to stop looking to thought for any sort of clarity about yourself. This process of thought, about yourself is what is referred to as ego and it is an unnatural role for mind. It creates incessant stress and ongoing delusion. Balance returns to mind when it is released from this role. Thought functions when it is necessary for it to function and no more. This is called sanity. Excellent pointing Si.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Aug 31, 2013 10:58:42 GMT -5
Greetings.. Absent perspective there is nothing to have perspective on, which is to say, that there would be nothing. That there is something rather than nothing is self-evident, as is the point that a perspective, by nature, has the twin characteristics of uniqueness and limitation. That the mind can integrate doesn't negate the generality that the mind is a function of and a generator of distinction, as any integration inescapably results in the distinctions between integrator, what was integrated, and what wasn't integrated. Since limitation will ever obscure the unbounded, the mind, which is limited to generating limitation, can ever only be on notice of that limitlessness, but of course, can never grasp it. Giving this notice is referred to as pointing. You begin with a flawed perspective, believing that the absence of 'your' perspective is the absence of all perspective, "that there would be nothing".. if the inference is the absence of 'all' perspective, do you suppose that cosmos will cease when perceivers cease? i suggest that 'something' remains absent the perceiver.. just like when perception ceases, deep sleep or anesthetized, the cosmos continues.. Yes, it is self-evident that there is something rather than nothing, whether perceived or not.. but, by what comparison do you understand perspective to be limited? Distinction exists, whether categorized by mind or as the self-evident difference between a mountain and the sea.. Mind is not limited in it's capacity to integrate limitlessness, except as limited by the 'thoughts' misconceiving the limitation.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 31, 2013 11:25:07 GMT -5
Greetings.. Absent perspective there is nothing to have perspective on, which is to say, that there would be nothing. That there is something rather than nothing is self-evident, as is the point that a perspective, by nature, has the twin characteristics of uniqueness and limitation. That the mind can integrate doesn't negate the generality that the mind is a function of and a generator of distinction, as any integration inescapably results in the distinctions between integrator, what was integrated, and what wasn't integrated. Since limitation will ever obscure the unbounded, the mind, which is limited to generating limitation, can ever only be on notice of that limitlessness, but of course, can never grasp it. Giving this notice is referred to as pointing. You begin with a flawed perspective, believing that the absence of 'your' perspective is the absence of all perspective, "that there would be nothing".. No, I didn't say the absence of my perspective, I said the absence of perspective. if the inference is the absence of 'all' perspective, do you suppose that cosmos will cease when perceivers cease? i suggest that 'something' remains absent the perceiver.. just like when perception ceases, deep sleep or anesthetized, the cosmos continues.. The thought experiment you're inviting is that if there were no perceivers, no agency or mechanism of perception, would there still be something to perceive? I answer: ( _________________________________________) That I used the word "nothing" is simply because it's what's available. This idea of the "cosmos" is one thought too many beyond that. Yes, it is self-evident that there is something rather than nothing, whether perceived or not.. but, by what comparison do you understand perspective to be limited? Can you give me one example of an unlimited perspective? Perspective involves distinction between the seer and the seen and inherent in that distinction is the limitation of what is seen. Distinction exists, whether categorized by mind or as the self-evident difference between a mountain and the sea.. Mind is not limited in it's capacity to integrate limitlessness, except as limited by the 'thoughts' misconceiving the limitation.. Be well.. We've expressed our disagreement on the nature of mind before Tzu', do you see any value in rehashing that argument? I don't. Any argument about the definition of mind and thought would be a laughable TMT-fest.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 31, 2013 12:13:08 GMT -5
Greetings.. Absent perspective there is nothing to have perspective on, which is to say, that there would be nothing. That there is something rather than nothing is self-evident, as is the point that a perspective, by nature, has the twin characteristics of uniqueness and limitation. That the mind can integrate doesn't negate the generality that the mind is a function of and a generator of distinction, as any integration inescapably results in the distinctions between integrator, what was integrated, and what wasn't integrated. Since limitation will ever obscure the unbounded, the mind, which is limited to generating limitation, can ever only be on notice of that limitlessness, but of course, can never grasp it. Giving this notice is referred to as pointing. You begin with a flawed perspective, believing that the absence of 'your' perspective is the absence of all perspective, "that there would be nothing".. if the inference is the absence of 'all' perspective, do you suppose that cosmos will cease when perceivers cease? i suggest that 'something' remains absent the perceiver.. just like when perception ceases, deep sleep or anesthetized, the cosmos continues.. Creation and perception are the same. Perspective is formed through a process of elimination, much the same way color is formed by filtering out all but one range of frequencies of light. Perspective is, by definition, limitation. 'Mountain' and 'sea' are already categorization by mind. There's nothing self evident about that distinction. Mind is a process of bifurcation. Mind can only separate. Even when it integrates the parts, it's making a distinction between separate and integrated.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 31, 2013 12:19:47 GMT -5
Greetings.. You begin with a flawed perspective, believing that the absence of 'your' perspective is the absence of all perspective, "that there would be nothing".. No, I didn't say the absence of my perspective, I said the absence of perspective. if the inference is the absence of 'all' perspective, do you suppose that cosmos will cease when perceivers cease? i suggest that 'something' remains absent the perceiver.. just like when perception ceases, deep sleep or anesthetized, the cosmos continues.. The thought experiment you're inviting is that if there were no perceivers, no agency or mechanism of perception, would there still be something to perceive? If a giraffe falls in the woods, and there's nobody around to hear it, does it still make a screaming sound?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 31, 2013 13:11:23 GMT -5
No, I didn't say the absence of my perspective, I said the absence of perspective. The thought experiment you're inviting is that if there were no perceivers, no agency or mechanism of perception, would there still be something to perceive? If a giraffe falls in the woods, and there's nobody around to hear it, does it still make a screaming sound? Does muttley snicker when he's alone in the woods and there's noone there to hear him?
|
|
|
Post by silence on Sept 1, 2013 10:58:13 GMT -5
Greetings.. Thought is not only entirely irrelevant to understanding what you are but literally the only distraction that stands in your way. Which doesn't mean you need to stop thinking or anything. It just means you need to stop looking to thought for any sort of clarity about yourself. This process of thought, about yourself is what is referred to as ego and it is an unnatural role for mind. It creates incessant stress and ongoing delusion. Balance returns to mind when it is released from this role. Thought functions when it is necessary for it to function and no more. This is called sanity. And yet, here you are, inextricably attached to thought.. every word spoken begins as thought, and every understanding.. there is no 'understanding' in the silent stillness, just clarity.. i'm not 'looking to' anything for understanding, it's a natural occurrence.. Be well.. All I'm saying is that thought will not aid anyone to end their spiritual search. Other than that thought is fine and useful.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Sept 1, 2013 12:53:34 GMT -5
Greetings.. And yet, here you are, inextricably attached to thought.. every word spoken begins as thought, and every understanding.. there is no 'understanding' in the silent stillness, just clarity.. i'm not 'looking to' anything for understanding, it's a natural occurrence.. Be well.. All I'm saying is that thought will not aid anyone to end their spiritual search. Other than that thought is fine and useful. It's that existential thought that screws everything up.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 1, 2013 13:13:55 GMT -5
Greetings.. All I'm saying is that thought will not aid anyone to end their spiritual search. Other than that thought is fine and useful. It's that existential thought that screws everything up. Yep.. if the seeker can't conceptualize the seeking and the obstacles to liberation from the seeking, the search becomes the obstacle.. not only will thought aid the seeker in realizing liberation, thought is essential to get to the realization that it isn't essential.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by silence on Sept 1, 2013 13:15:42 GMT -5
All I'm saying is that thought will not aid anyone to end their spiritual search. Other than that thought is fine and useful. It's that existential thought that screws everything up. The existential line of thinking is simply born out of confusion. As such, it's important to recognize that you have not met an enemy. Thought is not out to get you or trip you up. It is literally the end result of a deep internal confusion. If it can be clearly seen, there will be compassion rather than struggle and frustration. When you cease to divide yourself and go to war, there is no where left to hide.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 1, 2013 21:43:08 GMT -5
Greetings.. It's that existential thought that screws everything up. The existential line of thinking is simply born out of confusion. As such, it's important to recognize that you have not met an enemy. Thought is not out to get you or trip you up. It is literally the end result of a deep internal confusion. If it can be clearly seen, there will be compassion rather than struggle and frustration. When you cease to divide yourself and go to war, there is no where left to hide. Thought is not " the end result of a deep internal confusion", it is a natural interactive process.. if it can be seen clearly, there will be compassion rather than struggle and frustration. When you realize that all versions of 'you' are still 'you', there is no thought of hiding or of places to hide.. Be well..
|
|