Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2014 20:46:02 GMT -5
The answer to this question is hysterically funny, but the story is too long to tell here. It is included in one of my books, but suffice it to say that my "seeing through the game" caused me to get knocked out of the ring in my first round of combat with a Zen Master. Ha ha. My conclusion that Zen was a game following a major realization was rather sorely misguided, to say the least. I get a big laugh every time I think of it, and I'm sure that Laughter and a few others found the story equally funny.  yeah the end of that story was a literal laugh-out-loud read ... mixed with more than a shred of poignancy for sure -- especially for what happened at the start .. Are you sure your not getting a finders fees for plugging Zendancers books? I can see ZD blatantly doing it but a forum admin? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 11, 2014 20:49:37 GMT -5
That statement is also misconceived. What is happening is not "THIS", but the "Knowing" of THIS. Without the "Knowing" of THIS there is no THIS. In fact consciousness is pure "Knowing". There isn't any other substance in our experience other than the "Knowing" of it. Yeah...but whats happening over here, is a deeper gnosis of what Ramana meant when he says that the impulses and desires need to go away to be analogous to his 'happening'... Guys, I was just mocking the Andy & Figsy position. No need to take that all too seriously.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 11, 2014 20:54:28 GMT -5
yeah the end of that story was a literal laugh-out-loud read ... mixed with more than a shred of poignancy for sure -- especially for what happened at the start .. Are you sure your not getting a finders fees for plugging Zendancers books? I can see ZD blatantly doing it but a forum admin?
They're looking for me!
Ev-ry sin-gle night!
They're driii-ving meeee in-saaaane!
This ruuuuuuu-pa in my braaaaaiiin!! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2014 21:03:40 GMT -5
That statement is also misconceived. What is happening is not "THIS", but the "Knowing" of THIS. Without the "Knowing" of THIS there is no THIS. In fact consciousness is pure "Knowing". There isn't any other substance in our experience other than the "Knowing" of it. Yeah...but whats happening over here, is a deeper gnosis of what Ramana meant when he says that the impulses and desires need to go away to be analogous to his 'happening'... Guys, I was just mocking the Andy & Figsy position. No need to take that all too seriously. No one is taking your mocking seriously, seriously. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2014 21:12:25 GMT -5
Are you sure your not getting a finders fees for plugging Zendancers books? I can see ZD blatantly doing it but a forum admin?
They're looking for me!
Ev-ry sin-gle night!
They're driii-ving meeee in-saaaane!
This ruuuuuuu-pa in my braaaaaiiin!!
They're driii-ving meeee in-saaaaane!
Post the quotes or leave me alone!
Laughters sales pitch is hurting my braaaaaiiin!
|
|
|
|
Post by topology on May 11, 2014 22:11:46 GMT -5
By definition, a priori logic in fact, a painting cannot exist without a painter. ISness cannot imply some sort of autopilot mode if it denies the realities of free choice. In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's mind there are few. What would you want with a 'free mind'?--to always be able to choose among an infinite number of choices as if the future before you were some blank canvas divorced from the character and dispositions of the being acting on it? You cannot fully say that "still mind" is pure "ISness" without first fully investigating and digesting the concept of freedom of will. If, in hypothetical analogy, a computer of unlimited computational capacity could calculate every single thing you would ever do, would you feel that this is somehow any infringement on your "freedom of will"? Are you trying to annihilate the framework you come from, or synthesize with it? No it is not a priori. The definition's origin is rooted in someone's experience. It is a conceptual model. And it is an inductive inference. To conclude the definition is universally true is to assume one will never encounter something that would be called a painting but did not have a painter. The whole concept of a painter is loaded with assumptions. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2014 23:40:36 GMT -5
That statement is also misconceived. What is happening is not "THIS", but the "Knowing" of THIS. Without the "Knowing" of THIS there is no THIS. In fact consciousness is pure "Knowing". There isn't any other substance in our experience other than the "Knowing" of it. Yeah...but whats happening over here, is a deeper gnosis of what Ramana meant when he says that the impulses and desires need to go away to be analogous to his 'happening'... Guys, I was just mocking the Andy & Figsy position. No need to take that all too seriously. I have no idea what you are talking about, but i gave a commiserative chuckle anyway ;-) |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 13, 2014 11:29:29 GMT -5
I agree that desire stimulates that kind of thought, and the desire to stop that thought splits the mind and leads to internal battle that will likely never be resolved. This is why clarity is useful; it modifies those desires. Yeah...and often, clarity goes further than modifying desires, it evaporates them...not much else really does that actually. There are some interesting tie ends here though, to that conversation we were having the other day about something happening with regards to mind when we sleep etc...desire seems to keep patterns of behavior in motion across the gap of deep sleep or samadhi. For example, you have a desire to wake up at a specific time, which is probably a part of a field of other desires in itself, and across the gap of deep sleep, there is a movement that arises from the stillness at the time of the desired waking hour, and no conscious thought process is causing that wakefulness to stir, only a kind of impulse initiated by the desire to wake at that time. I find this very interesting...the source of desire, and how it manifests seems to be part and parcel to that aspect if mind or omni-presence that is there even when conscious consciousness SEEMS to not be around. Yes, understanding of desire may likewise be limited by our ideas about it. We perhaps see it as arising from thought and yet desire is what results in the arising of thought. I generally see both as true: thought influencing desire and desire influencing thought, but when I look at the larger movements of consciousness, I see desire as more fundamental than thought. The question as to why anything happens at all, including mind, cannot be answered by looking at thought, only desire. It seems to me that life is crazy in love with it's own expression. Life is irrational at the most fundamental level. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 13, 2014 11:38:03 GMT -5
Do desires even exist as desires if there is no thought that distinguishes them as such? Yes, the mind can think, "I see that there is a desire for X," but if the mind remains quiescent, what then? What would a still mind say about that? I guess a still mind wouldn't say anything unless it desired to. Hehe. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2014 12:42:10 GMT -5
Do desires even exist as desires if there is no thought that distinguishes them as such? Yes, the mind can think, "I see that there is a desire for X," but if the mind remains quiescent, what then? What would a still mind say about that? I guess a still mind wouldn't say anything unless it desired to. Hehe. Haha....EXACTLY! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2014 13:30:26 GMT -5
I guess a still mind wouldn't say anything unless it desired to. Hehe. Haha....EXACTLY! Yeah the mind desires to be there to claim that it was still. But of course it wasn't. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2014 13:32:51 GMT -5
Yeah the mind desires to be there to claim that it was still. But of course it wasn't. ThaswhudI'msayin2. There should be a big buzzer that sounds on the claim of still mind. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2014 14:23:48 GMT -5
Yeah the mind desires to be there to claim that it was still. But of course it wasn't. you think too much about this stuff rupa
too much thinking, not enough doing
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 13, 2014 14:35:33 GMT -5
Do desires even exist as desires if there is no thought that distinguishes them as such? Yes, the mind can think, "I see that there is a desire for X," but if the mind remains quiescent, what then? What would a still mind say about that? I guess a still mind wouldn't say anything unless it desired to. Hehe. As to the option of silence ... in the first words is the removal of all doubt in the minds of the listeners! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2014 15:45:43 GMT -5
Yeah the mind desires to be there to claim that it was still. But of course it wasn't. you think too much about this stuff rupa
too much thinking, not enough doing
Actually I have a still mind...between thoughts. |
|
yeah the end of that story was a literal laugh-out-loud read ... mixed with more than a shred of poignancy for sure -- especially for what happened at the start ..
