|
|
Post by laughter on May 20, 2014 21:05:52 GMT -5
Those words suck! They embody an ambiguity! Is the ambiguity in the body, or is the body in the ambiguity?  . |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 20, 2014 21:14:21 GMT -5
My guess is quite a few people knew what you were getting at, they just weren't interested in playing your game of "guess what I'm thinking." I'd be interested in hearing from those people. sdp (** blank stare **) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2014 21:14:32 GMT -5
Sorry I don't understand, you think sensations are thoughts? Seeing is a thought? Hearing is a thought? And tasting is a thought? if you investigate ;-) Not all thoughts are 'word' thoughts, haha, not even all people 'think' using word thoughts, some people think in terms of images, especially lifelong deaf people. The obvious seems to be stumping people on this forum lately, even after being invited to investigate. I didn't do it for sdp so I probably won't be doing it for you. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2014 21:16:02 GMT -5
I think you will find this to be obvious if you investigate ;-) Not all thoughts are 'word' thoughts, haha, not even all people 'think' using word thoughts, some people think in terms of images, especially lifelong deaf people. The obvious seems to be stumping people on this forum lately, even after being invited to investigate. I didn't do for sdp so I probably won't be doing for you. Okay....I think you'll find me somewhat less insistent lol You seem to enjoy viewing thoughts as something that has a 'realness' and independence from yourself....far be it from me to get between a boy and his toys :-) |
|
|
|
Post by teetown on May 20, 2014 21:16:40 GMT -5
My guess is quite a few people knew what you were getting at, they just weren't interested in playing your game of "guess what I'm thinking." I'd be interested in hearing from those people. sdp Well, me for one.  You were hinting at it pretty hard there. My 2 cents are that it doesn't have much to do with ATA specifically, as it does with attention in general. You could be deep in thought and lose sense of the body, or focused on a conversation, or driving. "The body" itself is just an aggregation of sensations, along with ideas about it. Anyway, I didn't meant to sound hateful. I found this thread highly entertaining. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 20, 2014 21:16:45 GMT -5
Ahh...I forgot that many of you are only just now beginning to realize that all of these appearances are just aggregated sensory perceptions happening in the mind, with no independent 'reality' of their own lol Soon you will figure out that its all just different kinds of passing thoughts, including the sensory perceptions that you define as 'the real'. ZD is 'advanced' on this path more than most of you will ever fully realize in this lifetime, but even he has not yet realized that sensory perceptions are just as much ephemeral thoughts as a judgement call about right or wrong etc. Good to see many of you starting to move in the direction of 'beyond that' with regard to the body and sensory perceptions being more real than any other kinds of thoughts :-) Sorry I don't understand, you think sensations are thoughts? Seeing is a thought? Hearing is a thought? And tasting is a thought? And all these perceptions and thoughts happen in a mind? <tmt> We can distinguish between pure sensation -- the information that is generated by our eyes, ears, nose, mouth and skin -- and derivative information based on that, and then note that all of it can be modeled by neural activity and then in turn refer to that activity -- all of it, including pure sensation -- as "thought". </tmt> |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2014 21:22:51 GMT -5
Sorry I don't understand, you think sensations are thoughts? Seeing is a thought? Hearing is a thought? And tasting is a thought? And all these perceptions and thoughts happen in a mind? <tmt> We can distinguish between pure sensation -- the information that is generated by our eyes, ears, nose, mouth and skin -- and derivative information based on that, and then note that all of it can be modeled by neural activity and then in turn refer to that activity -- all of it, including pure sensation -- as "thought". </tmt> Pretty good, cept that bolded bit is a bit off ;-) To me, separating sensory perceptions from the rest of the 'field of thought' is a bit like Earnest separating his wrist from his arm. ;-) I stopped doing doing that some distance ago. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 20, 2014 21:24:26 GMT -5
Search this forum for the term 'ineffable', or the times that different nondualists have said to me that 'it' can't be explained because it's 'beyond words'.. yet, the same nondualists will talk endlessly about 'it', until asked to explain the inconsistencies.. will i do the searching to prove what i have experienced, no.. you've been here long enough to know my claims are valid, so if you actually want to discuss the actualities, or understand the questions i asked, you will.. but, pretending that my lack of inclination to fetch quotes, to demonstrate what is obvious to anyone that spends much time here.. to pretend that is a valid excuse for not answering questions that exposes issues you are uncomfortable discussing is consistent with the behavior you are seeking quotes to demonstrate.. No pretending, I just asked you a simple question. Show me the writings or views of others that hold the same/similar perspective as you. I was doing this as a means of exploration as I find you really difficult to understand. I was thinking that if you gave me some quotes then I might be able to triangulate something from you and them. *feels warmth of sun and listens to breeze in trees* *bows and walks away* I pretty-much get Tzu and agree with much of what he says (I am not a non-dualist in the strictest sense). But you are right, his language is unnecessarily obtuse. Probably 75% of his posts are so difficult to comprehend it's not worth the effort for me to try to understand what he's saying. But most of all (and there are others here who do this), he seems to believe it's necessary to reinvent the wheel. I'm sure I read too much, well, too much of the wrong things, but I read to recognize practices, to see who has a good map, maybe to help with language if nothing else, and to a certain extent, to verify, to make sure I'm not "walking the plank". There are certain corresponding truths to many different teachings. Tzu seems to be saying, go your own way. But mostly mostly, he can get very defensive very fast. sdp |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 20, 2014 21:26:01 GMT -5
<tmt> We can distinguish between pure sensation -- the information that is generated by our eyes, ears, nose, mouth and skin -- and derivative information based on that, and then note that all of it can be modeled by neural activity and then in turn refer to that activity -- all of it, including pure sensation -- as "thought". </tmt> Pretty good, cept that bolded bit is a bit off ;-) To me, separating sensory perceptions from the rest of the 'field of thought' is a bit like Earnest separating his wrist from his arm. ;-) I stopped doing doing that some distance ago. "bit off"? Bee specific then ... what, in your opinion, constitutes the senses? |
|
|
|
Post by mamza on May 20, 2014 21:26:47 GMT -5
This would be why I prefer physical answers rather than worded ones. Shorry, it's necessary to ask you a few questions before your winnings can be transferred to your bank account.  So what you mean to say is that your attention is focused on the bodily senses? Uhhh.... yes and no. For this dude right here (moi), attention sort of just goes wherever it goes. Thinking of it in terms of focusing attention on x, y, or z seems a little distracting to me. Originally that's how it worked, but eventually it shifted beyond that. Now it's more....fluid? To steal an idea from Bruce Lee, everything feels like water (not literally). The wind blows and the leaves rustle; person A asks and person B answers. When one thing pushes, something else pulls...that sort of thing. ATA, for me, is more along the lines of awareness (intentionally directed or not) of this fluid relationship between everything. I used to try and cut thoughts out, but now that seems hilarious. Thoughts, to me, are just another sort of relationship (i.e. - distracted by thought, the world we're aware of draws inward and shrinks). I don't like using words because they can very easily be misunderstood (which I'm sure you're aware of), but if I had to I'd say it's more like a visually impaired person putting on glasses. Nothing has changed in the world, but everything is suddenly very clear. Does that help any? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 20, 2014 21:33:11 GMT -5
I'd be interested in hearing from those people. sdp Well, me for one. You were hinting at it pretty hard there. My 2 cents are that it doesn't have much to do with ATA specifically, as it does with attention in general. You could be deep in thought and lose sense of the body, or focused on a conversation, or driving. "The body" itself is just an aggregation of sensations, along with ideas about it. Anyway, I didn't meant to sound hateful. I found this thread highly entertaining. Bingo to the highlighted, that's precisely what I was trying to point to. As for the hard hinting......well....... sdp |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 20, 2014 21:37:50 GMT -5
Sorry I don't understand, you think sensations are thoughts? Seeing is a thought? Hearing is a thought? And tasting is a thought? And all these perceptions and thoughts happen in a mind? <tmt> We can distinguish between pure sensation -- the information that is generated by our eyes, ears, nose, mouth and skin -- and derivative information based on that, and then note that all of it can be modeled by neural activity and then in turn refer to that activity -- all of it, including pure sensation -- as " thought". </tmt> For clarity, I think cognition is a better word than thought for all that. sdp |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 20, 2014 21:38:18 GMT -5
To me, separating sensory perceptions from the rest of the 'field of thought' is a bit like Earnest separating his wrist from his arm. ;-) I stopped doing doing that some distance ago. uh-huh ... kinda' like this?? ![]() Not all thoughts are 'word' thoughts, haha, not even all people 'think' using word thoughts, some people think in terms of images, especially lifelong deaf people. If you spend a few days observing sensory perceptions VERY closely, you will see that 'sensory' perceptions arise in the mind just like any other thoughts. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 20, 2014 21:41:25 GMT -5
<tmt> We can distinguish between pure sensation -- the information that is generated by our eyes, ears, nose, mouth and skin -- and derivative information based on that, and then note that all of it can be modeled by neural activity and then in turn refer to that activity -- all of it, including pure sensation -- as " thought". </tmt> For clarity, I think cognition is a better word than thought for all that. sdp  "It's all mind/thought/cognition" isn't a context I find all that interesting from a perspective of reasoning about/within it. I was just trying to cut through it for rupa to show her what Steve meant. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 20, 2014 21:43:44 GMT -5
<tmt> We can distinguish between pure sensation -- the information that is generated by our eyes, ears, nose, mouth and skin -- and derivative information based on that, and then note that all of it can be modeled by neural activity and then in turn refer to that activity -- all of it, including pure sensation -- as "thought". </tmt> Pretty good, cept that bolded bit is a bit off ;-) To me, separating sensory perceptions from the rest of the 'field of thought' is a bit like Earnest separating his wrist from his arm. ;-) I stopped doing doing that some distance ago. As time permits, I'm going to quote from Flowers Falling, A Commentary on Zen Master Dogen's Genjokoan by Hakuun Yasuyani, to show why this is not the case and simultaneously why your comment about zd concerning sensations of the world is unfair. Probably tonight. sdp |
|
You were hinting at it pretty hard there. My 2 cents are that it doesn't have much to do with ATA specifically, as it does with attention in general. You could be deep in thought and lose sense of the body, or focused on a conversation, or driving. "The body" itself is just an aggregation of sensations, along with ideas about it. 
