|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 21, 2014 9:05:15 GMT -5
Don't ask me pal. Those were your words about sensory perception as undifferentiated from thought in mind: Backpedal a bit faster perhaps. btw, the only straw man in this conversation so far was yours: Where, exactly, did I write anything of the sort?  Dude, this speaks for itself. It's tempting to replace the idea of a shared objective physical reality with this: ... but "unified mind" in which subjective physicality appears is just another theory, another framework, another story about your experience. And it's bullsh!t. There is no theory, no explanation, no model, that reconciles the commonality of our experience. Not one that doesn't resort to mysticism and speculation anyway. You're embarrassing yourself. You used that "lazy turn of phrase" at least 5 times in the dialog: === (** yaaaaawwwwwwnnnn **) Dude, collect your thoughts and get them straight. First admit that you're daydreaming about a flawed model. Within that context, the idea of mind as movement can be interesting and useful, but not if you take the model so seriously that you forget that it's just a play of ideas. When you don't differentiate between the senses and what's derived from them then it makes sense to start speaking in terms of information. In order to keep "It's all mind" (no capital 'M', mind you) from devolving into a speewitchual thumb-sucking fest it's important to keep things rational, and that means that what we're either saying "it's all information" or we're drawing pictures of angels, demons and unicorns and might even entertain the self-delusion that we're some sort of creator or savior. No, it's not a straw man, because I didn't put those words about "it's all one Mind" in your mouth, you wrote them. You want to model the commonality of experience. That's fine. I say it can't be done without resorting to mythology, or, at the very least, speculation. This debate perfectly illustrates my frustration with mystical, unitive ideas of some absolute singular mind. It's not all one I tell ya! sdp |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2014 9:09:43 GMT -5
Dude, this speaks for itself. It's tempting to replace the idea of a shared objective physical reality with this: ... but "unified mind" in which subjective physicality appears is just another theory, another framework, another story about your experience. And it's bullsh!t. There is no theory, no explanation, no model, that reconciles the commonality of our experience. Not one that doesn't resort to mysticism and speculation anyway. It's simpler to assume there is a red light out there stopping traffic one way to allow the traffic moving the other way to pass without accident, than to assume there is some unified mind that it's all happening. It's easier to assume that laughter is really out there in the real world typing on a computer connected to the internet, and likewise, empty, enigma, rupa and everybody else. Our representations are quite accurate concerning what's out there. sdp Haha...the fly in that soup, is that upon actual investigation, everything that you perceive as going on 'out there', is really only going on 'in here' so to speak...and yet, oddly, we can directly mutually experience the appearances that only appear in our mind with others...which means that whats happening 'in here' is also happening 'out there'...and ALL OF IT, all appearances, appear the same way in each of us, as what we call a 'thought'. So pick your poison if you will, but 'in here' and 'out there' both happen the same way...in your mind. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 21, 2014 9:20:35 GMT -5
This is no longer a clue as the cat is out of the bag, but I earlier thought of this story which points to the answer, but didn't note it and happened to remember it again only last night. It's the story of the tenth man. Wu Wei Wu actually wrote a book with the title. Now, we can't imagine, when reading the story, that such a thing could happen, we would never make the same mistake, but it points to "that which is missing, isn't missed, when it is missing".
Once there were ten men making a long wilderness trip. They came to a mighty rushing river that they had to cross. They decided to count their numbers on the other side to make sure everybody made it. When they had crossed, one man counted. He came up with only nine men. They were pretty worried that somebody didn't make it across, so another man counted. He also came up with nine. A third man counted and he too came up with only nine. Each man in turn counted and each man likewise came up with only nine. Where was the tenth man?
sdp
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 21, 2014 9:25:07 GMT -5
The simplest explanation for coordinated experience between others is that there is an external world. It's simpler to assume there is a red light out there stopping traffic one way to allow the traffic moving the other way to pass without accident, than to assume there is some unified mind that it's all happening. It's easier to assume that laughter is really out there in the real world typing on a computer connected to the internet, and likewise, empty, enigma, rupa and everybody else. Our representations are quite accurate concerning what's out there. sdp Haha...the fly in that soup, is that upon actual investigation, everything that you perceive as going on 'out there', is really only going on 'in here' so to speak...and yet, oddly, we can directly mutually experience the appearances that only appear in our mind with others.. .which means that whats happening 'in here' is also happening 'out there'...and ALL OF IT, all appearances, appear the same way in each of us, as what we call a 'thought'. So pick your poison if you will, but 'in here' and 'out there' both happen the same way...in your mind. I agree with the highlighted parts. sdp |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2014 9:27:55 GMT -5
This is no longer a clue as the cat is out of the bag, but I earlier thought of this story which points to the answer, but didn't note it and happened to remember it again only last night. It's the story of the tenth man. Wu Wei Wu actually wrote a book with the title. Now, we can't imagine, when reading the story, that such a thing could happen, we would never make the same mistake, but it points to "that which is missing, isn't missed, when it is missing". Once there were ten men making a long wilderness trip. They came to a mighty rushing river that they had to cross. They decided to count their numbers on the other side to make sure everybody made it. When they had crossed, one man counted. He came up with only nine men. They were pretty worried that somebody didn't make it across, so another man counted. He also came up with nine. A third man counted and he too came up with only nine. Each man in turn counted and each man likewise came up with only nine. Where was the tenth man? sdp the counter duh |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2014 9:29:16 GMT -5
It's not all one I tell ya! Is too .. not two  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2014 9:37:10 GMT -5
This is no longer a clue as the cat is out of the bag, but I earlier thought of this story which points to the answer, but didn't note it and happened to remember it again only last night. It's the story of the tenth man. Wu Wei Wu actually wrote a book with the title. Now, we can't imagine, when reading the story, that such a thing could happen, we would never make the same mistake, but it points to "that which is missing, isn't missed, when it is missing". Once there were ten men making a long wilderness trip. They came to a mighty rushing river that they had to cross. They decided to count their numbers on the other side to make sure everybody made it. When they had crossed, one man counted. He came up with only nine men. They were pretty worried that somebody didn't make it across, so another man counted. He also came up with nine. A third man counted and he too came up with only nine. Each man in turn counted and each man likewise came up with only nine. Where was the tenth man? sdp if each man neglected to count himself in the headcount, then each man would be the missing tenth man. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 21, 2014 9:41:06 GMT -5
I wouldn't call sensory perception 'thought' cuz I like the distinction of thought and sense perception. However, I would toss all of it into a box called appearances. No 'physical', no 'outside', no perciever and perceived, just appearances. Appearances seems betterer to me than "it's all thought" as the latter strikes me as an item on the agenda to objectify the pointer of nonduality as "Mind". That said, appearances appear, which means that they appear to ... *something* ... so it's all in a context that's after the subject-object split. That's fine. We can collapse that split by making the object a movement of the subject. Then appearances appear in/as that in which they appear. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 21, 2014 9:44:53 GMT -5
Don't ask me pal. Those were your words about sensory perception as undifferentiated from thought in mind: Backpedal a bit faster perhaps. btw, the only straw man in this conversation so far was yours: Where, exactly, did I write anything of the sort? Dude, this speaks for itself. It's tempting to replace the idea of a shared objective physical reality with this: ... but "unified mind" in which subjective physicality appears is just another theory, another framework, another story about your experience. And it's bullsh!t. There is no theory, no explanation, no model, that reconciles the commonality of our experience. Not one that doesn't resort to mysticism and speculation anyway. You're embarrassing yourself. You used that "lazy turn of phrase" at least 5 times in the dialog: === (** yaaaaawwwwwwnnnn **) Dude, collect your thoughts and get them straight. First admit that you're daydreaming about a flawed model. Within that context, the idea of mind as movement can be interesting and useful, but not if you take the model so seriously that you forget that it's just a play of ideas. When you don't differentiate between the senses and what's derived from them then it makes sense to start speaking in terms of information. In order to keep "It's all mind" (no capital 'M', mind you) from devolving into a speewitchual thumb-sucking fest it's important to keep things rational, and that means that what we're either saying "it's all information" or we're drawing pictures of angels, demons and unicorns and might even entertain the self-delusion that we're some sort of creator or savior. No, it's not a straw man, because I didn't put those words about "it's all one Mind" in your mouth, you wrote them. You want to model the commonality of experience. That's fine. I say it can't be done without resorting to mythology, or, at the very least, speculation. This debate perfectly illustrates my frustration with mystical, unitive ideas of some absolute singular mind. It's not all one I tell ya! It IS all one, but 'unity' and 'Mind' are bad evil words.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 21, 2014 9:50:08 GMT -5
Dude, this speaks for itself. It's tempting to replace the idea of a shared objective physical reality with this: ... but "unified mind" in which subjective physicality appears is just another theory, another framework, another story about your experience. And it's bullsh!t. There is no theory, no explanation, no model, that reconciles the commonality of our experience. Not one that doesn't resort to mysticism and speculation anyway. The simplest explanation for coordinated experience between others is that there is an external world. It's simpler to assume there is a red light out there stopping traffic one way to allow the traffic moving the other way to pass without accident, than to assume there is some unified mind that it's all happening. It's easier to assume that laughter is really out there in the real world typing on a computer connected to the internet, and likewise, empty, enigma, rupa and everybody else. Our representations are quite accurate concerning what's out there. sdp The simplest explanation for water appearing on the horizon in the desert is that there is water there, but it may not be the correct one. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 21, 2014 10:48:37 GMT -5
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' in the 'living' of 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 judgment call about right or wrong etc. As noted earlier, the following comes from Flowers Fall, A commentary on Zen Master Dogen's Genjokoan by Hakuun Yasutani (1885-1973), 1996 This addresses enigma and empty and his comment about zd. I see conceptual non-dualism going off the deep end, often, that is, many modern non-dual teachers. I get much value out of traditional Zen teachers (and Taoists, Kabbalists, Christian mystics, dzogchen and other teachings). For me, Hakuun Yasutani here keeps everything straight and balanced. (Dogen quote in italics). I'll separate the two words true and dharma and explain them in a manner easy to understand. True is the world of absolute equality. Dharma is the world of absolute differences. Please appreciate the effect of this word absolute. It's not simply speaking more emphatically. Absolute means the whole universe is nothing but equality, the whole universe is nothing but differentiation. Therefore, equality and differentiation are always of the same value. Or rather than "of the same value" they are the same thing. We can't even call them two faces of the same thing. When one says "equality," equality completely swallows up differences (it's not rejecting differences), and differences have no place to show their face. That's what's called absolute equality. Likewise, when one says "difference" differences completely swallow up equality (they're not ignoring equality), and equality has no place to show it's face. This is what's called absolute difference. "Emptiness" is equality; "causes and conditions" are differences. In the Buddha-dharma the word equality means emptiness. In the Buddha-dharma the word difference means form, that which has characteristics. In the Soto sect these are called, respectively, the absolute position and the relative position. ......... If we reduce the two words true dharma to the level of conceptual thought and explain them, "true dharma" means "emptiness" (true), causes and conditions (dharma)." One can also say as in the Heart Sutra, "form (dharma) is emptiness (true)," or "emptiness (true) is form (dharma)." However, thoughts are dead things, they are concepts, not living reality. (pages 1, 2)............ Next, concerning the word genjokoan, genjo is phenomena. It's the whole universe. It's all mental and physical phenomena. ........... Koan is derived from the word official document, and is used to mean the unerring absolute authority of the Buddha-dharma. So then, genjokoan means that the subjective realm and the objective realm, and the self and all the things in the universe, are nothing but the true Buddha-dharma itself. ............. Genjokoan means that what is manifest ( genjo) is itself absolute reality ( koan). It means all phenomenon are the supreme way. The supreme way is the original self. People hearing this for the first time are surprised. They can't believe their own ears or eyes. ...........The feet are the Buddha way. The hands are the Buddha way. One's whole body and mind is the Buddha way. One's whole life is the Buddha way. ............. Now look. Having gazed out at the phenomenal world and explained that "that is the Buddha way, that is the manifestation of the truth" is not enough. The whole phenomenal world is entirely oneself. Therefore the clouds, the mountains, and the flowers, the sound of a fart.......are all the original self. ....everything all together is supreme enlightenment. ............ Throwing everything into a big catch-all bag by saying "Well, everything, whatever it may be is the Buddha-dharma," doesn't amount to anything. You might say that that's absolute value, but if you take the most important thing, which is yourself, out of the picture, what is absolute value? (pages 6-10) In mustering the whole body and mind and seeing forms,
in mustering the whole body and mind and hearing sounds,
they are intimately perceived; but it is not like the reflection
in a mirror, nor like the moon in water, When one side
is realized, the other side is dark. (pg 31) ..................... This is a very cool book. I read over two hours yesterday...couldn't put it down......Dogen is da man, deserves his reputation......... So, everything is not illusion. There is a phenomenal world. Your criticism of zd that his view that sensory perceptions are ephemeral, is just not accurate. The senses and the brain/mind give us a fairly correct representation of the exterior world. I think zd is way past you or anybody else here. sdp |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 21, 2014 10:50:12 GMT -5
This is no longer a clue as the cat is out of the bag, but I earlier thought of this story which points to the answer, but didn't note it and happened to remember it again only last night. It's the story of the tenth man. Wu Wei Wu actually wrote a book with the title. Now, we can't imagine, when reading the story, that such a thing could happen, we would never make the same mistake, but it points to "that which is missing, isn't missed, when it is missing". Once there were ten men making a long wilderness trip. They came to a mighty rushing river that they had to cross. They decided to count their numbers on the other side to make sure everybody made it. When they had crossed, one man counted. He came up with only nine men. They were pretty worried that somebody didn't make it across, so another man counted. He also came up with nine. A third man counted and he too came up with only nine. Each man in turn counted and each man likewise came up with only nine. Where was the tenth man? sdp the counter duh Indubitably.  sdp |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 21, 2014 10:52:02 GMT -5
This is no longer a clue as the cat is out of the bag, but I earlier thought of this story which points to the answer, but didn't note it and happened to remember it again only last night. It's the story of the tenth man. Wu Wei Wu actually wrote a book with the title. Now, we can't imagine, when reading the story, that such a thing could happen, we would never make the same mistake, but it points to "that which is missing, isn't missed, when it is missing". Once there were ten men making a long wilderness trip. They came to a mighty rushing river that they had to cross. They decided to count their numbers on the other side to make sure everybody made it. When they had crossed, one man counted. He came up with only nine men. They were pretty worried that somebody didn't make it across, so another man counted. He also came up with nine. A third man counted and he too came up with only nine. Each man in turn counted and each man likewise came up with only nine. Where was the tenth man? sdp if each man neglected to count himself in the headcount, then each man would be the missing tenth man.  .................  .................... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2014 11:25:46 GMT -5
'Can' or 'Should' it isn't going to happen. CONGRATULATIONS! Also, why not? and also, do you suddenly have volition now, that allows you to commit to: "It isn't going to happen" You know, "isn't going to happen" doesn't mean "isn't possible". What does that have to do with anything? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2014 11:28:37 GMT -5
Enigma and I kinda expanded the definition of mind recently, if you missed it, then your question maybe makes sense. Yes I noticed that. You and Enigma like to expand thinking and conceptualization, while I like to collapse it. |
|
................. 
....................