|
|
Post by figgles on Nov 22, 2015 15:07:20 GMT -5
If I am reading another's words to conclude that they have not gone deep enough to see what I am saying, I do not see how that could happen without some degree of mental activity. There is comparison involved in saying 'what your words indicate to me, that you see, is different from what I see and what I am saying. There is analysis and evaluation involved in reading the words of another to denote their meaning. All conversations where viewpoints are being shared and then commented upon in terms of whether there is agreement or disagreement, resonance or not, involve some degree of evaluation and comparison. A mind that is devoid of all thought, would not be interested in whether there was agreement or not. That very interest to read another's words and say whether they 'get' what we are saying or not, indicates a certain degree of mental activity. I read your post and I did not have to do any mentating to see clearly that it is full of limiting beliefs. But its all good. We can agree to disagree. How is anything I say there 'limiting'? That would only be true IF mental activity is the enemy of clarity. It is not. Clarity can exist in the face of mental activity. Mental activity happens. It is neither good nor bad. You seem to believe that it is bad, more specifically, that it somehow imposes limitation..? & fwiw, you clearly DID mentate; Def. Evaluate: To judge or determine the significance worth or value. You are clearly judging my post to be 'full of beliefs.' ..not just beliefs, but 'limiting' ones.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 22, 2015 15:30:03 GMT -5
Are we talking channeling and automatic writing now?  Yes, laugh as you likely will  , my experience with such very much describes with JLY is talking about...and I'm betting you can relate his words to your own poetry writing...where words and more importantly, a message, quite literally just seem to 'pour' forth on it's own accord, absent mentation about it. But yeah, conversations on a forum, a DO require mental activity, and even then, we often don't grasp what the other is getting at. Yes, poetry, and also the squirrel satsangs. I'll sometimes switch into that mode in a response here, but I'm also very aware of the mental effort required here to do the work of understanding others who often are not being very clear. In fact, JLY has got me pondering whether some are hesitant to expend that effort, which could explain why it sometimes seems like the post being responded to hasn't been read very carefully. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Nov 22, 2015 15:39:40 GMT -5
I read your post and I did not have to do any mentating to see clearly that it is full of limiting beliefs. But its all good. We can agree to disagree. How is anything I say there 'limiting'? That would only be true IF mental activity is the enemy of clarity. It is not. Clarity can exist in the face of mental activity. Mental activity happens. It is neither good nor bad. You seem to believe that it is bad, more specifically, that it somehow imposes limitation..? & fwiw, you clearly DID mentate; Def. Evaluate: To judge or determine the significance worth or value. You are clearly judging my post to be 'full of beliefs.' ..not just beliefs, but 'limiting' ones. One does not need to "judge" to see something is so. There is no judging in seeing a hole in the sidewalk and walking around it. That's called discernment, a function of perception, not mentation. No thought required. Same with a post. Things can be discerned in what another writes. Discernment is not mentation. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Nov 22, 2015 15:45:00 GMT -5
Yes, laugh as you likely will , my experience with such very much describes with JLY is talking about...and I'm betting you can relate his words to your own poetry writing...where words and more importantly, a message, quite literally just seem to 'pour' forth on it's own accord, absent mentation about it. But yeah, conversations on a forum, a DO require mental activity, and even then, we often don't grasp what the other is getting at. Yes, poetry, and also the squirrel satsangs. I'll sometimes switch into that mode in a response here, but I'm also very aware of the mental effort required here to do the work of understanding others who often are not being very clear. In fact, JLY has got me pondering whether some are hesitant to expend that effort, which could explain why it sometimes seems like the post being responded to hasn't been read very carefully. Yes, the same occurred here too. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Nov 22, 2015 15:58:31 GMT -5
How is anything I say there 'limiting'? That would only be true IF mental activity is the enemy of clarity. It is not. Clarity can exist in the face of mental activity. Mental activity happens. It is neither good nor bad. You seem to believe that it is bad, more specifically, that it somehow imposes limitation..? & fwiw, you clearly DID mentate; Def. Evaluate: To judge or determine the significance worth or value. You are clearly judging my post to be 'full of beliefs.' ..not just beliefs, but 'limiting' ones. One does not need to "judge" to see something is so. There is no judging in seeing a hole in the sidewalk and walking around it. That's called discernment, a function of perception, not mentation. No thought required. Same with a post. Things can be discerned in what another writes. Discernment is not mentation.Within the context of a written discussion, I think it is. But regardless, you seem to believe that an absence of mentation is 'better than' the presence of mentation? ...that 'mentation' itself naturally imposes limitation? Interestingly enough, I am starting to see more clearly what E is getting at in the meditation discussion. The very idea that meditation is important and that mind must be trained often hinges upon the belief that 'mental activity' itself it bad/wrong or the enemy of clarity. It's not. Freedom does not hinge upon the total absence of all mental activity or thought, rather it's just the absence of identification with (absence of getting swept away in, losing awareness of) mental activity/thought. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 22, 2015 16:20:49 GMT -5
One does not need to "judge" to see something is so. There is no judging in seeing a hole in the sidewalk and walking around it. That's called discernment, a function of perception, not mentation. No thought required. Same with a post. Things can be discerned in what another writes. Discernment is not mentation.Within the context of a written discussion, I think it is. But regardless, you seem to believe that an absence of mentation is 'better than' the presence of mentation? ...that 'mentation' itself naturally imposes limitation? Interestingly enough, I am starting to see more clearly what E is getting at in the meditation discussion. The very idea that meditation is important and that mind must be trained often hinges upon the belief that 'mental activity' itself it bad/wrong or the enemy of clarity. It's not. Freedom does not hinge upon the total absence of all mental activity or thought, rather it's just the absence of identification with (absence of getting swept away in, losing awareness of) mental activity/thought. I haven't actually 'gone there'. All I've really been addressing is the split mind delusion. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Nov 22, 2015 16:29:45 GMT -5
Within the context of a written discussion, I think it is. But regardless, you seem to believe that an absence of mentation is 'better than' the presence of mentation? ...that 'mentation' itself naturally imposes limitation? Interestingly enough, I am starting to see more clearly what E is getting at in the meditation discussion. The very idea that meditation is important and that mind must be trained often hinges upon the belief that 'mental activity' itself it bad/wrong or the enemy of clarity. It's not. Freedom does not hinge upon the total absence of all mental activity or thought, rather it's just the absence of identification with (absence of getting swept away in, losing awareness of) mental activity/thought. I haven't actually 'gone there'. All I've really been addressing is the split mind delusion. Yes I know...interestingly enough though, seeing that belief that is oft behind the interest in 'taming mind' is illuminating what you are referring to as 'split mind' as it pertains to that whole process...just another way one can 'go to war'with mind..which I guess is just another form of splitting mind in two. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Nov 22, 2015 16:31:07 GMT -5
One does not need to "judge" to see something is so. There is no judging in seeing a hole in the sidewalk and walking around it. That's called discernment, a function of perception, not mentation. No thought required. Same with a post. Things can be discerned in what another writes. Discernment is not mentation.. But regardless, you seem to believe that an absence of mentation is 'better than' the presence of mentation? ...that 'mentation' itself naturally imposes limitation? Interestingly enough, I am starting to see more clearly what E is getting at in the meditation discussion. The very idea that meditation is important and that mind must be trained often hinges upon the belief that 'mental activity' itself it bad/wrong or the enemy of clarity. It's not. Freedom does not hinge upon the total absence of all mental activity or thought, rather it's just the absence of identification with (absence of getting swept away in, losing awareness of) mental activity/thought. Then for you that's the way it is. But it's also the reason why you can not see how or why Tano can conclude that "It's way deeper than what you are currently able to perceive" via direct perception, and without the need to evaluate, compare or analyze. I'm done now. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Nov 22, 2015 16:34:39 GMT -5
Within the context of a written discussion, I think it is. But regardless, you seem to believe that an absence of mentation is 'better than' the presence of mentation? ...that 'mentation' itself naturally imposes limitation? Interestingly enough, I am starting to see more clearly what E is getting at in the meditation discussion. The very idea that meditation is important and that mind must be trained often hinges upon the belief that 'mental activity' itself it bad/wrong or the enemy of clarity. It's not. Freedom does not hinge upon the total absence of all mental activity or thought, rather it's just the absence of identification with (absence of getting swept away in, losing awareness of) mental activity/thought. Then for you that's the way it is. But it's also the reason why you can not see how or why Tano can conclude that "It's way deeper than what you are currently able to perceive" via direct perception, and without the need to evaluate, compare or analyze. I'm done now. If 'concluding' is happening, then so too is some degree of mental activity. Add to that her assertion that everything that could ever be written or said is not 'it' anyway and just 'a lie', and things get more questionable. If we could hook you up to an MRI machine that is set up to shows what parts of the brain are being engaged, do you really think there would be no 'mental processes' being indicated there when you read and respond to a post on a forum? Will say no more.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 22, 2015 20:44:07 GMT -5
Hey ZD, yes, butt ... Zen Master Ummon was asked once, What is Buddha? His reply, Dry sh!t on a stick. .......I didn't get this for a long time, what he was referring to, and then it hit me one day. I had an uncle who was a dairy farmer, and grew some corn for silage for feed, but some for hard corn which was ground into corn meal, a treat for the cows as they were milked (and also an easy way to give them vitamins and minerals). A byproduct of this corn was a dry corncob (unlike silage where everything was used, corn stalk, corncob and corn). Now I have never used a dry corncob, because of the new invention called toilet paper, but its use was known to me as it was spoken of from time to time, usually in some kind of humor, and I have since seen novelty items saying, redneck toilet paper. Saying all that to say that I realized Ummon's sh!t stick was used "toilet paper"  . And saying all that to say that one of the differences between Brahman and Atman, is that the tano-Atman necessarily needs the use of a "corncob", and Brahman never does. SDP: Unmon could have also answered, "Blue sky in the morning," but he used "Dry s!it on a stick" to graphically emphasize the failure of all ideas, especially holy spiritual ideas, regarding THIS. IMO, the whole Brahman/Atman distinction, as a pointer, is far less valuable than the simple admonition to stop, be still, and look. Ideas about Brahman and Atman just keep the mind in spin mode. depends on the orientation of the peep who's encountered them to mind and ideas in general. If intellect isn't engaged, or engaged as servant, and the ideas are read as pointers, the effect can be either the exact opposite of spin or of a tailspin for the mastermind. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 22, 2015 20:55:20 GMT -5
More of an experience. The level of mental activity can readily be seen if I look when conversing through written word....not so much when writing poetry or other 'flow-type' writing. And you believe that it is impossible for anyone here to converse here without comparing, analysing and evaluating? At it's best the expressions here are noncompetitive and completely free of intellect. Even challenging an idea or a mental position can be done impersonally. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2015 21:11:45 GMT -5
Reading this last batch of posts has involved me in quite a bit of mental activity. Despite that, I still appear to be free of suffering.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 22, 2015 21:20:53 GMT -5
How is anything I say there 'limiting'? That would only be true IF mental activity is the enemy of clarity. It is not. Clarity can exist in the face of mental activity. Mental activity happens. It is neither good nor bad. You seem to believe that it is bad, more specifically, that it somehow imposes limitation..? & fwiw, you clearly DID mentate; Def. Evaluate: To judge or determine the significance worth or value. You are clearly judging my post to be 'full of beliefs.' ..not just beliefs, but 'limiting' ones. One does not need to "judge" to see something is so. There is no judging in seeing a hole in the sidewalk and walking around it. That's called discernment, a function of perception, not mentation. No thought required. Same with a post. Things can be discerned in what another writes. Discernment is not mentation. Sometimes other's do express their beliefs in ways that make them obvious enough to be witnessed with objective clarity, that's for sure. ... especially when they start disclaiming them. The difference between an observation and a judgement is the subjective element. Objectivity is only an ideal, and it can be useful to see that fact, but just as unhelpful to abandon it altogether. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2015 21:46:05 GMT -5
And you believe that it is impossible for anyone here to converse here without comparing, analysing and evaluating? At it's best the expressions here are noncompetitive and completely free of intellect. Even challenging an idea or a mental position can be done impersonally. Seriously? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2015 22:17:55 GMT -5
More of an experience. The level of mental activity can readily be seen if I look when conversing through written word....not so much when writing poetry or other 'flow-type' writing. And you believe that it is impossible for anyone here to converse here without comparing, analysing and evaluating? Impossible I would say. Even reading a newspaper requires mental activity. |
|
, my experience with such very much describes with JLY is talking about...and I'm betting you can relate his words to your own poetry writing...where words and more importantly, a message, quite literally just seem to 'pour' forth on it's own accord, absent mentation about it. 
.