|
|
Post by figgles on Nov 23, 2015 12:13:48 GMT -5
Impossible I would say. Even reading a newspaper requires mental activity.
Do you have to mentally say to yourself the word "tree" every time you see a tree in order to know you are looking at a tree? Or can you know without naming things?Can you not read some words and know what is being said without having to compare, evaluate and analyze the words and know what is being said or better, what is said between the lines? I can see, understand and respond to many things without forethought or any thought to act and respond intelligently. For example, I surprised myself that other day with a sudden booming command that froze all traffic movement in a coffee shop parking lot that prevented an accident. I assure you I had no forethought about any of it. This body/mind did not engage in any "Oh what should I do" thinking before acting. No evaluating, deciding, analysing or comparison was required to act in a way that prevented a minor disaster. It simply happened that I knew what to do and acted without engaging in mentation. This is what I am saying when I say that some folk can sometimes see quite clearly what's what here without the need to engage (the thinking) mind. I call it discernment, and to me, discernment is "wordless knowing" independent of mentations like evaluating, deciding, analysing or comparison. I never suggested mentation was ever and always unnecessary, or doesn't or didn't happen, only that it is possible to see what is going on without the need to engage it in every instance. My 2 cents. Fwiw JLY, the bolded is something very different than what I am referencing when I say that reading and responding to posts on a forum involve mental activity. All of that can and does happen absent unnecessary 'self directed mental chatter.' |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 23, 2015 12:52:39 GMT -5
Do you wordlessly know to walk around a hole in the sidewalk you come upon or do you have to engage verbal thinking about it first? Is there a need for a conversation in your head that says "Oh, there is a hole. I better be careful or I could break my leg. Better move slowing to the left. Someone should fix that. Someone could get hurt. Oh my God, what unthinking fool would have left this like this, etc, etc" Isn't seeing enough for your body/mind to know to step around the hole? Do you have to mentally say to yourself the word "tree" every time you see a tree in order to know you are looking at a tree? Or can you know without naming things? Can you not read some words and know what is being said without having to compare, evaluate and analyze the words and know what is being said or better, what is said between the lines? I can see, understand and respond to many things without forethought or any thought to act and respond intelligently. For example, I surprised myself that other day with a sudden booming command that froze all traffic movement in a coffee shop parking lot that prevented an accident. I assure you I had no forethought about any of it. This body/mind did not engage in any "Oh what should I do" thinking before acting. No evaluating, deciding, analysing or comparison was required to act in a way that prevented a minor disaster. It simply happened that I knew what to do and acted without engaging in mentation. This is what I am saying when I say that some folk can sometimes see quite clearly what's what here without the need to engage (the thinking) mind. I call it discernment, and to me, discernment is "wordless knowing" independent of mentations like evaluating, deciding, analysing or comparison. I never suggested mentation was ever and always unnecessary, or doesn't or didn't happen, only that it is possible to see what is going on without the need to engage it in every instance. My 2 cents. Yes, I do understand what you are referring to. Another example would be that you don't have to consciously remember to put one foot in front of the other when walking. But what of it? The mind is still doing this unconscious kind of behavior. It is still mental activity. But what is more to the point in a thread called "After SR" is that what you describe is no different before or after SR. Do you think Ramana ever experienced angst or dread while reading the war reporting? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 23, 2015 12:58:25 GMT -5
Yes, I do understand what you are referring to. Another example would be that you don't have to consciously remember to put one foot in front of the other when walking. But what of it? The mind is still doing this unconscious kind of behavior. It is still mental activity. But what is more to the point in a thread called "After SR" is that what you describe is no different before or after SR. The point is you don't need to resort to thinking to know something. Mind yes. Thinking no. Before or after SR, as you rightly say. And there is a major post-SR difference: self-referential thought happens, but it never really happens in the same way it did before. This topic and variants of it have been the subject of lots of content on this forum, but like Gangaji says in this video, what's meant by it is beyond imagination or speculation, and describing it can result in confusion or worse (a trap) for the peeps speculating. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2015 13:02:09 GMT -5
Yes, I do understand what you are referring to. Another example would be that you don't have to consciously remember to put one foot in front of the other when walking. But what of it? The mind is still doing this unconscious kind of behavior. It is still mental activity. But what is more to the point in a thread called "After SR" is that what you describe is no different before or after SR. Do you think Ramana ever experienced angst or dread while reading the war reporting? Yes, as well as concern, anger etc. You know, the kinds of things human beings experience. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 23, 2015 13:05:38 GMT -5
Thinking, from the POV, is the verbal, internal voice in your head most of us take to be our very self. Freedom, from this POV, involves seeing this identification as false. Agreed. yup. Some peeps don't even realize this identification is happening. ZD has an interest in two different types of internal voices, one that's strong and centralized and the other that's diffuse and less pronounced. When the former type shuts down it's much easier to notice. A reflection of this is that for some people meditation doesn't have any effect on their mental/physical state, but for high-strung "type-A personalities", it can be a big deal. But in either case, the effect of unrealized self-referential thinking is hard to miss, and can become quite clear in the dialogs about either topic: realization, thinking or identity. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 23, 2015 13:11:37 GMT -5
Do you think Ramana ever experienced angst or dread while reading the war reporting? Yes, as well as concern, anger etc. You know, the kinds of things human beings experience. Concern and anger sure, and he likely didn't put himself in the path a charging bull, but do you think that he was worried about getting killed by the spread of war or outraged and hopeless at the fact of it? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2015 13:16:22 GMT -5
Yes, as well as concern, anger etc. You know, the kinds of things human beings experience. Concern and anger sure, and he likely didn't put himself in the path a charging bull, but do you think that he was worried about getting killed by the spread of war or outraged and hopeless at the fact of it? Absolutely not. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Nov 23, 2015 13:19:24 GMT -5
Do you wordlessly know to walk around a hole in the sidewalk you come upon or do you have to engage verbal thinking about it first? Is there a need for a conversation in your head that says "Oh, there is a hole. I better be careful or I could break my leg. Better move slowing to the left. Someone should fix that. Someone could get hurt. Oh my God, what unthinking fool would have left this like this, etc, etc" Isn't seeing enough for your body/mind to know to step around the hole?
Do you have to mentally say to yourself the word "tree" every time you see a tree in order to know you are looking at a tree? Or can you know without naming things?Can you not read some words and know what is being said without having to compare, evaluate and analyze the words and know what is being said or better, what is said between the lines? I can see, understand and respond to many things without forethought or any thought to act and respond intelligently. For example, I surprised myself that other day with a sudden booming command that froze all traffic movement in a coffee shop parking lot that prevented an accident. I assure you I had no forethought about any of it. This body/mind did not engage in any "Oh what should I do" thinking before acting. No evaluating, deciding, analysing or comparison was required to act in a way that prevented a minor disaster. It simply happened that I knew what to do and acted without engaging in mentation. This is what I am saying when I say that some folk can sometimes see quite clearly what's what here without the need to engage (the thinking) mind. I call it discernment, and to me, discernment is "wordless knowing" independent of mentations like evaluating, deciding, analysing or comparison. I never suggested mentation was ever and always unnecessary, or doesn't or didn't happen, only that it is possible to see what is going on without the need to engage it in every instance. My 2 cents. Fwiw JLY, the bolded is something very different than what I am referencing when I say that reading and responding to posts on a forum involve mental activity. All of that can and does happen absent unnecessary 'self directed mental chatter.' I know what you are referencing. I am pointing to the difference between a response born of wordless "intuition" as Tano called it today (and what I called discernment), and a response born of mentation/thinking. Each has its place to be sure but you did not seem to understand the difference when you asked Tano how could she make a response without resorting to comparison, evaluating and analysis or whatever the exact words were that you used. That is all. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2015 13:31:34 GMT -5
The point is you don't need to resort to thinking to know something. Mind yes. Thinking no. Before or after SR, as you rightly say. And there is a major post-SR difference: self-referential thought happens, but it never really happens in the same way it did before. This topic and variants of it have been the subject of lots of content on this forum, but like Gangaji says in this video, what's meant by it is beyond imagination or speculation, and describing it can result in confusion or worse (a trap) for the peeps speculating. She speaks such beautiful nonsense. As if ideas about inclusion and exclusion are in some way tools to find the truth. You have to put yourself on the receiving end of her comments to question how useful this stuff is. Papaji sure turned out a lot of satsang teachers who even bizarrely claim lineage with Ramana. What a merry go round. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Nov 23, 2015 14:57:17 GMT -5
Fwiw JLY, the bolded is something very different than what I am referencing when I say that reading and responding to posts on a forum involve mental activity. All of that can and does happen absent unnecessary 'self directed mental chatter.' I know what you are referencing. I am pointing to the difference between a response born of wordless "intuition" as Tano called it today (and what I called discernment), and a response born of mentation/thinking. Each has its place to be sure but you did not seem to understand the difference when you asked Tano how could she make a response without resorting to comparison, evaluating and analysis or whatever the exact words were that you used. That is all. No doubt, 'intuition' plays it's part at times in those who are in touch with such, I would actually say it plays a large part in my own engagement here, but even so, when on a forum where you must first read the written word to arrive at an understanding of what the other is actually meaning, some degree of mind activity is still taking place. The specifics of her comment in response to me and the conversation we were having, were such that she was all at once making reference to a specific quote from Jed McKenna's theory of everything, I disagreeertion about that comment and how it related to her comment, as well as her own understanding about her own comment...quite a bit goin' on there in that discourse. The intuitive 'sense' she received of me not going deep enough to understand her point of view may indeed have been there, but so too was mental activity. This is what she said that I responded to..and then you responded to my response...  Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/4257/after-sr?page=12#ixzz3sLYprwVPThe conversation we were having that led up to her saying this was all about comparing her understanding to Jed's...she had been arguing that she and Jed were saying/seeing the same thing. Clearly, comparing of her and Jed's viewpoints and evaluating goin on in that convo. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Nov 23, 2015 15:17:18 GMT -5
I know what you are referencing. I am pointing to the difference between a response born of wordless "intuition" as Tano called it today (and what I called discernment), and a response born of mentation/thinking. Each has its place to be sure but you did not seem to understand the difference when you asked Tano how could she make a response without resorting to comparison, evaluating and analysis or whatever the exact words were that you used. That is all. No doubt, 'intuition' plays it's part at times in those who are in touch with such, I would actually say it plays a large part in my own engagement here, but even so, when on a forum where you must first read the written word to arrive at an understanding of what the other is actually meaning, some degree of mind activity is still taking place. The specifics of her comment in response to me and the conversation we were having, were such that she was all at once making reference to a specific quote from Jed McKenna's theory of everything, I disagreeertion about that comment and how it related to her comment, as well as her own understanding about her own comment...quite a bit goin' on there in that discourse. The intuitive 'sense' she received of me not going deep enough to understand her point of view may indeed have been there, but so too was mental activity. This is what she said that I responded to..and then you responded to my response... Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/4257/after-sr?page=12#ixzz3sLYprwVPThe conversation we were having that led up to her saying this was all about comparing her understanding to Jed's...she had been arguing that she and Jed were saying/seeing the same thing. Clearly, comparing of her and Jed's viewpoints and evaluating goin on in that convo. It's all good. No desire to rehash, debate or prove anything. Moving on now. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Nov 23, 2015 15:34:00 GMT -5
No doubt, 'intuition' plays it's part at times in those who are in touch with such, I would actually say it plays a large part in my own engagement here, but even so, when on a forum where you must first read the written word to arrive at an understanding of what the other is actually meaning, some degree of mind activity is still taking place. The specifics of her comment in response to me and the conversation we were having, were such that she was all at once making reference to a specific quote from Jed McKenna's theory of everything, I disagreeertion about that comment and how it related to her comment, as well as her own understanding about her own comment...quite a bit goin' on there in that discourse. The intuitive 'sense' she received of me not going deep enough to understand her point of view may indeed have been there, but so too was mental activity. This is what she said that I responded to..and then you responded to my response... Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/4257/after-sr?page=12#ixzz3sLYprwVPThe conversation we were having that led up to her saying this was all about comparing her understanding to Jed's...she had been arguing that she and Jed were saying/seeing the same thing. Clearly, comparing of her and Jed's viewpoints and evaluating goin on in that convo. It's all good. No desire to rehash, debate or prove anything. Moving on now...Sure..?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2015 16:40:51 GMT -5
Do you think Ramana ever experienced angst or dread while reading the war reporting? Yes, as well as concern, anger etc. You know, the kinds of things human beings experience. Only a human being identified with person-hood would be concerned or angry. How can a human being who's heart is filled with compassion for others, ever experience concern or anger? For whom? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 23, 2015 18:11:37 GMT -5
Yes, as well as concern, anger etc. You know, the kinds of things human beings experience. Only a human being identified with person-hood would be concerned or angry. How can a human being who's heart is filled with compassion for others, ever experience concern or anger? For whom? Nope. This is an idealistic idea. Most people are attached to form. Some people see a bit deeper, but get attached to emptiness. A sage becomes detached from either emptiness or form. This is what has been called "the flow of being," and flow can include concern, irritation, anger, sadness, and all other human emotions. It's ordinary life without any belief in personal selfhood. THIS is beyond comprehension or logic, and any idea about how it will manifest is an idea, only. How It manifests changes all the time. For whom? THIS is all that's here, so whatever happens happens by and for THIS. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2015 18:31:54 GMT -5
Only a human being identified with person-hood would be concerned or angry. How can a human being who's heart is filled with compassion for others, ever experience concern or anger? For whom? Nope. This is an idealistic idea. Most people are attached to form. Some people see a bit deeper, but get attached to emptiness. A sage becomes detached from either emptiness or form. This is what has been called "the flow of being," and flow can include concern, irritation, anger, sadness, and all other human emotions. It's ordinary life without any belief in personal selfhood. THIS is beyond comprehension or logic, and any idea about how it will manifest is an idea, only. How It manifests changes all the time. For whom? THIS is all that's here, so whatever happens happens by and for THIS. It can be an idealistic idea for those who believe themselves to be Consciousness, but who are still attached to the identity of a person. It is why peeps continue to suffer after SR, because they want to be Consciousness, but they don't want to give up their passion for person-hood. Ranmana was neither a person or a teacher, he was Life itself. But most aren't worthy enough to see that....  |
|
