|
|
Post by relinquish on Aug 28, 2016 16:53:56 GMT -5
Again, we need to break it down a bit for clarity's sake. Sight, sound, smell, taste and touch are all perceptions, and they are all subject to change. When, for instance, sight is not occurring, the absence of sight is 'seen'. In this way, seeing is occurring whether or not sight is occurring. To me, that's two different types of 'seeing' you are speaking of. That's not one type that has changed. The former, Sight - Seeing - Perceiving by eyesight. The latter, 'seeing you can't see through your eyes', Seeing - Perceive, an idea or situation, mentally; Get to know or become aware of. Two different definitions of 'seeing' because of two different types of seeing. Seeing with the eyes and seeing with the mind. The former, "Can you see?, as in the physical object in front of you. The latter, "Can you see?", as in do you understand...the fuller version being, "Do you see what i mean?" The former is about conveying info to comprehend, be aware of a physical object, the latter is about conveying info to comprehend, to understand another's thoughts about the object, or to create one's own thoughts of it. If you see only one 'seeing\sight' that has changed, then that is your understanding to do with as you see fit. I see you have expressed two types of sight...so i see\understand no transformation has occurred. Seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching are the five 'primary elements' of perceiving. Yep, i agree, only one mechanism of perception, the mind's ability to process incoming data from the five senses. The mind uses the incoming data from the eyes and constructs an image, thus the mind, the consciousness, the self, the individual, is now aware of the object in the environment. The mind comprehends; the eye cannot do this. The eye only receives and transmits data. Regarding the one mechanism of perception humans have, the common phrase, "Look with your eyes", is ambiguous. "Look through your eyes" clarifies it. We can take any one of these elements (let's take hearing) and ask the same question I asked of perceiving; Is there any MANNER in which hearing can happen that is different to the manner in which it is happening here and now (i.e. silently)? According to my current understanding, i would never ask this question as it doesn't make sense to me to ask it, it seems pointless. And i calculate that according to your current understanding, as expressed above regarding 'sight perception changing', this question does make sense to you. To answer your question, and speaking generally, no. The ear sensor translates the varying air pressure waves of energy upon the eardrum and connected bones, etc, into digital or analogue electrical impulses which is sent to and decoded by the mind into what we refer to as Sound. I know of no other way a human perceives physical sound. Furthermore, is silence itself subject to change? Is there any silence that is different to the silence that is present here and now? The term 'silence' is a human construct. It is a mental construct, a construct(ion) of thoughts describing a phemomena experienced, generally accepted as meaning - no sound is heard. I think if someone wants to define another type of 'silence', they are free to do so, though i foresee potential confusion, based on the wealth of misunderstanding already occurring between people due to some illogical social habit of assigning different meanings to one word. All words are made up, they always have been and it's still very easy to make new ones up. I see no rational reason to assign a new different meaning to an established word when a new one could be made for the new definition of the new experience. Silence already has a clear definition. If you have experienced a different type of silence, perhaps you could assign a new word to it, to avoid potential confusion\misunderstanding. Can anything be truly silent other than silence itself? The question does not make sense to me. Silence is the action of being silent, and many things can be silent, can behave silently while having more attributes other than silence. One does not have to be purely comprised of silence to be able to behave silently. Also with formlessness. Does seeing have a form? Is there any formlessness that is different to the formlessness that is present here and now? Is it subject to change? Q1. Which 'seeing' are you referring to, eye sight or mind sight? Q2. Can you perceive a formless thing, or can you define or describe something that is formless, as it seems to me that if it is formless, you have no way of perceiving it. It's like saying, "See over there, that thing is invisible." I look in that direction and ask, "What thing, i can't see it?" You say, "Of course you can't see it, it's invisible." I then ask, "How can you say there is something there if you can't see it?" To assign the attribute of 'formless' to something, means to me it now has or always had a form.(for humans have the abilty to assign attributes the phenomena actually has, and also assign ones it doesn't) So it makes no logical sense to me to describe something as formless, as you have to perceive it to assign the attribute 'formless'...as in, "Oh i perceive it, it appears to have no form." That is, if you perceive it, it has to have some type of form, and if it's formless, then you can't perceive it. If you mean 'physical formlessness', it would be helpful if you specified this. Q3. My thoughts on 'change' has been previously expressed. Silence, formlessness and changelessness are all 'attributes' of each other. How so, please elaborate. Use something you perceive has no form as the test piece, so i can follow your train of thought. This is what I mean by 'the manner in which perceiving is happening'. I just use the comonly accepted and established definitions of words. I experience and am aware, according to my understanding, when i am perceiving and the basics of how i perceive and how i can use it to function beneficially, harmoniously, with the least amount of suffering inflicted upon myself and others within this realm i exist in in my human form. It is still unclear to me what your understanding of the phenomena is, and\or if there are specific things you wish to convey, though i am enjoying the exploration, and hope i can better understand your thoughts on the matter. Firstly Jay, let me just say that I very much appreciate the time and care you have taken with your response to me. I hope you enjoyed your Zen walk thoroughly.  I have a little thought experiment that may help clarify my position. Imagine having the actual experience of the most appalling suffering you can possibly come up with (what ever it may be). Now imagine having the actual experience of the most wonderful joy you can possibly come up with (what ever it may be). Now imagine having the actual experience of the most boring monotony that you can possibly come up with (what ever it may be). Lastly, take THIS current experience of reading these words (how ever it may be). Now, each of these four different experiences (what ever they were) were undeniably 'perceived', involving some (if not all) of the five primary elements of perceiving that I mentioned. Either way, perceiving was happening in all four cases. The question is, was each case perceived in a different manner, or were they all perceived in exactly the same basic manner? Now speculate, educatedly, about the answer to this question of these four different experiences from 'another perceiver's' point of view, whether they be of your experiences, or of their own. Can 'the true perceiver' ever be affected in any way by anything that is 'perceived', especially since anything that IS perceived to be affected must be perceived in exactly the same manner after it is affected as it was before it was affected? Thanks for participating. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2016 5:18:02 GMT -5
I've stopped interacting with you on this topic because I can't be bothered. I have an interesting theory( got it while dreaming last night, yes i was dreaming of you, you slap happy polar bear) as to why you have ceased interacting with me on this subject, based on the phrase, "I can't be bothered." Would you like to hear it?...of course you would. but it's dawn, and the weather is nice, so i'm off for a nice Zen walk on the traintracks, and i just finished my long response to relinquish and i need to get some nature rays into me to replenish and revitalise, as i've been sitting and writing for hours. Are you sure it wasn't a nightmare? Yes I would like to hear it and then perhaps there is something I could say about "not being bothered" that I self analysed after I read your post. Don't worry, it's all friendly. |
|
|
|
You
Aug 30, 2016 7:15:33 GMT -5
Post by jay17 on Aug 30, 2016 7:15:33 GMT -5
I have an interesting theory( got it while dreaming last night, yes i was dreaming of you, you slap happy polar bear) as to why you have ceased interacting with me on this subject, based on the phrase, "I can't be bothered." Would you like to hear it?...of course you would. but it's dawn, and the weather is nice, so i'm off for a nice Zen walk on the traintracks, and i just finished my long response to relinquish and i need to get some nature rays into me to replenish and revitalise, as i've been sitting and writing for hours. Are you sure it wasn't a nightmare? Quite sure. I know the difference between what i classify as a dream and a nightmare. If it was a nightmare, i have the freedom and capacity to simply state it was one. Yes I would like to hear it and then perhaps there is something I could say about "not being bothered" that I self analysed after I read your post. Great. I theorise you saw the length of the journey that lay before you as you pondered my responses thus far, and you did not like the imagined\calculated amount of effort you would have to perform to get me to whatever place or state of mind you envisioned, and decided it was not worth it. Don't worry, it's all friendly. Despite my repeated expressions on this matter, it seems you either do not know me very well or you simply do not believe what i have said. I am not adversely affected by disrespectful, abusive, denigrative, negative opinions about me...not since mid 2009. I judge the person who expresses the most unkind, unfriendly, hateful words at me is laughter, and i don't have any problems with discussing these things he says about me to my face. Though i don't spend a great deal of time discussing them with him because he seems to have a low capacity to explore his attitude behind his words, and instead responds by expressing more of the same...which i judge as a non progressive relationship. |
|
|
|
You
Aug 30, 2016 8:06:50 GMT -5
Post by jay17 on Aug 30, 2016 8:06:50 GMT -5
To me... ...It is still unclear to me what your understanding of the phenomena is, and\or if there are specific things you wish to convey, though i am enjoying the exploration, and hope i can better understand your thoughts on the matter. Firstly Jay, let me just say that I very much appreciate the time and care you have taken with your response to me. I hope you enjoyed your Zen walk thoroughly. Cheers. I did, though these current walks before i head to the mainland includes a focus on exercise as well, so it's not my usual meandering slower Zen walks, but still incorporating a Zen Still-mindedness...of which i was pleasantly shocked to come across my old set of reading glasses i lost about a year ago. I has always reasoned i lost them at the tiny creek just off the track that i often de-clog after a heavy rain. There's a buildup of vegetation clutter at the top of the tiny waterfall. Imaging they fell out of my shirt while bending over, instead, i found them on the side and position of the train track i normally do not frequent, so was pleasantly shocked to discover them. And though they are $2 cheap plastic glasses from China( thank the aliens for creating teh Ebays), sitting in the sun and weather for nearly a year and they are still in good nick. I have a little thought experiment that may help clarify my position. Imagine having the actual experience of the most appalling suffering you can possibly come up with (what ever it may be). Now imagine having the actual experience of the most wonderful joy you can possibly come up with (what ever it may be). Now imagine having the actual experience of the most boring monotony that you can possibly come up with (what ever it may be). Lastly, take THIS current experience of reading these words (how ever it may be). Done, all three imagined scenarios experienced in me mindtank, plus taking note, being aware of the current experience of reading your post. Now, each of these four different experiences (what ever they were) were undeniably 'perceived', involving some (if not all) of the five primary elements of perceiving that I mentioned. Either way, perceiving was happening in all four cases. Ah, no, they were not. Only the experience of reading your words utilised my sense of sight, the other three did not use any of my five senses, they were all imagined in my mind. However, just in case i have interpreted differently from your intent. I will continue with the rest of your post that all four experiences are ones i actually have experienced. In this case, yes, all four experiences were perceived using one or more of my five senses. The question is, was each case perceived in a different manner, or were they all perceived in exactly the same basic manner? You are using 'manner' again, and i asked you before, here... spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/363619/thread...to clarify, and i judge this has not occurred, for i am still unsure of what you mean by the term. Though i can answer according to my understanding of perception, perceiving and the involvement of my five senses. No, all experiences are perceived by me in the same manner, as already described in my previous response. Now speculate, educatedly, about the answer to this question of these four different experiences from 'another perceiver's' point of view, whether they be of your experiences, or of their own. I could speculate but don't see any value in doing so. It seems a pointless exercise to speculate what another person may conclude about their experience of perceiving, when it's a simple matter to just ask them to describe it. Why would i try to imagine what it would be like to perceive an incident from another's position in reality when i can simply ask them to decribe their actual experience. If i and another watch a Bill Burr Utubes vid, i am confident i will not laugh during the experience, and there's a 50% probability the other will laugh. But assuming s\he does, then that signifies to me i have my own unique experience and so too does the other. That we both may perceive, generally speaking, in the same manner, utilising our minds and five senses, but we both end up with different experiences. I have my experience, the other person has theirs. That we both perceive in a similar manner, but we reach different conclusions, thus we respond differently. Can 'the true perceiver' ever be affected in any way by anything that is 'perceived', especially since anything that IS perceived to be affected must be perceived in exactly the same manner after it is affected as it was before it was affected? Thanks for participating. You have now introduced a new element, 'the true perceiver', and you have not expressed your definition of it, so i can't provide an accurate response because i do not know what you think 'the true perceiver' is. |
|
|
|
You
Aug 30, 2016 10:06:19 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Aug 30, 2016 10:06:19 GMT -5
I have an interesting theory( got it while dreaming last night, yes i was dreaming of you, you slap happy polar bear) as to why you have ceased interacting with me on this subject, based on the phrase, "I can't be bothered." Would you like to hear it?...of course you would. but it's dawn, and the weather is nice, so i'm off for a nice Zen walk on the traintracks, and i just finished my long response to relinquish and i need to get some nature rays into me to replenish and revitalise, as i've been sitting and writing for hours. Yes I would like to hear it and then perhaps there is something I could say about "not being bothered" that I self analysed after I read your post. Don't worry, it's all friendly. A dream with a slap happy polar bear named Sasquatch would have to be a nightmare, wouldn't it?  |
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Aug 30, 2016 16:47:35 GMT -5
Firstly Jay, let me just say that I very much appreciate the time and care you have taken with your response to me. I hope you enjoyed your Zen walk thoroughly. I have a little thought experiment that may help clarify my position. Imagine having the actual experience of the most appalling suffering you can possibly come up with (what ever it may be). Now imagine having the actual experience of the most wonderful joy you can possibly come up with (what ever it may be). Now imagine having the actual experience of the most boring monotony that you can possibly come up with (what ever it may be). Lastly, take THIS current experience of reading these words (how ever it may be). Done, all three imagined scenarios experienced in me mindtank, plus taking note, being aware of the current experience of reading your post. Now, each of these four different experiences (what ever they were) were undeniably 'perceived', involving some (if not all) of the five primary elements of perceiving that I mentioned. Either way, perceiving was happening in all four cases. Ah, no, they were not. Only the experience of reading your words utilised my sense of sight, the other three did not use any of my five senses, they were all imagined in my mind. However, just in case i have interpreted differently from your intent. I will continue with the rest of your post that all four experiences are ones i actually have experienced. In this case, yes, all four experiences were perceived using one or more of my five senses. The question is, was each case perceived in a different manner, or were they all perceived in exactly the same basic manner? You are using 'manner' again, and i asked you before, here... spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/363619/thread...to clarify, and i judge this has not occurred, for i am still unsure of what you mean by the term. Though i can answer according to my understanding of perception, perceiving and the involvement of my five senses. No, all experiences are perceived by me in the same manner, as already described in my previous response. Now speculate, educatedly, about the answer to this question of these four different experiences from 'another perceiver's' point of view, whether they be of your experiences, or of their own. I could speculate but don't see any value in doing so. It seems a pointless exercise to speculate what another person may conclude about their experience of perceiving, when it's a simple matter to just ask them to describe it. Why would i try to imagine what it would be like to perceive an incident from another's position in reality when i can simply ask them to decribe their actual experience. If i and another watch a Bill Burr Utubes vid, i am confident i will not laugh during the experience, and there's a 50% probability the other will laugh. But assuming s\he does, then that signifies to me i have my own unique experience and so too does the other. That we both may perceive, generally speaking, in the same manner, utilising our minds and five senses, but we both end up with different experiences. I have my experience, the other person has theirs. That we both perceive in a similar manner, but we reach different conclusions, thus we respond differently. Can 'the true perceiver' ever be affected in any way by anything that is 'perceived', especially since anything that IS perceived to be affected must be perceived in exactly the same manner after it is affected as it was before it was affected? Thanks for participating. You have now introduced a new element, 'the true perceiver', and you have not expressed your definition of it, so i can't provide an accurate response because i do not know what you think 'the true perceiver' is. I'm not talking about the naturally unique conclusions that will be made by any given unique body/mind about the particulars of their own unique experience, or that body/mind's unique response, thereby. Of course, no two of these will EVER be exactly the same. I'm talking about the (apparently not often noticed) universals that are happening as the 'bottom line' where ever and when ever the perceiving of change is happening, and trying to get at what this may imply. What I mean by 'the true perceiver' is simply that which change is TRULY perceived by (given that it is ALWAYS perceived in the same basic manner), rather than what it is ALLEGEDLY perceived by (a multiplicity of unique, ever-changing body/minds). |
|
|
|
You
Aug 30, 2016 19:52:17 GMT -5
Post by jay17 on Aug 30, 2016 19:52:17 GMT -5
Done... ...You have now introduced a new element, 'the true perceiver', and you have not expressed your definition of it, so i can't provide an accurate response because i do not know what you think 'the true perceiver' is. I'm not talking about the naturally unique conclusions that will be made by any given unique body/mind about the particulars of their own unique experience, or that body/mind's unique response, thereby. Of course, no two of these will EVER be exactly the same. Ok, good, now it seems clear to me that you are not talking about the common and general aspects of perception that everyone has...interpreting existence via one's mind that utilised data from the five senses. I'm talking about the (apparently not often noticed) universals that are happening as the 'bottom line' where ever and when ever the perceiving of change is happening, and trying to get at what this may imply. Ahh, i see, this is why i have not understood you all this time. I have no idea what these "universals " are, or what is the element of our human beingness that you see a "bottom line" of. I will require some details of what these are. And i am unclear of what "perceiving of change" means...because i can interpret it two ways... - when a person perceives a change withi themself. - or it's related to your previous utterances about two types of perceiving, that there is a change in the manner in which a person perceives. What I mean by 'the true perceiver' is simply that which change is TRULY perceived by (given that it is ALWAYS perceived in the same basic manner), rather than what it is ALLEGEDLY perceived by (a multiplicity of unique, ever-changing body/minds). HUH??? A perceiver is an entity capable of perceiving...a noun...but you define this noun as a verb- the act of perceiving. And it seems to me you are inferring that individual's actions of perception, are false, because either each individual has the ability to change their minds about things they perceive, or individual's can construct different conclusions based on both people perceiving the same incident. But you aslo classify 'the true perceiver' as observing truth or obtaining truth about existence due to always perceiving the same way, via the basic manner, which i thought was via the mind utilizing the five senses, which each individual has and uses to preceive. What i conclude thus far then, is you are speaking about, or leading to speak about an entity, some type of consciousness, that you have yet to describe, that can perceive the actual truth about existence. Am i close to what you wish to share, or do i still not understand what your talking about? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 30, 2016 20:35:47 GMT -5
One thing that I think gets overlooked all too often is the utterly profound implications of the fact that, in some way or other, 'perceiving' IS ACTUALLY happening.... stand in the dream and let it be all that you hear touch taste and see stand still enough and then you'll know from highest high to lowest low there is no bound in what you feel a free fall to that empty, real open up and love will trace an image of an unseen face a whisper of unspoken truth a rumor of unbroken youth in tomorrow you won't find the road that is in a straight line from cold logic all you'll take is inventory of mistake only in the here and now is clarity right off your bow relinquish claim on what would deceive and in surrender, freely breathe |
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Aug 30, 2016 20:39:21 GMT -5
I'm not talking about the naturally unique conclusions that will be made by any given unique body/mind about the particulars of their own unique experience, or that body/mind's unique response, thereby. Of course, no two of these will EVER be exactly the same. Ok, good, now it seems clear to me that you are not talking about the common and general aspects of perception that everyone has...interpreting existence via one's mind that utilised data from the five senses. I'm talking about the (apparently not often noticed) universals that are happening as the 'bottom line' where ever and when ever the perceiving of change is happening, and trying to get at what this may imply. Ahh, i see, this is why i have not understood you all this time. I have no idea what these "universals " are, or what is the element of our human beingness that you see a "bottom line" of. I will require some details of what these are. And i am unclear of what "perceiving of change" means...because i can interpret it two ways... - when a person perceives a change withi themself. - or it's related to your previous utterances about two types of perceiving, that there is a change in the manner in which a person perceives. What I mean by 'the true perceiver' is simply that which change is TRULY perceived by (given that it is ALWAYS perceived in the same basic manner), rather than what it is ALLEGEDLY perceived by (a multiplicity of unique, ever-changing body/minds). HUH??? A perceiver is an entity capable of perceiving...a noun...but you define this noun as a verb- the act of perceiving. And it seems to me you are inferring that individual's actions of perception, are false, because either each individual has the ability to change their minds about things they perceive, or individual's can construct different conclusions based on both people perceiving the same incident. But you aslo classify 'the true perceiver' as observing truth or obtaining truth about existence due to always perceiving the same way, via the basic manner, which i thought was via the mind utilizing the five senses, which each individual has and uses to preceive. What i conclude thus far then, is you are speaking about, or leading to speak about an entity, some type of consciousness, that you have yet to describe, that can perceive the actual truth about existence. Am i close to what you wish to share, or do i still not understand what your talking about? Ultimately, I'm trying to provide experiential proof (instead of just concepts) that your true nature, my true nature, and the true nature of everyone and everything else in the universe is in fact the one causeless, boundless, changeless pure awareness, and that the confusingly fragmented, hostile and threatening situation that is the multiplicity and diversity of separate things and events is actually an illusion. In other words, I'm trying to show you that, in truth, for your true nature, there has never been (and will never be) anything to fear or worry about. That's all.  |
|
|
|
You
Aug 30, 2016 20:49:48 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Aug 30, 2016 20:49:48 GMT -5
Ok, good, now it seems clear to me that you are not talking about the common and general aspects of perception that everyone has...interpreting existence via one's mind that utilised data from the five senses. Ahh, i see, this is why i have not understood you all this time. I have no idea what these "universals " are, or what is the element of our human beingness that you see a "bottom line" of. I will require some details of what these are. And i am unclear of what "perceiving of change" means...because i can interpret it two ways... - when a person perceives a change withi themself. - or it's related to your previous utterances about two types of perceiving, that there is a change in the manner in which a person perceives. HUH??? A perceiver is an entity capable of perceiving...a noun...but you define this noun as a verb- the act of perceiving. And it seems to me you are inferring that individual's actions of perception, are false, because either each individual has the ability to change their minds about things they perceive, or individual's can construct different conclusions based on both people perceiving the same incident. But you aslo classify 'the true perceiver' as observing truth or obtaining truth about existence due to always perceiving the same way, via the basic manner, which i thought was via the mind utilizing the five senses, which each individual has and uses to preceive. What i conclude thus far then, is you are speaking about, or leading to speak about an entity, some type of consciousness, that you have yet to describe, that can perceive the actual truth about existence. Am i close to what you wish to share, or do i still not understand what your talking about? Ultimately, I'm trying to provide experiential proof (instead of just concepts) that your true nature, my true nature, and the true nature of everyone and everything else in the universe is in fact the one causeless, boundless, changeless pure awareness, and that the confusingly fragmented, hostile and threatening situation that is the multiplicity and diversity of separate things and events is actually an illusion. In other words, I'm trying to show you that, in truth, for your true nature, there has never been (and will never be) anything to fear or worry about. That's all.
That can be a mind hook for some peeps. And that's not to pass a judgment either way on the hook, you or them. There are some interesting intellectual constructs and arguments that support what you're writing, but there are counterpoints to each and every one of those, and people with an interest in maintaining a rational world view will tend to favor the counterpoints. Ultimately, what you're referring to is intellectually indefensible, as it's not an intellectual construct. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2016 22:12:24 GMT -5
Are you sure it wasn't a nightmare? Quite sure. I know the difference between what i classify as a dream and a nightmare. If it was a nightmare, i have the freedom and capacity to simply state it was one. Yes I would like to hear it and then perhaps there is something I could say about "not being bothered" that I self analysed after I read your post. Great. I theorise you saw the length of the journey that lay before you as you pondered my responses thus far, and you did not like the imagined\calculated amount of effort you would have to perform to get me to whatever place or state of mind you envisioned, and decided it was not worth it. Don't worry, it's all friendly. Despite my repeated expressions on this matter, it seems you either do not know me very well or you simply do not believe what i have said. I am not adversely affected by disrespectful, abusive, denigrative, negative opinions about me...not since mid 2009. I judge the person who expresses the most unkind, unfriendly, hateful words at me is laughter, and i don't have any problems with discussing these things he says about me to my face. Though i don't spend a great deal of time discussing them with him because he seems to have a low capacity to explore his attitude behind his words, and instead responds by expressing more of the same...which i judge as a non progressive relationship. My conversation with you was about self evident experience, but what got in the way was a discussion about definitions. When I read your response which looked like it would never get past the discussion of language and never come to rest in the simple acceptance of what you know without concepts, then the thought, "I can't be bothered" appeared. The thought was quite neutral. It wasn't meant to be dismissive or judgemental of you in any way. There was no emotion behind my comment that was unappreciative of your comments. It was simply the recognition within myself that such a conversation was not leading anywhere and that to pursue it would just get deeper into the conceptual minding that was the antithesis of the original point about what is self evident experience. Sometimes it's best to just let it go. |
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Aug 31, 2016 16:35:18 GMT -5
Ultimately, I'm trying to provide experiential proof (instead of just concepts) that your true nature, my true nature, and the true nature of everyone and everything else in the universe is in fact the one causeless, boundless, changeless pure awareness, and that the confusingly fragmented, hostile and threatening situation that is the multiplicity and diversity of separate things and events is actually an illusion. In other words, I'm trying to show you that, in truth, for your true nature, there has never been (and will never be) anything to fear or worry about. That's all.
That can be a mind hook for some peeps. And that's not to pass a judgment either way on the hook, you or them. There are some interesting intellectual constructs and arguments that support what you're writing, but there are counterpoints to each and every one of those, and people with an interest in maintaining a rational world view will tend to favor the counterpoints. Ultimately, what you're referring to is intellectually indefensible, as it's not an intellectual construct. You make an excellent point, with which I am in full agreement. I just don't seem to be able to help it, though. Maybe it's an ego thing, that I get an unspeakable amount of joy seeing someone be fundamentally relieved of the energy draining burden of seeking. That's why I watch so much non-dual satsang q&a stuff on youtube. I love it. : ) |
|
|
|
You
Aug 31, 2016 17:33:19 GMT -5
Post by jay17 on Aug 31, 2016 17:33:19 GMT -5
Quite sure. I know the difference between what i classify as a dream and a nightmare. If it was a nightmare, i have the freedom and capacity to simply state it was one. Great. I theorise you saw the length of the journey that lay before you as you pondered my responses thus far, and you did not like the imagined\calculated amount of effort you would have to perform to get me to whatever place or state of mind you envisioned, and decided it was not worth it. Despite my repeated expressions on this matter, it seems you either do not know me very well or you simply do not believe what i have said. I am not adversely affected by disrespectful, abusive, denigrative, negative opinions about me...not since mid 2009. I judge the person who expresses the most unkind, unfriendly, hateful words at me is laughter, and i don't have any problems with discussing these things he says about me to my face. Though i don't spend a great deal of time discussing them with him because he seems to have a low capacity to explore his attitude behind his words, and instead responds by expressing more of the same...which i judge as a non progressive relationship. My conversation with you was about self evident experience, Was it, i did not see enough verbal expression that i could process in order to make that distinction, though i was aware 'self evident experience' was part of your thoughts of our conversation. What i did notice was you stating, 'a self evident truth requires no proof' and you gave up discussing the matter any further after i shared how that seems illogical due to the term 'evident' means having actual or a personal judgement that oneself has adequate proof to label something a truth. Evident-evidence-proof...to me 'self evident' simply means self has determines they have seen enough evidence-proof that something is true or fact. And for reasons not disclosed, you did not like that information and chose to cease the exploration. but what got in the way was a discussion about definitions. You express many thoughts, many definitions, taking the time to explain your mental reasoning behind your statements, but will accuse others of doing this and that doing so is a hindrance to the conversation. I think what discouraged you and you chose to not be bothered anymore, was you couldn't argue against my thoughts, that my thoughts rendered yours incorrect, fully or partially. You seem to me to struggle when a person does not quickly and simply believe your thoughts on a matter, so you give up, and often end with accusing the other of being the problem for the premature end to the convo, in this case, i intrpret you are saying i am thinking too much instead of just observing or experiencing. When I read your response which looked like it would never get past the discussion of language and never come to rest in the simple acceptance of what you know without concepts, then the thought, "I can't be bothered" appeared. I did not see any discussion about language. I saw myself expressing a need and desire for clarification of things you said so i can understand your meaning. I also saw you expressing your conceptualisations of the subject matter, and i doing the same. I then saw you give up because, i theorise, you don't like thinking too much about things, you appear to just like to express your established beliefs and are only happy when others quickly and simply accept them as fact-truth, and you don't like it when people either require more info to better understand or they express a different opinion or they disagree with your conceptualizations or they show potential error in them. There is also a possibility that you give up as it dawns on you that in order to continue the conversation, this requires more thinking, more conceptualising, and according to the spiritual philosophy you align yourself with, dedicate your being to, those things are forboden, those things are bad and must be either greatly reduced or fully eradicted... ...which i always find quite deliciously irrational when a person declares their aversion to 'mind and thinking' yet spend most of their time expressing thoughts created by their mind as they set out to convince others how bad these things are and people should cease using them. Ya gotta love the irrationality and illogicalness that remains an intergral part of many religions and non religious spiritual philosophies. They all sound so wonderful when first heard, so perfect, so encompassing, one can feel so secure and snug when wrapped up in them, but dig below the surface and all manner of cracks can appear. The thought was quite neutral. It wasn't meant to be dismissive or judgemental of you in any way. Irrelivant, as i had just reiterated that i do not suffer any ill effect when others treat me disrespectfully. He has great tranquility of heart who cares neither for the praises nor the fault-finding of men. - Honore' de Balzac Even as a solid rock is unshaken by the wind, so are the wise unshaken by praise or blame. -Buddha If you have ill feeling toward me or the things i say and you express your dislike of me or them, i will not be offended. Youare simply expressing your self, and i don't have a problem with free and honest expression of self. There was no emotion behind my comment that was unappreciative of your comments. Irrelevant info. It was simply the recognition within myself that such a conversation was not leading anywhere and that to pursue it would just get deeper into the conceptual minding that was the antithesis of the original point about what is self evident experience. Seems to me your beliefs restrict you. I can explore reality with both a still, quiet mind and simply experience a situation, and i can also explore the same experience intellectually. Both are wonderful experiences. Each one having a vital part to play in my life story. Sometimes it's best to just let it go. I agree. It's also equally best to keep going too. It all depends on many interconnecting factors as to the decision an individual will make whether to continue or not. I am content with either decision i make. You should know by now that within conversation with me, when you conceptualise on a matter i will utilise my intellect to explore your mind creations, and if you don't like expressing thoughts via verbal communication, then simply don't do it. |
|
|
|
You
Aug 31, 2016 17:45:14 GMT -5
Post by jay17 on Aug 31, 2016 17:45:14 GMT -5
Ok, good... ...What i conclude thus far then, is you are speaking about, or leading to speak about an entity, some type of consciousness, that you have yet to describe, that can perceive the actual truth about existence. Am i close to what you wish to share, or do i still not understand what your talking about? Ultimately, I'm trying to provide experiential proof (instead of just concepts) that your true nature, my true nature, and the true nature of everyone and everything else in the universe is in fact the one causeless, boundless, changeless pure awareness, and that the confusingly fragmented, hostile and threatening situation that is the multiplicity and diversity of separate things and events is actually an illusion. In other words, I'm trying to show you that, in truth, for your true nature, there has never been (and will never be) anything to fear or worry about. That's all. Holy sh.it on a stick ! Really? I would never have reached that conclusion based on what you have said thus far. You're simply an adherant of the Illusion philosophy-concept about this physical realm we humans inhabit. Well that simplifies things greatly. I am interested to get right into that instead of all this pointless 'leading up to' business. I already see three distinct elements of this that i would like to explore, but to keep with the simplicity, please pick one thing that you believe\know is an illusion and prove why it is so...parhaps this includes instructions for me to follow so i will experience this proof for myself. |
|
|
|
You
Aug 31, 2016 18:10:46 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Aug 31, 2016 18:10:46 GMT -5
That can be a mind hook for some peeps. And that's not to pass a judgment either way on the hook, you or them. There are some interesting intellectual constructs and arguments that support what you're writing, but there are counterpoints to each and every one of those, and people with an interest in maintaining a rational world view will tend to favor the counterpoints. Ultimately, what you're referring to is intellectually indefensible, as it's not an intellectual construct. You make an excellent point, with which I am in full agreement. I just don't seem to be able to help it, though. Maybe it's an ego thing, that I get an unspeakable amount of joy seeing someone be fundamentally relieved of the energy draining burden of seeking. That's why I watch so much non-dual satsang q&a stuff on youtube. I love it. : ) , but I think you know what to do to answer that for yourself. Any recommendations in terms of who you like to watch? Have you ever considered making one of your own or starting to speak with others directly face-to-face? Not everyone reacts to the satsangs this same way that you do, and that's just the big 'ole wide world spinning itself out. Just the Universe expressing itself in all it's wild and untamed glory and multiplicity.  The reactions people have to nonduality run a very broad spectrum, from our resonance through complete indifference on all the way to a deep and open hostility. Basic human psychology can be useful and interesting in describing some of those more extreme negative reactions. And that can be summed up with a simple question: what are they frightened of? But I think it's important when confronted with that to bear in mind that this kind of fear usually involves some pain underneath it, and the more intense the hostility, the more intense the suffering of that pain. |
|
The reactions people have to nonduality run a very broad spectrum, from our resonance through complete indifference on all the way to a deep and open hostility. Basic human psychology can be useful and interesting in describing some of those more extreme negative reactions. And that can be summed up with a simple question: what are they frightened of?