Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2017 22:27:37 GMT -5
When a woman remains silent from above, the below talks. When the below is silent the above talks. So what happens if the above and the below of the woman simultaneously talks? What if a man above don`t talk. What is talking below? Oh my! It's always about sex for you isn't it? Always then he wonders why a pic of him and grand daughter on his lap, raises so many eye brows, he needs meds for this. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2017 22:30:12 GMT -5
Oh my! It's always about sex for you isn't it? Where do you think the Kundalini begins? Saccral plexus ( genitalia ) right? When it awakens? The stirrings of the below is initiated. So, a yogi to subdue moves it up solar plexus, to the thoracic plexus, to cardiac plexus, to the cervical plexus ( oral ) then to the medulla to the cerebral hemispheres and finally the pineal gland. The gland is open and you go into samadhi. What are we moving up from the genitalia to the brain. It`s the hormone testosterone. Yogis accumulating a lot of testosterone in their brains go bald. Wrong again, most yogis have very long hair, then have learn to transmute the testosterone, man every time you open your mouth you show us how much you don't know |
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Jan 29, 2017 22:31:08 GMT -5
Oh my! It's always about sex for you isn't it? Always then he wonders why a pic of him and grand daughter on his lap, raises so many eye brows, he needs meds for this. It`s your testosterone minds working not mine. |
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Jan 29, 2017 22:31:51 GMT -5
Where do you think the Kundalini begins? Saccral plexus ( genitalia ) right? When it awakens? The stirrings of the below is initiated. So, a yogi to subdue moves it up solar plexus, to the thoracic plexus, to cardiac plexus, to the cervical plexus ( oral ) then to the medulla to the cerebral hemispheres and finally the pineal gland. The gland is open and you go into samadhi. What are we moving up from the genitalia to the brain. It`s the hormone testosterone. Yogis accumulating a lot of testosterone in their brains go bald. Wrong again, most yogis have very long hair, then have learn to transmute the testosterone, man every time you open your mouth you show us how much you don't know Go see the yogis below they are bald. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 29, 2017 22:40:00 GMT -5
What does presence mean to you? How do you know when you are present? What insures presence? To me this thread is a good example of perspective. There is nothing anyone has said here that I disagree with, there are just many ways to understand this. I will offer another view to add to the mix but on another day I might say something different. So I would say there are only levels of presence. It is not possible to not be present, but one particular level of presence might say that it is possible to not be present. Equally there is another particular level in which the idea of 'levels' of presence is totally rejected. My experience is that, throughout the day, I experience different levels. I don't think there is an upper level, I think it just goes on and on,....not sure about the lowest level, maybe asleep or coma....I dont know. From a certain perspective, your post andrew is very accurate. Just kidding....almost...it is very accurate. You are one of the few here I've gotten to acknowledge "throughout the day I experience different levels of presence". To recognize this is the beginning of becoming more conscious, (that is to say, to recognize you had-been less conscious means you are-now more conscious). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 29, 2017 22:50:09 GMT -5
You corrected yourself, so can like (whole post), almost, tiny correction, "seeing, what's seen". Leave off "what's seen". (The answer involves something alteady mentioned, the: "Would anybody like to answer"?) Aw, but I didn't say "what's seen". Sdp likes whole post now?  OK....yes, sorry, sdp likes whole post. Must be this tiny phone. Good enough (although I would word it a little differently). Now just explain it to alertpeaceeternal. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 29, 2017 23:08:34 GMT -5
(1): satch didn't say being aware of an object is timebound. (The object is timebound, awareness is not. So the issue is slightly confused). That sentence by satch is correct. (2): Not an assumption, not a belief. It is a fact for most people. Anybody want to explain why? (ZD would probably know immediately). (3): Not meaningless drivel, satch is correct here. You have to know what he is referencing, that is, from the ~inside~ (meaning, you have to have-been there). (4): ("I study philosophy"..). Studying philosophy is abstract/conceptual. What satch is referring to is 'nuts and bolts' immediate. 1.) It depends on the definition of the term object. 2.) Bring him on. (ZD). 3.) I know exactely what needs to be known, if there is such thing as knowing. 4.) I don't care if Satch was refering to "nuts and bolts" immediate, because he did not say so in his drivel. Why doubt my "state" of ....what ever? Isn't that what Satch is dealing in? By using such anti-language? I'm just fine the way I express my doubts about Satch's expression as being the case. I'm in the materialist camp now. You can thank peeps like Satch, Andy, Source and Zendancer, etc. for that. And it feeeeeeeeels goooooooood! (3): This is about the Delphic Oracle/Socratic injunction: "know thyself". (4): satch was saying one way what he was referring to can be said. It's pretty close to the meaning of self-remembering. Materialism isn't ~big enough~ to answer these questions. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 29, 2017 23:18:28 GMT -5
Your way of using language makes my point, Satch: Far too many assumptions. 1.) "Being aware of an object which is time bound must also be in the present of course." That is an assumption. It depends on how you define an object, doesn't it? Why is being aware of an object timebound? How do you know that to be true? 2.) "It is not possible to not be present..." That is an assumption. Actually it is a belief. 3.) ..."when we talk about presence it can only mean being aware of being aware with or without an object." This whole sentense is a complete load of meaningless drivel. Maybe the sanskrit translaters did a bad job in translating texts you have read. Who is/was your swami (sanskrit teacher), Satch? Just curious. This kind of using language is sloppy, belief-laden and contains a lot of assumptions. I study philosophie (eastern and western) for about 35 years by now, Satch. I'm no blondie. Of course what I say is drivel. Nothing I say can ever be true. The topic of discussion is presence. The way I choose to describe it makes no difference to me whatsoever. Remaining silent is just as good. Yes, whatever you ~say~ is always merely a copy. A copy of a copy or even a copy of the actual is always at least once removed from the ~real~. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2017 23:19:14 GMT -5
Oh my! It's always about sex for you isn't it? Where do you think the Kundalini begins? Saccral plexus ( genitalia ) right? When it awakens? The stirrings of the below is initiated. So, a yogi to subdue moves it up solar plexus, to the thoracic plexus, to cardiac plexus, to the cervical plexus ( oral ) then to the medulla to the cerebral hemispheres and finally the pineal gland. The gland is open and you go into samadhi. What are we moving up from the genitalia to the brain. It`s the hormone testosterone. Yogis accumulating a lot of testosterone in their brains go bald. Now that's an explanation of samadhi I haven't heard before. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2017 23:23:06 GMT -5
Non-dual language, as used around here and elsewhere, isn't understandable for anybody who has not studied that stuff for years, or even decades. I'm writing for those who don't have that much spare-time to do that. Why do you watch movies? Isn't this usage of language good enough? Why having interest in characters, storys and tales? Come at me, eh. "If you know that there is no such thing as enlightenment, you are enlightend." (Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj) And I understand his pointers just fine. If you understand his pointers, then clearly you haven't understood. |
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Jan 29, 2017 23:24:11 GMT -5
Where do you think the Kundalini begins? Saccral plexus ( genitalia ) right? When it awakens? The stirrings of the below is initiated. So, a yogi to subdue moves it up solar plexus, to the thoracic plexus, to cardiac plexus, to the cervical plexus ( oral ) then to the medulla to the cerebral hemispheres and finally the pineal gland. The gland is open and you go into samadhi. What are we moving up from the genitalia to the brain. It`s the hormone testosterone. Yogis accumulating a lot of testosterone in their brains go bald. Now that's an explanation of samadhi I haven't heard before. Stupor & Ecstasy ( Cosmic Orgasm ) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2017 23:36:25 GMT -5
Your way of using language makes my point, Satch: Far too many assumptions. 1.) "Being aware of an object which is time bound must also be in the present of course." That is an assumption. It depends on how you define an object, doesn't it? Why is being aware of an object timebound? How do you know that to be true? 2.) "It is not possible to not be present..." That is an assumption. Actually it is a belief. 3.) ..."when we talk about presence it can only mean being aware of being aware with or without an object." This whole sentense is a complete load of meaningless drivel. Maybe the sanskrit translaters did a bad job in translating texts you have read. Who is/was your swami (sanskrit teacher), Satch? Just curious. This kind of using language is sloppy, belief-laden and contains a lot of assumptions. I study philosophie (eastern and western) for about 35 years by now, Satch. I'm no blondie. (1): satch didn't say being aware of an object is timebound. (The object is timebound, awareness is not. So the issue is slightly confused). That sentence by satch is correct. (2): Not an assumption, not a belief. It is a fact for most people. Anybody want to explain why? (ZD would probably know immediately). (3): Not meaningless drivel, satch is correct here. You have to know what he is referencing, that is, from the ~inside~ (meaning, you have to have-been there). (4): ("I study philosophy"..). Studying philosophy is abstract/conceptual. What satch is referring to is 'nuts and bolts' immediate. What you say about (1) throws up a lot of interesting questions that cannot really be resolved conceptually. Awareness is unchanging yet the experience of an object which is dependent on awareness is changing as a movement of mind. Presence cannot be separated from both unchanging and changing so what makes presence of such interest is to do with identification. When the background of awareness is so well established and identified with so that it cannot be overshadowed by an object, then this is presence. Ape's philosophy will be of no help to her in the experience of that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2017 23:40:02 GMT -5
(1): satch didn't say being aware of an object is timebound. (The object is timebound, awareness is not. So the issue is slightly confused). That sentence by satch is correct. (2): Not an assumption, not a belief. It is a fact for most people. Anybody want to explain why? (ZD would probably know immediately). (3): Not meaningless drivel, satch is correct here. You have to know what he is referencing, that is, from the ~inside~ (meaning, you have to have-been there). (4): ("I study philosophy"..). Studying philosophy is abstract/conceptual. What satch is referring to is 'nuts and bolts' immediate. What you say about (1) throws up a lot of interesting questions that cannot really be resolved conceptually. Awareness is unchanging yet the experience of an object which is dependent on awareness is changing as a movement of mind. Presence cannot be separated from both unchanging and changing so what makes presence of such interest is to do with identification. When the background of awareness is so well established and identified with so that it cannot be overshadowed by an object, then this is presence. Ape's philosophy will be of no help to her in the experience of that. Had to read 3 times, makes sense, I approve this message ) |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 29, 2017 23:50:01 GMT -5
(1): satch didn't say being aware of an object is timebound. (The object is timebound, awareness is not. So the issue is slightly confused). That sentence by satch is correct. (2): Not an assumption, not a belief. It is a fact for most people. Anybody want to explain why? (ZD would probably know immediately). (3): Not meaningless drivel, satch is correct here. You have to know what he is referencing, that is, from the ~inside~ (meaning, you have to have-been there). (4): ("I study philosophy"..). Studying philosophy is abstract/conceptual. What satch is referring to is 'nuts and bolts' immediate. What you say about (1) throws up a lot of interesting questions that cannot really be resolved conceptually. Awareness is unchanging yet the experience of an object which is dependent on awareness is changing as a movement of mind. Presence cannot be separated from both unchanging and changing so what makes presence of such interest is to do with identification. When the background of awareness is so well established and identified with so that it cannot be overshadowed by an object, then this is presence. Ape's philosophy will be of no help to her in the experience of that. Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 29, 2017 23:51:13 GMT -5
What you say about (1) throws up a lot of interesting questions that cannot really be resolved conceptually. Awareness is unchanging yet the experience of an object which is dependent on awareness is changing as a movement of mind. Presence cannot be separated from both unchanging and changing so what makes presence of such interest is to do with identification. When the background of awareness is so well established and identified with so that it cannot be overshadowed by an object, then this is presence. Ape's philosophy will be of no help to her in the experience of that. Had to read 3 times, makes sense, I approve this message ) Yes. |
|
