|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 12, 2019 4:06:32 GMT -5
Touching on from what I just said about 'why clean up the dogs mess" while not thinking in a way that touches upon 'no mind' as the crutch for not thinking, when all one does is to continues to function through ego conditioning lol .. Why perceive the world perception as 'what is' and not as the labels describe when all one is doing is continuing to be influenced by their labelled / conditioned / meaning .. Is so daft to say I am not thinking, so I have transcended the thinking mind, when one cleans their teeth and wipes up dog's pee .. No mind obviously doesn't mean or reflect no conditioning or no ego .. and this really does revert back to a thought of oneself at the heart of the experience and to say otherwise is incorrect, because you wouldn't continue to do conditioned things that relate to self . The Tao Te Ching makes this statement, "The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao." ITSW, the Tao that can be conceived is not the eternal Tao. This is a forum that deals primarily with non-duality, so many of us use the term "what is" to refer to the entire field of unified being without distinction. Of course all humans have agreed upon a wide range of standard distinctions and the symbols that represent those distinctions in their own culture, but here we're using words to point to something that is fundamentally unified. When there is no mind-talk, and only direct sensory perception is occurring, I use the term "what is" to point to what I see. What I see can be imagined in a thousand different ways, but I use the term "what is" to refer to what is NOT being imagined--reality itself. There is no such thing as a tree, except as an abstract idea. Imaginatively, people distinguish a series of static images, such as seed, sprout, sapling, young tree, mature tree, old tree, dead tree, fallen tree, etc, but what is being seen is beyond all categories, and we could pick a particular stage in the growth of what we call a tree where one would be unsure whether what is seen should be called a sapling or a tree because the imaginary boundaries defining the distinction at certain points are not clear. ITSW there are no such things as a hand, wrist, and arm. Conceptually we divide what is undivided, and I could pick a point where one would be unsure whether that point was hand or a wrist. In fact, I've often done this as an experiment to show people the imaginary nature of all distinctions. I have also used the example of dancing to illustrate this point. If someone takes a still camera to a dance and takes photographs, none of the photographs will capture what dancing IS. Dancing is movement, and in the deepest sense, all of reality is a movement rather than something static. This is why we use the term "what is." There is a big difference between simple seeing and imagining what is seen. If you ask me what I see when there is no mind talk, no mental ideas or images, how can such a question be answered accurately? Conventionally, we can name things that have been distinguished, but existentially-speaking no words can capture what is seen. That kind of question must be answered in a different way-- by using words to point to the ineffable. This is why I would either answer, "I see what is," or I would use a different method of pointing that is more powerful but less likely to be understood. Like said, your swapping one identification with another, saying tree, then the tree is imagined, then there is 'what is' I find it a little odd that from this position you can't see the thought process involved . You are brushing under the carpet the process of it . To look at the tree as not a tree is seeing the tree as not a tree (identified thought transference) and you still move out of it's way if it got hit by lightning and fell towards you. You still clean up dogs mess without thinking about it because you haven't transcended the ego conditioned self . For anyone to suggest that no mind, no thinking has transcended thought is kidding themselves because your still behaving the exact same way as when you were chatting away . lol . When you say 'what I see when there is no mind talk, no mental ideas or images' well that's not contextually correct is it . It's a misconceived reference because we are speaking about being aware of the road amongst other things and this is not absent of ideas, imagination or mental images . The body isn't going to do anything if there is no visual perception via mental images .. Please if you may lets just stick to what has been given as examples and instead of quoting Zen stuff from a book and from other sources, I just want to hear what you have to say about what you see when you look at the keyboard without thinking .. I want to know practical things like why would you clean up dog mess and express your ego self through such actions while your not thinking . If your speaking about 'what is' and all that jazz you should transcend the ego self identity but you don't do you and even when you look at an oncoming bus, you know it's a bus, and you still use the keyboard as a keyboard .. All there is here is no thinking about stuff in a normal fashion, your still going about your business in your usual way, continuing to live out habitual patterns and routines, still drinking beer, still self grooming and cleaning up mess behind you .. What's the point in seeing things 'as it is' when your still living life by how you think it is and have always been conditioned to think it is . I know that the sun is what we are that is beyond the label of the sun, butt I don't sit out in it all day long without any clothes on still because it still has certain qualities to it . It is in my eyes really defeating the object .. for example if one suggests this isn't really water butt I am going to drink it anyway, because I will die of thirst otherwise is the same type of scenario for peeps saying they are not here but I am not going to walk off the edge of the cliff lol . It would be nice if you or anyone addresses these key issues rather than just giving more book references . I would like to know what goes on in the heads of the forum members not just book references . .. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 12, 2019 4:13:02 GMT -5
This is just twisting things here, because if you didn't know it was a keyboard you wouldn't use it as a keyboard . Saying that it wasn't a keyboard prior to the label is contextually true, but regardless of what you call it you don't stick it in your mouth nor do you use it as a cash point machine . If you use a keyboard with intent to write something, then you can call it what you like, you can call it 'what is' but it doesn't change anything . You know what it does and refers too and if you know what it does then you have a self reference for it . Even for things you don't know what it is or does, you will have a reference for that which you do not know .. What I am speaking of here are things that we all know and all use, so it's pointless saying before the label it was not what it is labelled . It makes no difference does it . You use it for it's purpose . What do you see when you look at the keyboard without thinking it's a keyboard . Can you reply to me without thinking? Can your hand type out letters without thinking what you are going to write or having a thought about replying? This discussion is discursive and irrelevant. My points are on point .. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 12, 2019 4:30:57 GMT -5
The Tao Te Ching makes this statement, "The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao." ITSW, the Tao that can be conceived is not the eternal Tao. This is a forum that deals primarily with non-duality, so many of use the term "what is" to refer to the entire field of unified being without distinction. Of course all humans have agreed upon a wide range of standard distinctions and the symbols that represent those distinctions in their own culture, but here we're using words to point to something that is fundamentally unified. When there is no mind-talk, and only direct sensory perception is occurring, I use the term "what is" to point to what I see. What I see can be imagined in a thousand different ways, but I use the term "what is" to refer to what is NOT being imagined--reality itself. There is no such thing as a tree, except as an abstract idea. Imaginatively, people distinguish a series of static images, such as seed, sprout, sapling, young tree, mature tree, old tree, dead tree, fallen tree, etc, but what is being seen is beyond all categories, and we could pick a particular stage in the growth of what we call a tree where one would be unsure whether what is seen should be called a sapling or a tree because the imaginary boundaries defining the distinction at certain points are not clear. ITSW there are no such things as a hand, wrist, and arm. Conceptually we divide what is undivided, and I could pick a point where one would be unsure whether that point was hand or a wrist. In fact, I've often done this as an experiment to show people the imaginary nature of all distinctions. I have also used the example of dancing to illustrate this point. If someone takes a still camera to a dance and takes photographs, none of the photographs will capture what dancing IS. Dancing is movement, and in the deepest sense, all of reality is a movement rather than something static. This is why we use the term "what is." There is a big difference between simple seeing and imagining what is seen. If you ask me what I see when there is no mind talk, no mental ideas or images, how can such a question be answered accurately? Conventionally, we can name things that have been distinguished, but existentially-speaking no words can capture what is seen. That kind of question must be answered in a different way-- by using words in a different way to point to the ineffable. This is why I would either answer, "I see what is," or I would use a different method of pointing that is more powerful but less likely to be understood. if 'what is' is what you see 'without distinction', then what do you call what is prior to what you see? I would have thought that 'the eternal tao' would point prior to, or beyond, 'what you see without distinction'....? This is why I ask the question, why do you carry on doing conditioned actions .. Why clean up dog poop? The dog poop is still seen as dog poop and one still lives in a conditioned way where they know it is unhygienic to leave it on your kitchen floor . You can't pretend to be seeing anything 'as it is' prior to the label if you are going to abide by the labels meaning and reference still . There is no difference here, thinking about the poop and simply clearing it up while not thinking . If there is an ego conditioned action, there is a thought of self in reflection of the action . Butt it sounds far grander and way more spiritual and floaty if you clean up the mess without thinking about it . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2019 4:45:19 GMT -5
if 'what is' is what you see 'without distinction', then what do you call what is prior to what you see? I would have thought that 'the eternal tao' would point prior to, or beyond, 'what you see without distinction'....? This is why I ask the question, why do you carry on doing conditioned actions .. Why clean up dog poop? The dog poop is still seen as dog poop and one still lives in a conditioned way where they know it is unhygienic to leave it on your kitchen floor . You can't pretend to be seeing anything 'as it is' prior to the label if you are going to abide by the labels meaning and reference still . There is no difference here, thinking about the poop and simply clearing it up while not thinking . If there is an ego conditioned action, there is a thought of self in reflection of the action . Butt it sounds far grander and way more spiritual and floaty if you clean up the mess without thinking about it . I'm going to Report this post Tenka. You've been asking grown men why would they pick up dog sh!t for two years now. I for one am bored with it. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 12, 2019 4:52:36 GMT -5
This discussion is discursive and irrelevant. My points are on point .. the word 'distinctions' is the tricky one. What zd is describing I guess, is the state of 'sahaja samadhi', which is very different from the normal human state. But, I agree with you that in this state, there is mind, and when driving, one still has to know whether to turn left or right, to go when light turns green etc i.e distinctions are still made. Could perhaps say that 'distinctions' are being made but in a different way, or that they are experienced differently such that there is a greater sense of flow or grace.....? |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 12, 2019 5:37:58 GMT -5
This is why I ask the question, why do you carry on doing conditioned actions .. Why clean up dog poop? The dog poop is still seen as dog poop and one still lives in a conditioned way where they know it is unhygienic to leave it on your kitchen floor . You can't pretend to be seeing anything 'as it is' prior to the label if you are going to abide by the labels meaning and reference still . There is no difference here, thinking about the poop and simply clearing it up while not thinking . If there is an ego conditioned action, there is a thought of self in reflection of the action . Butt it sounds far grander and way more spiritual and floaty if you clean up the mess without thinking about it . I'm going to Report this post Tenka. You've been asking grown men why would they pick up dog sh!t for two years now. I for one am bored with it. The reason why I use this analogy often as well as self grooming is because it involves the actions of the ego self, in discriminating and discerning what is morally right for use of a better word for the individual rather than not cleaning it up or self grooming is or would be . I have also used the analogy of the supposed non ego Guru type who prefers to wear a robe rather than go butt naked, or prefers to wash and brush teeth rather than not .. All self ego's preferred conditioned actions is the point I am making . If you are offended by these analogies, especially the clearing up of dogs poop then you are quite welcome to report it . I deliberately used this analogy because it is messy in more ways than one, and if you had no ego you would not be swayed by the effects of it being spread out on your kitchen floor . I didn't have you down for one to be easily offended by something as trivial as this on the back of how you express yourself here at times. I suppose it's one rule for one and another for another .. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 12, 2019 5:38:42 GMT -5
My points are on point .. the word 'distinctions' is the tricky one. What zd is describing I guess, is the state of 'sahaja samadhi', which is very different from the normal human state. But, I agree with you that in this state, there is mind, and when driving, one still has to know whether to turn left or right, to go when light turns green etc i.e distinctions are still made. Could perhaps say that 'distinctions' are being made but in a different way, or that they are experienced differently such that there is a greater sense of flow or grace.....? Well there has been quite a lot of contextual changes along this line of this debate and enquiry, but it has in my eyes only boiled down to 'not thinking' v 'thinking' No one as far as i can tell has been speaking all this time solely about N.S. or S.S while mowing the lawn or drinking beer while not thinking .. because for starters there is no perception during N.S. and there still remains the conditional self ego present if one decides to continue in the same vein as they did prior to not thinking and prior to labelling stuff while experiencing S.S . Like said, you don't stop using the keyboard because you are supposedly seeing the keyboard for what is .. There is still the knowing of what every letter and symbol represents . You don't all of a sudden have memory loss because you see beyond the label . I gave the analogy of the sun being what we are beyond the label, (I hope the sun analogy doesn't offend anyone) but it doesn't mean your going to sit out in it all day long does it .. It's because you still retain the knowings of the identified sun as having specific qualities and you can't have these knowings without the self being identified as being present in reflection of these labels . If we were speaking about Maths here, what I am saying is basic maths, but for some reason it seems to be such a difficult equation or method to understand and digest . |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 12, 2019 6:31:38 GMT -5
the word 'distinctions' is the tricky one. What zd is describing I guess, is the state of 'sahaja samadhi', which is very different from the normal human state. But, I agree with you that in this state, there is mind, and when driving, one still has to know whether to turn left or right, to go when light turns green etc i.e distinctions are still made. Could perhaps say that 'distinctions' are being made but in a different way, or that they are experienced differently such that there is a greater sense of flow or grace.....? Well there has been quite a lot of contextual changes along this line of this debate and enquiry, but it has in my eyes only boiled down to 'not thinking' v 'thinking' No one as far as i can tell has been speaking all this time solely about N.S. or S.S while mowing the lawn or drinking beer while not thinking .. because for starters there is no perception during N.S. and there still remains the conditional self ego present if one decides to continue in the same vein as they did prior to not thinking and prior to labelling stuff while experiencing S.S . Like said, you don't stop using the keyboard because you are supposedly seeing the keyboard for what is .. There is still the knowing of what every letter and symbol represents . You don't all of a sudden have memory loss because you see beyond the label . I gave the analogy of the sun being what we are beyond the label, (I hope the sun analogy doesn't offend anyone) but it doesn't mean your going to sit out in it all day long does it .. It's because you still retain the knowings of the identified sun as having specific qualities and you can't have these knowings without the self being identified as being present in reflection of these labels . If we were speaking about Maths here, what I am saying is basic maths, but for some reason it seems to be such a difficult equation or method to understand and digest . yes NS is a non-functional state, whereas as SS is functional. In any functional state, there are 'distinctions' made (or 'thinking/thought' if you prefer). And while there is an obvious difference between sense perception and thought, it's a soft distinction i.e the line is blurred. I don't have any issue with what you are saying, but zd is contrasting (at least) 2 different 'states' of being, and that's valid too. The problem is that the way he's making the contrast doesn't match with your definitions. As I said, I would agree that where there is action, there is thought, but the way this is experienced can vary remarkably. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 12, 2019 7:11:14 GMT -5
Well there has been quite a lot of contextual changes along this line of this debate and enquiry, but it has in my eyes only boiled down to 'not thinking' v 'thinking' No one as far as i can tell has been speaking all this time solely about N.S. or S.S while mowing the lawn or drinking beer while not thinking .. because for starters there is no perception during N.S. and there still remains the conditional self ego present if one decides to continue in the same vein as they did prior to not thinking and prior to labelling stuff while experiencing S.S . Like said, you don't stop using the keyboard because you are supposedly seeing the keyboard for what is .. There is still the knowing of what every letter and symbol represents . You don't all of a sudden have memory loss because you see beyond the label . I gave the analogy of the sun being what we are beyond the label, (I hope the sun analogy doesn't offend anyone) but it doesn't mean your going to sit out in it all day long does it .. It's because you still retain the knowings of the identified sun as having specific qualities and you can't have these knowings without the self being identified as being present in reflection of these labels . If we were speaking about Maths here, what I am saying is basic maths, but for some reason it seems to be such a difficult equation or method to understand and digest . yes NS is a non-functional state, whereas as SS is functional. In any functional state, there are 'distinctions' made (or 'thinking/thought' if you prefer). And while there is an obvious difference between sense perception and thought, it's a soft distinction i.e the line is blurred. I don't have any issue with what you are saying, but zd is contrasting (at least) 2 different 'states' of being, and that's valid too. The problem is that the way he's making the contrast doesn't match with your definitions. As I said, I would agree that where there is action, there is thought, but the way this is experienced can vary remarkably. Yes for sure any states are valid and I have purposefully identified and given examples of transcending mind, functioning and not .. I have spoken about an array of mindful states, butt as always i am trying to stay within context .. Simply not thinking doesn't reflect S.S. Simply not thinking doesn't reflect the transcendence of ego or of conditioning or of having a thought of oneself .. I am trying very hard to get blood out of a stone here trying to understand why 'not thinking' in a general way like driving and drinking beer has got anything to do with 'no mind' in such a way where it supersedes a level of thinking, when one is doing exactly the same things as before as to when they were thinking .. Not thinking doesn't reflect seeing things as is .. And I have been trying to obtain an answer that reflects what a peep see's when they look at the keyboard while not thinking lol . Maybe it's a question that will get reported eventually hehe . When you simply look at the keyboard without thinking, what do you see? Are you in someway elevated by not thinking about it? Are you not recognising any of the letters? Do you still use the keyboard as a keyboard even if you see the keyboard as being something prior to the label of it? If the answer is yes, you do use it as a keyboard then I am asking why do you? My explanation is that you still have a self reference and if you have a self reference, your not transcending anything at all .. All you are doing is not thinking and that is no big deal at all .. So what if one isn't thinking about stuff . The reality is the same, you do the same stuff, you identify the same stuff .. If you really perceived the keyboard as something beyond the identification that it is a keyboard then you wouldn't use it as a keyboard . Do you understand or agree with this statement? Are you going to be the only one that actually answers these questions  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2019 7:36:13 GMT -5
I'm going to Report this post Tenka. You've been asking grown men why would they pick up dog sh!t for two years now. I for one am bored with it. The reason why I use this analogy often as well as self grooming is because it involves the actions of the ego self, in discriminating and discerning what is morally right for use of a better word for the individual rather than not cleaning it up or self grooming is or would be . I have also used the analogy of the supposed non ego Guru type who prefers to wear a robe rather than go butt naked, or prefers to wash and brush teeth rather than not .. All self ego's preferred conditioned actions is the point I am making . If you are offended by these analogies, especially the clearing up of dogs poop then you are quite welcome to report it . I deliberately used this analogy because it is messy in more ways than one, and if you had no ego you would not be swayed by the effects of it being spread out on your kitchen floor .
I didn't have you down for one to be easily offended by something as trivial as this on the back of how you express yourself here at times. I suppose it's one rule for one and another for another .. What on Earth are you talking about? You're another one that has no idea what the word 'ego' means. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 12, 2019 7:41:52 GMT -5
yes NS is a non-functional state, whereas as SS is functional. In any functional state, there are 'distinctions' made (or 'thinking/thought' if you prefer). And while there is an obvious difference between sense perception and thought, it's a soft distinction i.e the line is blurred. I don't have any issue with what you are saying, but zd is contrasting (at least) 2 different 'states' of being, and that's valid too. The problem is that the way he's making the contrast doesn't match with your definitions. As I said, I would agree that where there is action, there is thought, but the way this is experienced can vary remarkably. Yes for sure any states are valid and I have purposefully identified and given examples of transcending mind, functioning and not .. I have spoken about an array of mindful states, butt as always i am trying to stay within context .. Simply not thinking doesn't reflect S.S. Simply not thinking doesn't reflect the transcendence of ego or of conditioning or of having a thought of oneself .. I am trying very hard to get blood out of a stone here trying to understand why 'not thinking' in a general way like driving and drinking beer has got anything to do with 'no mind' in such a way where it supersedes a level of thinking, when one is doing exactly the same things as before as to when they were thinking .. Not thinking doesn't reflect seeing things as is .. And I have been trying to obtain an answer that reflects what a peep see's when they look at the keyboard while not thinking lol . Maybe it's a question that will get reported eventually hehe . When you simply look at the keyboard without thinking, what do you see? Are you in someway elevated by not thinking about it? Are you not recognising any of the letters? Do you still use the keyboard as a keyboard even if you see the keyboard as being something prior to the label of it? If the answer is yes, you do use it as a keyboard then I am asking why do you? My explanation is that you still have a self reference and if you have a self reference, your not transcending anything at all .. All you are doing is not thinking and that is no big deal at all .. So what if one isn't thinking about stuff . The reality is the same, you do the same stuff, you identify the same stuff .. If you really perceived the keyboard as something beyond the identification that it is a keyboard then you wouldn't use it as a keyboard . Do you understand or agree with this statement? Are you going to be the only one that actually answers these questions agree. And it sounds like you agree that different states of being are available, so the state that ZD is trying to talk about, isn't a 'fictitious' state, he's just not describing the mechanics of it in a way that works for you. Perhaps the real argument here then is what constitutes 'transcendence'. I guess to you, transcendence is more like NS, so it comes and goes. Whereas ZD might say 'transendence' stays. Would you agree that after the 'transcendence' that something qualitatively changed in your experience? If so, how would you describe that quality change? |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 12, 2019 8:13:59 GMT -5
Yes for sure any states are valid and I have purposefully identified and given examples of transcending mind, functioning and not .. I have spoken about an array of mindful states, butt as always i am trying to stay within context .. Simply not thinking doesn't reflect S.S. Simply not thinking doesn't reflect the transcendence of ego or of conditioning or of having a thought of oneself .. I am trying very hard to get blood out of a stone here trying to understand why 'not thinking' in a general way like driving and drinking beer has got anything to do with 'no mind' in such a way where it supersedes a level of thinking, when one is doing exactly the same things as before as to when they were thinking .. Not thinking doesn't reflect seeing things as is .. And I have been trying to obtain an answer that reflects what a peep see's when they look at the keyboard while not thinking lol . Maybe it's a question that will get reported eventually hehe . When you simply look at the keyboard without thinking, what do you see? Are you in someway elevated by not thinking about it? Are you not recognising any of the letters? Do you still use the keyboard as a keyboard even if you see the keyboard as being something prior to the label of it? If the answer is yes, you do use it as a keyboard then I am asking why do you? My explanation is that you still have a self reference and if you have a self reference, your not transcending anything at all .. All you are doing is not thinking and that is no big deal at all .. So what if one isn't thinking about stuff . The reality is the same, you do the same stuff, you identify the same stuff .. If you really perceived the keyboard as something beyond the identification that it is a keyboard then you wouldn't use it as a keyboard . Do you understand or agree with this statement? Are you going to be the only one that actually answers these questions agree. And it sounds like you agree that different states of being are available, so the state that ZD is trying to talk about, isn't a 'fictitious' state, he's just not describing the mechanics of it in a way that works for you. Perhaps the real argument here then is what constitutes 'transcendence'. I guess to you, transcendence is more like NS, so it comes and goes. Whereas ZD might say 'transendence' stays. Would you agree that after the 'transcendence' that something qualitatively changed in your experience? If so, how would you describe that quality change? Firstly, what do you see when you look at the keyboard without thinking? Can you let me know .. and yes I agree with different states, what I disagree with in regards to what Z.D speaks about is the way that one still identifies with stuff that have been seen to not be the stuff that is labelled as the road or a beer or a fridge .. The whole theory is being crossed dressed, one minute we are talking about being aware of the road not thinking and the next minute we have a comparison for S.S. and there are no mental images and such likes .. If peeps want to speak about S.S then so be it, butt not thinking per se doesn't equate to S.S .. so not thinking is not the foundation of S.S. or transcending mind . The thinking level of mind is no different to the non thinking level of mind while there is still self ego conditioning present . Peeps seem to ignore this fact for some strange reason . Not thinking that involves doing the exact same things for the exact same reasons as when one is thinking doesn't mean anything at all and Zen's no-mind philosophy doesn't do anything for me because no mind to me would be no self and this is clearly present in all doings when one is not thinking . My discussion wasn't based around Zen philosophy, it's based upon what I have realized that pertains to self, no self, mind and no mind, not running around drinking beer not thinking about what they are doing or what a beer is .. These are miles apart and all this mind-body intelligence doing things while not thinking is false .. This is why I have asked peeps to do the experiments but never do or reply lol .. Just because you don't actively chat about what you perceive doesn't mean the mind-body takes over for the duration of this and types out letters on a page for you . |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 12, 2019 8:18:45 GMT -5
The reason why I use this analogy often as well as self grooming is because it involves the actions of the ego self, in discriminating and discerning what is morally right for use of a better word for the individual rather than not cleaning it up or self grooming is or would be . I have also used the analogy of the supposed non ego Guru type who prefers to wear a robe rather than go butt naked, or prefers to wash and brush teeth rather than not .. All self ego's preferred conditioned actions is the point I am making . If you are offended by these analogies, especially the clearing up of dogs poop then you are quite welcome to report it . I deliberately used this analogy because it is messy in more ways than one, and if you had no ego you would not be swayed by the effects of it being spread out on your kitchen floor .
I didn't have you down for one to be easily offended by something as trivial as this on the back of how you express yourself here at times. I suppose it's one rule for one and another for another .. What on Earth are you talking about? You're another one that has no idea what the word 'ego' means. If you are swayed by the unpleasantries of the dogs mess then you have a sense of yourself present . You have a thought of yourself . You have not transcended mind, you have not transcended ego or conditioning .. You are welcome to disagree here, that's up to you, but you can't be conditioned nor swayed if ego is not present . |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 12, 2019 8:24:45 GMT -5
agree. And it sounds like you agree that different states of being are available, so the state that ZD is trying to talk about, isn't a 'fictitious' state, he's just not describing the mechanics of it in a way that works for you. Perhaps the real argument here then is what constitutes 'transcendence'. I guess to you, transcendence is more like NS, so it comes and goes. Whereas ZD might say 'transendence' stays. Would you agree that after the 'transcendence' that something qualitatively changed in your experience? If so, how would you describe that quality change? Firstly, what do you see when you look at the keyboard without thinking? Can you let me know .. and yes I agree with different states, what I disagree with in regards to what Z.D speaks about is the way that one still identifies with stuff that have been seen to not be the stuff that is labelled as the road or a beer or a fridge ..The whole theory is being crossed dressed, one minute we are talking about being aware of the road not thinking and the next minute we have a comparison for S.S. and there are no mental images and such likes .. If peeps want to speak about S.S then so be it, butt not thinking per se doesn't equate to S.S .. so not thinking is not the foundation of S.S. or transcending mind . The thinking level of mind is no different to the non thinking level of mind while there is still self ego conditioning present . Peeps seem to ignore this fact for some strange reason . Not thinking that involves doing the exact same things for the exact same reasons as when one is thinking doesn't mean anything at all and Zen's no-mind philosophy doesn't do anything for me because no mind to me would be no self and this is clearly present in all doings when one is not thinking . My discussion wasn't based around Zen philosophy, it's based upon what I have realized that pertains to self, no self, mind and no mind, not running around drinking beer not thinking about what they are doing or what a beer is .. These are miles apart and all this mind-body intelligence doing things while not thinking is false .. This is why I have asked peeps to do the experiments but never do or reply lol .. Just because you don't actively chat about what you perceive doesn't mean the mind-body takes over for the duration of this and types out letters on a page for you . yep I agree, or perhaps better, I have no probs with your way of thinking about it. could you now describe the qualitative difference after the transcendence? |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 12, 2019 8:25:46 GMT -5
Firstly, what do you see when you look at the keyboard without thinking? Can you let me know .. and yes I agree with different states, what I disagree with in regards to what Z.D speaks about is the way that one still identifies with stuff that have been seen to not be the stuff that is labelled as the road or a beer or a fridge ..The whole theory is being crossed dressed, one minute we are talking about being aware of the road not thinking and the next minute we have a comparison for S.S. and there are no mental images and such likes .. If peeps want to speak about S.S then so be it, butt not thinking per se doesn't equate to S.S .. so not thinking is not the foundation of S.S. or transcending mind . The thinking level of mind is no different to the non thinking level of mind while there is still self ego conditioning present . Peeps seem to ignore this fact for some strange reason . Not thinking that involves doing the exact same things for the exact same reasons as when one is thinking doesn't mean anything at all and Zen's no-mind philosophy doesn't do anything for me because no mind to me would be no self and this is clearly present in all doings when one is not thinking . My discussion wasn't based around Zen philosophy, it's based upon what I have realized that pertains to self, no self, mind and no mind, not running around drinking beer not thinking about what they are doing or what a beer is .. These are miles apart and all this mind-body intelligence doing things while not thinking is false .. This is why I have asked peeps to do the experiments but never do or reply lol .. Just because you don't actively chat about what you perceive doesn't mean the mind-body takes over for the duration of this and types out letters on a page for you . yep I agree, or perhaps better, I have no probs with your way of thinking about it. could you now describe the qualitative difference after the transcendence? Firstly, what do you see when you look at the keyboard without thinking? And just to be clear here, are you referring to the difference after the transcendence of mind as I see it or as Zen see's it? |
|
