Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2019 8:36:28 GMT -5
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 . I'm bored of you using the example of dog sh!t all over your kitchen. If you have a dog that has to sh!t in your kitchen instead of taking the poor animal for a walk, then someone needs to phone the RSPCA on you. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 12, 2019 8:46:59 GMT -5
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 . I'm bored of you using the example of dog sh!t all over your kitchen. If you have a dog that has to sh!t in your kitchen instead of talking the poor animal for a walk then someone needs to phone the RSPCA on you. I am sorry for your unhappiness . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2019 8:48:28 GMT -5
I'm bored of you using the example of dog sh!t all over your kitchen. If you have a dog that has to sh!t in your kitchen instead of taking the poor animal for a walk, then someone needs to phone the RSPCA on you. I am sorry for your unhappiness . Quit using dog sh!t as a way of tripping people up in an internet forum. It doesn't prove anything. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 12, 2019 8:48:41 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?I will take a stab at what you mean .. I am in the studio at work with lots of stuff going on all at once so I will try and squeeze this out in a way that makes sense to your question .. Well there is a huge change initially and the same intensity doesn't last forever because life changes, situations change, you start to lose parents and such likes . But speaking of qualities as such I am not sure exactly what qualities mean in this instance, are we talking about the quality of life felt before and after? The quality of Love, or the quality of friendships, I mean in hindsight when you lose your parents you look at the last time you saw them in the physical and wish that you had another moment, so when they are no longer of the physical it is perhaps easy for some to realign there thoughts about how precious those times were before they passed .. I miss my mums presence but I never devalued it in the first place if you get my meaning, my values and thoughts about things in general haven't changed that much because I didn't treat peeps badly nor did I not have any respect for things that I have nor did I take for granted the use of my arms and legs .. Sure there are many understanding had after transcendence, for one knows about what self and no self refers too, what Oneness refers too, what Self and mind refers too .. but in a way it's no big deal, you still go about your business being yourself so to speak, but for some perhaps there is a huge contrast before and after depending on what they thought before the transcendence . If you have a specific quality relating question I will answer it for you . |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 12, 2019 8:56:35 GMT -5
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? There's no looking at the keyboard without thought/distinction (going with your definitions) ...and im asking about the qualitative difference after your transcendence (i.e not what you understood differently, but what was different qualitatively) |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 12, 2019 8:58:42 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?I will take a stab at what you mean .. I am in the studio at work with lots of stuff going on all at once so I will try and squeeze this out in a way that makes sense to your question .. Well there is a huge change initially and the same intensity doesn't last forever because life changes, situations change, you start to lose parents and such likes . But speaking of qualities as such I am not sure exactly what qualities mean in this instance, are we talking about the quality of life felt before and after? The quality of Love, or the quality of friendships, I mean in hindsight when you lose your parents you look at the last time you saw them in the physical and wish that you had another moment, so when they are no longer of the physical it is perhaps easy for some to realign there thoughts about how precious those times were before they passed .. I miss my mums presence but I never devalued it in the first place if you get my meaning, my values and thoughts about things in general haven't changed that much because I didn't treat peeps badly nor did I not have any respect for things that I have nor did I take for granted the use of my arms and legs .. Sure there are many understanding had after transcendence, for one knows about what self and no self refers too, what Oneness refers too, what Self and mind refers too .. but in a way it's no big deal, you still go about your business being yourself so to speak, but for some perhaps there is a huge contrast before and after depending on what they thought before the transcendence . If you have a specific quality relating question I will answer it for you . ok, i'll be more specific, but i'll get back to u in a bit. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 12, 2019 9:16:34 GMT -5
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? There's no looking at the keyboard without thought/distinction (going with your definitions) ...and im asking about the qualitative difference after your transcendence (i.e not what you understood differently, but what was different qualitatively) So what is a peep looking at when there is no thought/distinction going along using my definition in reflection of Z.D's definition of seeing what is prior to the label? I am not sure what you personally see when you just perceive what is there (whatever that may be). Lets not get bogged down about definitions here just for the moment and just tell me what you see beyond thinking .. Just stick to your own way of seeing things and how you interpret that seeing .. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 12, 2019 9:36:36 GMT -5
I am sorry for your unhappiness . Quit using dog sh!t as a way of tripping people up in an internet forum. It doesn't prove anything. Quit trying to tell me what to say ... and I am not trying to trip peeps up, most peeps who have pets find an unwanted present left for them overnight . It is a common experience for the enlightened one's and the not so enlightened . What I am saying proves exactly what I saying in regards to the reference . If anyone is swayed by what is left by means of a present, then there hasn't been the transcendence of self conditioning and you cannot be swayed by such conditioning if there isn't a self reference present . How is that trying to trick anyone? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2019 9:36:39 GMT -5
Quit using dog sh!t as a way of tripping people up in an internet forum. It doesn't prove anything. First I smell it, then I locate it, then I clean it up. Simple! Yep.. it ain't complicated. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2019 9:39:05 GMT -5
Quit using dog sh!t as a way of tripping people up in an internet forum. It doesn't prove anything. Quit trying to tell me what to say ... and I am not trying to trip peeps up, most peeps who have pets find an unwanted present left for them overnight . It is a common experience for the enlightened one's and the not so enlightened . What I am saying proves exactly what I saying in regards to the reference . If anyone is swayed by what is left by means of a present, then there hasn't been the transcendence of self conditioning and you cannot be swayed by such conditioning if there isn't a self reference present . How is that trying to trick anyone? You're still trying to raise an argument where there isn't one. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 12, 2019 9:45:27 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.....? Yes, I am pointing to the state of sahaja samadhi, and it is quite different, psychologically, than what we might call "the ordinary way of interacting with the world" via ideas about reality. Most conventional distinctions about what things are have already been made in the past, so reflective mind talk is not necessary for knowing the world. It is known directly--gnossis. The intellect is consequently a servant rather than a master. Mind talk is not a problem, but ideational thinking is no longer dominant. Yes, there is still mind because there is subconscious mental activity, but there's no longer a belief in a SVP at the center for whatever is happening, so there's no conscious self-referential thinking, and there is a far more cosmic sense of identity. We might call it "a felt sense of oneness with what is." In Hindu terminology, there is only Brahman and this is how it manifests--typing words on a computer keyboard. The phrase "what is" is clearly a concept, but it's used to point to the unified field of being that's seen and interacted with when there is no mind talk. As SDP pointed out, it is not necessary to think about riding a bicycle after one has learned to ride it. From my POV it's more existentially accurate to say, "I see what is," than to say, "I see trees, clouds, and people outside my window." The first statement refers to the entire visual field as a unified whole whereas the second statement refers to the visual field as divided into distinct/abstract/artificial/imaginary states having imaginary sets of boundaries. If I'm talking to someone who knows nothing about ND, then I use conventional language, but on this forum most people are familiar with ND, so I use language that points to what cannot be captured by language. The phrase "what is" points to oneness. Because Tenka refuses to differentiate between thoughts as mind talk and thoughts as direct sensory perception or feelings, it's unlikely that he'll ever agree with what most of us write about ND or the state of SS. That's perfectly okay with me, but it pretty much eliminates any interest in going further with this issue. To clarify the last two lines you wrote, I would put it this way, "When driving, one knows whether to turn left or right, etc, but distinctions are NOT being made. Distinctions were made in the past about "left", "right," etc, and were internalized subconsciously, so although there is mind, there is no conscious reflective thought involved in what's happening. There is no thought of 'I must turn right at the next intersection.' The character knows what to do in total mental silence because body and mind are in a state of unified flow, and it doesn't have to think about what to do." |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 12, 2019 9:54:18 GMT -5
Quit trying to tell me what to say ... and I am not trying to trip peeps up, most peeps who have pets find an unwanted present left for them overnight . It is a common experience for the enlightened one's and the not so enlightened . What I am saying proves exactly what I saying in regards to the reference . If anyone is swayed by what is left by means of a present, then there hasn't been the transcendence of self conditioning and you cannot be swayed by such conditioning if there isn't a self reference present . How is that trying to trick anyone? You're still trying to raise an argument where there isn't one. No I am addressing your need to firstly tell me what I can say and can't say to use as an analogy and secondly I have been explaining to you why I use it . You dismiss the reason I gave you in a way where I am just another one that has no idea what the word 'ego' means and you suggest that I am using it to trip peeps up when I am not . I gave you further explanation and you say I am trying to raise an argument . How can explaining something to you be trying to raise an argument, it is in fact intended to put a halt to your rant in a way that you understand what I mean and for the reasons why I said it / used it . |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 12, 2019 10:02:31 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.....? Because Tenka refuses to differentiate between thoughts as mind talk and thoughts as direct sensory perception or feelings, it's unlikely that he'll ever agree with what most of us write about ND or the state of SS. That's perfectly okay with me, but it pretty much eliminates any interest in going further with this issue. .. It's more to do with the fact that you never said at the time that a non thinking peep who drives a car is experiencing S.S. and the bloke that grabs a beer from the fridge is doing it solely because the mind body intelligence can do it while not thinking . Not thinking doesn't equate to S.S. does it Z.D. Not thinking doesn't equate to transcending the mind of thought, because like said one continues to behave in the exact same way that encompasses a conditioned self ego .. These things go unanswered and you use Zen and S.S to explain your case, but unless you answer the straightforward question/s I have put forward to you it's not going to make any practical sense, because it doesn't explain what you do or why you do what you do .. Are you experiencing S.S. now because if you are not I would rather hear what you have to say from your own actual point of self reference . With respect hearing Zen stories doesn't do anything for me .. Listening to peeps actual accounts here and now does more for me . |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 12, 2019 10:02:32 GMT -5
There's no looking at the keyboard without thought/distinction (going with your definitions) ...and im asking about the qualitative difference after your transcendence (i.e not what you understood differently, but what was different qualitatively) So what is a peep looking at when there is no thought/distinction going along using my definition in reflection of Z.D's definition of seeing what is prior to the label? I am not sure what you personally see when you just perceive what is there (whatever that may be). Lets not get bogged down about definitions here just for the moment and just tell me what you see beyond thinking .. Just stick to your own way of seeing things and how you interpret that seeing .. im saying that any observation will come with a thought/distinction. i could perhaps offer my own natural expression to the convo, i just don't think it will add anything of value. Point is, you're not wrong (imo) In terms of qualitative difference, often folks use words like Peace, Love, Presence, non-judgment, non-attachment, less suffering etc. You don't have to use those words, but I'm asking perhaps if there was more (or less) of any feeling, or felt sense, or perhaps a stronger intuitive sense of something, or sense of kinship/intimacy with god, or......? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2019 10:03:29 GMT -5
You're still trying to raise an argument where there isn't one. No I am addressing your need to firstly tell me what I can say and can't say to use as an analogy and secondly I have been explaining to you why I use it . You dismiss the reason I gave you in a way where I am just another one that has no idea what the word 'ego' means and you suggest that I am using it to trip peeps up when I am not . I gave you further explanation and you say I am trying to raise an argument . How can explaining something to you be trying to raise an argument, it is in fact intended to put a halt to your rant in a way that you understand what I mean and for the reasons why I said it / used it . You've been using the example of dog sh!t all over your kitchen for many a year now. I have intervened. Deal with it. If you can. |
|
