|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 12, 2019 10:05:16 GMT -5
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. What's that got to do with trying to create an argument with you by means of explaining why I have used it . Do you understand why I used it .. Because I have explained to you why I did .. You may not like it or agree with it, but your making more of a mess of this than the dog did .. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 12, 2019 10:05:29 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 .. I'm going to answer this question because it lies at the heart of what's being discussed. On Mar 5, 1984 this character had a CC experience. After the character remembered its name and began to drive away from the construction project where much of that experience took place, it looked at some trees beside the road, and suddenly realized the difference between what it had always "thought" were trees and what trees actually ARE. In Zen terminology the character had "passed through the gateless gate" and discovered something profound. The character then knew that there is a fundamental difference between "thingness" and "isness." Using conventional language, when I look at a computer keyboard, I see a computer keyboard. Using ND-oriented language, when I look at what we call " a computer keyboard," I see "what is." If the intellect is silent (no mind talk), the character sees the world like the lens of a camera, without distinction. I often tell people that a camera cannot take a photo of a thing; it can only take a photo of the visual field in its entirety. If I took a photo of the computer keyboard on the table in front of me, the photo would also capture the table, the computer, the wall in the background, my glasses, some paperwork nearby, a telephone, etc. When there is no mind talk, the character sees the same exact visual field that a camera sees. Nothing (no thing) in that visual field is separate from anything else. Anyone who has passed through the gateless gate will understand these words. Others, perhaps not. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 12, 2019 10:06:56 GMT -5
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. .. Is that your definition or our you using mine? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 12, 2019 10:10:49 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.....? 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." yes i gettcha. I also understand that the concept of 'distinction' is kind of central to your understanding/expression of this. For me, not so much. I do get your point, but if someone said to me that 'driving is part of the world of duality, and duality is distinction', then that works fine with me too. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2019 10:11:58 GMT -5
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. What's that got to do with trying to create an argument with you by means of explaining why I have used it . Do you understand why I used it .. Because I have explained to you why I did .. You may not like it or agree with it, but your making more of a mess of this than the dog did .. You've been using it for many a year now.. though I may have already mentioned that. Are you ready to clean your kitchen now? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 12, 2019 10:12:37 GMT -5
im saying that any observation will come with a thought/distinction. .. Is that your definition or our you using mine? haha it's yours, but im fine with it. my definitions change depending on context. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 12, 2019 10:23:24 GMT -5
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 .. I'm going to answer this question because it lies at the heart of what's being discussed. On Mar 5, 1984 this character had a CC experience. After the character remembered its name and began to drive away from the construction project where much of that experience took place, it looked at some trees beside the road, and suddenly realized the difference between what it had always "thought" were trees and what trees actually ARE. In Zen terminology the character had "passed through the gateless gate" and discovered something profound. The character then knew that there is a fundamental difference between "thingness" and "isness." Using conventional language, when I look at a computer keyboard, I see a computer keyboard. Using ND-oriented language, when I look at what we call " a computer keyboard," I see "what is." If the intellect is silent (no mind talk), the character sees the world like the lens of a camera, without distinction. I often tell people that a camera cannot take a photo of a thing; it can only take a photo of the visual field in its entirety. If I took a photo of the computer keyboard on the table in front of me, the photo would also capture the table, the computer, the wall in the background, my glasses, some paperwork nearby, a telephone, etc. When there is no mind talk, the character sees the same exact visual field that a camera sees. Nothing (no thing) in that visual field is separate from anything else. Anyone who has passed through the gateless gate will understand these words. Others, perhaps not. You see Z.D. I don't want to hear about non duality talk references or Zen references, i want to hear about you more than anything else .. A non duality reference to you is a normal reference to me . Saying from a ND perspective there is only what is just makes things silly, because you really do know that your still looking at a keyboard . You use so many analogies which is good, as do I at times, but I can do straight talking too, straight from the hip and when I say I perceive the keyboard while not thinking, i really mean I am seeing the keyboard while not thinking . To say 'what is' gives the impression you are not identifying with what it appears to be or what it is labelled to be and that does involve thought and distinction and a self reference .. There is nothing worth speaking about in terms of transcendence when the same ego conditioned self is clearing up the mess is there . I am not creating anything here as a premise that peeps are not doing daily .. but for some reason peeps want to use a N.D. language in order to somehow distance themselves from the thought of what is perceived . In regards to the C.C. tree experience, like said, he is having a shift in identification with self and the trees . It's the same thing I have been speaking about regarding Suzzane Segal, she thought she had lost self but she hadn't, her self identity changed that's all .. This still involves self referential ego thought, and she continued to do the chores and acted like the person and the wife she had been previously .. It makes no difference in the fact that she shifted her sense of self, because there was the mindful foundation still active and in effect . There was no transcendence, just a move to the right .. She wasn't S.S or N.S. and this is the point I am making about simply not thinking constitutes anything other than that .. Like said there is probably a huge amount of stuff about NS and SS that we would see eye to eye from that standing point alone . |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 12, 2019 10:28:15 GMT -5
What's that got to do with trying to create an argument with you by means of explaining why I have used it . Do you understand why I used it .. Because I have explained to you why I did .. You may not like it or agree with it, but your making more of a mess of this than the dog did .. You've been using it for many a year now.. though I may have already mentioned that. Are you ready to clean your kitchen now? It's like your reading something different from what I am saying .. It's a bit odd .. I am wondering why you don't actually respond to my explanation but rather continue to say how long I have used the analogy for .. I am not sure how mentioning it in your replies is actually addressing my reasons for why I use it . I haven't got a dog or a cat and if I had and they did a woopsee on the carpet I would clean it up because I have a self ego reference in toe even though I have transcended mind and self ego once upon a time . |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 12, 2019 10:38:39 GMT -5
.. Is that your definition or our you using mine? haha it's yours, but im fine with it. my definitions change depending on context. I will address your other point tomoz mate, getting ready to leave work now. . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2019 10:39:36 GMT -5
You've been using it for many a year now.. though I may have already mentioned that. Are you ready to clean your kitchen now? It's like your reading something different from what I am saying .. It's a bit odd .. I am wondering why you don't actually respond to my explanation but rather continue to say how long I have used the analogy for .. I am not sure how mentioning it in your replies is actually addressing my reasons for why I use it . I haven't got a dog or a cat and if I had and they did a woopsee on the carpet I would clean it up because I have a self ego reference in toe even though I have transcended mind and self ego once upon a time . We have moved to the living room now I see. Did you leave the kitchen spotlessly clean? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 12, 2019 10:41:04 GMT -5
haha it's yours, but im fine with it. my definitions change depending on context. I will address your other point tomoz mate, getting ready to leave work now. . no probs, don't forget to vote to GTTO  |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Dec 12, 2019 11:13:31 GMT -5
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." Wow you're telling me that I can actually turn left off the highway to go home without thinking in my head, "I must turn left now". I can just turn in silence? It must have taken years of daily meditation practice for hours and hours every day to get to that level. I suppose you'll be telling me next that if I look at a clock I don't have to think in my head, "the big hand is on the 12 and the little hand is on the 5 so that means it's 5 o' clock. 😀 I could notice the time in total silence? Get outta here! |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 12, 2019 11:36:04 GMT -5
"This is why I have asked many here on the forums when you look at the road or look at the keyboard what do you see. No one is answering me lol because it's self evident that one perceives a road or a keyboard . Why is there the reluctance to admit that when you look at the keyboard you see a keyboard with or without thinking?" There is no keyboard prior to the mention of the word. You are cutting up reality into puzzle pieces via conceptualization and then trying to fit it back together. Mentioning the word, or thinking the word 'keyboard' does not create the existence of or recognition of the keyboard. That happens prior to conscious thought, though not prior to unconscious mental activity. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 12, 2019 11:57:07 GMT -5
"This is why I have asked many here on the forums when you look at the road or look at the keyboard what do you see. No one is answering me lol because it's self evident that one perceives a road or a keyboard . Why is there the reluctance to admit that when you look at the keyboard you see a keyboard with or without thinking?" There is no keyboard prior to the mention of the word. You are cutting up reality into puzzle pieces via conceptualization and then trying to fit it back together. Mentioning the word, or thinking the word 'keyboard' does not create the existence of or recognition of the keyboard. That happens prior to conscious thought, though not prior to unconscious mental activity. Exactly. Other than the "lens of a camera" analogy I don't know any other way to point to what I'm trying to communicate. Do you? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 12, 2019 11:58:44 GMT -5
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." Wow you're telling me that I can actually turn left off the highway to go home without thinking in my head, "I must turn left now". I can just turn in silence? It must have taken years of daily meditation practice for hours and hours every day to get to that level. I suppose you'll be telling me next that if I look at a clock I don't have to think in my head, "the big hand is on the 12 and the little hand is on the 5 so that means it's 5 o' clock. 😀 I could notice the time in total silence? Get outta here! Satch: You and many posters here understand what I'm pointing to, but for some reason other people don't. |
|
