|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 13, 2019 0:24:36 GMT -5
I'm going to side with Tenka on this issue. You used to call it body knowledge and I didn't have enough of an issue with it to go into it, but now it's 'mind and body in a state of unified flow while in total mental silence', and I officially have problems with that. You specifically talk about a common driving experience, so let's leave samadhi states out of it. I define mind as any mental cognitive activity, so I say mind is not in total mental silence, only the conscious thoughts have ceased. There's some very sophisticated processing going on at an unconscious level in order to successfully accomplish the driving experience. This is evidenced by the fact that nobody who has never learned to drive can accomplish this. The fact that you're not conscious of that processing doesn't mean it's some kind of mind/body state of unified flow. Fact of the matter is, most things can be done more efficiently without the interference of conscious thinking. Having said that, maybe you mean it's more akin to a state of flow as most of us know it, and I would agree with that, but I would still say mind is quite active and not 'totally silent'. Said it very well. I argued with him in this same place in the past when he said 'THAT' knows how to drive. Its not THAT but learnt subconscious process and it can't be compared with body knowing. And your excellent point 'This is evidenced by the fact that nobody who has never learnt to drive can accomplish this' becomes irrefutable. He may be trying to point to something but all I can see is his finger.  I'll guarandamtee he'll get exactly nowhere with Tenka this way. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 13, 2019 0:27:26 GMT -5
Said it very well. I argued with him in this same place in the past when he said 'THAT' knows how to drive. Its not THAT but learnt subconscious process and it can't be compared with body knowing. And your excellent point 'This is evidenced by the fact that nobody who has never learnt to drive can accomplish this' becomes irrefutable. i told tenka a couple of days ago that he and you were quite aligned on this matter Tenka and I are quite well aligned at this point too, which is an odd scratchy sensation. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 13, 2019 0:37:36 GMT -5
i told tenka a couple of days ago that he and you were quite aligned on this matter oh great! It can easily be noticed. Walking is a body knowing for reptile but learnt subconscious thing for human. Nature left certain things for us to learn before we proceed further. And this kind of choosing between human and reptile proves that it definitely has not fallen into the dream and it perfectly aware of how to create our individual experience. Nature decides as Ramesh Balsekar put it. You're making all that up. You don't know any of it, and based on that story you conclude it proves there's a God running the show. Nonsense. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2019 1:17:38 GMT -5
Said it very well. I argued with him in this same place in the past when he said 'THAT' knows how to drive. Its not THAT but learnt subconscious process and it can't be compared with body knowing. And your excellent point 'This is evidenced by the fact that nobody who has never learnt to drive can accomplish this' becomes irrefutable. I'll guarandamtee he'll get exactly nowhere with Tenka this way. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2019 1:18:10 GMT -5
oh great! It can easily be noticed. Walking is a body knowing for reptile but learnt subconscious thing for human. Nature left certain things for us to learn before we proceed further. And this kind of choosing between human and reptile proves that it definitely has not fallen into the dream and it perfectly aware of how to create our individual experience. Nature decides as Ramesh Balsekar put it. You're making all that up. You don't know any of it, and based on that story you conclude it proves there's a God running the show. Nonsense. I am seeing reptile walks as soon as it is born and I am seeing human being learnt to walk, what's there to see? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 13, 2019 2:52:46 GMT -5
I'm going to side with Tenka on this issue. You used to call it body knowledge and I didn't have enough of an issue with it to go into it, but now it's 'mind and body in a state of unified flow while in total mental silence', and I officially have problems with that. You specifically talk about a common driving experience, so let's leave samadhi states out of it. I define mind as any mental cognitive activity, so I say mind is not in total mental silence, only the conscious thoughts have ceased. There's some very sophisticated processing going on at an unconscious level in order to successfully accomplish the driving experience. This is evidenced by the fact that nobody who has never learned to drive can accomplish this. The fact that you're not conscious of that processing doesn't mean it's some kind of mind/body state of unified flow. Fact of the matter is, most things can be done more efficiently without the interference of conscious thinking. Having said that, maybe you mean it's more akin to a state of flow as most of us know it, and I would agree with that, but I would still say mind is quite active and not 'totally silent'. Said it very well. I argued with him in this same place in the past when he said 'THAT' knows how to drive. Its not THAT but learnt subconscious process and it can't be compared with body knowing. And your excellent point 'This is evidenced by the fact that nobody who has never learnt to drive can accomplish this' becomes irrefutable. Do you think the term"THAT" points to something limited or divided in any way? THAT happens to INCLUDE any subconscious processing as well as any activity, conditioning, or body knowing involved in driving a car, so THAT is clearly the driver of all cars. In the form of some humans THAT never learns to drive a car whereas in the form of many other humans THAT does learn to drive a car. Oneness means oneness. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 13, 2019 3:01:41 GMT -5
Yes. I have no problem with the idea that mind (if defined as subconscious mental processing) is still active and functional while in the absence of mind talk. And yes; when there is no mind talk (especially self-referential mind talk), there is a much greater sense of flow--what Zazeniac refers to as "mushin." The descriptions and definitions we each favor depend on how we each want to think about it.  So true, and it also depends upon the realizations that underlie the thinking. Logic is pretty useless in the realm of the non-dual. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 13, 2019 3:06:58 GMT -5
You're making all that up. You don't know any of it, and based on that story you conclude it proves there's a God running the show. Nonsense. I am seeing reptile walks as soon as it is born and I am seeing human being learnt to walk, what's there to see? I only see isness. As Jesus reportedly asked his disciples in the Gospel of Thomas, "I'm not a divider am I?" |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2019 4:28:08 GMT -5
You're making all that up. You don't know any of it, and based on that story you conclude it proves there's a God running the show. Nonsense. I am seeing reptile walks as soon as it is born and I am seeing human being learnt to walk, what's there to see? Reptile has to walk straight away to not get eaten.. This is a newly hatched iguana.. Humans are top of the food chain and don't need to run when they are born. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 13, 2019 4:55:03 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. 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......?There are different stages experienced and like said life changes that can reflect in the stages . In the total immersion of self into Self obviously there is beyond difference and beyond experience so the moment one has (in my case) become self aware (which isn't total immersion) one is non functioning and one doesn't have a thought about self in the same way as before .. There is awareness of 'I am' compared to not and one can perceive the world and not register what is seen (now this is why I say what I say about thought and perception) because the moment you start functioning and recognising what is what and who is who there is a self referential thought present and one can again begin to feel hungry, sad, happy and irritated .. I say this because this is where life's changes within experience reflects on the qualitative differences you ask me to talk about . Now in the immediate of self awareness if your folks passed away you would not react in the same way as you would if you had returned to self awareness for a week or so, so if I relate this experience to your question I would of felt the same pain of losing my folks before and after transcendence . Where is the Peace in the pain of losing a loved one? So for me to suggest that there was total Peace once I had returned to self awareness I would say yes in some moments and no in other's . I don't believe that a peep can entertain total Love and non attachments and peace and all the words that you describe when experiencing life within the diversity that it brings . We could argue all day long what Love means or what Peace means in reflection of what self is and what is experienced, but I am telling you how it is by how I feel and have felt within experience . I don't know any enlightened peeps in the flesh, I can't really say for other's in this way but when I look at what's to offer in regards to certain teachers that have passed and that are present I see a million holes at times in what is in their teachings and how they behave and express themselves . So in a way this strengthens my understandings that all this Peace and non attachment and Love only lasts so long depending on the weather lol. I don't care how it looks when I judge the actions of other's for I don't teach being non judgemental as a self measure for not being enlightened or whatever word suits . I don't care if it looks like I am or was attached to the love of my mother or my children because I don't teach being attached as a self measure for not being enlightened .. What has been proclaimed to be the measure of enlightenment or being Self realized or being in a state of S.S. is not a set president set in stone because one goes by how they feel and by living that truth .. If you feel the need to stand your ground for instance and say a few home truths it doesn't mean that you haven't Self realized lol, simply because you have expressed being judgemental .. The bar has been set unnecessarily high and it's not a true measure at all in my eyes . This is also why you get peeps questioning the masters who have millions in the bank and are addicted to certain things .. As I read your question again in regards to last bit, yes of course there is a greater intimacy or kinship with God or Self and before anyone say's (well Er no Mr Tenka) You are God and you can't have this intimacy with what you already are, well that isn't correct from a position of self awareness and that is currently where my awareness is at, there is no awareness of God in entirety, there is the awareness of God through self awareness, so in this instance one can Love God and be God at the same time . |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 13, 2019 5:10:40 GMT -5
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." I'm going to side with Tenka on this issue. You used to call it body knowledge and I didn't have enough of an issue with it to go into it, but now it's 'mind and body in a state of unified flow while in total mental silence', and I officially have problems with that. You specifically talk about a common driving experience, so let's leave samadhi states out of it. I define mind as any mental cognitive activity, so I say mind is not in total mental silence, only the conscious thoughts have ceased. There's some very sophisticated processing going on at an unconscious level in order to successfully accomplish the driving experience. This is evidenced by the fact that nobody who has never learned to drive can accomplish this. The fact that you're not conscious of that processing doesn't mean it's some kind of mind/body state of unified flow. Fact of the matter is, most things can be done more efficiently without the interference of conscious thinking. Having said that, maybe you mean it's more akin to a state of flow as most of us know it, and I would agree with that, but I would still say mind is quite active and not 'totally silent'. This is what I have pointed out .. One minute we are talking about Joe Bloggs having a beer and the next minute we have some super duper dude floating around walking on water . It's really only ever been about thought v thinking v non thinking and what the differences are between them . So far Z.D. with all respect hasn't addressed my questions as to why peeps continue to do things exactly in the same way and for exactly the same reasons while not thinking and this is absolute paramount to understand . In the same vein one would have to question why a peep experiencing S.S. would still live life in a conditioned egotistical way, when living life in a super duper state .. This is another reason why I don't see not thinking as equating to anything other than not thinking for it doesn't transcend the ego self conditioning .. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 13, 2019 6:16:05 GMT -5
I'm going to side with Tenka on this issue. You used to call it body knowledge and I didn't have enough of an issue with it to go into it, but now it's 'mind and body in a state of unified flow while in total mental silence', and I officially have problems with that. You specifically talk about a common driving experience, so let's leave samadhi states out of it. I define mind as any mental cognitive activity, so I say mind is not in total mental silence, only the conscious thoughts have ceased. There's some very sophisticated processing going on at an unconscious level in order to successfully accomplish the driving experience. This is evidenced by the fact that nobody who has never learned to drive can accomplish this. The fact that you're not conscious of that processing doesn't mean it's some kind of mind/body state of unified flow. Fact of the matter is, most things can be done more efficiently without the interference of conscious thinking. Having said that, maybe you mean it's more akin to a state of flow as most of us know it, and I would agree with that, but I would still say mind is quite active and not 'totally silent'. This is what I have pointed out .. One minute we are talking about Joe Bloggs having a beer and the next minute we have some super duper dude floating around walking on water . It's really only ever been about thought v thinking v non thinking and what the differences are between them . So far Z.D. with all respect hasn't addressed my questions as to why peeps continue to do things exactly in the same way and for exactly the same reasons while not thinking and this is absolute paramount to understand . In the same vein one would have to question why a peep experiencing S.S. would still live life in a conditioned egotistical way, when living life in a super duper state .. This is another reason why I don't see not thinking as equating to anything other than not thinking for it doesn't transcend the ego self conditioning .. If the "seeing like the lens of a camera" analogy is not understood, then nothing else I could say would ever help. A camera does not distinguish what the lens "sees." FWIW, SS is not a super duper state; it's the most natural thing imaginable, much like a river flowing smoothly through a countryside. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2019 6:53:16 GMT -5
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......? There are different stages experienced and like said life changes that can reflect in the stages . In the total immersion of self into Self obviously there is beyond difference and beyond experience so the moment one has (in my case) become self aware (which isn't total immersion) one is non functioning and one doesn't have a thought about self in the same way as before .. There is awareness of 'I am' compared to not and one can perceive the world and not register what is seen (now this is why I say what I say about thought and perception) because the moment you start functioning and recognising what is what and who is who there is a self referential thought present and one can again begin to feel hungry, sad, happy and irritated .. I say this because this is where life's changes within experience reflects on the qualitative differences you ask me to talk about . Now in the immediate of self awareness if your folks passed away you would not react in the same way as you would if you had returned to self awareness for a week or so, so if I relate this experience to your question I would of felt the same pain of losing my folks before and after transcendence . Where is the Peace in the pain of losing a loved one? So for me to suggest that there was total Peace once I had returned to self awareness I would say yes in some moments and no in other's . I don't believe that a peep can entertain total Love and non attachments and peace and all the words that you describe when experiencing life within the diversity that it brings . We could argue all day long what Love means or what Peace means in reflection of what self is and what is experienced, but I am telling you how it is by how I feel and have felt within experience . I don't know any enlightened peeps in the flesh, I can't really say for other's in this way but when I look at what's to offer in regards to certain teachers that have passed and that are present I see a million holes at times in what is in their teachings and how they behave and express themselves . So in a way this strengthens my understandings that all this Peace and non attachment and Love only lasts so long depending on the weather lol. I don't care how it looks when I judge the actions of other's for I don't teach being non judgemental as a self measure for not being enlightened or whatever word suits . I don't care if it looks like I am or was attached to the love of my mother or my children because I don't teach being attached as a self measure for not being enlightened .. What has been proclaimed to be the measure of enlightenment or being Self realized or being in a state of S.S. is not a set president set in stone because one goes by how they feel and by living that truth .. If you feel the need to stand your ground for instance and say a few home truths it doesn't mean that you haven't Self realized lol, simply because you have expressed being judgemental .. The bar has been set unnecessarily high and it's not a true measure at all in my eyes . This is also why you get peeps questioning the masters who have millions in the bank and are addicted to certain things .. As I read your question again in regards to last bit, yes of course there is a greater intimacy or kinship with God or Self and before anyone say's (well Er no Mr Tenka) You are God and you can't have this intimacy with what you already are, well that isn't correct from a position of self awareness and that is currently where my awareness is at, there is no awareness of God in entirety, there is the awareness of God through self awareness, so in this instance one can Love God and be God at the same time . And you can't experience how another is experiencing their Being? |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 13, 2019 7:06:07 GMT -5
This is what I have pointed out .. One minute we are talking about Joe Bloggs having a beer and the next minute we have some super duper dude floating around walking on water . It's really only ever been about thought v thinking v non thinking and what the differences are between them . So far Z.D. with all respect hasn't addressed my questions as to why peeps continue to do things exactly in the same way and for exactly the same reasons while not thinking and this is absolute paramount to understand . In the same vein one would have to question why a peep experiencing S.S. would still live life in a conditioned egotistical way, when living life in a super duper state .. This is another reason why I don't see not thinking as equating to anything other than not thinking for it doesn't transcend the ego self conditioning .. If the "seeing like the lens of a camera" analogy is not understood, then nothing else I could say would ever help. A camera does not distinguish what the lens "sees." FWIW, SS is not a super duper state; it's the most natural thing imaginable, much like a river flowing smoothly through a countryside. It's a flawed premise, you can't compare a lens of a camera to a self aware individual that is perceiving . In that regard whatever you do say you are quite right in that it would never help .. for a camera lens doesn't have a thought of itself . All I want to know is why would a non thinking peep S.S. or otherwise continue to behave in a self referential way that reflects a conditioned ego while not thinking . Why would a peep in such an instance continue to brush teeth when one has transcended the thinking mind if beyond thinking is mean't to be beyond the thought of oneself .. It's toadally bonkers!! Not thinking about brushing teeth while brushing teeth doesn't constitute a dude that experiences S.S. does it . I wanted to know your experience/s from your position, are you experiencing S.S. as we speak? You speak about Zen and you give example of other's who look at the trees differently, but you don't address my questions on any of these issues raised, you toadally ignore them . You agreed in principle that you have no problem with the idea that mind (if defined as subconscious mental processing) is still active and functional while in the absence of mind talk So basically your only problem here is that you are abiding by the rules of what Zen dictates, which isn't in my opinion the norm and you speak in ND terms which isn't the norm either that's why you had difficulties saying that you perceived the keyboard but instead declared you see 'what is' which doesn't make much sense to millions of folk including me because like said it gives the impression that you can't see the keyboard . That's why it's so silly to even say what you say .. It's just putting obstacles in the way of normal conversation and your lack of answers to my straightforward questions simply reflects how using your stance really is creating a lot of issues for you . You don't carry on in this way at home or at the shops do you .. You are asked to get a pint of milk and you don't come home with a loaf of bread do you ... You don't say, sorry to the misses and say I couldn't perceive the milk as milk so I just grabbed what is instead .. It makes no sense to me for why anyone would say one think but do another . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2019 7:36:28 GMT -5
If the "seeing like the lens of a camera" analogy is not understood, then nothing else I could say would ever help. A camera does not distinguish what the lens "sees." FWIW, SS is not a super duper state; it's the most natural thing imaginable, much like a river flowing smoothly through a countryside. It's a flawed premise, you can't compare a lens of a camera to a self aware individual that is perceiving . In that regard whatever you do say you are quite right in that it would never help .. for a camera lens doesn't have a thought of itself . All I want to know is why would a non thinking peep S.S. or otherwise continue to behave in a self referential way that reflects a conditioned ego while not thinking . Why would a peep in such an instance continue to brush teeth when one has transcended the thinking mind if beyond thinking is mean't to be beyond the thought of oneself .. It's toadally bonkers!! Not thinking about brushing teeth while brushing teeth doesn't constitute a dude that experiences S.S. does it . I wanted to know your experience/s from your position, are you experiencing S.S. as we speak? You speak about Zen and you give example of other's who look at the trees differently, but you don't address my questions on any of these issues raised, you toadally ignore them . You agreed in principle that you have no problem with the idea that mind (if defined as subconscious mental processing) is still active and functional while in the absence of mind talk So basically your only problem here is that you are abiding by the rules of what Zen dictates, which isn't in my opinion the norm and you speak in ND terms which isn't the norm either that's why you had difficulties saying that you perceived the keyboard but instead declared you see 'what is' which doesn't make much sense to millions of folk including me because like said it gives the impression that you can't see the keyboard . That's why it's so silly to even say what you say .. It's just putting obstacles in the way of normal conversation and your lack of answers to my straightforward questions simply reflects how using your stance really is creating a lot of issues for you . You don't carry on in this way at home or at the shops do you .. You are asked to get a pint of milk and you don't come home with a loaf of bread do you ... You don't say, sorry to the misses and say I couldn't perceive the milk as milk so I just grabbed what is instead .. It makes no sense to me for why anyone would say one think but do another . What would a 'conditioned ego' be doing that to you is a reflection of one? |
|
I'll guarandamtee he'll get exactly nowhere with Tenka this way. 
