|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 13, 2019 8:35:23 GMT -5
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? Doing what I have implied, self grooming and dare I say clearing up dogs poop, wearing robes instead of wearing nothing at all . There has to be a reason for why they do what they do .. My point being is that thinking about doing these things or not thinking about doing these things reflects the same foundation and that is why it makes no difference to thinking about things or not . For there to be the suggestion that non thinking is no mind that equates to no thought makes no sense because the thought of oneself is a reflection of the conditioned ego .. You can't therefore be brushing your teeth while not entertaining a thought about why you are brushing them . Brushing teeth is a reflection of the ego self and to do so is a conditioned action . Peeps that have S.R, C.C. N.S, S.S all brush their teeth or do things the same and for the same reasons prior to thinking and while thinking . For some reason peeps don't want to acknowledge this and this is because it will bring down the foundation of what no mind refers too in the ways of Zen .. because there is a self referential thought beyond thinking and peeps can swap thought with awareness and swap other words around to suit their agenda butt it makes no difference to the outcome because of the way peeps behave while thinking and while not thinking . |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 13, 2019 9:19:25 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 makes no sense to me for why anyone would say one think but do another . That isn't the case, but there's no point in wasting any more time with this issue. There's a big difference between an image produced by a graphics generator and an image captured by a camera. ITSW, there's a big difference between how people see and interact with the world as conventionally distinguished and understood and other people who see and interact with the world directly, but if those differences aren't understood or appreciated, there's no point in saying anything more about it. If what I've pointed to makes no sense, then it makes no sense. Have a great day. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 13, 2019 10:03:56 GMT -5
It makes no sense to me for why anyone would say one think but do another . That isn't the case, but there's no point in wasting any more time with this issue. There's a big difference between an image produced by a graphics generator and an image captured by a camera. ITSW, there's a big difference between how people see and interact with the world as conventionally distinguished and understood and other people who see and interact with the world directly, but if those differences aren't understood or appreciated, there's no point in saying anything more about it. If what I've pointed to makes no sense, then it makes no sense. Have a great day. What I said is correct . You don't look at milk and not see milk . Using a camera lens as an analogy doesn't work because of reasons already given . Your not answering any key questions here and your turning it around to make out that it's a waste of time trying to explain yourself because it's in someway my fault . My questions are very straightforward and bang on point . I am happy to leave it be, that's not a problem but if you want to obstruct the conversation for days by saying there is no thought in perception because of what some zen dude has said then so be it, but it doesn't add up because of the ego conditioning that is present while not thinking . It speaks volumes to me that you ignore most of my post and just reply to last line, but it's no surprise really because I have asked the same questions about 6 times now with no reply and this is what lets your own theory down . Have a great day too .. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 13, 2019 10:46:54 GMT -5
That isn't the case, but there's no point in wasting any more time with this issue. There's a big difference between an image produced by a graphics generator and an image captured by a camera. ITSW, there's a big difference between how people see and interact with the world as conventionally distinguished and understood and other people who see and interact with the world directly, but if those differences aren't understood or appreciated, there's no point in saying anything more about it. If what I've pointed to makes no sense, then it makes no sense. Have a great day. What I said is correct . You don't look at milk and not see milk . Using a camera lens as an analogy doesn't work because of reasons already given . Your not answering any key questions here and your turning it around to make out that it's a waste of time trying to explain yourself because it's in someway my fault . My questions are very straightforward and bang on point . I am happy to leave it be, that's not a problem but if you want to obstruct the conversation for days by saying there is no thought in perception because of what some zen dude has said then so be it, but it doesn't add up because of the ego conditioning that is present while not thinking . It speaks volumes to me that you ignore most of my post and just reply to last line, but it's no surprise really because I have asked the same questions about 6 times now with no reply and this is what lets your own theory down . Have a great day too .. FWIW, when I look at what can be distinguished and called "milk," I do NOT see milk; I see "what is." Some people will understand what this statement means. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2019 11:44:09 GMT -5
What would a 'conditioned ego' be doing that to you is a reflection of one? Doing what I have implied, self grooming and dare I say clearing up dogs poop, wearing robes instead of wearing nothing at all . There has to be a reason for why they do what they do .. My point being is that thinking about doing these things or not thinking about doing these things reflects the same foundation and that is why it makes no difference to thinking about things or not . For there to be the suggestion that non thinking is no mind that equates to no thought makes no sense because the thought of oneself is a reflection of the conditioned ego .. You can't therefore be brushing your teeth while not entertaining a thought about why you are brushing them . Brushing teeth is a reflection of the ego self and to do so is a conditioned action .
Peeps that have S.R, C.C. N.S, S.S all brush their teeth or do things the same and for the same reasons prior to thinking and while thinking . For some reason peeps don't want to acknowledge this and this is because it will bring down the foundation of what no mind refers too in the ways of Zen .. because there is a self referential thought beyond thinking and peeps can swap thought with awareness and swap other words around to suit their agenda butt it makes no difference to the outcome because of the way peeps behave while thinking and while not thinking . Do you really believe this? That clean, hygienic and non-furry teeth is a preference only for those that believe themselves to be an individual? |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 13, 2019 15:01:21 GMT -5
What I said is correct . You don't look at milk and not see milk . Using a camera lens as an analogy doesn't work because of reasons already given . Your not answering any key questions here and your turning it around to make out that it's a waste of time trying to explain yourself because it's in someway my fault . My questions are very straightforward and bang on point . I am happy to leave it be, that's not a problem but if you want to obstruct the conversation for days by saying there is no thought in perception because of what some zen dude has said then so be it, but it doesn't add up because of the ego conditioning that is present while not thinking . It speaks volumes to me that you ignore most of my post and just reply to last line, but it's no surprise really because I have asked the same questions about 6 times now with no reply and this is what lets your own theory down . Have a great day too .. FWIW, when I look at what can be distinguished and called "milk," I do NOT see milk; I see "what is." Some people will understand what this statement means. So when you want a glass of water you don't turn on the tap lol .. Sorry Z.D. butt your line of answering does nothing for me .. I don't believe you . You do see water as water and milk as milk .. It would perhaps be true enough to say that there is beyond the label, butt you still abide by the label .. That's why you don't drink sand . Your still not addressing my questions and it's just silly, your just brushing them under the carpet .. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 13, 2019 15:02:00 GMT -5
Doing what I have implied, self grooming and dare I say clearing up dogs poop, wearing robes instead of wearing nothing at all . There has to be a reason for why they do what they do .. My point being is that thinking about doing these things or not thinking about doing these things reflects the same foundation and that is why it makes no difference to thinking about things or not . For there to be the suggestion that non thinking is no mind that equates to no thought makes no sense because the thought of oneself is a reflection of the conditioned ego .. You can't therefore be brushing your teeth while not entertaining a thought about why you are brushing them . Brushing teeth is a reflection of the ego self and to do so is a conditioned action .
Peeps that have S.R, C.C. N.S, S.S all brush their teeth or do things the same and for the same reasons prior to thinking and while thinking . For some reason peeps don't want to acknowledge this and this is because it will bring down the foundation of what no mind refers too in the ways of Zen .. because there is a self referential thought beyond thinking and peeps can swap thought with awareness and swap other words around to suit their agenda butt it makes no difference to the outcome because of the way peeps behave while thinking and while not thinking . Do you really believe this? That clean, hygienic and non-furry teeth is a preference only for those that believe themselves to be an individual? Tell me why you clean yourself and your house . Where has the notion come from . |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 13, 2019 16:04:50 GMT -5
Do you really believe this? That clean, hygienic and non-furry teeth is a preference only for those that believe themselves to be an individual? Tell me why you clean yourself and your house . Where has the notion come from . That's an interesting question. One might also ask, "Where have the directions come from that direct all of the blood cells moving through the body?"  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 13, 2019 16:29:42 GMT -5
Tell me why you clean yourself and your house . Where has the notion come from . That's an interesting question. One might also ask, "Where have the directions come from that direct all of the blood cells moving through the body?" Let me know if you want the link to doooooooofus guy.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2019 17:06:28 GMT -5
Do you really believe this? That clean, hygienic and non-furry teeth is a preference only for those that believe themselves to be an individual? Tell me why you clean yourself and your house . Where has the notion come from . You really do believe that a man that knows that there are no separate individuals, wouldn't want his mouth to be hygienically clean. You really are a funny fella. I am so feeling like the cat in my profile.. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 13, 2019 17:18:04 GMT -5
Tell me why you clean yourself and your house . Where has the notion come from . You really do believe that a man that knows that there are no separate individuals, wouldn't want his mouth to be hygienically clean. You really are a funny fella. I am so feeling like the cat in my profile.. I had this friend once upon a time, she pulled this out every now and then. She: "Where's that cat"? Me (or someone else present): What cat? She: The cat that s**t in my mouth. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 13, 2019 17:46:20 GMT -5
That's an interesting question. One might also ask, "Where have the directions come from that direct all of the blood cells moving through the body?" Let me know if you want the link to doooooooofus guy. Haha. I might need that link one of these days. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2019 18:41:13 GMT -5
You really do believe that a man that knows that there are no separate individuals, wouldn't want his mouth to be hygienically clean. You really are a funny fella. I am so feeling like the cat in my profile.. I had this friend once upon a time, she pulled this out every now and then. She: "Where's that cat"? Me (or someone else present): What cat? She: The cat that s**t in my mouth.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 14, 2019 0:39:07 GMT -5
FWIW, when I look at what can be distinguished and called "milk," I do NOT see milk; I see "what is." Some people will understand what this statement means. Exactly. The perception of the milk is there but it doesn't register as 'milk'. You see only THIS. That's why in that mode of perception you don't actually know what you are looking at. All you see is THIS. That's why, when Ramakrishna was in that mode of perception, he bowed before prostitutes and started kissing their feet because all he saw was THIS. As Tenka likes to say, there is only what you are, aka THIS. And THIS is all you can see in that mode of perception. No milk, no things - there is only THIS - what you are. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 14, 2019 1:17:58 GMT -5
FWIW, when I look at what can be distinguished and called "milk," I do NOT see milk; I see "what is." Some people will understand what this statement means. So when you want a glass of water you don't turn on the tap lol .. Sorry Z.D. butt your line of answering does nothing for me .. I don't believe you . You do see water as water and milk as milk .. It would perhaps be true enough to say that there is beyond the label, butt you still abide by the label .. That's why you don't drink sand . Your still not addressing my questions and it's just silly, your just brushing them under the carpet .. ZD is pointing to perception prior to mind, i.e. perception that is prior to the mind/intellect turning what is perceived into objects/things. And in that context, there is no framework at all for the kind of questions you are asking here. The questions you are asking belong to the context of objects/things. And in that context, nothing ZD says will make any sense. On the other hand, none of the questions you are asking would even arise in the context ZD is speaking from. So from the perspective of 'thing-ifying' your questions are perfectly valid and should have a definite answer. But at the same time, from the perspective prior to 'thing-ifying', the kind of questions you are asking will never even arise in the first place, so there's no need to even engage with your questions, let alone answer them. You can only answer those questions from the thingness level, but never from the no-thingness level. In fact, you can't answer these questions from the no-thingness level without mixing context. So, you insisting to get an answer from ZD from his level of perception would be akin to insisting on ZD mixing contexts in order to satisfy your curiosity. And that doesn't help anybody. Makes sense? |
|
