|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 8, 2019 7:16:02 GMT -5
Yes it is very simple for there is recognition had, and recognition requires, mindful perception, self awareness and thoughtful knowings via the intellect . For there to be the suggestion that mind has been transcended in these instances when this recognition is ongoing / present is incorrect . It doesn't matter if there is recognition of a tree, a road or there being a burning sensation had on their face from the sun, one can't separate, perception from thought from awareness from recognition .. The mind-body cannot perform and function and make decisions by itself while there is no self awareness present and as said there cannot be self awareness present and not be a thought of that had in reflection of what is perceived . Yes I agree. You don't have to have consciously labeled thoughts but there does have to be recognition, particularly if you are engaged in some activity like driving. If I'm driving I put my foot on the brake pedal because I know that's what it is and that's where it is. I don't stick my foot out of the window when I want to stop. At the same time I don't need to have an internal conversation with myself where I hear words in my head saying, "I must push down on the brake pedal now". Obviously that doesn't happen. It's done very unconsciously but it still requires a mind and awareness. Yes indeedy, for when there is transcendence, there is no thought of this world, the mind body intelligence is true enough to say, all functions of the mind-body is intelligent but the mind body by itself doesn't know how to drive or do kung fu . I believe that the mind-body cells can attain a memory also, but by itself it cannot remember how to drive or do kung fu. There has to be a conscious thought via self awareness present at all times in all these examples given .. Even what is regarded as the subconscious is not absent of conscious awareness it is just not remembered or at the forefront of ones mind . It's all mindfulness and doesn't equate or reflect transcendence . |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 8, 2019 7:35:41 GMT -5
Yes, but if one takes oneself to-be that which thinks, the Thinker, which tenka seems to, that's sad. But yes, I give up. No words as response came from reading his reply. His words had zero relationship to what I wrote. But that's OK, it is what it is. There is only what you are Pilgrim . I don't separate what I AM from the thinker, the doer, or the witness or whatever words suits.. You are welcome to separate and divide if you like .. I would say this is why there is confusion, it's the neti neti approach .. I heard someone say that Ramana wasn't a fan of neti neti because there is too much attention had of what you are not rather than what you are .. yes, the problem with neti neti is that it perpetuates the duality of not/are, which are both 'mindful' categories |
|
|
|
Post by roydop on Dec 8, 2019 10:43:10 GMT -5
One may be aware of another's "energy" free of words/thoughts. There is no need for, or benefit to, sympathy or empathy. There is no suffering in your world if you do not suffer. How can you be aware of another without there being the thought of another . There is so much confusion had here regarding what is a thought and what thinking is . I can have thought of my sister without thinking about how she might be feeling or what she is doing . You can't acknowledge or register the awareness of something without having a thought of something . Awareness and thought in a mindful environment cannot be separated . The mind facilitates I AM awareness . This is reflected in a thought of I AM . A thought is not a sensation. A thought is a word spoken "in your head." There can be Awarness without Awareness of separately existing phenomenon. If no words (thoughts) arise, there is unity; no separation. Even without sensations this applies, but it's difficult to grasp Being without a world. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 8, 2019 11:35:53 GMT -5
How can you be aware of another without there being the thought of another . There is so much confusion had here regarding what is a thought and what thinking is . I can have thought of my sister without thinking about how she might be feeling or what she is doing . You can't acknowledge or register the awareness of something without having a thought of something . Awareness and thought in a mindful environment cannot be separated . The mind facilitates I AM awareness . This is reflected in a thought of I AM . A thought is not a sensation. A thought is a word spoken "in your head." There can be Awarness without Awareness of separately existing phenomenon. If no words (thoughts) arise, there is unity; no separation. Even without sensations this applies, but it's difficult to grasp Being without a world. This is the view that most posters on this forum ascribe to, but Tenka thinks about this in a different way. It seems to be a case of agreeing to disagree about the way the matter is conceptualized and communicated. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Dec 8, 2019 12:00:26 GMT -5
There is only what you are Pilgrim . I don't separate what I AM from the thinker, the doer, or the witness or whatever words suits.. You are welcome to separate and divide if you like .. I would say this is why there is confusion, it's the neti neti approach .. I heard someone say that Ramana wasn't a fan of neti neti because there is too much attention had of what you are not rather than what you are .. yes, the problem with neti neti is that it perpetuates the duality of not/are, which are both 'mindful' categories Ramana was not a fan of neti neti to the extent it was simply thinking a set of intellectual conclusions, which is never enough, no matter how correct those conclusions may be. People would simply rehearse the Upanishadic neti-neti ideas as if that was enough. What really has to happen is that the mind must still itself and look inward... |
|
|
|
Post by roydop on Dec 8, 2019 12:22:36 GMT -5
yes, the problem with neti neti is that it perpetuates the duality of not/are, which are both 'mindful' categories Ramana was not a fan of neti neti to the extent it was simply thinking a set of intellectual conclusions, which is never enough, no matter how correct those conclusions may be. People would simply rehearse the Upanishadic neti-neti ideas as if that was enough. What really has to happen is that the mind must still itself and look inward... "Neti Neti" is introducing thought and then instantly negating it. Kind of a waste of energy. Just let thought go without using thought as a handle. Don't grab it in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 8, 2019 12:30:58 GMT -5
Ramana was not a fan of neti neti to the extent it was simply thinking a set of intellectual conclusions, which is never enough, no matter how correct those conclusions may be. People would simply rehearse the Upanishadic neti-neti ideas as if that was enough. What really has to happen is that the mind must still itself and look inward... "Neti Neti" is introducing thought and then instantly negating it. Kind of a waste of energy. Just let thought go without using thought as a handle. Don't grab it in the first place. Agreed. |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Dec 8, 2019 12:36:09 GMT -5
Ramana was not a fan of neti neti to the extent it was simply thinking a set of intellectual conclusions, which is never enough, no matter how correct those conclusions may be. People would simply rehearse the Upanishadic neti-neti ideas as if that was enough. What really has to happen is that the mind must still itself and look inward... "Neti Neti" is introducing thought and then instantly negating it. Kind of a waste of energy. Just let thought go without using thought as a handle. Don't grab it in the first place. As sifting said, neti neti is not a profound practice like self inquiry, but just an intellectual understanding, preparation and orientation for the real practice of abiding in awareness. Neti neti opens one up to the discrimination between changing and unchanging, but it's not enough by itself. It's also where a lot of contemporary nondualists stop and go no further. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 8, 2019 13:02:41 GMT -5
yes, the problem with neti neti is that it perpetuates the duality of not/are, which are both 'mindful' categories Ramana was not a fan of neti neti to the extent it was simply thinking a set of intellectual conclusions, which is never enough, no matter how correct those conclusions may be. People would simply rehearse the Upanishadic neti-neti ideas as if that was enough. What really has to happen is that the mind must still itself and look inward... sort of what i meant, yes. 'not that', 'not that'.... It still starts from the assumption of an 'I' that is 'not that'. It's still duality. That's not to say that it's useless. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 8, 2019 13:04:07 GMT -5
"Neti Neti" is introducing thought and then instantly negating it. Kind of a waste of energy. Just let thought go without using thought as a handle. Don't grab it in the first place. As sifting said, neti neti is not a profound practice like self inquiry, but just an intellectual understanding, preparation and orientation for the real practice of abiding in awareness. Neti neti opens one up to the discrimination between changing and unchanging, but it's not enough by itself. It's also where a lot of contemporary nondualists stop and go no further. yes that's it. I think the same thing is basically being said by everyone. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 8, 2019 13:30:09 GMT -5
Ramana was not a fan of neti neti to the extent it was simply thinking a set of intellectual conclusions, which is never enough, no matter how correct those conclusions may be. People would simply rehearse the Upanishadic neti-neti ideas as if that was enough. What really has to happen is that the mind must still itself and look inward... sort of what i meant, yes. 'not that', 'not that'.... It still starts from the assumption of an 'I' that is 'not that'. It's still duality. That's not to say that it's useless. I didn’t learn about neti neti until much later, but I assumed it referred to the search for God/Truth. The search began and was maintained with the unconscious belief/illusion that “I”, the searcher, was separate from God. Or, “I” needed to search for Truth, because of “my” ignorance of it. As such, Realization dispels such ignorance and illusions which, of course does appear to require quite a bit of effort, as the very definition of any search would assume. But any such search is, was, and always will be indicative of the illusion at play, so neti neti might be employed to discourage certain actions or beliefs the mind has come up with to say that search is necessary. In other contexts, depending on the perceived “place” an apparently deluded appearance might seem to be, one might say, “Why not?!” And on and on the dream goes.... |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 8, 2019 13:39:52 GMT -5
All I can say is intellectually, I like Ramana's model. It's really cool. But when I love on my beautiful dogs and birds. I don't take that into account. I absorb little bits from what I see posted, I don't read spiritual books, but from several quotes I have read from Ramana I resonate with him also (not all of them). When you give your dogs a cuddle, I am sure most don't take into account what they have read someone else say about not being real or not being here .. (This really is part of the problem as I see, it because if a dude really didn't believe they nor the dog was anything butt real then they will be in some type of denial when trying to in someway come to terms with loving something that isn't really here and such likes . I haven't met a dude as yet that behaves like there is noone here or that they believe themselves to be unreal / false / illusory etc etc and I think that in itself speaks louder than words .. In a way, that’s why you’re drawn to these discussions. But yeah, the pointers and facts of the matter do apparently upset you. The interactions provide indications of certain illusions you hold tightly, while others seem to betray a certain confusion both on what is is being said and what you think you understand. Being that you kinda start digging in and/or lashing out, the conversations tend to stop there or head off into an arching circle with a likely return to where it began, the same there. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 8, 2019 14:40:46 GMT -5
There is only what you are Pilgrim . I don't separate what I AM from the thinker, the doer, or the witness or whatever words suits.. You are welcome to separate and divide if you like .. I would say this is why there is confusion, it's the neti neti approach .. I heard someone say that Ramana wasn't a fan of neti neti because there is too much attention had of what you are not rather than what you are .. yes, the problem with neti neti is that it perpetuates the duality of not/are, which are both 'mindful' categories Yep .. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 8, 2019 14:42:59 GMT -5
How can you be aware of another without there being the thought of another . There is so much confusion had here regarding what is a thought and what thinking is . I can have thought of my sister without thinking about how she might be feeling or what she is doing . You can't acknowledge or register the awareness of something without having a thought of something . Awareness and thought in a mindful environment cannot be separated . The mind facilitates I AM awareness . This is reflected in a thought of I AM . A thought is not a sensation. A thought is a word spoken "in your head."
There can be Awarness without Awareness of separately existing phenomenon. If no words (thoughts) arise, there is unity; no separation. Even without sensations this applies, but it's difficult to grasp Being without a world. Nah not at all .. a thought is a thought, it can be an insight, it can be intuition based, a feeling or a sense .. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 8, 2019 14:48:14 GMT -5
I absorb little bits from what I see posted, I don't read spiritual books, but from several quotes I have read from Ramana I resonate with him also (not all of them). When you give your dogs a cuddle, I am sure most don't take into account what they have read someone else say about not being real or not being here .. (This really is part of the problem as I see, it because if a dude really didn't believe they nor the dog was anything butt real then they will be in some type of denial when trying to in someway come to terms with loving something that isn't really here and such likes . I haven't met a dude as yet that behaves like there is noone here or that they believe themselves to be unreal / false / illusory etc etc and I think that in itself speaks louder than words .. In a way, that’s why you’re drawn to these discussions. But yeah, the pointers and facts of the matter do apparently upset you. The interactions provide indications of certain illusions you hold tightly, while others seem to betray a certain confusion both on what is is being said and what you think you understand. Being that you kinda start digging in and/or lashing out, the conversations tend to stop there or head off into an arching circle with a likely return to where it began, the same there. What a load of speculative rubbish mate .. Sorry butt you are miles off base lol .. How odd .. |
|
