|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 9, 2019 10:25:43 GMT -5
Life involves cognition, this is true. But there is a layer of it that's not necessary, and as Tolle points out, for many people that unnecessary layer of cognitive process takes on a dynamic all of it's own. This is the function of mind that discerns risk and opportunity, and that builds mental maps based on abstraction. Many people don't even notice that they're doing this, almost constantly. What can come as a surprise, is that it's not only possible to move through the world, in action, without this ongoing layter of cognition (much of it happening subconsciously), but that the effectiveness of our action is actually enhanced when that faculty is only called on when necessary. This is what Tolle means by mind as servant, rather than master, and it's what I take ZD and many others who post and have posted here over the years to mean (at the very least, in part) by a silent mind, and it's what I meant by action, free of thought. Regardless of the layers, what you are is present . What you are is aware of the mind environment . There is no transcendence here . If you have a thought of the world, here I AM .. I think even niz or Ramana termed it in some way along the lines of the lighters flame analogy. If you are aware of the lighters flame here I AM, here is the world . There is no floaty talk of I AM aware of the world butt I have transcended mind . It is false to think mind has been transcended when you are aware of I AM in reflection of the flame . The mind-body by itself isn't aware of the flame nor does it try and blow it out . It doesn't function it that way . There needs the spirit present of the body . When there is transcendence there is no world . It's that simples .. There are no layers beyond the mind-body, only of it .. o.k., well, what I'll point out is that what I was referring there didn't specifically mention transcendence. The point about thought-free action is independent of any notion of transcendence, although it can be related to it. While we might be able to find some measure of common ground in a dialog about transcendence, I suspect that our perspectives differ enough on the topic that all it would lead to is perpetual disagreement, and really, that's o.k.  |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 9, 2019 10:36:35 GMT -5
Okay, can you describe what you realized when there was no perception? Was there awareness during that time? In nirvikalpa samadhi there is is no perception of anything, but awareness remains. Zen calls it "the falling off of body and mind" because everything disappears including mental talk as well as all sensory perception. Is this what happened to you? If so, what kind of realization occurred if "you" weren't there and everything had disappeared?
Driving a car and not consciously noticing anything for several minutes usually occurs because attention is focused upon mental talk and/or mental images. That's a good example of how the body can drive the car intelligently even though nothing is consciously seen or remembered afterwards. Other than the mental talk and images that are being focused upon during such a period of time, THIS, or "what is," or the cosmos, or the I Am, or something is obviously driving the car and keeping it in the correct lane. Do you think thoughts in the form of sensory perception are occurring even when there is no conscious sensory perception?
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 9, 2019 11:22:07 GMT -5
Tenka, Since most of us regard thoughts as "mind talk" rather than direct sensory perceptions, I'm curious about your view on this matter. If you are looking at a specific form, perhaps an elephant, you've said that you regard your perception of that form as a thought whereas most of us would only regard a mental comment ABOUT what's seen as a thought. If, instead of looking at what can be distinguished as a specific form, you turned your head from one side to other and let your vision sweep around, would you consider everything seen to be one single thought or some vast number of individual thoughts? Also, if you were driving down the road and not thinking any verbal thoughts (no mind talk), and you were not looking at specific aspects of the visual field as distinct forms, would your perception be one thought or a multitude of thoughts? I'm trying to understand how you think about this issue. IOW, is the entire world you see throughout all of your activities during the day one big continuous thought or an infinite number of thoughts depending upon whether you're focused on specific forms or whether you're focused on your entire visual field without distinction? When people look at a large number of trees, they can distinguish and focus their attention upon a single tree, or a small grouping of trees amidst the totality, or all of the trees in totality. which is conceived as a forest. If the mind is totally silent, and people look at a large number of trees without distinction, they simply see "what is" because the visual field remains undistinguished as form and therefore incommunicable via language. I assume you understand that it's possible to interact with the world in that way. Is that true? Many years ago I chanced upon a book called The Tracker by Tom Brown Jr. He tells the story of growing up in New Jersey and at the age of seven meeting a Native American called Stalking Wolf. His best friend Rick was Stalking Wolf's great-grandson, and the two began to learn how to track from Stalking Wolf. Stalking Wolf was a Southern Lipan Apache scout, that designation, scout, being the most valued, honored and most important member of the tribe. He expanded his knowledge by traveling from Canada to South America throughout his life and learning the skills of other tribal cultures. Tom also came to call him Grandfather, the two learned from Grandfather for about eleven years, until his death. Stalking Wolf is one of the most extraordinary men I have ever read about. Over the years more books came out about what Tom Brown Jr. learned from Grandfather, over eight, I've read them all. Tom Brown Jr. also in 1978 began his famous Tracker School in the Pine Barrens in NJ. But it has been a few years since a new book came out, until recently, this month in fact. It's called Tom Brown's Guide to Healing the Earth. Now, all that gets me to a quote from the new book related to your post to tenka. This is in the context of Grandfather giving a lesson to Rick and Tom on what could be observed during a twenty minute trip in the woods. Later, Grandfather asked Tom: What did you see? Tom was ready, and spent half an hour describing what he had seen during the twenty minute walk. But then Tom made the mistake of asking Grandfather what he had seen. "After the first hour or so I began to wonder if we'd taken the same walk together. ...His levels of awareness were so vast and, at the same time, interlocking. How this man saw so much as he slowly walked by left me in a state of awe. ...At dusk as we made dinner and sat by the fire, I was getting sleepy, and Grandfather was still describing what he'd seen during our walk. ...that walk with Grandfather continues to teach me today". But that's not the quote I referred to, it follows. "...he was constantly exploring new ways to interact with his environment, constantly experiencing awe at the simplest acts in nature. Grandfather would sit with a blueberry bush for hours, watching a single flower as it opened and bloomed. He would place a single grain of sand on the tip of his finger and hold it in the sunlight, marveling for hours at the different patterns that the sunlight revealed as it moved across the sky". Now, the first story shows zd's point about observing without a verbal dialogue. It took literally hours for Grandfather to describe what he had seen on a twenty minute walk. If a verbal dialogue is always necessary, in this case the walk itself would have taken hours. And I am absolutely sure in the last quote that Grandfather was not thinking as he sat for hours watching a single flower open. tenka, I don't know why you refuse to just try to explore this. If you experiment just a little, you will see that internal thinking dialogue, can cease. Yes, awareness and attention as brain processing continue, but absent thinking, which is not necessary. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2019 11:44:43 GMT -5
Okay, can you describe what you realized when there was no perception? Was there awareness during that time? In nirvikalpa samadhi there is is no perception of anything, but awareness remains. Zen calls it "the falling off of body and mind" because everything disappears including mental talk as well as all sensory perception. Is this what happened to you? If so, what kind of realization occurred if "you" weren't there and everything had disappeared? Driving a car and not consciously noticing anything for several minutes usually occurs because attention is focused upon mental talk and/or mental images. That's a good example of how the body can drive the car intelligently even though nothing is consciously seen or remembered afterwards. Other than the mental talk and images that are being focused upon during such a period of time, THIS, or "what is," or the cosmos, or the I Am, or something is obviously driving the car and keeping it in the correct lane. Do you think thoughts in the form of sensory perception are occurring even when there is no conscious sensory perception? How is your memory about the world is reporting back when you return back from samadhi? How is even your worldly perception return back? If you believe in objective outer world then my aforementioned question is not a problem for you . |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 9, 2019 11:54:58 GMT -5
Tenka, Since most of us regard thoughts as "mind talk" rather than direct sensory perceptions, I'm curious about your view on this matter. If you are looking at a specific form, perhaps an elephant, you've said that you regard your perception of that form as a thought whereas most of us would only regard a mental comment ABOUT what's seen as a thought. If, instead of looking at what can be distinguished as a specific form, you turned your head from one side to other and let your vision sweep around, would you consider everything seen to be one single thought or some vast number of individual thoughts? Also, if you were driving down the road and not thinking any verbal thoughts (no mind talk), and you were not looking at specific aspects of the visual field as distinct forms, would your perception be one thought or a multitude of thoughts? I'm trying to understand how you think about this issue. IOW, is the entire world you see throughout all of your activities during the day one big continuous thought or an infinite number of thoughts depending upon whether you're focused on specific forms or whether you're focused on your entire visual field without distinction? When people look at a large number of trees, they can distinguish and focus their attention upon a single tree, or a small grouping of trees amidst the totality, or all of the trees in totality. which is conceived as a forest. If the mind is totally silent, and people look at a large number of trees without distinction, they simply see "what is" because the visual field remains undistinguished as form and therefore incommunicable via language. I assume you understand that it's possible to interact with the world in that way. Is that true? This is a bit long-winded so read it or not Well for starters it would be a misconception to compare 'mind talk' with 'direct sensory perception' in a way where the perception somehow nullifies mind or means that it transcends mind . This is why I posted niz's quote If you see the lighters flame, there I AM, there is the world . When there is no lighters flame there is no you, there is no world . Mind talk is just an option of the mind, when I AM of this world you can chat away or you can be silent . Both are mindful in this I AM awareness. Attention in itself is a mindful thought. There is always attention where there is perception. There are obvious degrees of attentive mindfulness of course but that is irrelevant. This is the main reason I don't believe there is awareness of the mindful world while there has been transcendence. This is why I say beyond mind is beyond self and this world . My realization didn't occur while I was doing the hoovering or eating my dinner, or walking home from the pub or running away from an elephant . It happened in such a way where the world disappeared and there was no perception . Addressing your questions regarding one single thought or not when looking from left to right, well if you understand that every object that you perceive will be perceived one micro second before the next due to the range you have . As I look down on my keyboard I can see all keys, but there is only an attentiveness on a certain range, as my view changes my attention shifts. We can call these different thoughts one after the other or we can call it one sweeping movement, I don't really care too much about how many thoughts one has scouring the immediate landscape, all I know is that where there is attention / perception / recognition there is a thought of it even when one is silently perceiving ..Your tree analogy doesn't work for me because for there to be the notion that a peep doesn't see the trees there is just seeing 'what is', then is there the recognition that there is 'what is' being perceived .. If there is something being perceived there is mind, there is self.I will bring back niz's quote here about the lighters flame .. You are suggesting you can see the lighters flame, but what is seen is not the lighters flame, only 'what is', is perceived . That isn't the same as saying there is no lighter, there is no tree, there is no mind .. All your doing is coming to terms with 'what is' of the mind rather than recognising a label, it doesn't mean you have transcended mind, it means your seeing beyond the label of the mindful objects. When I sun gaze I don't have a conscious recognition at times and I remember my mum asking me something a while back while I caught sight of the sun and went into a light trance, I didn't hear what she said, I can't even remember being conscious of the sun but in these moments I am not fighting off skinheads or running from elephants, so all this mind-body stuff that is intelligent to do things by itself while what you are has transcended isn't the case . My mum said I didn't move a muscle it was like time stood still lol . When andy got knocked unconscious he didn't get up and pick up the rugby ball lol . Driving a car or doing things where there is a momentarily lapse of awareness of the road doesn't mean there is transcendence as said before and it really depends on the situation at hand that reflects the limitations of what the mind-body can do. And like said again, if the spirit is of the body then one hasn't transcended mind, and you can't drive a car when the spirit has left the physical body .. You can't do anything using the mind-body when the spirit has left the body permanently. When the spirit has left temporarily when one sleeps, then the body continues to function by design in order to keep the body alive, but the spirit is still attached to the body .. People that sleep walk have not transcended mind have they, the spirit has not left the body either, there is no mind-body walking down the stairs on it's own accord . There is simply the conscious self that has not fully integrated the waking state in the normal way .. almost like in between states . OK, you at least acknowledge that " silent perceiving" is possible. But your communication skills need work. I would advise using different words for verbal thinking, and brain processing. I would advise not using the same word, thought, for both verbal thinking and brain processing. Months and even years have been spent on this single simple distinction with people in dialogue with you. In this very case, the full paragraph, you use the word thought differently, and doing so there is an obvious and inherent contradiction. Only the words silent perceiving allow you to somewhat escape contradiction. The words are a bit awkward, so will not be readily used, but cognition means brain processing, cogitation means verbal thinking. And this, just simply is not true. No explanation can make it necessarily true. Again, one has to distinguish between what ego is, it's purpose and function, and what pure undiluted awareness, is. (One has zero to do with the other). |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 9, 2019 12:25:27 GMT -5
I think he's just trying to point out that mind is still present when perception is happening. He doesn't make the distinction between conscious and unconscious thought. Yes, I understand that much. I still have no idea what he means by 'spirit" or what sort of realization was triggered when all perception ceased and everything disappeared. The only realizations that I can relate to that event is the realization that (1) awareness can continue in the absence of sensory perception or mind talk (2) that such an event is possible, and (3) that there is an event horizon beyond which the sense of separateness, selfhood, time, space, and everything else gets sucked into a unified state of what can only be called "pure awareness." Based on what tenka wrote to me in his last two posts, I'm translating his writing "spirit" into what I mean by "self-evidence". It's what I try to get at by asking .. "do you exist?"  For the purposes of that dialog I also translated his use of "spirit" (at least in those last two posts) into simply, "life". |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 9, 2019 12:47:24 GMT -5
Tenka, Since most of us regard thoughts as "mind talk" rather than direct sensory perceptions, I'm curious about your view on this matter. If you are looking at a specific form, perhaps an elephant, you've said that you regard your perception of that form as a thought whereas most of us would only regard a mental comment ABOUT what's seen as a thought. If, instead of looking at what can be distinguished as a specific form, you turned your head from one side to other and let your vision sweep around, would you consider everything seen to be one single thought or some vast number of individual thoughts? Also, if you were driving down the road and not thinking any verbal thoughts (no mind talk), and you were not looking at specific aspects of the visual field as distinct forms, would your perception be one thought or a multitude of thoughts? I'm trying to understand how you think about this issue. IOW, is the entire world you see throughout all of your activities during the day one big continuous thought or an infinite number of thoughts depending upon whether you're focused on specific forms or whether you're focused on your entire visual field without distinction? When people look at a large number of trees, they can distinguish and focus their attention upon a single tree, or a small grouping of trees amidst the totality, or all of the trees in totality. which is conceived as a forest. If the mind is totally silent, and people look at a large number of trees without distinction, they simply see "what is" because the visual field remains undistinguished as form and therefore incommunicable via language. I assume you understand that it's possible to interact with the world in that way. Is that true? Many years ago I chanced upon a book called The Tracker by Tom Brown Jr. He tells the story of growing up in New Jersey and at the age of seven meeting a Native American called Stalking Wolf. His best friend Rick was Stalking Wolf's great-grandson, and the two began to learn how to track from Stalking Wolf. Stalking Wolf was a Southern Lipan Apache scout, that designation, scout, being the most valued, honored and most important member of the tribe. He expanded his knowledge by traveling from Canada to South America throughout his life and learning the skills of other tribal cultures. Tom also came to call him Grandfather, the two learned from Grandfather for about eleven years, until his death. Stalking Wolf is one of the most extraordinary men I have ever read about. Over the years more books came out about what Tom Brown Jr. learned from Grandfather, over eight, I've read them all. Tom Brown Jr. also in 1978 began his famous Tracker School in the Pine Barrens in NJ. But it has been a few years since a new book came out, until recently, this month in fact. It's called Tom Brown's Guide to Healing the Earth. Now, all that gets me to a quote from the new book related to your post to tenka. This is in the context of Grandfather giving a lesson to Rick and Tom on what could be observed during a twenty minute trip in the woods. Later, Grandfather asked Tom: What did you see? Tom was ready, and spent half an hour describing what he had seen during the twenty minute walk. But then Tom made the mistake of asking Grandfather what he had seen. "After the first hour or so I began to wonder if we'd taken the same walk together. ...His levels of awareness were so vast and, at the same time, interlocking. How this man saw so much as he slowly walked by left me in a state of awe. ...At dusk as we made dinner and sat by the fire, I was getting sleepy, and Grandfather was still describing what he'd seen during our walk. ...that walk with Grandfather continues to teach me today". But that's not the quote I referred to, it follows. "...he was constantly exploring new ways to interact with his environment, constantly experiencing awe at the simplest acts in nature. Grandfather would sit with a blueberry bush for hours, watching a single flower as it opened and bloomed. He would place a single grain of sand on the tip of his finger and hold it in the sunlight, marveling for hours at the different patterns that the sunlight revealed as it moved across the sky". Now, the first story shows zd's point about observing without a verbal dialogue. It took literally hours for Grandfather to describe what he had seen on a twenty minute walk. If a verbal dialogue is always necessary, in this case the walk itself would have taken hours. And I am absolutely sure in the last quote that Grandfather was not thinking as he sat for hours watching a single flower open. tenka, I don't know why you refuse to just try to explore this. If you experiment just a little, you will see that internal thinking dialogue, can cease. Yes, awareness and attention as brain processing continue, but absent thinking, which is not necessary. Tenka defines thought differently than most of us. That's why we're exploring his ideas. Some of us talk about "no mind," but when we do, we're not claiming that subconscious mental processing is absent. We're simply referring to a state in which mind talk is absent. Tenka defines thought more like presence or awareness. That's why he considers direct sensory perception to be thought (because mind is involved). The reason that I started using ATA-T as the symbol for direct sensory perception is that I wanted to exclude mind talk from what was being pointed to. ATA-T, as you know, does not involve conscious cognition in the form of distinction. I don;t yet know what Tenka thinks about the act of distinction either as an initial act or as an internal subconscious knowing resulting from the internalization of prior conscious distinctions. I sometimes jokingly explain how new acts of cognition can define new things and thereby bring into existence things that were previously undefined. My usual example is that of a "glurch," which is the word I use to distinguish people who stop a line from moving forward. My friends and relatives are so familiar with this concept that they will say, "OMG, my line has a glurch in it!" which means that they are stuck in a line that has ceased to move because the person at the head of the line is doing something that prevents forward movement. Making a new distinction like "glurch" illustrates what happens as a child grows up and learns to cognize reality (and then symbolize the acts of cognition/distinction with words) in the same way as his/her culture. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 9, 2019 13:54:56 GMT -5
Many years ago I chanced upon a book called The Tracker by Tom Brown Jr. He tells the story of growing up in New Jersey and at the age of seven meeting a Native American called Stalking Wolf. His best friend Rick was Stalking Wolf's great-grandson, and the two began to learn how to track from Stalking Wolf. Stalking Wolf was a Southern Lipan Apache scout, that designation, scout, being the most valued, honored and most important member of the tribe. He expanded his knowledge by traveling from Canada to South America throughout his life and learning the skills of other tribal cultures. Tom also came to call him Grandfather, the two learned from Grandfather for about eleven years, until his death. Stalking Wolf is one of the most extraordinary men I have ever read about. Over the years more books came out about what Tom Brown Jr. learned from Grandfather, over eight, I've read them all. Tom Brown Jr. also in 1978 began his famous Tracker School in the Pine Barrens in NJ. But it has been a few years since a new book came out, until recently, this month in fact. It's called Tom Brown's Guide to Healing the Earth. Now, all that gets me to a quote from the new book related to your post to tenka. This is in the context of Grandfather giving a lesson to Rick and Tom on what could be observed during a twenty minute trip in the woods. Later, Grandfather asked Tom: What did you see? Tom was ready, and spent half an hour describing what he had seen during the twenty minute walk. But then Tom made the mistake of asking Grandfather what he had seen. "After the first hour or so I began to wonder if we'd taken the same walk together. ...His levels of awareness were so vast and, at the same time, interlocking. How this man saw so much as he slowly walked by left me in a state of awe. ...At dusk as we made dinner and sat by the fire, I was getting sleepy, and Grandfather was still describing what he'd seen during our walk. ...that walk with Grandfather continues to teach me today". But that's not the quote I referred to, it follows. "...he was constantly exploring new ways to interact with his environment, constantly experiencing awe at the simplest acts in nature. Grandfather would sit with a blueberry bush for hours, watching a single flower as it opened and bloomed. He would place a single grain of sand on the tip of his finger and hold it in the sunlight, marveling for hours at the different patterns that the sunlight revealed as it moved across the sky". Now, the first story shows zd's point about observing without a verbal dialogue. It took literally hours for Grandfather to describe what he had seen on a twenty minute walk. If a verbal dialogue is always necessary, in this case the walk itself would have taken hours. And I am absolutely sure in the last quote that Grandfather was not thinking as he sat for hours watching a single flower open. tenka, I don't know why you refuse to just try to explore this. If you experiment just a little, you will see that internal thinking dialogue, can cease. Yes, awareness and attention as brain processing continue, but absent thinking, which is not necessary. Tenka defines thought differently than most of us. That's why we're exploring his ideas. Some of us talk about "no mind," but when we do, we're not denying that subconscious mental processing is absent. We're simply referring to a state in which mind talk is absent. Tenka defines thought more like presence or awareness. That's why he considers direct sensory perception to be thought (because mind is involved). The reason that I started using ATA-T as the symbol for direct sensory perception is that I wanted to exclude mind talk from what was being pointed to. ATA-T, as you know, does not involve conscious cognition in the form of distinction. I don;t yet know what Tenka thinks about the act of distinction either as an initial act or as an internal subconscious knowing resulting from the internalization of prior conscious distinctions. I sometimes jokingly explain how new acts of cognition can define new things and thereby bring into existence things that were previously undefined. My usual example is that of a "glurch," which is the word I use to distinguish people who stop a line from moving forward. My friends and relatives are so familiar with this concept that they will say, "OMG, my line has a glurch in it!" which means that they are stuck in a line that has ceased to move because the person at the head of the line is doing something that prevents forward movement. Making a new distinction like "glurch" illustrates what happens as a child grows up and learns to cognize reality (and then symbolize the acts of cognition/distinction with words) in the same way as his/her culture. Just one point, presently. Third sentence. I think you meant to say, we're not denying that subconscious mental processing is present. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 9, 2019 14:21:02 GMT -5
Tenka defines thought differently than most of us. That's why we're exploring his ideas. Some of us talk about "no mind," but when we do, we're not denying that subconscious mental processing is absent. We're simply referring to a state in which mind talk is absent. Tenka defines thought more like presence or awareness. That's why he considers direct sensory perception to be thought (because mind is involved). The reason that I started using ATA-T as the symbol for direct sensory perception is that I wanted to exclude mind talk from what was being pointed to. ATA-T, as you know, does not involve conscious cognition in the form of distinction. I don;t yet know what Tenka thinks about the act of distinction either as an initial act or as an internal subconscious knowing resulting from the internalization of prior conscious distinctions. I sometimes jokingly explain how new acts of cognition can define new things and thereby bring into existence things that were previously undefined. My usual example is that of a "glurch," which is the word I use to distinguish people who stop a line from moving forward. My friends and relatives are so familiar with this concept that they will say, "OMG, my line has a glurch in it!" which means that they are stuck in a line that has ceased to move because the person at the head of the line is doing something that prevents forward movement. Making a new distinction like "glurch" illustrates what happens as a child grows up and learns to cognize reality (and then symbolize the acts of cognition/distinction with words) in the same way as his/her culture. Just one point, presently. Third sentence. I think you meant to say, we're not denying that subconscious mental processing is present. Yes. I corrected that after I re-read it. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 10, 2019 3:08:51 GMT -5
Many years ago I chanced upon a book called The Tracker by Tom Brown Jr. He tells the story of growing up in New Jersey and at the age of seven meeting a Native American called Stalking Wolf. His best friend Rick was Stalking Wolf's great-grandson, and the two began to learn how to track from Stalking Wolf. Stalking Wolf was a Southern Lipan Apache scout, that designation, scout, being the most valued, honored and most important member of the tribe. He expanded his knowledge by traveling from Canada to South America throughout his life and learning the skills of other tribal cultures. Tom also came to call him Grandfather, the two learned from Grandfather for about eleven years, until his death. Stalking Wolf is one of the most extraordinary men I have ever read about. Over the years more books came out about what Tom Brown Jr. learned from Grandfather, over eight, I've read them all. Tom Brown Jr. also in 1978 began his famous Tracker School in the Pine Barrens in NJ. But it has been a few years since a new book came out, until recently, this month in fact. It's called Tom Brown's Guide to Healing the Earth. Now, all that gets me to a quote from the new book related to your post to tenka. This is in the context of Grandfather giving a lesson to Rick and Tom on what could be observed during a twenty minute trip in the woods. Later, Grandfather asked Tom: What did you see? Tom was ready, and spent half an hour describing what he had seen during the twenty minute walk. But then Tom made the mistake of asking Grandfather what he had seen. "After the first hour or so I began to wonder if we'd taken the same walk together. ...His levels of awareness were so vast and, at the same time, interlocking. How this man saw so much as he slowly walked by left me in a state of awe. ...At dusk as we made dinner and sat by the fire, I was getting sleepy, and Grandfather was still describing what he'd seen during our walk. ...that walk with Grandfather continues to teach me today". But that's not the quote I referred to, it follows. "...he was constantly exploring new ways to interact with his environment, constantly experiencing awe at the simplest acts in nature. Grandfather would sit with a blueberry bush for hours, watching a single flower as it opened and bloomed. He would place a single grain of sand on the tip of his finger and hold it in the sunlight, marveling for hours at the different patterns that the sunlight revealed as it moved across the sky". Now, the first story shows zd's point about observing without a verbal dialogue. It took literally hours for Grandfather to describe what he had seen on a twenty minute walk. If a verbal dialogue is always necessary, in this case the walk itself would have taken hours. And I am absolutely sure in the last quote that Grandfather was not thinking as he sat for hours watching a single flower open. tenka, I don't know why you refuse to just try to explore this. If you experiment just a little, you will see that internal thinking dialogue, can cease. Yes, awareness and attention as brain processing continue, but absent thinking, which is not necessary. Tenka defines thought differently than most of us. That's why we're exploring his ideas. Some of us talk about "no mind," but when we do, we're not claiming that subconscious mental processing is absent. We're simply referring to a state in which mind talk is absent. Tenka defines thought more like presence or awareness. That's why he considers direct sensory perception to be thought (because mind is involved). The reason that I started using ATA-T as the symbol for direct sensory perception is that I wanted to exclude mind talk from what was being pointed to. ATA-T, as you know, does not involve conscious cognition in the form of distinction. I don;t yet know what Tenka thinks about the act of distinction either as an initial act or as an internal subconscious knowing resulting from the internalization of prior conscious distinctions. I sometimes jokingly explain how new acts of cognition can define new things and thereby bring into existence things that were previously undefined. My usual example is that of a "glurch," which is the word I use to distinguish people who stop a line from moving forward. My friends and relatives are so familiar with this concept that they will say, "OMG, my line has a glurch in it!" which means that they are stuck in a line that has ceased to move because the person at the head of the line is doing something that prevents forward movement. Making a new distinction like "glurch" illustrates what happens as a child grows up and learns to cognize reality (and then symbolize the acts of cognition/distinction with words) in the same way as his/her culture. Any state is mindful . Your talking about various ways of going about your business by not thinking unnecessarily .. Anyone can walk to the fridge and get a beer without saying a word, geez, many can do it with there eyes shut, but it doesn't mean that there is anything going on other than that . There is no transcendence here .. there is just a way of being and functioning of this mindful world without the chatter man . Beyond mindful thought, there is no world, and there is no mind-body intelligence walking to fridge with eyes open or shut while I AM awareness has transcended . You think the mind-body by itself can do certain things because it is intelligent and it's not correct . There is confusion had because you think transcending mind relates to a peep that stops talking when the mindful world is still perceived . What do you not understand about there is no perception of the world when mind has been transcended? Did you understand niz's quote? |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 10, 2019 3:37:09 GMT -5
This is a bit long-winded so read it or not Well for starters it would be a misconception to compare 'mind talk' with 'direct sensory perception' in a way where the perception somehow nullifies mind or means that it transcends mind . This is why I posted niz's quote If you see the lighters flame, there I AM, there is the world . When there is no lighters flame there is no you, there is no world . Mind talk is just an option of the mind, when I AM of this world you can chat away or you can be silent . Both are mindful in this I AM awareness. Attention in itself is a mindful thought. There is always attention where there is perception. There are obvious degrees of attentive mindfulness of course but that is irrelevant. This is the main reason I don't believe there is awareness of the mindful world while there has been transcendence. This is why I say beyond mind is beyond self and this world . My realization didn't occur while I was doing the hoovering or eating my dinner, or walking home from the pub or running away from an elephant . It happened in such a way where the world disappeared and there was no perception . Addressing your questions regarding one single thought or not when looking from left to right, well if you understand that every object that you perceive will be perceived one micro second before the next due to the range you have . As I look down on my keyboard I can see all keys, but there is only an attentiveness on a certain range, as my view changes my attention shifts. We can call these different thoughts one after the other or we can call it one sweeping movement, I don't really care too much about how many thoughts one has scouring the immediate landscape, all I know is that where there is attention / perception / recognition there is a thought of it even when one is silently perceiving ..Your tree analogy doesn't work for me because for there to be the notion that a peep doesn't see the trees there is just seeing 'what is', then is there the recognition that there is 'what is' being perceived .. If there is something being perceived there is mind, there is self.I will bring back niz's quote here about the lighters flame .. You are suggesting you can see the lighters flame, but what is seen is not the lighters flame, only 'what is', is perceived . That isn't the same as saying there is no lighter, there is no tree, there is no mind .. All your doing is coming to terms with 'what is' of the mind rather than recognising a label, it doesn't mean you have transcended mind, it means your seeing beyond the label of the mindful objects. When I sun gaze I don't have a conscious recognition at times and I remember my mum asking me something a while back while I caught sight of the sun and went into a light trance, I didn't hear what she said, I can't even remember being conscious of the sun but in these moments I am not fighting off skinheads or running from elephants, so all this mind-body stuff that is intelligent to do things by itself while what you are has transcended isn't the case . My mum said I didn't move a muscle it was like time stood still lol . When andy got knocked unconscious he didn't get up and pick up the rugby ball lol . Driving a car or doing things where there is a momentarily lapse of awareness of the road doesn't mean there is transcendence as said before and it really depends on the situation at hand that reflects the limitations of what the mind-body can do. And like said again, if the spirit is of the body then one hasn't transcended mind, and you can't drive a car when the spirit has left the physical body .. You can't do anything using the mind-body when the spirit has left the body permanently. When the spirit has left temporarily when one sleeps, then the body continues to function by design in order to keep the body alive, but the spirit is still attached to the body .. People that sleep walk have not transcended mind have they, the spirit has not left the body either, there is no mind-body walking down the stairs on it's own accord . There is simply the conscious self that has not fully integrated the waking state in the normal way .. almost like in between states . But your communication skills need work. I would advise using different words for verbal thinking, and brain processing. I would advise not using the same word, thought, for both verbal thinking and brain processing. Months and even years have been spent on this single simple distinction with people in dialogue with you. In this very case, the full paragraph, you use the word thought differently, and doing so there is an obvious and inherent contradiction. Only the words silent perceiving allow you to somewhat escape contradiction. The words are a bit awkward, so will not be readily used, but cognition means brain processing, cogitation means verbal thinking. And this, just simply is not true. No explanation can make it necessarily true. Again, one has to distinguish between what ego is, it's purpose and function, and what pure undiluted awareness, is. (One has zero to do with the other).
I am not going to change my understandings of the word thought and how thought reflects the mind just so it sits well with a few peeps here on the forums. What I say is correct based upon the thought of oneself and not . Being aware of the world and not . My thoughts don't contradict, you keep saying this, they only seem to contradict because you have a different understanding to me . All mind is thought based whether you are silently perceiving a tree or whether you are talking about it religiously .. When the spirit has left the physical body there is still perceptive thought and there is no brain function at all . If you don't believe 'If there is something being perceived there is mind, there is self' that is your prerogative but by your own admission your explanation of how things are doesn't make it necessarily true . If you knew the difference between self and no self you would derive at the same conclusion as I have .. This is why you believed Susanne Segal's account of when she lost self because if you lose self, you lose the world and she didn't did she, she was running around scared to tell her husband of what had transpired . This is why again I will point you towards Niz's quote, if you don't believe what I say take note of what someone else say's or not, it's up to you .. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 10, 2019 4:05:31 GMT -5
Okay, can you describe what you realized when there was no perception? Was there awareness during that time? In nirvikalpa samadhi there is is no perception of anything, but awareness remains. Zen calls it "the falling off of body and mind" because everything disappears including mental talk as well as all sensory perception. Is this what happened to you? If so, what kind of realization occurred if "you" weren't there and everything had disappeared? Driving a car and not consciously noticing anything for several minutes usually occurs because attention is focused upon mental talk and/or mental images. That's a good example of how the body can drive the car intelligently even though nothing is consciously seen or remembered afterwards. Other than the mental talk and images that are being focused upon during such a period of time, THIS, or "what is," or the cosmos, or the I Am, or something is obviously driving the car and keeping it in the correct lane. Do you think thoughts in the form of sensory perception are occurring even when there is no conscious sensory perception? I am not sure if you are addressing me here or not? Butt you just agreed with E in that 'You're right that mind is not gone' .. Butt this is the whole crux of the debate in that you have spoken about the transcendence of mind when there is no chatting .. Which is it? Do you now agree that perceiving the world silently is still mindful or not? If you want to say the mindful world is present and so is self, but one is not necessarily labelling stuff in a noisy chit chatterly way then I would agree with you here and it's nuffin special, peeps do it all the time, it's probably a daily experience for peeps, those that don't even do spiritual practices .. I am not sure if you see N.S. as being mindful or not just because nuffin is perceived as such .. I have explained my realization many times, there was no world, there was no I AM awareness or conscious thought butt if you relate your thoughts to N.S. and compare them with perceiving the world silently then you should know what I am talking about here .. The fact that you have spoken about perceiving the trees while there has been transcendence of the mind makes no sense . There seems to be a jumbled up mixture of thoughts here when you agree the mind is present, but you speak about transcendence, you speak about N.S. where there is no perception and then you speak about silently perceiving the world at large .. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 10, 2019 5:55:35 GMT -5
Yes, I understand that much. I still have no idea what he means by 'spirit" or what sort of realization was triggered when all perception ceased and everything disappeared. The only realizations that I can relate to that event is the realization that (1) awareness can continue in the absence of sensory perception or mind talk (2) that such an event is possible, and (3) that there is an event horizon beyond which the sense of separateness, selfhood, time, space, and everything else gets sucked into a unified state of what can only be called "pure awareness." Based on what tenka wrote to me in his last two posts, I'm translating his writing "spirit" into what I mean by "self-evidence". It's what I try to get at by asking .. "do you exist?" For the purposes of that dialog I also translated his use of "spirit" (at least in those last two posts) into simply, "life". The wikipedia definition will be suffice .. spirit is the vital principle or animating force within all living things .. You see when the spirit leaves the body permanently the body perishes doesn't it . And when the spirit that is of the spirit body leaves the physical mind body the physical body doesn't walk to the fridge for beer, no matter how intelligent the body cell construct by design is . So I have been addressing the issue of transcending mind while the spirit / spirit-body is out of the physical body .. It also another good reason to bash consciousness over the head here in a way where consciousness is used a foundational word for what everything is because we have to involve these other aspects, like the spirit, like awareness and what being conscious means and refers too . There is a difference between the spirit that is of the physical mindful experience and the etheric / astral plane mindful experience . When the Pilgrim starts talking about concepts involving the physical brain aspects, it has no bearing on the more etheric experience of thought and yet it is all mind . What perhaps some peeps don't realize is that there can be S.R. from both sides of the veil, but this side of the veil has different aspects to it because we are of the physical world experience and the spirit is infused with the body .. In a nutshell, you can't be experiencing physicality and transcend mind while going for a walk perceiving the world at large and I have been trying to explain this in many different ways . (still not being understood tho) |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Dec 10, 2019 6:41:39 GMT -5
What do you not understand about there is no perception of the world when mind has been transcended? Did you understand niz's quote? I agree with what you're saying. if you are experiencing pure awareness (transcendence) then there is no world. What's the Niz quote you're referring to tenka. I can't find it. |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Dec 10, 2019 6:48:32 GMT -5
I found it.
"If you see the lighters flame, there I AM, there is the world .
When there is no lighters flame there is no you, there is no world".
Atmananda Krishna Menon said something similar.
"When there is Self there is no world. When there is world there is no Self".
|
|
For the purposes of that dialog I also translated his use of "spirit" (at least in those last two posts) into simply, "life". 