"There is only what you are" (Tenka stuff)

[zendancer]

Dec 10, 2019 8:42:35 GMT -5 tenka said:

Dec 10, 2019 7:24:31 GMT -5 zendancer said:

FWIW, I've never talked about transcendence of mind; I've only talked about transcendence of mind talk, and I've repeatedly said that I consider thoughts to be mind-talk, not direct sensory perception. I realize that you have a different definition of what the word "thought" means to you, and that's okay. I understand your POV. Like Tolle, I consider mind talk the primary activity that keeps people living a dream-like world of things and events and imagining that they're separate entities looking at a world "out there."

I still want to know what your realization was when everything disappeared. For you there was an event in which everything disappeared. What did you learn from that? The event was the total disappearance of everything, but what was the realization? What did you learn as a result of that disappearance that you didn't know before?

So why would you say that the mind-body can still drive a car when there is no awareness of the car or the road ..

This isn't the same as what has been discussed at all in regards to simply not chattering away to oneself .

You speak about the mind-body doing lots of intelligent things by itself ..

I can as an example already given walk to the fridge for a beer and not have an internal chat about it .

Just because you don't chat about it doesn't mean anything other than that for there is still the thought and the awareness of what you are doing . You seem to equate not chatting about it meaning you see everything as 'it is' .. which is still a thought of what it is ..

It's not like you walk to the fridge while not chatting about it constitutes not remembering or being conscious of walking to the fridge and the intelligent mind-body walked there for you and grabbed a beer for you ..

You have given examples where there has not been any conscious thought about driving and such likes and this is different from what you are now saying .

You are conscious of perceiving the fridge while not chatting .. If one is conscious, there is a thought .

I know we see differently about 'thought' and that's totally cool but I have given reasons why and given dozens of examples to no avail ..

I have even asked peeps to the the I AM aware experiment because it is impossible to separate I AM aware with a thought of that in this reality of mind, I mean you asked me to address the issues and explain myself and yet you didn't even respond to it lol .

In regards to my realization, I have spoken about it every time I have been asked about it lol, In fact I have said that in essence it isn't even a realization because simply being what you are isn't anything other than that .

Realization comes into play the moment you are back in self awareness or I am awareness of the mind and then you know that there is beyond the thought of what you are .. Everything is what you are .. I think I have made myself pretty clear in this respect .

These I would say are very basic concepts one understands from the comparison had and this is something Sifting couldn't understand and therefore disregarded because it makes no logical sense at all..

When you have the comparison of no world, no self, no mind, you know what self and the world and the mind constitutes as well as words and concepts allow. I mentioned Bernadette Roberts several times because she said that to know 'no self' is to know self, and I toadally agreed with her on that . It's exactly what I am saying .

This is why when a peep runs around saying I have lost self, they haven't in my eyes, when peeps think that they can walk to the fridge and pull a cold one out instead of a warm one, they are not operating and functioning beyond thought .

There are so many instances that one can relate to in these ways and I thought that what I point out at times on these forums is proof enough of this ..

Pretty much every concept derives through these comparions had because there is either self / perception / thought / awareness or there isn't . ..

I didn't say that there was no awareness while driving to the grocery store; I said that it's possible to drive to the grocery store in total mental silence--WITHOUT VERBALLY/MENTALLY COGNIZING ANY DISTINCTIONS ABOUT WHAT IS SEEN. This is what Zen people call no-mind. I realize that you have a different definition of mind than most of us have. Most of us cognize mind as equivalent to intellect, and the activity of direct sensory perception involves looking at the world without mental ideas or images. It is simply the silent awareness of "what is."

The most significant realizations that result from NS are (1) pure awareness is fundamental because it continues even when there is no perception, sensation, ideas, images, time, space, or body consciousness, (2) NS is a non-dual state in which all sense of separateness or selfhood disappear, (3) there is an event horizon after which a unifying process continues until only pure awareness remains, and (4) it is a deep state of peace and blissfulness even though there is no sense of a someone who experiences it. Ramana referred to it as "the deepest state."

More later......

[Deleted]

Dec 10, 2019 12:51:28 GMT -5 roydop said:

Dec 10, 2019 10:04:25 GMT -5 @gopalan said:

>>Soon enough the thought realm will take the place of the sense realm in that it will be the accepted reality.<<

So first some kind of experience is arising in thoughts and then it manifest in the outer world? And you say you can stop even before it arises in outer world?

The system is: thought - action (manifestation in physical realm) - thought - action...  on all time scales.

The time scale i'm referring to is the BIG one. The BIG manifestation (the Big Bang) of the 4D physical realm is shifting back to the non-physical realm of thought. So the extinction event is perfectly in sync with the Technological Singularity (technology is all thought produced), which is quite the coincidence, don't you figure?

The next manifestation for those who are addicted to the screen, will be on the inside of a computer/cyborg, taking Self to be a character in a computer simulation, identifying Self with the voice in your head, rather than a biological body. 


This is why i feel that if one simply takes care of the thought issue (transcendence of that voice in your head), the natural unfolding of the cycle will take care of the rest. The body is dropping away and "mind" is coming to the forefront.   

But it's not in our hand. Taking care of anything is the movement towards something, that wouldn't work.

Okay, it's time for me to go to spiritualgab now because discussion there is pulling me there. Catch you later. Bye now.

[tenka]

Dec 10, 2019 14:52:39 GMT -5 zendancer said:

Dec 10, 2019 8:42:35 GMT -5 tenka said:

So why would you say that the mind-body can still drive a car when there is no awareness of the car or the road ..

This isn't the same as what has been discussed at all in regards to simply not chattering away to oneself .

You speak about the mind-body doing lots of intelligent things by itself ..

I can as an example already given walk to the fridge for a beer and not have an internal chat about it .

Just because you don't chat about it doesn't mean anything other than that for there is still the thought and the awareness of what you are doing . You seem to equate not chatting about it meaning you see everything as 'it is' .. which is still a thought of what it is ..

It's not like you walk to the fridge while not chatting about it constitutes not remembering or being conscious of walking to the fridge and the intelligent mind-body walked there for you and grabbed a beer for you ..

You have given examples where there has not been any conscious thought about driving and such likes and this is different from what you are now saying .

You are conscious of perceiving the fridge while not chatting .. If one is conscious, there is a thought .

I know we see differently about 'thought' and that's totally cool but I have given reasons why and given dozens of examples to no avail ..

I have even asked peeps to the the I AM aware experiment because it is impossible to separate I AM aware with a thought of that in this reality of mind, I mean you asked me to address the issues and explain myself and yet you didn't even respond to it lol .

In regards to my realization, I have spoken about it every time I have been asked about it lol, In fact I have said that in essence it isn't even a realization because simply being what you are isn't anything other than that .

Realization comes into play the moment you are back in self awareness or I am awareness of the mind and then you know that there is beyond the thought of what you are .. Everything is what you are .. I think I have made myself pretty clear in this respect .

These I would say are very basic concepts one understands from the comparison had and this is something Sifting couldn't understand and therefore disregarded because it makes no logical sense at all..

When you have the comparison of no world, no self, no mind, you know what self and the world and the mind constitutes as well as words and concepts allow. I mentioned Bernadette Roberts several times because she said that to know 'no self' is to know self, and I toadally agreed with her on that . It's exactly what I am saying .

This is why when a peep runs around saying I have lost self, they haven't in my eyes, when peeps think that they can walk to the fridge and pull a cold one out instead of a warm one, they are not operating and functioning beyond thought .

There are so many instances that one can relate to in these ways and I thought that what I point out at times on these forums is proof enough of this ..

Pretty much every concept derives through these comparions had because there is either self / perception / thought / awareness or there isn't . ..

I didn't say that there was no awareness while driving to the grocery store; I said that it's possible to drive to the grocery store in total mental silence--WITHOUT VERBALLY/MENTALLY COGNIZING ANY DISTINCTIONS ABOUT WHAT IS SEEN. This is what Zen people call no-mind. I realize that you have a different definition of mind than most of us have. Most of us cognize mind as equivalent to intellect, and the activity of direct sensory perception involves looking at the world without mental ideas or images. It is simply the silent awareness of "what is."

The most significant realizations that result from NS are (1) pure awareness is fundamental because it continues even when there is no perception, sensation, ideas, images, time, space, or body consciousness, (2) NS is a non-dual state in which all sense of separateness or selfhood disappear, (3) there is an event horizon after which a unifying process continues until only pure awareness remains, and (4) it is a deep state of peace and blissfulness even though there is no sense of a someone who experiences it. Ramana referred to it as "the deepest state."

More later......

I appreciate the courtesy of trying to explain more Z.D but I am and have been basing my comments on your previous thoughts about driving when you said you don't know how you managed to drive the last 5 miles or so .

You spoke about the mind-body being intelligent enough to drive while there was no thought of the road .

If you say there was awareness of driving, then you would have a thought of the road . To say that there was no chatter doesn't make a difference if you was still aware of the road .

We can swap, being conscious, entertaining a thought or being aware all day long, the main point I made then as I am making now is that there is always a thought of the road, there is always awareness of the road, the mind-body intelligence doesn't drive the car for you .

Do the experiment, look at the road next time you drive without thinking .. and then tell me next time we speak, did you see the road without thinking or did it disappear, or did you perceive something but you don't know what it was .. You described it earlier in a way that the trees were not seen as trees but seen as 'what is', this again is not transcending 'thought'. This is simply shifting identification .

All this transcending the thinking aspect of mind isn't transcending thought, because you 'know what you are seeing' even when you are not thinking out loud about it .

If your attention is on the perception without thought, even attention is thought based .

It's all mind . It's all thought based . It's all self awareness based . You can't separate any of these because there cannot be one without the other .

Zen may well have some theory behind mind and no self .. and that's okay, but so do many other sects, religions, and ordinary peeps . No mind does not equate to being aware of the world and driving cars . I am not basing my reality around something written by another at some point . Are you?


We perhaps have more of a chance of agreeing with N.S. because there is no perception per se, there is no mind-body, there is no thought, no driving cars or drinking beer .

Some peeps here have the notion that mind is just a movement of thought in such a way where when the mind is still so to speak there is no mind, but the bloody world is still present and that is mindful .. There is no getting out of mind while there is self awareness and not thinking .

If someone tells me that there was no self, then I would believe them but all this other stuff that entertains a concoction of self and awareness and the road doesn't equate to what I am talking about at all, it's that simple, all these word swaps doesn't make a blind bit of difference because as said, you can't have one without the other ..

Has anyone done the simple experiment i suggested? I seem to get a lot of negatives here but no one is actually proving what I am saying by doing what I suggested .

Don't take my word for it, find it out for yourselves ..

[tenka]

Dec 10, 2019 10:35:13 GMT -5 laughter said:

Dec 10, 2019 10:01:25 GMT -5 tenka said:

Even the theory that .. 'No theory can explain the limitless that is you' .

This is on the same vibe as the theory of there being Truth, can there be any Truth to such a theory when what is pointed to is beyond theory?

Just mind games really isn't it when there is one theory that is mean't to be more Truthy than another .. if there is potentially a Truthful theory that suggests any theory could just be a trick of the mind could equally be a trick of the mind or that any theory would obscure that Truth then there really is no Truthful foundation at all to one's reality ..

I am more swayed as peeps know to believe in a foundation of some credibility rather than not, but like said if realizations turn out to be a trick of the mind then there is no hope for any of us no matter what we think we have realized or not ..

It's not a theory, and the "Truth" in question isn't one that can be apprehended by theory. It is the thinking, rational mind that decomposes either of these sentences: 'No theory can explain the limitlessness that is you', or ''any and all theories will obscure that', and concludes that either of them state a theory.

Now, there's nothing that I can write that will prove this to you. In fact, in intellectual terms, my position is no-win. I'll admit that, waaaaay up front.

Yes for sure it is a no win situation because of the premise . It seems as if the rules can change or bend to suit the occupant lol and that doesn't work for me as you know ..

This funny thing here is that there is no realization to that effect, it's not even that a peep can reflect back upon the moment that there was the notion had that the mind is false and full of traps and falsities ..

If there was the initial understanding had that the mind was as real as anything else, then all issues pertaining to the opposite theory would fade away ..

This is the most common scenario present, it seems, for there is either one way of understanding or there is the opposite ..

Satch has been speaking of the Self as everything therefore where is the illusion? Where are the falsities, it is only the self that throws a spanner in the works .. 

Each to their own as always ..

[tenka]

Dec 10, 2019 12:53:56 GMT -5 roydop said:

Dec 10, 2019 9:01:40 GMT -5 tenka said:

Just do the experiment .. locate the awareness of I AM .. then try and separate the thought of I am from the awareness of I AM of this world .

I concur peeps can see my thoughts on thought differently, I wouldn't go as far as much to say that everyone else on the planet disagrees with me tho .

Your thoughts on what constitutes inside and outside of the skull is purely from one perspective, what about those peeps that are formless and have no skulls, how are they capable of entertaining a thought?

I will tell you, it is because it's all mind and it's all thought based .

The base and the foundation of mind allows one to be aware of I AM and like said, try being aware of I AM without the thought that I AM .

You are digging holes to fill them back in. 

Spirituality/Realization is a not-doing. It's a letting go. 

Have you done the experiment?

[satchitananda]

Tenka, maybe the solution is just to call it mental activity or mentations instead of thought, although I don't know why there is confusion because there is one kind of thought that is very deliberate and analytical and goes through a sort of step-by-step logical process and involves a lot of chatter and then there is the kind of thought that just sees a tree, recognizes it as such and processes it without any mental chatter. This is quite normal. Everybody does this. There is no body intelligence. That's just something that's made up to try and avoid talking about mind. I'm not going to get into a car and drive without mental faculties and mental processing of what I'm seeing.

What can be spoken about is when one is connected to Being, when there is peace of mind then thinking and action seems to be very effortless and spontaneous. I already previously suggested to ZD that that's what he was really talking about.

[tenka]

Dec 11, 2019 4:53:48 GMT -5 satchitananda said:

Tenka, maybe the solution is just to call it mental activity or mentations instead of thought, although I don't know why there is confusion because there is one kind of thought that is very deliberate and analytical and goes through a sort of step-by-step logical process and involves a lot of chatter and then there is the kind of thought that just sees a tree, recognizes it as such and processes it without any mental chatter. This is quite normal. Everybody does this. There is no body intelligence. That's just something that's made up to try and avoid talking about mind. I'm not going to get into a car and drive without mental faculties and mental processing of what I'm seeing.

What can be spoken about is when one is connected to Being, when there is peace of mind then thinking and action seems to be very effortless and spontaneous. I already previously suggested to ZD that that's what he was really talking about.

I also don't know why there is such confusion even if there is a different understanding of the word 'thought' butt like you say, if we use mental activity instead we would be speaking about 'thinking' as a 'mental activity' and we would be speaking about a 'mental activity' that involves 'no thinking' while perceiving lol .

I feel this would be even more confusing because peeps would say perception is transcending mental activity heheh and that isn't correct either ..

I agree peeps go about their business all the time not thinking about what they are doing in a way where there is a running commentary of events had, one simply goes about their business, cos they know how to drive without chattering away, they know how to mow the lawn and pull up their zipper ..

These events are not transcending the 'thinking mind' in a way where it makes a blind bit of difference to the knowing of what one is perceiving while not thinking .

There are so many mind-states, trance states that can occur when there is no thinking because in a way thinking can create a manner of blocks in some respect .. I mean if your trying to meditate and you analyse every breath or every thought had, it can becomes obstructive but i have been extremely clear here in regards to certain activities had that will reflect what the mind-body can do and not do ..

As I see it, I don't see anything special about looking and thinking instead of looking without thinking, because we still know what we are looking at regardless and that is why before we stated that when your driving aware of the road you slam your brakes on when the deer runs out in front of you .

You know what a deer is and for you to see the deer there is a thought of it, that is why you put on the brakes .

The body intelligence doesn't know what a deer is or what a beer is, only self knows .

[zendancer]

Dec 11, 2019 3:40:23 GMT -5 tenka said:

Dec 10, 2019 14:52:39 GMT -5 zendancer said:

I didn't say that there was no awareness while driving to the grocery store; I said that it's possible to drive to the grocery store in total mental silence--WITHOUT VERBALLY/MENTALLY COGNIZING ANY DISTINCTIONS ABOUT WHAT IS SEEN. This is what Zen people call no-mind. I realize that you have a different definition of mind than most of us have. Most of us cognize mind as equivalent to intellect, and the activity of direct sensory perception involves looking at the world without mental ideas or images. It is simply the silent awareness of "what is."

The most significant realizations that result from NS are (1) pure awareness is fundamental because it continues even when there is no perception, sensation, ideas, images, time, space, or body consciousness, (2) NS is a non-dual state in which all sense of separateness or selfhood disappear, (3) there is an event horizon after which a unifying process continues until only pure awareness remains, and (4) it is a deep state of peace and blissfulness even though there is no sense of a someone who experiences it. Ramana referred to it as "the deepest state."

More later......

I appreciate the courtesy of trying to explain more Z.D but I am and have been basing my comments on your previous thoughts about driving when you said you don't know how you managed to drive the last 5 miles or so .

You spoke about the mind-body being intelligent enough to drive while there was no thought of the road .

If you say there was awareness of driving, then you would have a thought of the road . To say that there was no chatter doesn't make a difference if you was still aware of the road .

We can swap, being conscious, entertaining a thought or being aware all day long, the main point I made then as I am making now is that there is always a thought of the road, there is always awareness of the road, the mind-body intelligence doesn't drive the car for you .

.

I think you're confusing two different issues I discussed. The first issue, which I don't think you'd disagree with, is that it's possible to drive a car in total mental silence while remaining consciously aware of "what is" without making any conscious distinctions (without focusing attention upon any particular aspects of the visual field). IOW, it's possible to drive a car while looking at the world like the lens of a camera. Very few adults can do this because most adults have what Zen people call "monkey minds." They live in their heads, carry on a mental conversation with themselves, and their reflective thoughts about the world jump all over the place from idea to idea. There is very little mental silence.

If an adult has the ability to stop "mind talk" and function in total mental silence, the world they see is seen without distinction. The body/mind organism knows what it's looking at through direct sensory perception, but without thinking about what is seen in the form of ideas or images. The ancient Greeks distinguished this kind of direct knowing as "gnosis," and used the word "episteme" to designate the kind of knowing involved with ideas, images, and symbols.

The second issue I discussed is the extremely common phenomena of people driving on an interstate so lost in mental ideas, images, and mind-talk that they don't consciously see anything for perhaps ten or twenty miles. When they suddenly notice the highway again, they are often shocked to realize that they drove the car for many miles without conscious awareness, and they wonder how the car was driven while their attention was focused internally rather than externally. Clearly, the body/mind organism learns how to do various things and can do those things without conscious awareness. If you wish to say that they were having thoughts during the time that they were unconscious of the road, that's okay, but most people would disagree with that usage of the word "thoughts" in the same way that most people would disagree with the idea that feelings and sensory perceptions are thoughts. Those things obviously involve subconscious mental activities, but very few people would call that kind of subconscious processing "thoughts."

Some people realize that there is only one infinite field of isness, and that any idea of separation is just an erroneous idea. Whether they call that incomprehensible unified field of aware isness "God" or "Self" or "THIS" makes no difference. For those people it is obvious that all phenomena are an aspect of THAT, and that THAT is the only actuality. THAT circulates blood cells in the body and moves planets in their orbits, and every "thing" that humans distinguish as separate is actually one-with THAT and is an inseparable aspect of THAT.

[tenka]

Dec 11, 2019 7:23:16 GMT -5 zendancer said:

Dec 11, 2019 3:40:23 GMT -5 tenka said:

I appreciate the courtesy of trying to explain more Z.D but I am and have been basing my comments on your previous thoughts about driving when you said you don't know how you managed to drive the last 5 miles or so .

You spoke about the mind-body being intelligent enough to drive while there was no thought of the road .

If you say there was awareness of driving, then you would have a thought of the road . To say that there was no chatter doesn't make a difference if you was still aware of the road .

We can swap, being conscious, entertaining a thought or being aware all day long, the main point I made then as I am making now is that there is always a thought of the road, there is always awareness of the road, the mind-body intelligence doesn't drive the car for you .

.

I think you're confusing two different issues I discussed. The first issue, which I don't think you'd disagree with, is that it's possible to drive a car in total mental silence while remaining consciously aware of "what is" without making any conscious distinctions (without focusing attention upon any particular aspects of the visual field). IOW, it's possible to drive a car while looking at the world like the lens of a camera. Very few adults can do this because most adults have what Zen people call "monkey minds." They live in their heads, carry on a mental conversation with themselves, and their reflective thoughts about the world jump all over the place from idea to idea. There is very little mental silence.

If an adult has the ability to stop "mind talk" and function in total mental silence, the world they see is seen without distinction. The body/mind organism knows what it's looking at through direct sensory perception, but without thinking about what is seen in the form of ideas or images. The ancient Greeks distinguished this kind of direction knowing as "gnosis," and used the word "episteme" to designate the kind of knowing involved with ideas, images, and symbols.

The second issue I discussed is the extremely common phenomena of people driving on an interstate so lost in mental ideas, images, and mind-talk that they don't consciously see anything for perhaps ten or twenty miles. When they suddenly notice the highway again, they are often shocked to realize that they drove the car for many miles without conscious awareness, and they wonder how the car was driven while their attention was focused internally rather than externally. Clearly, the body/mind organism learns how to do various things and can do those things without conscious awareness. If you wish to say that they were having thoughts during the time that they were unconscious of the road, that's okay, but most people would disagree with that usage of the word "thoughts" in the same way that most people would disagree with the idea that feelings and sensory perceptions are thoughts. Those things obviously involve subconscious mental activities, but very few people would call that kind of subconscious processing "thoughts."

Some people realize that there is only one infinite field of isness, and that any idea of separation is just an erroneous idea. Whether they call that incomprehensible unified field of aware isness "God" or "Self" or "THIS" makes no difference. For those people it is obvious that all phenomena are an aspect of THAT, and that THAT is the only actuality. THAT circulates blood cells in the body and moves planets in their orbits, and every "thing" that humans distinguish as separate is actually one-with THAT and is an inseparable aspect of THAT.

I can agree in there being mental silence Z.D. that's not a problem, it's something that perhaps for some occurs for most of their day depending on their situation / circumstance at hand ..

I mean I can get the same amount of work done at home whether I am talking about it to myself or not, I can run just as far chatting away to myself as i can when I am not thinking ..

If Zen philosophy wants to suggest that this way of living is called no-mind then so be it, but it doesn't reflect 'mind' in entirety ..

If you are basing your whole understanding around this then this a big reason why we don't see eye to eye ... and I see this Zen approach as highly problematic for reasons said .

When you say 'what is' instead of a labelled object this is a misconception, because you still know a tree to be a tree, you don't look at a tree absent of thinking and say I am not looking at a tree I am looking at 'what is' .

You are associating 'what is' with another form of identification here and you are at the same time dismissing the tree as being a tree ..

It's all mindful conclusions taking place ..

This is why I have asked many here on the forums when you look at the road or look at the keyboard what do you see.

No one is answering me lol because it's self evident that one perceives a road or a keyboard .

Why is there the reluctance to admit that when you look at the keyboard you see a keyboard with or without thinking?

Now if you say you don't see the keyboard when your not chatting away to yourself and you see 'what is', what does that mean?

What do you see instead of the keyboard .. because you say that the mind-body can do things while not thinking, so how does the mind-body know how to type TENKA IS FAB when there is no keyboard perceived, there is only what is that is perceived .

This doesn't make any sense .. You said there is awareness of the road at all times, so there has to be awareness of the keyboard too .

There can't be awareness of the keyboard if the keyboard is not a keyboard and yet you still use it like a keyboard and you don't stroke it like your pet dog .

If there is no mind simply because there is no thinking going on then you say the mind body is intelligent to do all this stuff and know that the dog needs a pee and know when the doorbell is ringing and when the kettle is boiled ..

If everything was seen for what is, then one would not know what is boiling or what is making that awful ringing noise, and one wouldn't know what that puddle on the floor is next to the dog (which isn't seen as a dog) and the puddle isn't seen as a puddle .

I mean, why would you wipe the dogs pee up with a cloth and not your hand? Why would you wipe it up at all?

[roydop]

Dec 11, 2019 4:38:16 GMT -5 tenka said:

Dec 10, 2019 12:53:56 GMT -5 roydop said:

You are digging holes to fill them back in. 

Spirituality/Realization is a not-doing. It's a letting go. 

Have you done the experiment?

lol. My Life is the experiment. 

[roydop]

"This is why I have asked many here on the forums when you look at the road or look at the keyboard what do you see.

No one is answering me lol because it's self evident that one perceives a road or a keyboard .

Why is there the reluctance to admit that when you look at the keyboard you see a keyboard with or without thinking?"

There is no keyboard prior to the mention of the word. You are cutting up reality into puzzle pieces via conceptualization and then trying to fit it back together.

[tenka]

Dec 11, 2019 8:34:43 GMT -5 roydop said:

"This is why I have asked many here on the forums when you look at the road or look at the keyboard what do you see.

No one is answering me lol because it's self evident that one perceives a road or a keyboard .

Why is there the reluctance to admit that when you look at the keyboard you see a keyboard with or without thinking?"

There is no keyboard prior to the mention of the word. You are cutting up reality into puzzle pieces via conceptualization and then trying to fit it back together.

This is just twisting things here, because if you didn't know it was a keyboard you wouldn't use it as a keyboard .

Saying that it wasn't a keyboard prior to the label is contextually true, but regardless of what you call it you don't stick it in your mouth nor do you use it as a cash point machine .

If you use a keyboard with intent to write something, then you can call it what you like, you can call it 'what is' but it doesn't change anything .

You know what it does and refers too and if you know what it does then you have a self reference for it . Even for things you don't know what it is or does, you will have a reference for that which you do not know ..

What I am speaking of here are things that we all know and all use, so it's pointless saying before the label it was not what it is labelled .

It makes no difference does it . You use it for it's purpose .

What do you see when you look at the keyboard without thinking it's a keyboard .

Can you reply to me without thinking? Can your hand type out letters without thinking what you are going to write or having a thought about replying?

[tenka]

Touching on from what I just said about 'why clean up the dogs mess" while not thinking in a way that touches upon 'no mind' as the crutch for not thinking, when all one does is to continues to function through ego conditioning lol ..

Why perceive the world perception as 'what is' and not as the labels describe when all one is doing is continuing to be influenced by their labelled / conditioned / meaning ..

Is so daft to say I am not thinking, so I have transcended the thinking mind, when one cleans their teeth and wipes up dog's pee ..

No mind obviously doesn't mean or reflect no conditioning or no ego .. and this really does revert back to a thought of oneself at the heart of the experience and to say otherwise is incorrect, because you wouldn't continue to do conditioned things that relate to self .

[zendancer]

Dec 11, 2019 9:23:12 GMT -5 tenka said:

Touching on from what I just said about 'why clean up the dogs mess" while not thinking in a way that touches upon 'no mind' as the crutch for not thinking, when all one does is to continues to function through ego conditioning lol ..

Why perceive the world perception as 'what is' and not as the labels describe when all one is doing is continuing to be influenced by their labelled / conditioned / meaning ..

Is so daft to say I am not thinking, so I have transcended the thinking mind, when one cleans their teeth and wipes up dog's pee ..

No mind obviously doesn't mean or reflect no conditioning or no ego .. and this really does revert back to a thought of oneself at the heart of the experience and to say otherwise is incorrect, because you wouldn't continue to do conditioned things that relate to self .

The Tao Te Ching makes this statement, "The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao." ITSW, the Tao that can be conceived is not the eternal Tao. This is a forum that deals primarily with non-duality, so many of us use the term "what is" to refer to the entire field of unified being without distinction. Of course all humans have agreed upon a wide range of standard distinctions and the symbols that represent those distinctions in their own culture, but here we're using words to point to something that is fundamentally unified. When there is no mind-talk, and only direct sensory perception is occurring, I use the term "what is" to point to what I see. What I see can be imagined in a thousand different ways, but I use the term "what is" to refer to what is NOT being imagined--reality itself.

There is no such thing as a tree, except as an abstract idea. Imaginatively, people distinguish a series of static images, such as seed, sprout, sapling, young tree, mature tree, old tree, dead tree, fallen tree, etc, but what is being seen is beyond all categories, and we could pick a particular stage in the growth of what we call a tree where one would be unsure whether what is seen should be called a sapling or a tree because the imaginary boundaries defining the distinction at certain points are not clear. ITSW there are no such things as a hand, wrist, and arm. Conceptually we divide what is undivided, and I could pick a point where one would be unsure whether that point was hand or a wrist. In fact, I've often done this as an experiment to show people the imaginary nature of all distinctions. I have also used the example of dancing to illustrate this point. If someone takes a still camera to a dance and takes photographs, none of the photographs will capture what dancing IS. Dancing is movement, and in the deepest sense, all of reality is a movement rather than something static. This is why we use the term "what is."

There is a big difference between simple seeing and imagining what is seen.

If you ask me what I see when there is no mind talk, no mental ideas or images, how can such a question be answered accurately? Conventionally, we can name things that have been distinguished, but existentially-speaking no words can capture what is seen. That kind of question must be answered in a different way-- by using words to point to the ineffable. This is why I would either answer, "I see what is," or I would use a different method of pointing that is more powerful but less likely to be understood.

[andrew]

Dec 11, 2019 10:34:21 GMT -5 zendancer said:

Dec 11, 2019 9:23:12 GMT -5 tenka said:

Touching on from what I just said about 'why clean up the dogs mess" while not thinking in a way that touches upon 'no mind' as the crutch for not thinking, when all one does is to continues to function through ego conditioning lol ..

Why perceive the world perception as 'what is' and not as the labels describe when all one is doing is continuing to be influenced by their labelled / conditioned / meaning ..

Is so daft to say I am not thinking, so I have transcended the thinking mind, when one cleans their teeth and wipes up dog's pee ..

No mind obviously doesn't mean or reflect no conditioning or no ego .. and this really does revert back to a thought of oneself at the heart of the experience and to say otherwise is incorrect, because you wouldn't continue to do conditioned things that relate to self .

The Tao Te Ching makes this statement, "The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao." ITSW, the Tao that can be conceived is not the eternal Tao. This is a forum that deals primarily with non-duality, so many of use the term "what is" to refer to the entire field of unified being without distinction. Of course all humans have agreed upon a wide range of standard distinctions and the symbols that represent those distinctions in their own culture, but here we're using words to point to something that is fundamentally unified. When there is no mind-talk, and only direct sensory perception is occurring, I use the term "what is" to point to what I see. What I see can be imagined in a thousand different ways, but I use the term "what is" to refer to what is NOT being imagined--reality itself.

There is no such thing as a tree, except as an abstract idea. Imaginatively, people distinguish a series of static images, such as seed, sprout, sapling, young tree, mature tree, old tree, dead tree, fallen tree, etc, but what is being seen is beyond all categories, and we could pick a particular stage in the growth of what we call a tree where one would be unsure whether what is seen should be called a sapling or a tree because the imaginary boundaries defining the distinction at certain points are not clear. ITSW there are no such things as a hand, wrist, and arm. Conceptually we divide what is undivided, and I could pick a point where one would be unsure whether that point was hand or a wrist. In fact, I've often done this as an experiment to show people the imaginary nature of all distinctions. I have also used the example of dancing to illustrate this point. If someone takes a still camera to a dance and takes photographs, none of the photographs will capture what dancing IS. Dancing is movement, and in the deepest sense, all of reality is a movement rather than something static. This is why we use the term "what is."

There is a big difference between simple seeing and imagining what is seen.

If you ask me what I see when there is no mind talk, no mental ideas or images, how can such a question be answered accurately? Conventionally, we can name things that have been distinguished, but existentially-speaking no words can capture what is seen. That kind of question must be answered in a different way-- by using words in a different way to point to the ineffable. This is why I would either answer, "I see what is," or I would use a different method of pointing that is more powerful but less likely to be understood.

if 'what is' is what you see 'without distinction', then what do you call what is prior to what you see?

I would have thought that 'the eternal tao' would point prior to, or beyond, 'what you see without distinction'....?