|
Post by zendancer on Dec 11, 2019 11:12:00 GMT -5
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'....? The quote from the Tao Te Ching simply points out that the world as imagined is different than what the world is. The term "what is" encompasses all that is, seen or unseen. It's just a synonym for "the actual" but a bit better because it suggests a verb rather than a noun.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 11, 2019 11:23:54 GMT -5
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'....? The quote from the Tao Te Ching simply points out that the world as imagined is different than what the world is. The term "what is" encompasses all that is, seen or unseen. It's just a synonym for "the actual" but a bit better because it suggests a verb rather than a noun. okay...personally, i would say there is value in differentiating between 'Being/Self' which is prior/beyond 'what is seen' (or 'heard' etc), but i would agree that in one way, this difference is mentally formed, and we can reduce to 'Oneness', which would include both 'seen' and 'beyond seen'.
|
|
|
Post by roydop on Dec 11, 2019 12:21:19 GMT -5
"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? This discussion is discursive and irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 11, 2019 12:36:35 GMT -5
The quote from the Tao Te Ching simply points out that the world as imagined is different than what the world is. The term "what is" encompasses all that is, seen or unseen. It's just a synonym for "the actual" but a bit better because it suggests a verb rather than a noun. okay...personally, i would say there is value in differentiating between 'Being/Self' which is prior/beyond 'what is seen' (or 'heard' etc), but i would agree that in one way, this difference is mentally formed, and we can reduce to 'Oneness', which would include both 'seen' and 'beyond seen'. Well, one advantage of directly apprehending the Infinite (or however we might point to that kind of event) is that one never thinks about the world in quite the same way as before, so I don't think in terms of anything beyond the immediacy of the present moment. I know that reality is infinitely deep and incomprehensible to the intellect, so all that matters is whatever is actual and happening now. For me, Jesus statement, "In my Father's house are many mansions," has been a direct experience, so although the cosmos is non-dual, I don't think much about anything beyond what is actually happening, if you get my drift.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Dec 11, 2019 13:14:24 GMT -5
okay...personally, i would say there is value in differentiating between 'Being/Self' which is prior/beyond 'what is seen' (or 'heard' etc), but i would agree that in one way, this difference is mentally formed, and we can reduce to 'Oneness', which would include both 'seen' and 'beyond seen'. Well, one advantage of directly apprehending the Infinite (or however we might point to that kind of event) is that one never thinks about the world in quite the same way as before, so I don't think in terms of anything beyond the immediacy of the present moment. I know that reality is infinitely deep and incomprehensible to the intellect, so all that matters is whatever is actual and happening now. For me, Jesus statement, "In my Father's house are many mansions," has been a direct experience, so although the cosmos is non-dual, I don't think much about anything beyond what is actually happening, if you get my drift. How long did it take you to think about, plan and construct that post and project it into the future and beyond the immediacy of the present moment? I love this not thinking in terms of anything beyond the immediacy of the present moment, I really do, but it's not going to play well with cement truck delivery schedules. A bit of forward planning would help. Just saying.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 11, 2019 13:29:06 GMT -5
okay...personally, i would say there is value in differentiating between 'Being/Self' which is prior/beyond 'what is seen' (or 'heard' etc), but i would agree that in one way, this difference is mentally formed, and we can reduce to 'Oneness', which would include both 'seen' and 'beyond seen'. Well, one advantage of directly apprehending the Infinite (or however we might point to that kind of event) is that one never thinks about the world in quite the same way as before, so I don't think in terms of anything beyond the immediacy of the present moment. I know that reality is infinitely deep and incomprehensible to the intellect, so all that matters is whatever is actual and happening now. For me, Jesus statement, "In my Father's house are many mansions," has been a direct experience, so although the cosmos is non-dual, I don't think much about anything beyond what is actually happening, if you get my drift. sure. My experience lately has been very full of trading political opinions and barbs, and not a lot of thought beyond that, so i guess can relate. Spirtualteachers has definitely gave me good training for that... in particular I feel I should be thanking laffy....so cheers Bill, you've definitely rubbed off on me, though perhaps not always in ways you intended
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 11, 2019 14:38:24 GMT -5
Well, one advantage of directly apprehending the Infinite (or however we might point to that kind of event) is that one never thinks about the world in quite the same way as before, so I don't think in terms of anything beyond the immediacy of the present moment. I know that reality is infinitely deep and incomprehensible to the intellect, so all that matters is whatever is actual and happening now. For me, Jesus statement, "In my Father's house are many mansions," has been a direct experience, so although the cosmos is non-dual, I don't think much about anything beyond what is actually happening, if you get my drift. sure. My experience lately has been very full of trading political opinions and barbs, and not a lot of thought beyond that, so i guess can relate. Spirtualteachers has definitely gave me good training for that... in particular I feel I should be thanking laffy....so cheers Bill, you've definitely rubbed off on me, though perhaps not always in ways you intended Yep. Same here. Reading and thinking about various posts on the ST forum over the last decade has resulted in numerous realizations, none of which were monumental, but all of which were fascinating. One of the things I realized several months ago (more than thirty years after it happened) was that after the initial kensho event/experience in 1984 that changed my understanding of reality so dramatically, my state of mind was exactly like that of Tolle after his "falling into the vortex" that he described in his book. His extremely altered state of mind apparently lasted for two years or more, during which time he spent a lot of each day just sitting on a park bench looking at the world. By contrast, I only stayed in that extremely altered state of mind for about three days before returning to a conventional sense of selfhood and a chattering intellect. E. made me realize that a useful distinction is the difference between a realization and an experience, though we still disagree about the nature of non-dual events such as kensho and deep samadhi. Satch posted a Ramana quote that cleared up something I had often wondered about, and Laffy, as well as all of the other posters here have at one time or another posted something that helped clarify an issue in some way. I've probably spent more time over the last three decades reflecting upon posts that appeared on this forum than on anything other than work-related issues.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 11, 2019 15:18:59 GMT -5
Well, one advantage of directly apprehending the Infinite (or however we might point to that kind of event) is that one never thinks about the world in quite the same way as before, so I don't think in terms of anything beyond the immediacy of the present moment. I know that reality is infinitely deep and incomprehensible to the intellect, so all that matters is whatever is actual and happening now. For me, Jesus statement, "In my Father's house are many mansions," has been a direct experience, so although the cosmos is non-dual, I don't think much about anything beyond what is actually happening, if you get my drift. sure. My experience lately has been very full of trading political opinions and barbs, and not a lot of thought beyond that, so i guess can relate. Spirtualteachers has definitely gave me good training for that... in particular I feel I should be thanking laffy....so cheers Bill, you've definitely rubbed off on me, though perhaps not always in ways you intended (** hangs head in shame **)
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 11, 2019 15:20:09 GMT -5
sure. My experience lately has been very full of trading political opinions and barbs, and not a lot of thought beyond that, so i guess can relate. Spirtualteachers has definitely gave me good training for that... in particular I feel I should be thanking laffy....so cheers Bill, you've definitely rubbed off on me, though perhaps not always in ways you intended Yep. Same here. Reading and thinking about various posts on the ST forum over the last decade has resulted in numerous realizations, none of which were monumental, but all of which were fascinating. One of the things I realized several months ago (more than thirty years after it happened) was that after the initial kensho event/experience in 1984 that changed my understanding of reality so dramatically, my state of mind was exactly like that of Tolle after his "falling into the vortex" that he described in his book. His extremely altered state of mind apparently lasted for two years or more, during which time he spent a lot of each day just sitting on a park bench looking at the world. By contrast, I only stayed in that extremely altered state of mind for about three days before returning to a conventional sense of selfhood and a chattering intellect. E. made me realize that a useful distinction is the difference between a realization and an experience, though we still disagree about the nature of non-dual events such as kensho and deep samadhi. Satch posted a Ramana quote that cleared up something I had often wondered about, and Laffy, as well as all of the other posters here have at one time or another posted something that helped clarify an issue in some way. I've probably spent more time over the last three decades reflecting upon posts that appeared on this forum than on anything other than work-related issues. This group represents the one and only time in my life where I've actually been interested in what people other than co-workers or family have to say - about anything - on an ongoing and sustained basis.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 11, 2019 15:49:17 GMT -5
sure. My experience lately has been very full of trading political opinions and barbs, and not a lot of thought beyond that, so i guess can relate. Spirtualteachers has definitely gave me good training for that... in particular I feel I should be thanking laffy....so cheers Bill, you've definitely rubbed off on me, though perhaps not always in ways you intended (** hangs head in shame **) i was joking a bit, but now wholly. You have taught me to look closely for objectivity and giraffes among other things. It's useful. if you ever campaign online for Sanders (or even Gabbard) , let me know, I'll come and lend a hand
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 11, 2019 16:49:24 GMT -5
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. I have a couple of examples that maybe will help. Once you learn to ride a bicycle the learned-information goes-into what's called muscle memory, and you can get on a bicycle and just ride away, no abstract thought processes necessary. The point is the learning took place in the past and doesn't need to occur again, no new learning, no new abstraction necessary. Mind doesn't need to think, oh, there's a bicycle, I think I will take a little ride. My second example also concerns learning. Say a carpenter or painter leaves some sand paper on the bathroom cabinet. Next person comes in. They just grab some toilet paper, use it, get up leave. No words necessary, no abstract thoughts. Person doesn't grab the sand paper and wipe bottom. Person doesn't need to think, hummm...sandpaper, toilet paper, which should I use? It's a matter of perception versus abstract thought. The perception automatically pulls up previously learned information, no thinking necessary. In the example of the air traffic controller. He had years of information stored in his brain and mind-body. Now, if he hadn't had that stored information, he couldn't have thoughtlessly preformed the job. But he did, he had previously learned his job, he called upon stored information. He preformed his job with no abstract thinking. But the main point I've tried to make which tenka, doesn't respond to. You can't understand any of this by trying to conceptualize it. But it can be easily verified, experimentally. I've given numerous examples to try. I can think of literally hundreds of examples. Just explore the different between perception and abstract thinking about what one perceives. Yes, the Tao Te Ching speaks beautifully, in several places, to this matter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2019 17:06:13 GMT -5
Yep. Same here. Reading and thinking about various posts on the ST forum over the last decade has resulted in numerous realizations, none of which were monumental, but all of which were fascinating. One of the things I realized several months ago (more than thirty years after it happened) was that after the initial kensho event/experience in 1984 that changed my understanding of reality so dramatically, my state of mind was exactly like that of Tolle after his "falling into the vortex" that he described in his book. His extremely altered state of mind apparently lasted for two years or more, during which time he spent a lot of each day just sitting on a park bench looking at the world. By contrast, I only stayed in that extremely altered state of mind for about three days before returning to a conventional sense of selfhood and a chattering intellect. E. made me realize that a useful distinction is the difference between a realization and an experience, though we still disagree about the nature of non-dual events such as kensho and deep samadhi. Satch posted a Ramana quote that cleared up something I had often wondered about, and Laffy, as well as all of the other posters here have at one time or another posted something that helped clarify an issue in some way. I've probably spent more time over the last three decades reflecting upon posts that appeared on this forum than on anything other than work-related issues. This group represents the one and only time in my life where I've actually been interested in what people other than co-workers or family have to say - about anything - on an ongoing and sustained basis.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 11, 2019 17:22:38 GMT -5
(** hangs head in shame **) i was joking a bit, but now wholly. You have taught me to look closely for objectivity and giraffes among other things. It's useful. if you ever campaign online for Sanders (or even Gabbard) , let me know, I'll come and lend a hand Thanks for the kind words andy. Me & Sue watching the dem debates: Sue: <criticizes Tulsi> Me: "how dare you say bad things about this fine American patriot! " ..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 11, 2019 17:26:37 GMT -5
This group represents the one and only time in my life where I've actually been interested in what people other than co-workers or family have to say - about anything - on an ongoing and sustained basis. heh heh .. yeah, like, whatever .. Reefs. Hey look, E' found a new dooooofus guy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2019 18:07:18 GMT -5
heh heh .. yeah, like, whatever .. Reefs. Hey look, E' found a new dooooofus guy. He looks too British to be a true doofus!!
|
|