|
Post by zendancer on Sept 13, 2021 14:31:10 GMT -5
Ok. I understand where you're coming from, but what if we kept things much much simpler than that? What if we simply looked at the world without any ideas of "objective," "subjective," "slice of time," "different modes of perception," etc? What I'm pointing to is beyond dualistic ideas of any kind, but I have to use words to point to it, so it's a bit tricky. Yesterday I drove to a construction project I'm working on in total mental silence. No thoughts at all were necessary for driving the car or looking at the world and understanding what was seen. The understanding was direct because there were no thoughts at all. This character can do that because it practiced shifting attention away from thoughts for many years, and now there are long periods of internal silence. There is awareness and awareness is aware that there are no thoughts at all. Anybody could learn to attain that kind of mental silence, but very few people are sufficiently curious about what the world would look like in mental silence to spend the time necessary to find out. Being able to function in total mental silence reveals how incomprehensibly intelligent reality is, and what we ARE is that intelligence manifesting in human form. When a human becomes detached from ideation, various realizations can occur. One of those realizations is that time and space are cognitive grids that the intellect imposes on reality, so they are meta-realities similar to lines of longitude and latitude, and they are not actual in any sense whatsoever. All other thoughts are exactly like that. In short, most humans see the map but not the territory, they see the menu but not the food. The search for absolute truth is often triggered by an intuitive sense that the consensus paradigm is in some way fundamentally flawed. Initially, it seems as if there is a separate volitional entity at the center of the search, but this is also an illusion, just like the illusion of time and space. What's actually happening is that Reality/Source/THIS/God, or whateverwewantocallit, wants to wake up in human form and see into it's true nature. As numerous cognitive illusions are seen through, more and more ideas are seen to be false, and eventually the mind/intellect understands its relative insignificance, and is put to rest. In the process, life becomes simpler and simpler, and ultimately it feels like returning to a child-like state of mind (while retaining full adult intellectual capability). Niz once told a seeker that he and the seeker lived in two different worlds. That's a pretty accurate summation of the situation. A sage lives in what we can call "the absolute non-dual world" whereas most people live in what we can call "the mind's dualistic relativistic world." Only one of those worlds is real. Some differences ... Thought is more than chatter. Chatter isn't useful; thought is. You see the existence of a physical world that you, or God experiences. There isn't such a physical world. Whatever you perceive is created by your subconscious; the same for everybody. "I" in your reality, is your creation; it isn't the same "I" that exist in my reality. They are connected, and may share or not some commonality function of what each one of us accepts at subconscious level (of which our awake-conscious isn't aware in most cases). You see silence, lack of thought as an achievement. I see it as an impossibility. You can't drive if you don't think. Chatter isn't thinking. Thinking is awareness. You can't be aware without thinking. Even a water molecule thinks, is aware, creates its version of reality. You see an achievement in simpler life. I see a betterment of existence in living lucidly, and expanding the "size" of the sliver of the wider-reality that I consciously perceive. " Niz once told a seeker that he and the seeker lived in two different worlds". I understand it as meaning exactly what I described. Everybody is conscious when awake only of a world his subconscious creates. Those worlds are different both in the sense that they don't overlap, they aren't "made" of the same "material", and in the sense that they differ in content, what I perceive has a different "form" and "content"; our physical perceptions are distortions of our individual and distinct realities created by each subconscious. This is valid for everything, down to the reality perceived by a particle. There is no objective reality, but an infinite number of individual virtual realities, of all "sizes". We all (from particle to human to further more) exist in the same universe of consciousness, from which we perceive whatever we are evolved enough to perceive, and create for our benefit representations we can deal with. We aren't alone in this but are individually guided by an infinite number of more evolved entities, for the purpose of evolving, but not of developing in the distorted terms of physical existence. We are here to practice and learn to consciously create reality from our perception of the wider-reality, and will keep returning until we evolve enough (master our emotions, develop "enough" our intellect and intuition, handle our inner senses). There is no purpose in the betterment of this physical world we experience, because it virtually exist in all its possible versions, the same way the reality of video-game exists. For some players their world is good, for others is bad, for some is a heaven, for others it gets destroyed. When you join it (get born) you can join it in any coordinates of time, space, probability, as it suits your purpose. I understand that you see things differently, and I just share my view with no intention to convince anybody, just present some alternate interpretation for what we experience, and suggest to anyone open to suggestions to tap into their individual inner source of knowledge and guidance, to interpret the symbolism of their perceptions through that. Getting rid of thought chatter and negative emotions is a first step into being able to understand what is beyond, and into tapping into our individual potential. One or two points. First, I do not see "a physical world;" I see "what is." "Is" is a verb, not a noun. You wrote, "You can't be aware without thinking." Anyone who is familiar with the state of NS knows that this is clearly not true. You wrote, "You see silence as an achievement." No, I have said that silence is not special and that anyone who is sufficiently curious can attain silence. I have also claimed that sustained silence is highly correlated with existential realizations. You wrote, "You can't drive if you don't think." Please review the exchange with Shadowplay. He calls the subconscious processes that underly intelligent action "mentation;" I prefer to call it subconscious mental processing." Same same. I was only stating that it's possible to drive a car or do a thousand other everyday activities without a "voice in the head." The Buddha called it "thinking that is not thinking." People define the word "thinking" quite differently. Some people refer to thinking as conscious mental speech, ideas, and images. Some people include subconscious mental processing. Some people include feelings. I fall into the category of people who define thinking as the conscious creation, projection and manipulation of ideas, images, and symbols. I do not include feelings or subconscious mental processing under the label of "thinking," but I certainly acknowledge that other people do.
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Sept 13, 2021 14:54:25 GMT -5
Even among the anointed, if they are honest, which is rare, you'd not gather a single mustard seed. The sh$t must be good. Enjoy. You're just slower than most. I understand.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 13, 2021 15:49:14 GMT -5
Some differences ... Thought is more than chatter. Chatter isn't useful; thought is. You see the existence of a physical world that you, or God experiences. There isn't such a physical world. Whatever you perceive is created by your subconscious; the same for everybody. "I" in your reality, is your creation; it isn't the same "I" that exist in my reality. They are connected, and may share or not some commonality function of what each one of us accepts at subconscious level (of which our awake-conscious isn't aware in most cases). You see silence, lack of thought as an achievement. I see it as an impossibility. You can't drive if you don't think. Chatter isn't thinking. Thinking is awareness. You can't be aware without thinking. Even a water molecule thinks, is aware, creates its version of reality. You see an achievement in simpler life. I see a betterment of existence in living lucidly, and expanding the "size" of the sliver of the wider-reality that I consciously perceive. " Niz once told a seeker that he and the seeker lived in two different worlds". I understand it as meaning exactly what I described. Everybody is conscious when awake only of a world his subconscious creates. Those worlds are different both in the sense that they don't overlap, they aren't "made" of the same "material", and in the sense that they differ in content, what I perceive has a different "form" and "content"; our physical perceptions are distortions of our individual and distinct realities created by each subconscious. This is valid for everything, down to the reality perceived by a particle. There is no objective reality, but an infinite number of individual virtual realities, of all "sizes". We all (from particle to human to further more) exist in the same universe of consciousness, from which we perceive whatever we are evolved enough to perceive, and create for our benefit representations we can deal with. We aren't alone in this but are individually guided by an infinite number of more evolved entities, for the purpose of evolving, but not of developing in the distorted terms of physical existence. We are here to practice and learn to consciously create reality from our perception of the wider-reality, and will keep returning until we evolve enough (master our emotions, develop "enough" our intellect and intuition, handle our inner senses). There is no purpose in the betterment of this physical world we experience, because it virtually exist in all its possible versions, the same way the reality of video-game exists. For some players their world is good, for others is bad, for some is a heaven, for others it gets destroyed. When you join it (get born) you can join it in any coordinates of time, space, probability, as it suits your purpose. I understand that you see things differently, and I just share my view with no intention to convince anybody, just present some alternate interpretation for what we experience, and suggest to anyone open to suggestions to tap into their individual inner source of knowledge and guidance, to interpret the symbolism of their perceptions through that. Getting rid of thought chatter and negative emotions is a first step into being able to understand what is beyond, and into tapping into our individual potential. One or two points. First, I do not see "a physical world;" I see "what is." "Is" is a verb, not a noun. You wrote, "You can't be aware without thinking." Anyone who is familiar with the state of NS knows that this is clearly not true. You wrote, "You see silence as an achievement." No, I have said that silence is not special and that anyone who is sufficiently curious can attain silence. I have also claimed that sustained silence is highly correlated with existential realizations. You wrote, "You can't drive if you don't think." Please review the exchange with Shadowplay. He calls the subconscious processes that underly intelligent action "mentation;" I prefer to call it subconscious mental processing." Same same. I was only stating that it's possible to drive a car or do a thousand other everyday activities without a "voice in the head." The Buddha called it "thinking that is not thinking." People define the word "thinking" quite differently. Some people refer to thinking as conscious mental speech, ideas, and images. Some people include subconscious mental processing. Some people include feelings. I fall into the category of people who define thinking as the conscious creation, projection and manipulation of ideas, images, and symbols. I do not include feelings or subconscious mental processing under the label of "thinking," but I certainly acknowledge that other people do. Thank you for your reply. We don't seem to be able to convey to each other what we intend to. I don't "mind".
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Sept 13, 2021 22:04:01 GMT -5
You're just slower than most. I understand. Sure, and I don't blame you for wanting to change the subject. The subject I changed from was what? The mustard seed reference is a common Buddhist tale regarding grief, suffering. Kisa Gotami.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 13, 2021 22:35:11 GMT -5
Let's recap: ND101: 1) there is only what you are, which in practical terms means... 2) there is no self and no others that are separate, there is only the appearance of a separate self and others, which means... 3) whatever such an appearance does or whatever happens to such an appearance as a separate volitional entity is not real. LOA101: 1) that which is like unto itself is drawn, which in practical terms means... 2) you get what you think about, whether you want it or not, which means... 3) the more you think about it the more active it is and the more active it is the more it comes to you and the more it comes to you the more you count it as evidence and the more you count it as evidence the more you believe it and the more you believe it the more you come to expect it – and you always get what you expect! (that was actually an A-H quote, hehe) Now, I hope you can see that Tolle's pain body makes no sense from either perspective. From the ND perspective it is unnecessary TMT, and from the LOA/deliberate creation perspective it is unnecessary self-torture. Because where both teachings agree is that suffering is optional. The difference is that from the ND perspective suffering is not real because the separate volitional entity that is believed to suffer is not real to begin with; and from the LOA/deliberate creation perspective suffering is not real because absolute well-being is the basis of this universe, aka our natural state. Which makes suffering just a really dumb personal choice, because you could as well believe in a well-being body and make that your truth, instead of believing in a pain body and make that your truth. Makes no difference to LOA. LOA will assist you in manifesting whatever truth you choose. So why choose hell on earth when you could as well choose heaven on earth? Some food for thought. There is a difference between: 1. Wallowing in pain, for the ego. This will attract more of the same, true. 2. Being honest about possible "negative" feelings or pain. Not to wallow, but to bring them into the light of consciousness, to let them be. They might transform or dissolve. I'm not sure if you acknowledge this difference. I suspect #2 can be done privately, without talking about much of anything. But it could also involve expressing feelings. I think Tolle was aimed at #2. If your point is that it too often becomes #1, okay, point taken. Jung talked about the "shadow". If repressed, the whole psyche suffers. Creativity and "positive" feelings can also dry up. You become fake. But of course you don't go seeking pain. If you have none, that's great! You mentioned Niz. He did talk about this. He talked about the pain of existence, despair (leading to earnestness), and about the unconscious becoming conscious and dissolving. Edit: I admit, I have too often done what you describe - been stuck in a negative cycle and attracted it to myself! So I don't mean to deny much of what you wrote! Of course I acknowledge that difference. Why do you think I keep annoying you guys with this emotional scale all the time?! Let's recap again: 1) The basic premise here is that absolute well-being is your natural state, which in practical terms means... 2) You don't have to do anything in order to be well, just stop hitting yourself with that hammer and the pain stops immediately, which means in general terms... 3) Being well does not require any effort, being in pain and suffering, however, does! Which means... 4) Analyzing your thoughts and feelings and trying to get to the bottom of any of these can be really counterproductive and just cause you to recreate your current state of misery over and over again, because... 5) You get what you think about, whether you want it or not and whether you are aware of it or not, and so... 5) The time to stop suffering is either NOW or never, which is why... 6) All great teachers teach meditation. Because that's how you drop the hammer. Right here, right now. In yoga they always say that an ounce of practice is worth more than tons of theory. And if you just for a couple of seconds, consciously recognizing and getting a taste of your true, natural state of being, that is worth more than thousands of hours of therapy deconstructing false beliefs or years of listening to gurus talk on youtube. And interestingly, total alignment, the natural state, or deep flow, that's actually where ND and deliberate creation meet. One does stress more the passive aspects of the natural state, the other more the active aspects of the natural state.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 13, 2021 22:55:59 GMT -5
Some differences ... Thought is more than chatter. Chatter isn't useful; thought is. You see the existence of a physical world that you, or God experiences. There isn't such a physical world. Whatever you perceive is created by your subconscious; the same for everybody. "I" in your reality, is your creation; it isn't the same "I" that exist in my reality. They are connected, and may share or not some commonality function of what each one of us accepts at subconscious level (of which our awake-conscious isn't aware in most cases). You see silence, lack of thought as an achievement. I see it as an impossibility. You can't drive if you don't think. Chatter isn't thinking. Thinking is awareness. You can't be aware without thinking. Even a water molecule thinks, is aware, creates its version of reality. You see an achievement in simpler life. I see a betterment of existence in living lucidly, and expanding the "size" of the sliver of the wider-reality that I consciously perceive. " Niz once told a seeker that he and the seeker lived in two different worlds". I understand it as meaning exactly what I described. Everybody is conscious when awake only of a world his subconscious creates. Those worlds are different both in the sense that they don't overlap, they aren't "made" of the same "material", and in the sense that they differ in content, what I perceive has a different "form" and "content"; our physical perceptions are distortions of our individual and distinct realities created by each subconscious. This is valid for everything, down to the reality perceived by a particle. There is no objective reality, but an infinite number of individual virtual realities, of all "sizes". We all (from particle to human to further more) exist in the same universe of consciousness, from which we perceive whatever we are evolved enough to perceive, and create for our benefit representations we can deal with. We aren't alone in this but are individually guided by an infinite number of more evolved entities, for the purpose of evolving, but not of developing in the distorted terms of physical existence. We are here to practice and learn to consciously create reality from our perception of the wider-reality, and will keep returning until we evolve enough (master our emotions, develop "enough" our intellect and intuition, handle our inner senses). There is no purpose in the betterment of this physical world we experience, because it virtually exist in all its possible versions, the same way the reality of video-game exists. For some players their world is good, for others is bad, for some is a heaven, for others it gets destroyed. When you join it (get born) you can join it in any coordinates of time, space, probability, as it suits your purpose. I understand that you see things differently, and I just share my view with no intention to convince anybody, just present some alternate interpretation for what we experience, and suggest to anyone open to suggestions to tap into their individual inner source of knowledge and guidance, to interpret the symbolism of their perceptions through that. Getting rid of thought chatter and negative emotions is a first step into being able to understand what is beyond, and into tapping into our individual potential. One or two points. First, I do not see "a physical world;" I see "what is." "Is" is a verb, not a noun. You wrote, "You can't be aware without thinking." Anyone who is familiar with the state of NS knows that this is clearly not true. You wrote, "You see silence as an achievement." No, I have said that silence is not special and that anyone who is sufficiently curious can attain silence. I have also claimed that sustained silence is highly correlated with existential realizations. You wrote, "You can't drive if you don't think." Please review the exchange with Shadowplay. He calls the subconscious processes that underly intelligent action "mentation;" I prefer to call it subconscious mental processing." Same same. I was only stating that it's possible to drive a car or do a thousand other everyday activities without a "voice in the head." The Buddha called it "thinking that is not thinking." People define the word "thinking" quite differently. Some people refer to thinking as conscious mental speech, ideas, and images. Some people include subconscious mental processing. Some people include feelings. I fall into the category of people who define thinking as the conscious creation, projection and manipulation of ideas, images, and symbols. I do not include feelings or subconscious mental processing under the label of "thinking," but I certainly acknowledge that other people do. Yea, to communicate we have to define words the same. This is agreeing with zd and so is mostly to inavalan. Most people don't use the word thinking for subconscious brain processing. Most people use the word thinking as symbolic abstractions (words) referring to objects in the world or other abstractions/words. IOW, we don't usually say: My brain was thinking...in reference to what goes on below conscious awareness. I prefer to call things the brain does below the conscious mind, cognition or brain processing. Many things you can take to a newborn baby to understand. Is a newborn baby thinking? No, they don't have symbolic representation via words. Is a baby sensing the world? Most assuredly. Does a baby have awareness? Most assuredly. Does a baby have attention? Most assuredly. Does a baby form memories? Most assuredly, that's how they eventually learn to talk. So a newborn baby has cognition, has brain processing, but does not yet have symbolic representation via words. And yes, mentation = words. So yes, using the definitions above, thinking via words is unnecessary for most of the things we do. We mostly need words for communicating with others. Once you realize words are just happening in your head and ~you~ are not thinking your own thoughts, most of the time, thought (as mind chatter) becomes very annoying. In my 20's I taught myself sensing (I began with ~watching~/sensing the movement of my legs while ice skating) to quiet destructive thoughts, to get some relief. Yes, thinking/speaking/reading is usually necessary for learning new tasks or new information, but not necessarily after one has learned. Example, in learning to drive a straight drive thinking via words is very helpful, listening to commands and then telling, in a certain sense, your legs and arms what to do and when to do, and you do it in a safe area, a parking lot or a side street. But once you have learned, you drop the words and just shift gears automatically, hands and feet having learned what to do. If you then tried to direct your arms and legs via thoughts, you world be much less efficient. Today, I would never say that thinking is necessary for awareness. I would never say you can't be aware without thinking. A newborn baby has a silent brain. I would never say in any sense that silence is impossible, not for some 45 years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2021 22:59:31 GMT -5
Of course I acknowledge that difference. Why do you think I keep annoying you guys with this emotional scale all the time?! Let's recap again: 1) The basic premise here is that absolute well-being is your natural state, which in practical terms means... 2) You don't have to do anything in order to be well, just stop hitting yourself with that hammer and the pain stops immediately, which means in general terms... 3) Being well does not require any effort, being in pain and suffering, however, does! Which means... 4) Analyzing your thoughts and feelings and trying to get to the bottom of any of these can be really counterproductive and just cause you to recreate your current state of misery over and over again, because... 5) You get what you think about, whether you want it or not and whether you are aware of it or not, and so... 5) The time to stop suffering is either NOW or never, which is why... 6) All great teachers teach meditation. Because that's how you drop the hammer. Right here, right now. In yoga they always say that an ounce of practice is worth more than tons of theory. And if you just for a couple of seconds, consciously recognizing and getting a taste of your true, natural state of being, that is worth more than thousands of hours of therapy deconstructing false beliefs or years of listening to gurus talk on youtube. And interestingly, total alignment, the natural state, or deep flow, that's actually where ND and deliberate creation meet. One does stress more the passive aspects of the natural state, the other more the active aspects of the natural state. Sounds good to me! That last paragraph reminds of a Niz quote I was pondering recently... Q: You are always stressing the cognition aspect of reality. You hardly ever mention affection, and will – never? M: Will, affection, bliss, striving and enjoying are so deeply tainted with the personal, that they cannot be trusted. The clarification and purification needed at the very start of the journey, only awareness can give. Love and will shall have their turn, but the ground must be prepared. The sun of awareness must rise first – all else will follow.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 13, 2021 23:59:29 GMT -5
One or two points. First, I do not see "a physical world;" I see "what is." "Is" is a verb, not a noun. You wrote, "You can't be aware without thinking." Anyone who is familiar with the state of NS knows that this is clearly not true. You wrote, "You see silence as an achievement." No, I have said that silence is not special and that anyone who is sufficiently curious can attain silence. I have also claimed that sustained silence is highly correlated with existential realizations. You wrote, "You can't drive if you don't think." Please review the exchange with Shadowplay. He calls the subconscious processes that underly intelligent action "mentation;" I prefer to call it subconscious mental processing." Same same. I was only stating that it's possible to drive a car or do a thousand other everyday activities without a "voice in the head." The Buddha called it "thinking that is not thinking." People define the word "thinking" quite differently. Some people refer to thinking as conscious mental speech, ideas, and images. Some people include subconscious mental processing. Some people include feelings. I fall into the category of people who define thinking as the conscious creation, projection and manipulation of ideas, images, and symbols. I do not include feelings or subconscious mental processing under the label of "thinking," but I certainly acknowledge that other people do. Yea, to communicate we have to define words the same. This is agreeing with zd and so is mostly to inavalan. Most people don't use the word thinking for subconscious brain processing. Most people use the word thinking as symbolic abstractions (words) referring to objects in the world or other abstractions/words. IOW, we don't usually say: My brain was thinking...in reference to what goes on below conscious awareness. I prefer to call things the brain does below the conscious mind, cognition or brain processing. Many things you can take to a newborn baby to understand. Is a newborn baby thinking? No, they don't have symbolic representation via words. Is a baby sensing the world? Most assuredly. Does a baby have awareness? Most assuredly. Does a baby have attention? Most assuredly. Does a baby form memories? Most assuredly, that's how they eventually learn to talk. So a newborn baby has cognition, has brain processing, but does not yet have symbolic representation via words. And yes, mentation = words. So yes, using the definitions above, thinking via words is unnecessary for most of the things we do. We mostly need words for communicating with others. Once you realize words are just happening in your head and ~you~ are not thinking your own thoughts, most of the time, thought (as mind chatter) becomes very annoying. In my 20's I taught myself sensing (I began with ~watching~/sensing the movement of my legs while ice skating) to quiet destructive thoughts, to get some relief. Yes, thinking/speaking/reading is usually necessary for learning new tasks or new information, but not necessarily after one has learned. Example, in learning to drive a straight drive thinking via words is very helpful, listening to commands and then telling, in a certain sense, your legs and arms what to do and when to do, and you do it in a safe area, a parking lot or a side street. But once you have learned, you drop the words and just shift gears automatically, hands and feet having learned what to do. If you then tried to direct your arms and legs via thoughts, you world be much less efficient. Today, I would never say that thinking is necessary for awareness. I would never say you can't be aware without thinking. A newborn baby has a silent brain. I would never say in any sense that silence is impossible, not for some 45 years. "Most people don't use the word thinking for subconscious brain processing" ... It is a misinterpretation of what I said. I don't believe I said that. Can you point where I said it to clarify? "My brain was thinking" ... We don't think with our brains, but with our minds. If by "mind" you and zd understand subconscious, that is an error. The conscious awareness isn't in the brain. It seems that you and zd still keep interpreting what I describe from the position that there is an objective physical world. I deny that. We don't think with our brains at any level; we don't sense anything with our physical senses. Those process happen at an inner level, which isn't the subconscious, but the conscious, that can be in various states of consciousness. We don't communicate with others at word level. There is no other that has direct access to my reality. "I would never say that thinking is necessary for awareness" ... Thinking is awareness. There is no thinking outside awareness. Chattering is at awareness level too. "A newborn baby has a silent brain" ... Neither a newborn, nor an animal, plant, pebble are "silent". They are aware, so they are thinking. It is obvious that we don't communicate, because we view reality differently. I'll give you another example, of seeing things differently. Monks of all denominations adopt an ascetic life. Why? Because of a misinterpretation. The same one for which some seekers believe that suffering is necessary. It is not. The entities that keep incarnating get an emotional attachment to the physical world (family, friends, ...). When they eventually are in the position to graduate, and don't need to reincarnate, they could experience an withdrawal syndrome. That is why they choose for their last incarnation a life that is lonelier, with less satisfaction, pleasure, love, ... Like when a tv series you enjoyed ends. People got a glimpse of that situation, and misinterpreted that suffering leads to ascensions, or such. It doesn't. Like in that saying: " donkeys are asses, but not all asses are donkeys". (neither confirm nor deny any political inference) So, there are entities that incarnate as monks for their last incarnation, although mostly don't, because religious fervor is a symptom of lower evolvement. Most of those monks endure ascetic lives with no benefit for their evolvemnt. Again, my position, from which I interpret everything, is that there is no objective physical reality, and that what each one of us experiences when awake and conscious is a subjective reality created by their own subconscious. That reality is a distorted perception of the wider-reality, which is "made-of" consciousness only.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 14, 2021 4:48:07 GMT -5
Even among the anointed, if they are honest, which is rare, you'd not gather a single mustard seed. Have you ever imagined what it would be like to be a Catholic priest? You perform the exact same ritual every single day, probly multiple times on Sunday. Did you know they have to drink the dregs of the communion cup because otherwise they'd be spilling the blood of Christ? You're the center of attention, dressed in these outlandish anachronistic robes, you can't have sex much less a wife, and all these people come to you unloading all their baggage, and you tell them you've got the ultimate answer. If you can imagine a greater test of faith I'd be interested in hearing it. .. is it any wonder that so many of them fail it?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 14, 2021 5:30:12 GMT -5
Sure, and I don't blame you for wanting to change the subject. The subject I changed from was what? The mustard seed reference is a common Buddhist tale regarding grief, suffering. Kisa Gotami. So it seems that "cultural misappropriation" has been a thing for quite some time now. A mother's grief for their son or daughter though, is quite singular.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 14, 2021 5:34:57 GMT -5
Of course I acknowledge that difference. Why do you think I keep annoying you guys with this emotional scale all the time?! Let's recap again: 1) The basic premise here is that absolute well-being is your natural state, which in practical terms means... 2) You don't have to do anything in order to be well, just stop hitting yourself with that hammer and the pain stops immediately, which means in general terms... 3) Being well does not require any effort, being in pain and suffering, however, does! Which means... 4) Analyzing your thoughts and feelings and trying to get to the bottom of any of these can be really counterproductive and just cause you to recreate your current state of misery over and over again, because... 5) You get what you think about, whether you want it or not and whether you are aware of it or not, and so... 5) The time to stop suffering is either NOW or never, which is why... 6) All great teachers teach meditation. Because that's how you drop the hammer. Right here, right now. In yoga they always say that an ounce of practice is worth more than tons of theory. And if you just for a couple of seconds, consciously recognizing and getting a taste of your true, natural state of being, that is worth more than thousands of hours of therapy deconstructing false beliefs or years of listening to gurus talk on youtube. And interestingly, total alignment, the natural state, or deep flow, that's actually where ND and deliberate creation meet. One does stress more the passive aspects of the natural state, the other more the active aspects of the natural state. Sounds good to me! That last paragraph reminds of a Niz quote I was pondering recently... Q: You are always stressing the cognition aspect of reality. You hardly ever mention affection, and will – never? M: Will, affection, bliss, striving and enjoying are so deeply tainted with the personal, that they cannot be trusted. The clarification and purification needed at the very start of the journey, only awareness can give. Love and will shall have their turn, but the ground must be prepared. The sun of awareness must rise first – all else will follow. Yeah, that was pretty clear, weren't it?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 14, 2021 5:55:56 GMT -5
Yea, to communicate we have to define words the same. This is agreeing with zd and so is mostly to inavalan. Most people don't use the word thinking for subconscious brain processing. Most people use the word thinking as symbolic abstractions (words) referring to objects in the world or other abstractions/words. IOW, we don't usually say: My brain was thinking...in reference to what goes on below conscious awareness. I prefer to call things the brain does below the conscious mind, cognition or brain processing. Many things you can take to a newborn baby to understand. Is a newborn baby thinking? No, they don't have symbolic representation via words. Is a baby sensing the world? Most assuredly. Does a baby have awareness? Most assuredly. Does a baby have attention? Most assuredly. Does a baby form memories? Most assuredly, that's how they eventually learn to talk. So a newborn baby has cognition, has brain processing, but does not yet have symbolic representation via words. And yes, mentation = words. So yes, using the definitions above, thinking via words is unnecessary for most of the things we do. We mostly need words for communicating with others. Once you realize words are just happening in your head and ~you~ are not thinking your own thoughts, most of the time, thought (as mind chatter) becomes very annoying. In my 20's I taught myself sensing (I began with ~watching~/sensing the movement of my legs while ice skating) to quiet destructive thoughts, to get some relief. Yes, thinking/speaking/reading is usually necessary for learning new tasks or new information, but not necessarily after one has learned. Example, in learning to drive a straight drive thinking via words is very helpful, listening to commands and then telling, in a certain sense, your legs and arms what to do and when to do, and you do it in a safe area, a parking lot or a side street. But once you have learned, you drop the words and just shift gears automatically, hands and feet having learned what to do. If you then tried to direct your arms and legs via thoughts, you world be much less efficient. Today, I would never say that thinking is necessary for awareness. I would never say you can't be aware without thinking. A newborn baby has a silent brain. I would never say in any sense that silence is impossible, not for some 45 years. "Most people don't use the word thinking for subconscious brain processing" ... It is a misinterpretation of what I said. I don't believe I said that. Can you point where I said it to clarify? "My brain was thinking" ... We don't think with our brains, but with our minds. If by "mind" you and zd understand subconscious, that is an error. The conscious awareness isn't in the brain. It seems that you and zd still keep interpreting what I describe from the position that there is an objective physical world. I deny that. We don't think with our brains at any level; we don't sense anything with our physical senses. Those process happen at an inner level, which isn't the subconscious, but the conscious, that can be in various states of consciousness. We don't communicate with others at word level. There is no other that has direct access to my reality. "I would never say that thinking is necessary for awareness" ... Thinking is awareness. There is no thinking outside awareness. Chattering is at awareness level too. "A newborn baby has a silent brain" ... Neither a newborn, nor an animal, plant, pebble are "silent". They are aware, so they are thinking. It is obvious that we don't communicate, because we view reality differently. I'll give you another example, of seeing things differently. Monks of all denominations adopt an ascetic life. Why? Because of a misinterpretation. The same one for which some seekers believe that suffering is necessary. It is not. The entities that keep incarnating get an emotional attachment to the physical world (family, friends, ...). When they eventually are in the position to graduate, and don't need to reincarnate, they could experience an withdrawal syndrome. That is why they choose for their last incarnation a life that is lonelier, with less satisfaction, pleasure, love, ... Like when a tv series you enjoyed ends. People got a glimpse of that situation, and misinterpreted that suffering leads to ascensions, or such. It doesn't. Like in that saying: " donkeys are asses, but not all asses are donkeys". (neither confirm nor deny any political inference) So, there are entities that incarnate as monks for their last incarnation, although mostly don't, because religious fervor is a symptom of lower evolvement. Most of those monks endure ascetic lives with no benefit for their evolvemnt. Again, my position, from which I interpret everything, is that there is no objective physical reality, and that what each one of us experiences when awake and conscious is a subjective reality created by their own subconscious. That reality is a distorted perception of the wider-reality, which is "made-of" consciousness only. "Thinking is awareness." That's a definition of thinking that I've only heard one other poster express here. Most people would say, "There is awareness OF thinking or awareness OF thought," which would indicate that awareness is prior to thought, and that thoughts appear in awareness. Most sages state that rather explicitly. Niz commented on this by saying, "You can have awareness without thought, but not thought without awareness." He, Ramana, and a host of other sages have described NS as "the deepest state" because it's a state of pure awareness with neither perception nor thought. Your definition makes it pretty clear that there's no possibility for communication about that particular topic. I would guess that SDP's definition of the word "thinking" is the most commonly accepted definition by the general public and certainly the one that most posters on this forum base their comments on. BTW, just to set the record straight, you keep stating that I believe in an "objective physical reality." I suspect that many posters on this forum, as well as myself, do not think or believe that. There is a basic realization in ND that the observer and the observed are one and the same, and that any idea of twoness or separation is false. That pretty much eliminates the idea of an objective physical reality. Zen people deal with that idea in the same way that they deal with all ideas--by showing students how to communicate existential understanding without having to use words or thinking ("thinking" as defined in the way that SDP defined it).
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 14, 2021 6:02:44 GMT -5
BTW, just to set the record straight, you keep stating that I believe in an "objective physical reality." I suspect that many posters on this forum, as well as myself, do not think or believe that. There is a basic realization in ND that the observer and the observed are one and the same, and that any idea of twoness or separation is false. That pretty much eliminates the idea of an objective physical reality. Zen people deal with that idea in the same way that they deal with all ideas--by showing students how to communicate existential understanding without having to use words or thinking ("thinking" as defined in the way that SDP defined it). I was going to comment on this as well (and actually deleted a post), but then I realized that what inavalen wrote, specifically, was that his perception was that you interpret what he describes "from the position that there is an objective physical world". Sorry, I know this is involved. It's a complicated distinction, but not quite a subtle one: he thinks that you think that he thinks there's an objective, physical world.
|
|
|
Post by japhy on Sept 14, 2021 8:00:14 GMT -5
Sure, and I don't blame you for wanting to change the subject. The subject I changed from was what? The mustard seed reference is a common Buddhist tale regarding grief, suffering. Kisa Gotami. A white wave washes the beach. Suffering is the opposite of practice. Deep down roars the lion like a goat. Ramana, Niz and Tolle drink a beer. One of them is a gnome. The actual attends the seeker. A pilgrim walks through barren lands. Forgotten where he came from. The world is the body of the monk. Zazeniac sits smiling in the corner. What is Buddha? Three pounds of weed.
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Sept 14, 2021 8:04:59 GMT -5
The subject I changed from was what? The mustard seed reference is a common Buddhist tale regarding grief, suffering. Kisa Gotami. So it seems that "cultural misappropriation" has been a thing for quite some time now. A mother's grief for their son or daughter though, is quite singular. Cultural misappropriation is a ridiculous notion. Who invented basketball? I remember eating at a Cuban restaurant run by two non Cuban gay men. They did Cuban better than my mom which is saying a lot. I found it flattering and interesting. But I don't get your point. Is the mustard seed reference taken from the Bible or vice versa or are you smoking some good sh$t nowadays? ... Oh I get it now. I'm appropriating the story, but I call myself a Buddhist some times. See I'm slower than even farmer.
|
|