Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2021 8:47:54 GMT -5
Would you explain what you mean by that, and what does that imply for you? Only now really functionally exists. I don't go so far as to say there is no past or no future. Say you are moving down a road to take a right at the next crossroads. You can't turn until you get to the crossroads. You can't turn until it's now at the crossroads. On the way you can think about turning, after you have turned you can remember turning, but you can't turn until you are actually at the crossroads. That's what I mean by the functionality of now. I subscribe to Buddha's two truths, there is relative truth, functioning in the world. But there is the absolute truth. Most people here (the ND bunch) deny relative truth, the functionality of relative truth. They say the only truth is Wholeness "operating", being, doing, manifesting. For me this is an error. I have given as analogy an hourglass. The narrow opening that lets only a little sand through is the person, the Whole acts through a mind-body. zd says no, it's only ever the Whole which acts. The two truths is a better map of how the universe works (IMO). Zd is correct. Acting half heartedly brings about nothing-afresh. Understanding ones own Being is important. Nature is being, most humans being lodged in their cranium. Nature has no brain yet flows through seasons fruiting at the right time. After studying a complex situation, creative architects (having taken a clients brief into their mind) returns to the centre of gravity to do their work/play and the complex design is resolved magically.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 17, 2021 10:12:46 GMT -5
Only now really functionally exists. I don't go so far as to say there is no past or no future. Say you are moving down a road to take a right at the next crossroads. You can't turn until you get to the crossroads. You can't turn until it's now at the crossroads. On the way you can think about turning, after you have turned you can remember turning, but you can't turn until you are actually at the crossroads. That's what I mean by the functionality of now. I subscribe to Buddha's two truths, there is relative truth, functioning in the world. But there is the absolute truth. Most people here (the ND bunch) deny relative truth, the functionality of relative truth. They say the only truth is Wholeness "operating", being, doing, manifesting. For me this is an error. I have given as analogy an hourglass. The narrow opening that lets only a little sand through is the person, the Whole acts through a mind-body. zd says no, it's only ever the Whole which acts. The two truths is a better map of how the universe works (IMO). Zd is correct. Acting half heartedly brings about nothing-afresh. Understanding ones own Being is important. Nature is being, most humans being lodged in their cranium. Nature has no brain yet flows through seasons fruiting at the right time. After studying a complex situation, creative architects (having taken a clients brief into their mind) returns to the centre of gravity to do their work/play and the complex design is resolved magically. Yes. Seeing anybody who does their job well is a beautiful thing. The more complex the job the more beautiful. feelingbuddhaful.com/chuang-tzu-story/
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2021 11:31:40 GMT -5
This is a relative, functional understanding of "now", based on the relationship of time to space. It is as insightful as it is also simple common sense, and has some elegant and fascinating mathematical expression, and counterintuitive physical fact, as well. But, it's one of Plato's shadows. Now - as in the here and now that some folks point to - is transcendent of time. It is non-relative, and can only be pointed to. The moment is eternal, as it takes the entirety of eternity and all of creation to conspire to even the most subtle, fleeting and seemingly inconsequential sensation. Yes, agree, last paragraph. To simplify, All That Is, is a cross, the vertical and the horizontal, simultaneously. The horizontal is a movement in time, most humans know only-time. But eternity is always vertically infinite to each passing moment of time. Our Now is where the vertical and horizontal meet. you and your godd@mned models!
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 17, 2021 11:38:08 GMT -5
Yes, agree, last paragraph. To simplify, All That Is, is a cross, the vertical and the horizontal, simultaneously. The horizontal is a movement in time, most humans know only-time. But eternity is always vertically infinite to each passing moment of time. Our Now is where the vertical and horizontal meet. you and your godd@mned models! :-) To a flatland-er 3D is eternity.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 17, 2021 11:58:18 GMT -5
He talks about attributes: emotions, niceties, ... Anyway, I think you're saying that before, or behind a something there is a nothing (something without attributes, which in my opinion means nothing; if it has an awareness then it is something). So, I don't think so. I think there is an eternal "something", and there is no "nothing" Everything is consciousness. There isn't such a thing as "no-consciousness". Consciousness isn't a state, but a "material". Like about this world. There is no "nothing before it": from the first moment it was "something". Like you can't say that there was nothing before a certain thought popped-up. There is consciousness that is influenced / "shaped" by thoughts, that change. No. Consciousness is not a thing or a material. That's just how the intellect conceptualizes it. So by definition, the intellect can never understand consciousness. And when we talk about nothingness, we don't mean nothing in the dictionary sense, we mean no-thingness. So you need to understand what thingness means first, you need to realize what a thing is. And in order to understand thingness, you need to understand what objectification means. Then you will understand what no-thingness is pointing to, i.e. that which cannot be objectified (or thingy-fied). And since the intellect and language can't do anything but objectify, it therefore follows that by means of language and intellect, no-thingness can never be grasped. So give it up already! Ok. I think I made my point. As I stated before, I see no point in arguing.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2021 12:09:08 GMT -5
you and your godd@mned models! :-) To a flatland-er 3D is eternity. Not so much really. If you were 4-d (assuming a 3rd spatial) you could vanish and re-appear and you'd be able to see inside structures .. but, you'd still be a bounded entity.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 17, 2021 12:12:03 GMT -5
Would you explain what you mean by that, and what does that imply for you? Only now really functionally exists. I don't go so far as to say there is no past or no future. Say you are moving down a road to take a right at the next crossroads. You can't turn until you get to the crossroads. You can't turn until it's now at the crossroads. On the way you can think about turning, after you have turned you can remember turning, but you can't turn until you are actually at the crossroads. That's what I mean by the functionality of now. I subscribe to Buddha's two truths, there is relative truth, functioning in the world. But there is the absolute truth. Most people here (the ND bunch) deny relative truth, the functionality of relative truth. They say the only truth is Wholeness "operating", being, doing, manifesting. For me this is an error. I have given as analogy an hourglass. The narrow opening that lets only a little sand through is the person, the Whole acts through a mind-body. zd says no, it's only ever the Whole which acts. The two truths is a better map of how the universe works (IMO). All thoughts are dualistic and therefore relativistic, but for those who can grok the absolute truth, it will be seen that life is one-with THIS and that the absolute manifests as that which is imagined to be relative. The other morning I was driving to a construction site in mental silence (no voice in the head). No thoughts were necessary for driving the car or understanding (gnosis rather than episteme) what was seen. No thoughts were necessary for turning onto the correct roads, stopping at stop signs, and doing the trillions of things that a human body must do to intelligently and appropriately function. No reflective or reflexive thoughts were necessary for foreseeing anything, remembering anything, analyzing anything, or speculating about anything. Everyone functions like this throughout the day, but thoughts about the nature of reality and an incessant internal dialogue obscure the obvious. Bankei told people that they are all born with "The Unborn Buddha mind." He could just as well have called it "Absolute Intelligence." Bankei, of course, made a big mistake when he told people that they are born with anything because his statement implies that there is a someone who is born and a someone who has something. Haha. Anyone who looks deeply enough will see that twoness of any kind is an illusion. Twoness is solely a construct of imagination.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 17, 2021 12:51:31 GMT -5
you and your godd@mned models! :-) To a flatland-er 3D is eternity. The 3D is a crutch, horse blinders, or more correctly put: training wheels; as time is too. Eventually we won't need them to not get off the reservation.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 17, 2021 16:07:38 GMT -5
Only now really functionally exists. I don't go so far as to say there is no past or no future. Say you are moving down a road to take a right at the next crossroads. You can't turn until you get to the crossroads. You can't turn until it's now at the crossroads. On the way you can think about turning, after you have turned you can remember turning, but you can't turn until you are actually at the crossroads. That's what I mean by the functionality of now. I subscribe to Buddha's two truths, there is relative truth, functioning in the world. But there is the absolute truth. Most people here (the ND bunch) deny relative truth, the functionality of relative truth. They say the only truth is Wholeness "operating", being, doing, manifesting. For me this is an error. I have given as analogy an hourglass. The narrow opening that lets only a little sand through is the person, the Whole acts through a mind-body. zd says no, it's only ever the Whole which acts. The two truths is a better map of how the universe works (IMO). All thoughts are dualistic and therefore relativistic, but for those who can grok the absolute truth, it will be seen that life is one-with THIS and that the absolute manifests as that which is imagined as relative. The other morning I was driving to a construction site in mental silence (no voice in the head). No thoughts were necessary for driving the car or understanding (gnosis rather than episteme) what was seen. No thoughts were necessary for turning onto the correct roads, stopping at stop signs, and doing the trillions of things that a human body must do to intelligently and appropriately function. No reflective or reflexive thoughts were necessary for foreseeing anything, remembering anything, analyzing anything, or speculating about anything. Everyone functions like this throughout the day, but thoughts about the nature of reality and an incessant internal dialogue obscure the obvious. Bankei told people that they are all born with "The Unborn Buddha mind." He could just as well have called it "Absolute Intelligence." Bankei, of course, made a big mistake when he told people that they are born with anything because his statement implies that there is a someone who is born and a someone who has something. Haha. Anyone who looks deeply enough will see that twoness of any kind is an illusion. Twoness is solely a construct of imagination. But you could not have passed your contractors test to get your contractors license without conceptual relativistic truth, you could have earned a living. Yes? No? Could you direct your subs without language? Could you build a house without plans? (assuming you can't do all the work yourself). Could you go for a week with talking to your wife? No. Nobody can function in life (unless they are rich and can pay others to do necessary stuff like shopping) without relativistic truth, some conceptual dialogue. You couldn't have written your post to me without relativistic truth. If you isolate a child from learning language and interacting with people where relativistic truth is necessary, you'd pretty-much create a vegetable. The imaginary self is not a unicorn (like a unicorn is an imaginary creature, on earth anyway).
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 17, 2021 16:35:33 GMT -5
All thoughts are dualistic and therefore relativistic, but for those who can grok the absolute truth, it will be seen that life is one-with THIS and that the absolute manifests as that which is imagined as relative. The other morning I was driving to a construction site in mental silence (no voice in the head). No thoughts were necessary for driving the car or understanding (gnosis rather than episteme) what was seen. No thoughts were necessary for turning onto the correct roads, stopping at stop signs, and doing the trillions of things that a human body must do to intelligently and appropriately function. No reflective or reflexive thoughts were necessary for foreseeing anything, remembering anything, analyzing anything, or speculating about anything. Everyone functions like this throughout the day, but thoughts about the nature of reality and an incessant internal dialogue obscure the obvious. Bankei told people that they are all born with "The Unborn Buddha mind." He could just as well have called it "Absolute Intelligence." Bankei, of course, made a big mistake when he told people that they are born with anything because his statement implies that there is a someone who is born and a someone who has something. Haha. Anyone who looks deeply enough will see that twoness of any kind is an illusion. Twoness is solely a construct of imagination. But you could not have passed your contractors test to get your contractors license without conceptual relativistic truth, you could have earned a living. Yes? No? Could you direct your subs without language? Could you build a house without plans? (assuming you can't do all the work yourself). Could you go for a week with talking to your wife? No. Nobody can function in life (unless they are rich and can pay others to do necessary stuff like shopping) without relativistic truth, some conceptual dialogue. You couldn't have written your post to me without relativistic truth. If you isolate a child from learning language and interacting with people where relativistic truth is necessary, you'd pretty-much create a vegetable. The imaginary self is not a unicorn (like a unicorn is an imaginary creature, on earth anyway). The imaginary self is, indeed, exactly like a unicorn. Mindtalk is NOT necessary for shopping for groceries or functioning intelligently. That was my point. Norio Kushi, the author of "Awake at the Wheel," drives a semi for a living. Shortly before he woke up he became curious about the space between thoughts. The more he watched those spaces, the greater they became, until suddenly, all thought totally stopped. He then lived in a thought-free state of mind for two weeks. During that period of time he drove a semi all over the country, made deliveries, picked up loads, etc, in total mental silence. After two weeks of silence, there was suddenly a big realization. In his words, he realized, "I don't exist." He wasn't referring to the body. He was referring to suddenly seeing through the illusion of the SVP, and in his book he called that realization, "the cosmic joke." His life story is pretty fascinating, and his book is a good read. He probably has interviews on the web, so check him out.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 17, 2021 16:45:26 GMT -5
But you could not have passed your contractors test to get your contractors license without conceptual relativistic truth, you could have earned a living. Yes? No? Could you direct your subs without language? Could you build a house without plans? (assuming you can't do all the work yourself). Could you go for a week with talking to your wife? No. Nobody can function in life (unless they are rich and can pay others to do necessary stuff like shopping) without relativistic truth, some conceptual dialogue. You couldn't have written your post to me without relativistic truth. If you isolate a child from learning language and interacting with people where relativistic truth is necessary, you'd pretty-much create a vegetable. The imaginary self is not a unicorn (like a unicorn is an imaginary creature, on earth anyway). The imaginary self is, indeed, exactly like a unicorn. Mindtalk is NOT necessary for shopping for groceries or functioning intelligently. That was my point. Norio Kushi, the author of "Awake at the Wheel," drives a semi for a living. Shortly before he woke up he became curious about the space between thoughts. The more he watched those spaces, the greater they became, until suddenly, all thought totally stopped. He then lived in a thought-free state of mind for two weeks. During that period of time he drove a semi all over the country, made deliveries, picked up loads, etc, in total mental silence. After two weeks of silence, there was suddenly a big realization. In his words, he realized, "I don't exist." He wasn't referring to the body. He was referring to suddenly seeing through the illusion of the SVP, and in his book he called that realization, "the cosmic joke." His life story is pretty fascinating, and his book is a good read. He probably has interviews on the web, so check him out. I don't deny any of that. You didn't reply to my pertinent points (basically, communicating with others and learning certain things, abstract language is necessary).
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 17, 2021 16:56:28 GMT -5
I don't deny any of that. You didn't reply to my pertinent points (basically, communicating with others and learning certain things, abstract language is necessary). When in Rome, do as the Romans do ...
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 17, 2021 17:06:20 GMT -5
The imaginary self is, indeed, exactly like a unicorn. Mindtalk is NOT necessary for shopping for groceries or functioning intelligently. That was my point. Norio Kushi, the author of "Awake at the Wheel," drives a semi for a living. Shortly before he woke up he became curious about the space between thoughts. The more he watched those spaces, the greater they became, until suddenly, all thought totally stopped. He then lived in a thought-free state of mind for two weeks. During that period of time he drove a semi all over the country, made deliveries, picked up loads, etc, in total mental silence. After two weeks of silence, there was suddenly a big realization. In his words, he realized, "I don't exist." He wasn't referring to the body. He was referring to suddenly seeing through the illusion of the SVP, and in his book he called that realization, "the cosmic joke." His life story is pretty fascinating, and his book is a good read. He probably has interviews on the web, so check him out. I don't deny any of that. You didn't reply to my pertinent points (basically, communicating with others and learning certain things, abstract language is necessary). It depends upon what things you're talking about. I actually built my first home totally without plans, and I've been building a lot of the current one without plans. Yes, it is possible to communicate with other people without abstract language, and in Zen interviews that is the dominant mode of communication-direct and unmediated by thoughts. In fact, Zen teachers begin by telling students to "leave your thinking mind at the door of the interview room and only bring your ''before-thinking mind here." Little children learn without abstract language, and we adults do also. Little children even learn the language of their culture primarily without abstract thought. Are there activities and subject matters where abstract thought and symbology are necessary or useful? Of course, but even in those areas a great deal of learning is intuitive or direct. I'm not denying that humans are conditioned to make abstract distinctions by their social environment, but those distinctions are both a blessing and a curse. As a curse they mesmerize people into thinking that they are separate volitional subjects in a world of separate objective objects, and none of that is true.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 17, 2021 18:03:36 GMT -5
I don't deny any of that. You didn't reply to my pertinent points (basically, communicating with others and learning certain things, abstract language is necessary). It depends upon what things you're talking about. I actually built my first home totally without plans, and I've been building a lot of the current one without plans. Yes, it is possible to communicate with other people without abstract language, and in Zen interviews that is the dominant mode of communication-direct and unmediated by thoughts. In fact, Zen teachers begin by telling students to "leave your thinking mind at the door of the interview room and only bring your ''before-thinking mind here." Little children learn without abstract language, and we adults do also. Little children even learn the language of their culture primarily without abstract thought. Are there activities and subject matters where abstract thought and symbology are necessary or useful? Of course, but even in those areas a great deal of learning is intuitive or direct. I'm not denying that humans are conditioned to make abstract distinctions by their social environment, but those distinctions are both a blessing and a curse. As a curse they mesmerize people into thinking that they are separate volitional subjects in a world of separate objective objects, and none of that is true. Can you build a house without a measuring tape (numbers are abstractions)? Can you buy groceries without knowing the value of dollars? (money is an abstraction). Could you pay your electric bill without numbers? (Your meter tells the electric company how much electricity you used). (Almost) nobody could live for a week without abstractions, relative truth. Your truck driver had to know the value of money to buy food and gas. J Krishnamurti was the best at describing the utility of knowledge versus the chains of unnecessary self-centered-reflection.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 17, 2021 23:13:31 GMT -5
No. Consciousness is not a thing or a material. That's just how the intellect conceptualizes it. So by definition, the intellect can never understand consciousness. And when we talk about nothingness, we don't mean nothing in the dictionary sense, we mean no-thingness. So you need to understand what thingness means first, you need to realize what a thing is. And in order to understand thingness, you need to understand what objectification means. Then you will understand what no-thingness is pointing to, i.e. that which cannot be objectified (or thingy-fied). And since the intellect and language can't do anything but objectify, it therefore follows that by means of language and intellect, no-thingness can never be grasped. So give it up already! Ok. I think I made my point. As I stated before, I see no point in arguing. That's called preaching.
|
|