|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2021 6:51:57 GMT -5
Investigating Consciousness after the five senses have been retracted-back into the pineal is a interesting to explore inavalan. Are you an explorer?Absolutely! But Inavalan behaves a bit like scared fish in a pond. And that eternal elusiveness keeps one fascinated only for so long, until there are other, more rewarding objects of attention. Ahhhh the good 'ole days when we used to post pics of moths and candles to figandrew.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 18, 2021 6:59:48 GMT -5
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. So, you can describe the act of taking the measurement with the tape, but that's after the fact. In the action, there needn't be any thought, just the doing. In fact, the quieter the mind, the more accurate the cut. Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 18, 2021 7:18:52 GMT -5
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. This has nothing to do with different categories of thought (ie. "self-centered-reflection" versus other kinds of thoughts). You seem like a super-nice guy, but you also seem to have no reference for life lived without reflective thoughts of any kind. All of your questions reflect a kind of super-attachment to ideas that are all part of the consensus paradigm. "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." These statements reveal a total lack of understanding about what's being pointed to. Most of us have never denied that there's what we might call "subconscious mental processing" occurring when the intellect is totally silent, but abstract thought? None at all. Shadowplay posted a good example a day or so ago. He suggested picturing Elvis riding on a pink elephant, and then shifting attention to your left hand. All of us can see the difference between seeing images in the mind and seeing "what is" without images, but what if attention stayed on the left hand, and then shifted to other aspects of the actual, and then stayed focused on the actual without ever returning to images, ideas, or symbols in the mind? No imagining at all. No abstractions. No thinking. Life would continue in silence, and what we are would continue to function intelligently with no abstractions whatsoever. That's what's being pointed to.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 18, 2021 8:31:54 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 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. As this was dropped with your last post, I came back to this. I should have stopped here, this was an admission that you accept the two truths taught by Buddha. I got stuck on your use of imaginary, I should have stayed with the accepted definition here (ST's), something that is not what we think it is.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 18, 2021 8:45:18 GMT -5
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. This has nothing to do with different categories of thought (ie. "self-centered-reflection" versus other kinds of thoughts). You seem like a super-nice guy, but you also seem to have no reference for life lived without reflective thoughts of any kind. All of your questions reflect a kind of super-attachment to ideas that are all part of the consensus paradigm. "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." These statements reveal a total lack of understanding about what's being pointed to. Most of us have never denied that there's what we might call "subconscious mental processing" occurring when the intellect is totally silent, but abstract thought? None at all. Shadowplay posted a good example a day or so ago. He suggested picturing Elvis riding on a pink elephant, and then shifting attention to your left hand. All of us can see the difference between seeing images in the mind and seeing "what is" without images, but what if attention stayed on the left hand, and then shifted to other aspects of the actual, and then stayed focused on the actual without ever returning to images, ideas, or symbols in the mind? No imagining at all. No abstractions. No thinking. Life would continue in silence, and what we are would continue to function intelligently with no abstractions whatsoever. That's what's being pointed to. I was merely trying to point out we could not have civilization as we do without abstract thinking, we would still be "living in caves". I stand by what I said but I do not care to continue this specific line. As posted above, you do accept the two truths, that's good enough for me. You seem to have a one track mind trying to get me to see something I already see (and have continually pointed this out to you), to the extend you ignore any other points I make, which, obviously, are irrelevant to you. I can't do anything about that, except play within your boundaries, which I will try to do henceforth.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 18, 2021 9:20:35 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 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. As this was dropped with your last post, I came back to this. I should have stopped here, this was an admission that you accept the two truths taught by Buddha. I got stuck on your use of imaginary, I should have stayed with the accepted definition here (ST's), something that is not what we think it is. No, I don't accept the two truths taught by the Buddha if they are what you say or imply, but it's been a long time since I read much conventional Buddhist literature, so I don't remember it well. I'll go with Bankei who said. "There is only the Unborn," or with Niz who said, "The Ultimate is all there is," or Ramana, who said, "There is only the Self." The Self, or THIS, being all there is, is the thinker of all thoughts. There is no SVP. The SVP is an illusion, --a product of imagination and the act of distinction. There is no "seed that grows" because there is no time, and there is no separateness except in imagination. As I said, the underlying "unity of all that is" must be grokked. If we want to entertain the idea of a relative truth, it would just be a pointer to what lies beyond thoughts and cannot be grasped using thought. I feel confident that the Buddha saw what lies beyond thoughts. My suggestion is to not get attached to any particular words about this issue, including these words.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 18, 2021 9:29:58 GMT -5
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. This has nothing to do with different categories of thought (ie. "self-centered-reflection" versus other kinds of thoughts). You seem like a super-nice guy, but you also seem to have no reference for life lived without reflective thoughts of any kind. All of your questions reflect a kind of super-attachment to ideas that are all part of the consensus paradigm. "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." These statements reveal a total lack of understanding about what's being pointed to. Most of us have never denied that there's what we might call "subconscious mental processing" occurring when the intellect is totally silent, but abstract thought? None at all. Shadowplay posted a good example a day or so ago. He suggested picturing Elvis riding on a pink elephant, and then shifting attention to your left hand. All of us can see the difference between seeing images in the mind and seeing "what is" without images, but what if attention stayed on the left hand, and then shifted to other aspects of the actual, and then stayed focused on the actual without ever returning to images, ideas, or symbols in the mind? No imagining at all. No abstractions. No thinking. Life would continue in silence, and what we are would continue to function intelligently with no abstractions whatsoever. That's what's being pointed to. Generally, I post about a specific point. Invariably you almost never reply to that specific point, you do to me what you do to everyone who you think doesn't get it, you point to ND. I don't need any pointing. I first read Alan Watts in my 20's, I remember reading specifically The Book on the Taboo of Knowing Who You Are (plus several other of his books, The Wisdom of Insecurity was way up on my list). So I've had being pointing to, for over 40 years. As I said the other day, as a general rule I don't write about experiences and I don't write specifically about practices (I don't know what you thought I meant by that the other day, but I meant simply that. I did not indicate in any way other people should do likewise). I posted here for a couple of years without giving my Gurdjieff connection. Then one day you posted about self-remembering, and what you said was incorrect, so I felt the need to say so. I said so and gave a quote by Gurdjieff from Life Is Real Only Then When I Am. In the quote he wrote specifically about quieting thoughts, that is, stopping the train of associative thinking (his language). Gurdjieff taught numerous practices, one he called making all quiet inside. I have written several times here about being suicidal in 1975 and 1976, and having constant destructive thoughts. This was before finding the Gurdjieff teaching (I had read J Krishnamurti extensively, I pinpointed attention was the key, from him). I've written about the only relief I could get from these dark thoughts was watching my legs as I ice skated, I could get most of 2-3 hours of relief at a time. In March of 1976 I found the Gurdjieff Work, not just through books. So I learned more about attention and awareness. I've written here before about dragging brush across a yard (I was a tree climber's helper), about ten seconds of a completely quiet mind, no thoughts. When I got to the truck, thoughts of wow! popped up, but it was a victory anyway. That was 45 years ago, I've made a little progress since then...which I don't care to share. So you don't need to post to me, to point to see, to try to get me to see, anything. If you want to, fine, but it's really a waste of time for you. I have my own reasons for choosing to live through a silent mind as much as possible. Form what you have said over the years, you find no difference in the value of a silent mind versus a thinking mind, I've asked you specifically about value. You basically say, once you have had certain realizations, nothing else matters (my words). Well, for me, practice leads to a silent mind, but that's not the primary reason for practice. If you would care to engage in actual dialogue instead of continually merely using the occasion to point, I'm OK with that, but I understand your reasons for, not. I frame everything differently than you do, that's just a fact. I have no problem whatsoever with your views and your realizations, but I post to indicate other things. Have a nice day.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 18, 2021 9:33:18 GMT -5
As this was dropped with your last post, I came back to this. I should have stopped here, this was an admission that you accept the two truths taught by Buddha. I got stuck on your use of imaginary, I should have stayed with the accepted definition here (ST's), something that is not what we think it is. No, I don't accept the two truths taught by the Buddha if they are what you say or imply, but it's been a long time since I read much conventional Buddhist literature, so I don't remember it well. I'll go with Bankei who said. "There is only the Unborn," or with Niz who said, "The Ultimate is all there is," or Ramana, who said, "There is only the Self." The Self, or THIS, being all there is, is the thinker of all thoughts. There is no SVP. The SVP is an illusion, --a product of imagination and the act of distinction. There is no "seed that grows" because there is no time, and there is no separateness except in imagination. As I said, the underlying "unity of all that is" must be grokked. If we want to entertain the idea of a relative truth, it would just be a pointer to what lies beyond thoughts and cannot be grasped using thought. I feel confident that the Buddha saw what lies beyond thoughts. My suggestion is to not get attached to any particular words about this issue, including these words. OK, I was only trying to point out what Buddha mean by relative truth (one of the two truths).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 18, 2021 9:46:47 GMT -5
Yes! Flow, alignment! If they've got something strong going on, they suck you right into their vortex of awesomeness. There are tons of videos on youtube that show people with extraordinary skill level, just search for "people are awesome"... I absolutely love those videos. Always reminds me of the Zhuangzi story about the cook and his knife that he used for twenty years. He was just an ordinary cook with an ordinary knife, but when he worked, he was in total alignment with the present moment and what he was doing, so that he was operating on a totally different level than all the other cooks who had to get a new knife every few months because they were not in alignment and had to put in effort. You can see that especially with athletes when they are in the zone and at the top of their game, they move with such ease, speed, skill and precision that it almost seems as if the laws of gravity or physics in general don't apply to them anymore. In such moments of total alignment, when your skill level perfectly matches the task/challenge at hand, when you are at one with this moment, in love with this moment, in love with life, not limited by your personal human perspective anymore, but seeing thru the eyes of Source and not acting as a human being anymore but as Source, Source acting thru you, consciously, when all is well in your world, that's what it means in practical terms, when the Infinite realizes itself as the Infinite thru the eyes of the Infinite, and that's the state of being I was getting at when I asked "Does anyone here feel invincible?" Because in those moments, you truly are. Yes, the cook found the empty places between bones and muscles and tendons, so was only cutting into emptiness so his knife didn't get dull. I guess I admire most seeing solving a unique problem.
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Sept 18, 2021 10:17:56 GMT -5
This has nothing to do with different categories of thought (ie. "self-centered-reflection" versus other kinds of thoughts). You seem like a super-nice guy, but you also seem to have no reference for life lived without reflective thoughts of any kind. All of your questions reflect a kind of super-attachment to ideas that are all part of the consensus paradigm. "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." These statements reveal a total lack of understanding about what's being pointed to. Most of us have never denied that there's what we might call "subconscious mental processing" occurring when the intellect is totally silent, but abstract thought? None at all. Shadowplay posted a good example a day or so ago. He suggested picturing Elvis riding on a pink elephant, and then shifting attention to your left hand. All of us can see the difference between seeing images in the mind and seeing "what is" without images, but what if attention stayed on the left hand, and then shifted to other aspects of the actual, and then stayed focused on the actual without ever returning to images, ideas, or symbols in the mind? No imagining at all. No abstractions. No thinking. Life would continue in silence, and what we are would continue to function intelligently with no abstractions whatsoever. That's what's being pointed to. I was merely trying to point out we could not have civilization as we do without abstract thinking, we would still be "living in caves". I stand by what I said but I do not care to continue this specific line. As posted above, you do accept the two truths, that's good enough for me. You seem to have a one track mind trying to get me to see something I already see (and have continually pointed this out to you), to the extend you ignore any other points I make, which, obviously, are irrelevant to you. I can't do anything about that, except play within your boundaries, which I will try to do henceforth. Not that there's a dog in this fight for me. All this talk seems abstruse to me. But I think the samurai might disagree with your views about how civilizations are formed and I don't think anyone sets out to build a civilization. Regarding abstract thought, I see its value. I'm typing on a box made of plastic and you'll be able to read what I type a thousand miles away. But I've been watching Krishnamurti q&a's lately and their thrust seems to be about more immediate observations, quite the opposite of abstraction. Btw, they remind me of Ramana's perspective. I quite enjoy them. Thanks. I think zd's point is relevant to me, at this point. I'm more drawn to JK's instruction than what the Copenhagen interpretation of QM really means. Not that that is unimportant or uninteresting but that it is much less relevant to my happiness than JK's pointers.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 19, 2021 3:46:56 GMT -5
This has nothing to do with different categories of thought (ie. "self-centered-reflection" versus other kinds of thoughts). You seem like a super-nice guy, but you also seem to have no reference for life lived without reflective thoughts of any kind. All of your questions reflect a kind of super-attachment to ideas that are all part of the consensus paradigm. "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." These statements reveal a total lack of understanding about what's being pointed to. Most of us have never denied that there's what we might call "subconscious mental processing" occurring when the intellect is totally silent, but abstract thought? None at all. Shadowplay posted a good example a day or so ago. He suggested picturing Elvis riding on a pink elephant, and then shifting attention to your left hand. All of us can see the difference between seeing images in the mind and seeing "what is" without images, but what if attention stayed on the left hand, and then shifted to other aspects of the actual, and then stayed focused on the actual without ever returning to images, ideas, or symbols in the mind? No imagining at all. No abstractions. No thinking. Life would continue in silence, and what we are would continue to function intelligently with no abstractions whatsoever. That's what's being pointed to. I was merely trying to point out we could not have civilization as we do without abstract thinking, we would still be "living in caves". I stand by what I said but I do not care to continue this specific line. As posted above, you do accept the two truths, that's good enough for me. You seem to have a one track mind trying to get me to see something I already see (and have continually pointed this out to you), to the extend you ignore any other points I make, which, obviously, are irrelevant to you. I can't do anything about that, except play within your boundaries, which I will try to do henceforth. Ever watch a Gary Weber interview from a few years back where he describes all his thinking suddenly stopped? He was the director of a lab at the time and describes running a meeting in complete mental silence. Now, obviously, if you're speaking with other people about tasks and technology then there's some "thinking" going on. But if you listen to everything Gary says you can infer that what was absent during the meeting was any self-referential thinking. Tolle offers a question: "are you using your mind, or is your mind using you?". Noone would argue with this - not successfully anyway - but that you'd raise that point in response to a description of driving to a work site and working in complete mental silence is essentially non-sequitur to the underlying point. Being in flow is not necessarily being on autopilot. It's possible to be quite lucid and aware during flow, but, if that lucidity is maintained it is perceived that any self-referential sense is absent. There is no sense of a separate individual doing something, only the doing. You've written about mental silence well enough and often enough to indicate to me you understand "no-thought", but the absence of the self-referential sense in complete lucidity is something different. Related, but different.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 19, 2021 5:45:07 GMT -5
Absolutely! But Inavalan behaves a bit like scared fish in a pond. And that eternal elusiveness keeps one fascinated only for so long, until there are other, more rewarding objects of attention. Ahhhh the good 'ole days when we used to post pics of moths and candles to figandrew. 2 hamsters 1 wheel...
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 19, 2021 7:08:53 GMT -5
Yes, the cook found the empty places between bones and muscles and tendons, so was only cutting into emptiness so his knife didn't get dull. I guess I admire most seeing solving a unique problem. Yes, as you can see in the video, the specific activity one engages in, i.e. what is done, doesn't really matter, all that matters is how it is done, from self or no-self, from misalignment or alignment. If you've got the skills and a playful attitude, that's already enough and off you go into flow. Then even the most monotonous tasks can be fun and actually vitalizing instead of boring and draining. Instead of routine, it is play. And that's what A-H are pointing to when they say that life is supposed to be fun. In Psychology, they call this an autotelic experience, and someone who lives life that way, an autotelic personality. If you do some reading on this then you'll see the overlaps with the concepts we regularly discuss here - alignment, mindfulness, ATA, wu-wei and the natural state. Here's an interesting article on the autotelic personality: www.unbrokenself.com/developing-an-autotelic-personality/
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 19, 2021 7:53:30 GMT -5
This has nothing to do with different categories of thought (ie. "self-centered-reflection" versus other kinds of thoughts). You seem like a super-nice guy, but you also seem to have no reference for life lived without reflective thoughts of any kind. All of your questions reflect a kind of super-attachment to ideas that are all part of the consensus paradigm. "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." These statements reveal a total lack of understanding about what's being pointed to. Most of us have never denied that there's what we might call "subconscious mental processing" occurring when the intellect is totally silent, but abstract thought? None at all. Shadowplay posted a good example a day or so ago. He suggested picturing Elvis riding on a pink elephant, and then shifting attention to your left hand. All of us can see the difference between seeing images in the mind and seeing "what is" without images, but what if attention stayed on the left hand, and then shifted to other aspects of the actual, and then stayed focused on the actual without ever returning to images, ideas, or symbols in the mind? No imagining at all. No abstractions. No thinking. Life would continue in silence, and what we are would continue to function intelligently with no abstractions whatsoever. That's what's being pointed to. I was merely trying to point out we could not have civilization as we do without abstract thinking, we would still be "living in caves". I stand by what I said but I do not care to continue this specific line. As posted above, you do accept the two truths, that's good enough for me. You seem to have a one track mind trying to get me to see something I already see (and have continually pointed this out to you), to the extend you ignore any other points I make, which, obviously, are irrelevant to you. I can't do anything about that, except play within your boundaries, which I will try to do henceforth. Ok. Fair point, so let's back up. I fully agree that we would not have civilization as we know it without abstract thought. The reason all large animals disappeared all over the world during the last 10,000 years is because humans collectively wiped them out because we could imaginatively envision plans, traps, weapons, etc. Without abstract thought we would not have rocket ships or nuclear bombs. I think we can all agree that the evolution of an intellect allowed us to do all kinds of amazing things. That said, most humans are addicted to thought, and do not realize that (1) most thought is unnecessary, (2) thought is the basis of the consensus paradigm, (3) separateness is an illusion, and (4) selfhood is also an illusion. I think you would agree that distinctions, after being made, become internalized in the subconscious, so that understanding and functionality are no longer dependent on the repetition of previous distinctions via mind talk--the voice in the head. Mind talk is just a habit, and that habit inhibits escape from the consensus paradigm, and the realization of what's going on. There are many people who simply don't believe that it's possible to function intelligently in the world without continual mind talk, so that's one reason that I give examples of it so often. From what you've written I assume that you do believe it's possible. I write about it from personal experience because ATA-T eventually led to such a degree of sustained silence that this character can stop thinking at any time simply by shifting attention to direct sensory perception and keeping it there. I think that anyone with sufficient interest could do the same thing, and I don't consider it "special" in any way, other than as a way of making it obvious that the intelligence of THIS is a million times greater than intellectual intelligence. Because the illusion of selfhood was seen through in 1999, this character knows that there is no SVP at the center of anything that's happening, including whatever thoughts are arising, or the shifting of attention away from thoughts. After it's realized that there's no separate entity doing anything, it no longer matters whether there's thinking or no thinking because there's no person choosing either to think or remain silent. As I've said in the past, seeing through selfhood results in freedom, but understanding what sees in the absence of an SVP is what Dosha called "the matter beyond." "The matter beyond" is what most of us refer to as SR, and it results in an even deeper sense of freedom, but it's not a personal sense of freedom. We might say that it's the freedom of THIS to be what it is free from attachment to all ideation. Most of us call it "The Natural State."
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 19, 2021 8:21:52 GMT -5
This has nothing to do with different categories of thought (ie. "self-centered-reflection" versus other kinds of thoughts). You seem like a super-nice guy, but you also seem to have no reference for life lived without reflective thoughts of any kind. All of your questions reflect a kind of super-attachment to ideas that are all part of the consensus paradigm. "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." These statements reveal a total lack of understanding about what's being pointed to. Most of us have never denied that there's what we might call "subconscious mental processing" occurring when the intellect is totally silent, but abstract thought? None at all. Shadowplay posted a good example a day or so ago. He suggested picturing Elvis riding on a pink elephant, and then shifting attention to your left hand. All of us can see the difference between seeing images in the mind and seeing "what is" without images, but what if attention stayed on the left hand, and then shifted to other aspects of the actual, and then stayed focused on the actual without ever returning to images, ideas, or symbols in the mind? No imagining at all. No abstractions. No thinking. Life would continue in silence, and what we are would continue to function intelligently with no abstractions whatsoever. That's what's being pointed to. Generally, I post about a specific point. Invariably you almost never reply to that specific point, you do to me what you do to everyone who you think doesn't get it, you point to ND. I don't need any pointing. I first read Alan Watts in my 20's, I remember reading specifically The Book on the Taboo of Knowing Who You Are (plus several other of his books, The Wisdom of Insecurity was way up on my list). So I've had being pointing to, for over 40 years. As I said the other day, as a general rule I don't write about experiences and I don't write specifically about practices (I don't know what you thought I meant by that the other day, but I meant simply that. I did not indicate in any way other people should do likewise). I posted here for a couple of years without giving my Gurdjieff connection. Then one day you posted about self-remembering, and what you said was incorrect, so I felt the need to say so. I said so and gave a quote by Gurdjieff from Life Is Real Only Then When I Am. In the quote he wrote specifically about quieting thoughts, that is, stopping the train of associative thinking (his language). Gurdjieff taught numerous practices, one he called making all quiet inside. I have written several times here about being suicidal in 1975 and 1976, and having constant destructive thoughts. This was before finding the Gurdjieff teaching (I had read J Krishnamurti extensively, I pinpointed attention was the key, from him). I've written about the only relief I could get from these dark thoughts was watching my legs as I ice skated, I could get most of 2-3 hours of relief at a time. In March of 1976 I found the Gurdjieff Work, not just through books. So I learned more about attention and awareness. I've written here before about dragging brush across a yard (I was a tree climber's helper), about ten seconds of a completely quiet mind, no thoughts. When I got to the truck, thoughts of wow! popped up, but it was a victory anyway. That was 45 years ago, I've made a little progress since then...which I don't care to share. So you don't need to post to me, to point to see, to try to get me to see, anything. If you want to, fine, but it's really a waste of time for you. I have my own reasons for choosing to live through a silent mind as much as possible. Form what you have said over the years, you find no difference in the value of a silent mind versus a thinking mind, I've asked you specifically about value. You basically say, once you have had certain realizations, nothing else matters (my words). Well, for me, practice leads to a silent mind, but that's not the primary reason for practice. If you would care to engage in actual dialogue instead of continually merely using the occasion to point, I'm OK with that, but I understand your reasons for, not. I frame everything differently than you do, that's just a fact. I have no problem whatsoever with your views and your realizations, but I post to indicate other things. Have a nice day. Ok. let's talk about value. You wrote: "..you find no difference in the value of a silent mind versus a thinking mind......you basically say, once you have had various realizations nothing else matters (my words)." Correct. Attaining a certain degree of silence seems to be highly correlated with the occurrence of existential realizations, and if sufficient realization leads to non-abidance in mind and the realization that there is no separate entity at the center of anything that's happening, then it no longer matters whether the mind is silent or talkative. IOW, meditation (in the Buddha's words) is like a boat for carrying someone across a lake. After one gets across the lake (after one sees through the consensus paradigm and discovers what's going on), the boat is no longer necessary. One then realizes that there is only THIS doing whatever THIS does. All personal striving ceases because the person has been seen through. The idea of value is predicated upon the idea of two or more distinct states, one of which is imagined as more valuable than the other, but what if there is no twoness? What if there is no separate entity that imagines abstract states differing in value? What if all value, purpose, and meaning is absolute rather than relative? A sufficient depth of realization leaves a human adult in a childlike state of mind with no goals, no desires, no efforting, no past or future, no fear, no reasons, and an open acceptance of whatever might happen. Life becomes simple and uncomplicated, and the character/body/THIS always knows what to do. The focus of life stays in the present moment. You wrote that practice leads to a silent mind, but that's not the primary reason for practice. Ok, what's your primary reason for practice?
|
|