|
|
Post by ouroboros on Oct 31, 2022 13:23:35 GMT -5
I wouldn't necessarily disagree with any of that, especially the last line. Although maybe I'm conflating it more with a deep-flow or even a CC type state. I think it's a more 'being present' state than is particularly common. But Tenka has said in the past that you can't wipe your butt or get out of bed without the thought to do so, and If I remember rightly, sree recently said that if you stop thinking you will die. Otoh we prolly all have reference for driving in traffic on autopilot, and zd supposedly has someone who works in air traffic control like it. Yet those learned behaviours would likely have required thought at some stage but have since become 'body-known'. In which case, is that spontaneous or habitual, and what is the relevance of that. So perhaps worth poking around a bit to try to see what's going on. I think that where/when there is intention, there is a thought. So then I ask myself, 'does a new born baby experience intention?'. If I say there is a line between 'conscious and unconscious' action, then I think I'd be inclined to say that a new born baby is unconscious, and does not experience intention (or thought). But if all 'conscious and unconscious' action is actually just degrees of consciousness (or unconsciousness), then logically I'd have to say that a baby experiences intention to some degree, and therefore 'thought'. I know Tenka's view pretty well, and I don't think he distinguishes between 'conscious and unconscious'. For him there is only 'being conscious' and in contrast to 'being conscious' there is what what he calls 'the realized state' or 'the unmanifest state', which may equate to what others call NS. So for Tenka, a plant, or even an atom could be said to be conscious, and intending, and there would be a thought. So it's a definition of 'thought' that is far broader than most people's definition here, who consider 'thought' to be associated with cognition and 'conscious' intention. I'm curious if I misrepresented Tenka, let's see  To be clear, I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong here, I'm just trying to add clarity to the different definitions and contexts being discussed. My contribution to the word salad  Some interesting stuff there. For me, intention runs pretty deep. I've questioned whether it could be said to apply to subconscious/unconscious action as well as the obvious conscious action. I've even talked about it in terms of perhaps underpinning life itself, as in 'being able to lose the will to live'. I would say the baby's action is subject to intent even though it's acting predominantly automatically. Personally I prefer to keep the distinction between operating consciously or unconsciously. For me, it's evident that some folks operate quite consciously or mindfully, whilst others are pretty much just swept along and are effectively slaves to their impulses. I feel it works quite well in that context. I don't really relate to the idea of an atom being subject to the faculty of thought either, although with conscious and intent brought into the mix, that is an interesting area. I do relate to Tenka's position of thought being much broader and more prevalent in experience than most people credit though. So far in this conversation we've been making a fairly stark distinction between what we've been calling subconscious mental processing and conscious mind talk (i.e.thought). Albeit I've implied that it's hard to pinpoint where one could be said to transition into the other. Certainly the CMT would be considered synonymous with cognition and 'conscious' intention, as you point out. But I also tend to consider that there are subtler forms of thought than that. The way I use it, subconscious mental processing comprises the bulk of the basis of mundane experience itself. Basically, it encompasses the fundamentals of stable experience, that of collective Consciousness as it were. So fundamental patterning. That's why I use it in the context of allowing for ATA-T (pre-thought) tree thwacking. So SMP (together with sensory perception) is effectively deep experientiality, right.
At some [shallower or more surface] level SMP transitions into what we might more familiarly think of as cognition. Which accordingly could perhaps be envisaged as enhanced mundane experience (so somewhat conversely as more complex). As it transitions, I tend to think of it, first in terms of, or taking the form of, some sort of 'proto-thought'. Which experientially speaking, is quite wide-ranging, more subtle and less formed than conscious mind talk. CMT at its most advanced would take the form of conceptualisation etc. But we already know there are more subtle, (more vague if you like), forms of thought than full-on enhanced conceptualisation. Namely the level of thought that generally flies in and out of our minds all day long, perhaps semi-consciously. Proto-thought would be even more subtle and vague than that and probably mostly unconscious. Or perhaps skirting the periphery of subconscious and conscious - where SMP transitions into CMT. I would also say that thought is far more prevalent in the animal kingdom than is generally recognised. That animals minds, even relatively simple creatures, are far more complex than folks generally recognise. Although it can also be said that animals operate on what is usually termed innate behaviour, or biological programming. For me, this would be at a similar level to proto-thought, i.e. where the habitual begins to manifest. I strongly suspect that intent underpins all that. Okay, I'll stop waffling now, but I appreciate your contribution. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Oct 31, 2022 13:26:46 GMT -5
I wouldn't necessarily disagree with any of that, especially the last line. Although maybe I'm conflating it more with a deep-flow or even a CC type state. I think it's a more 'being present' state than is particularly common. But Tenka has said in the past that you can't wipe your butt or get out of bed without the thought to do so, and If I remember rightly, sree recently said that if you stop thinking you will die. Otoh we prolly all have reference for driving in traffic on autopilot, and zd supposedly has someone who works in air traffic control like it. Yet those learned behaviours would likely have required thought at some stage but have since become 'body-known'. In which case, is that spontaneous or habitual, and what is the relevance of that. So perhaps worth poking around a bit to try to see what's going on. This is a serious allegation. You have rephrased what I said and it is disinformation. Even if it is not deliberate, misinformation has the same cancelling effect. Cancelling sree, that is. "If you stop thinking you will die." This statement is so uncharacteristic of sree, from my point of view. "Thinking" is an action word. "Eating" is also an action word. One can stop eating and induce death of the body. Can one stop thinking ever to induce death of the self to bring about the selfless state? Those who believe in ATA-T say that it is possible. Sree is not one of them.
Thinking is an action word. Is there a thinker? Pissing is also an action word. Is there a pisser? Okay, you might have said 'without thought you would die', or something like that. I can't be bothered to go back and find it, I know I should. Besides, I question your seriousness. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 4, 2022 14:50:48 GMT -5
That's okay mate, but I was being specific in relation to that . I would agree that that one can separate a thought from awareness to a degree that there was no awareness of something self related of the mind, butt you just can't when there are relations to something mindful . This was my beef about peeps washing the dishes without a thought of it some time back .. Peeps doing things absent of thought . That's why you can't prise apart awareness from thought in these instances because one has to register what one is doing prior too, during and after the event . Tenka, I have an exploratory question for you. I'm led to consider how the very young baby develops a preference for its mothers face. It seems to me that awareness, subconscious mental processing and sensory perception are all in play, yet not conscious mind talk (thought). So, some sort of preference/attachment is formed, but as part of a pre-thought 'ATA-T like' process. What are your thoughts about that, is it feasible? Awareness of something compared to not reflects mindfulness . You can't have mindfulness without entertaining a thought of something mindful . Whether or not that thoughtful awareness is conceptualised or not matters not . |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 4, 2022 15:15:53 GMT -5
I wouldn't necessarily disagree with any of that, especially the last line. Although maybe I'm conflating it more with a deep-flow or even a CC type state. I think it's a more 'being present' state than is particularly common. But Tenka has said in the past that you can't wipe your butt or get out of bed without the thought to do so, and If I remember rightly, sree recently said that if you stop thinking you will die. Otoh we prolly all have reference for driving in traffic on autopilot, and zd supposedly has someone who works in air traffic control like it. Yet those learned behaviours would likely have required thought at some stage but have since become 'body-known'. In which case, is that spontaneous or habitual, and what is the relevance of that. So perhaps worth poking around a bit to try to see what's going on. I think that where/when there is intention, there is a thought. So then I ask myself, 'does a new born baby experience intention?'. If I say there is a line between 'conscious and unconscious' action, then I think I'd be inclined to say that a new born baby is unconscious, and does not experience intention (or thought). But if all 'conscious and unconscious' action is actually just degrees of consciousness (or unconsciousness), then logically I'd have to say that a baby experiences intention to some degree, and therefore 'thought'. I know Tenka's view pretty well, and I don't think he distinguishes between 'conscious and unconscious'. For him there is only 'being conscious' and in contrast to 'being conscious' there is what what he calls 'the realized state' or 'the unmanifest state', which may equate to what others call NS.
So for Tenka, a plant, or even an atom could be said to be conscious, and intending, and there would be a thought. So it's a definition of 'thought' that is far broader than most people's definition here, who consider 'thought' to be associated with cognition and 'conscious' intention. I'm curious if I misrepresented Tenka, let's see To be clear, I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong here, I'm just trying to add clarity to the different definitions and contexts being discussed. My contribution to the word salad Yes, princess .. it matters not in regards to being conscious or conscious, butt tbh there is only being conscious if one is self aware . NS means different things to different folk depending on what you want to believe . It really boils down to being self aware or not . Of the mind or not . Lots of peeps counter my thoughts by referring to a baby that doesn't conceptualise fluffy pink elephants in a way that an adult would. It doesn't make a blind bit of difference . There is either self awareness of something or not . There is a thought of that something that cannot be prised a part from the awareness of that something . No one has answered that with anything that counters what I say . |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Nov 15, 2022 9:43:44 GMT -5
Welp, we reach 8 billion peeps today. Let's all pull out our willies and pet our kitties and celebrate being fruitful and multiplying! 🤣
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2022 11:58:39 GMT -5
Welp, we reach 8 billion peeps today. Let's all pull out our willies and pet our kitties and celebrate being fruitful and multiplying! 🤣 What count are you speaking? |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Nov 19, 2022 11:09:16 GMT -5
Welp, we reach 8 billion peeps today. Let's all pull out our willies and pet our kitties and celebrate being fruitful and multiplying! 🤣 What count are you speaking? World population. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 19, 2022 13:20:46 GMT -5
This is a serious allegation. You have rephrased what I said and it is disinformation. Even if it is not deliberate, misinformation has the same cancelling effect. Cancelling sree, that is. "If you stop thinking you will die." This statement is so uncharacteristic of sree, from my point of view. "Thinking" is an action word. "Eating" is also an action word. One can stop eating and induce death of the body. Can one stop thinking ever to induce death of the self to bring about the selfless state? Those who believe in ATA-T say that it is possible. Sree is not one of them.
Thinking is an action word. Is there a thinker? Pissing is also an action word. Is there a pisser? Okay, you might have said 'without thought you would die', or something like that. I can't be bothered to go back and find it, I know I should. Besides, I question your seriousness. I, too, thought that Sree stated that without thought one would die, but I'm also too lazy to go research what he actually wrote. I just remember being surprised by whatever he stated in that regard. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 19, 2022 13:40:14 GMT -5
I think that where/when there is intention, there is a thought. So then I ask myself, 'does a new born baby experience intention?'. If I say there is a line between 'conscious and unconscious' action, then I think I'd be inclined to say that a new born baby is unconscious, and does not experience intention (or thought). But if all 'conscious and unconscious' action is actually just degrees of consciousness (or unconsciousness), then logically I'd have to say that a baby experiences intention to some degree, and therefore 'thought'. I know Tenka's view pretty well, and I don't think he distinguishes between 'conscious and unconscious'. For him there is only 'being conscious' and in contrast to 'being conscious' there is what what he calls 'the realized state' or 'the unmanifest state', which may equate to what others call NS.
So for Tenka, a plant, or even an atom could be said to be conscious, and intending, and there would be a thought. So it's a definition of 'thought' that is far broader than most people's definition here, who consider 'thought' to be associated with cognition and 'conscious' intention. I'm curious if I misrepresented Tenka, let's see To be clear, I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong here, I'm just trying to add clarity to the different definitions and contexts being discussed. My contribution to the word salad Yes, princess .. it matters not in regards to being conscious or conscious, butt tbh there is only being conscious if one is self aware . NS means different things to different folk depending on what you want to believe . It really boils down to being self aware or not . Of the mind or not . Lots of peeps counter my thoughts by referring to a baby that doesn't conceptualise fluffy pink elephants in a way that an adult would. It doesn't make a blind bit of difference . There is either self awareness of something or not . There is a thought of that something that cannot be prised a part from the awareness of that something . No one has answered that with anything that counters what I say . Two points: 1) I haven't heard anyone offer any definition or description of NS other than "pure awareness without perception, without content, without thought, and without any sense of selfhood." This is why Zen people refer to NS as "the falling off of body and mind." It is a state of deep bliss, but nothing is seen, heard, felt, or sensed in any way. All there is is awareness being aware of awareness. Every sage who has spoken about NS has claimed that it is the deepest state. 2) The reason that no one attempts to counter your definition of "thought" is because most people define thought much more narrowly than you do--as mind talk. Your definition-- that direct sensory perception is also a form of thought-- ends the conversation because most of us do not define thought in that manner. After I realized that your view is that seeing, hearing, or feeling is equivalent to thinking, I no longer challenged your statements because I finally understood your POV and knew that you do not make the same distinctions that most of us make regarding what we call "thought." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2022 14:59:43 GMT -5
Yes, princess .. it matters not in regards to being conscious or conscious, butt tbh there is only being conscious if one is self aware . NS means different things to different folk depending on what you want to believe . It really boils down to being self aware or not . Of the mind or not . Lots of peeps counter my thoughts by referring to a baby that doesn't conceptualise fluffy pink elephants in a way that an adult would. It doesn't make a blind bit of difference . There is either self awareness of something or not . There is a thought of that something that cannot be prised a part from the awareness of that something . No one has answered that with anything that counters what I say . Two points: 1) I haven't heard anyone offer any definition or description of NS other than "pure awareness without perception, without content, without thought, and without any sense of selfhood." This is why Zen people refer to NS as "the falling off of body and mind." It is a state of deep bliss, but nothing is seen, heard, felt, or sensed in any way. All there is is awareness being aware of awareness. Every sage who has spoken about NS has claimed that it is the deepest state. 2) The reason that no one attempts to counter your definition of "thought" is because most people define thought much more narrowly than you do--as mind talk. Your definition-- that direct sensory perception is also a form of thought-- ends the conversation because most of us do not define thought in that manner. After I realized that your view is that seeing, hearing, or feeling is equivalent to thinking, I no longer challenged your statements because I finally understood your POV and knew that you do not make the same distinctions that most of us make regarding what we call "thought." A bit of a different topic, but have you ever tried going into the deep silence as a way to creativity? You mentioned getting answers to existential questions, and that to me would be a form of a creativity. But I'm thinking more about things like engineering or math problems, stories for a novel, ideas for a painting (or in your case maybe a house design?) – things like that. ? This is one thing that interests me about silence – this idea of kind of "mining" it, going in and out of it to find higher quality or interesting "mind" stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 19, 2022 15:01:20 GMT -5
Yes, princess .. it matters not in regards to being conscious or conscious, butt tbh there is only being conscious if one is self aware . NS means different things to different folk depending on what you want to believe . It really boils down to being self aware or not . Of the mind or not . Lots of peeps counter my thoughts by referring to a baby that doesn't conceptualise fluffy pink elephants in a way that an adult would. It doesn't make a blind bit of difference . There is either self awareness of something or not . There is a thought of that something that cannot be prised a part from the awareness of that something . No one has answered that with anything that counters what I say . Two points: 1) I haven't heard anyone offer any definition or description of NS other than "pure awareness without perception, without content, without thought, and without any sense of selfhood." This is why Zen people refer to NS as "the falling off of body and mind." It is a state of deep bliss, but nothing is seen, heard, felt, or sensed in any way. All there is is awareness being aware of awareness. Every sage who has spoken about NS has claimed that it is the deepest state. 2) The reason that no one attempts to counter your definition of "thought" is because most people define thought much more narrowly than you do--as mind talk. Your definition-- that direct sensory perception is also a form of thought-- ends the conversation because most of us do not define thought in that manner. After I realized that your view is that seeing, hearing, or feeling is equivalent to thinking, I no longer challenged your statements because I finally understood your POV and knew that you do not make the same distinctions that most of us make regarding what we call "thought." When I spoke of my realisation many were giving their advice to what it was that happened to me . I had my own understanding of such and concluded what I did regarding mind and no mind, thought and no thought .. I remember looking up several teachers speaking about darkness and some referring to light that was observed .. None of it rang true to me in regards to what happened to me . I have said it before, peeps need to let go of their dictionary definition of thought and broaden their horizons a bit . If NS reflects no thought, then everything of the mindful experience that is self related is of it . I see it as that straightforward . I don't know what the fuss is about . There is either mindful thought or there isn't . Being self aware of the world isn't absent of thought . Peeps seem to think as said before, that they can be aware of washing the dishes absent of mindful thought . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2022 20:19:32 GMT -5
A bit of a different topic, but have you ever tried going into the deep silence as a way to creativity? You mentioned getting answers to existential questions, and that to me would be a form of a creativity. But I'm thinking more about things like engineering or math problems, stories for a novel, ideas for a painting (or in your case maybe a house design?) – things like that. ? This is one thing that interests me about silence – this idea of kind of "mining" it, going in and out of it to find higher quality or interesting "mind" stuff. Emptiness for eons dude No te entiendo cabrón. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 19, 2022 21:55:13 GMT -5
Two points: 1) I haven't heard anyone offer any definition or description of NS other than "pure awareness without perception, without content, without thought, and without any sense of selfhood." This is why Zen people refer to NS as "the falling off of body and mind." It is a state of deep bliss, but nothing is seen, heard, felt, or sensed in any way. All there is is awareness being aware of awareness. Every sage who has spoken about NS has claimed that it is the deepest state. 2) The reason that no one attempts to counter your definition of "thought" is because most people define thought much more narrowly than you do--as mind talk. Your definition-- that direct sensory perception is also a form of thought-- ends the conversation because most of us do not define thought in that manner. After I realized that your view is that seeing, hearing, or feeling is equivalent to thinking, I no longer challenged your statements because I finally understood your POV and knew that you do not make the same distinctions that most of us make regarding what we call "thought." When I spoke of my realisation many were giving their advice to what it was that happened to me . I had my own understanding of such and concluded what I did regarding mind and no mind, thought and no thought .. I remember looking up several teachers speaking about darkness and some referring to light that was observed .. None of it rang true to me in regards to what happened to me . I have said it before, peeps need to let go of their dictionary definition of thought and broaden their horizons a bit . If NS reflects no thought, then everything of the mindful experience that is self related is of it . I see it as that straightforward . I don't know what the fuss is about . There is either mindful thought or there isn't . Being self aware of the world isn't absent of thought . Peeps seem to think as said before, that they can be aware of washing the dishes absent of mindful thought . ZD is aware of how you define thought. Not a problem as long as we understand each other. But it seems you cannot do the same, your last sentence. What people mean by "absent of mindful thought", is no internal dialogue, they don't mean no brain processing. I will give an example. OK, I am washing my dishes. *In-my-head*, thinking, this is really annoying...trying to make tenka understand. (This ________ will indicate no internal dialogue, just observing my hands, washing dishes, or maybe the tension needed not to drop the soapy dish). But of course we can't wash dishes without brain processing, we couldn't feel the plate, we couldn't sense the rag (sense is a better word than feel, as feel can also indicate emotions). _______________can't wait until tomorrow, 11:00 AM ___________________I think I will stay up and watch Astrid again at 3 AM______________________looks like the Canes might have it tonight_____________sh*t____________good walk today____________it's getting cold, the heat should__________ But a silent mind-no-internal-talk-no dialogue, is quite sweet___________________________________________________ |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 20, 2022 6:13:40 GMT -5
When I spoke of my realisation many were giving their advice to what it was that happened to me . I had my own understanding of such and concluded what I did regarding mind and no mind, thought and no thought .. I remember looking up several teachers speaking about darkness and some referring to light that was observed .. None of it rang true to me in regards to what happened to me . I have said it before, peeps need to let go of their dictionary definition of thought and broaden their horizons a bit . If NS reflects no thought, then everything of the mindful experience that is self related is of it . I see it as that straightforward . I don't know what the fuss is about . There is either mindful thought or there isn't . Being self aware of the world isn't absent of thought . Peeps seem to think as said before, that they can be aware of washing the dishes absent of mindful thought . ZD is aware of how you define thought. Not a problem as long as we understand each other. But it seems you cannot do the same, your last sentence. What people mean by "absent of mindful thought", is no internal dialogue, they don't mean no brain processing. I will give an example. OK, I am washing my dishes. *In-my-head*, thinking, this is really annoying...trying to make tenka understand. (This ________ will indicate no internal dialogue, just observing my hands, washing dishes, or maybe the tension needed not to drop the soapy dish). But of course we can't wash dishes without brain processing, we couldn't feel the plate, we couldn't sense the rag (sense is a better word than feel, as feel can also indicate emotions). _______________can't wait until tomorrow, 11:00 AM ___________________I think I will stay up and watch Astrid again at 3 AM______________________looks like the Canes might have it tonight_____________sh*t____________good walk today____________it's getting cold, the heat should__________ But a silent mind-no-internal-talk-no dialogue, is quite sweet___________________________________________________ I must of explained myself a thousand times about the nature of mind and self awareness of the world . I have spoken about not being able to prise apart awareness of self and a thought of oneself . If you are aware of the dishes and the world in reflection of self then this is based upon mindfulness. Mindfulness is thought based . This is why I have explained myself in relation to the nature of thought. Thinking or not thinking about the annoyance of dish washing is mindful, hence thoughtful . I get it that some folks want to entertain the definition of thought in a way where it just reflects the chitter chatter, but it's not my definition. You need to broaden your horizons like said, because no matter how many times I ask folk to try and prise apart awareness of oneself and a thought of oneself one cannot . This should be enough said to clarify where I am coming from, but for some reason it doesn't make any difference to folk that want to stick by the narrow minded definition . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2022 9:35:57 GMT -5
I must of explained myself a thousand times about the nature of mind and self awareness of the world . I have spoken about not being able to prise apart awareness of self and a thought of oneself .[...] That sounds like Ramana's self enquiry. I don't have the book in front of me, but from what I remember, the basic idea was to meditate on the sense of "I", which he said would gradually cause the "false I" or "I-thought" to subside, and real "I", (aka Self, or Awareness) to be revealed. I've heard it said that the I-thought blocks the Self, like a "penny blocks out the Sun". PS: I somehow got through decades of life without noticing the word "prise". I've used "pry", but not "prise". PPS: What is this madness of putting a space before your periods? |
|
