|
Post by tenka on Jan 13, 2024 15:51:00 GMT -5
For sure, but changing context is changing context. I have been speaking of beliefs that are part of understanding what realisations refer too. Realisations that are as you put it existential beliefs or knowings that can't be explained. Stubbing your toe doesn't relate to what I have been talking about. Z.D. can say what he say's deliberately or not, out of confusion or not. I am not bothered to be honest, I just had to say that what was given as an example wasn't in the same context as what I was speaking of. Tenka, I promise you, you have to throw out the words belief and beliefs with the ND people discussion. A Realization is not in any sense a belief. This is the point I have made before. ND peeps have their own guide book and can't refer to key concepts. This in itself should get the alarm bells ringing. I didn't construct the guide book so I will continue to use words that I see fit
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 13, 2024 15:53:00 GMT -5
.. You're changing context here. In the context of stubbing your toe, it happens, but one will believe that it happened based upon a belief had in 'what they are' that can stub their toe in the first place. Like said a thousand times, this is integrated within our belief system, just like the floor will be beneath my feet when I roll out of bed is. My thoughts were aimed towards realisations had and 100% knowings or existential beliefs that are devoid from having a belief in what they conceptually mean in the first place and what is said thereafter in reflection of them. That leads me to question whether or not you really understand what I mean by that difference in the way self-reference happens before and after that realization. In what context? I am all ears (not literally) butt if you give me an example then I will see what I can come up with in response.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 13, 2024 15:56:52 GMT -5
.. You're changing context here. In the context of stubbing your toe, it happens, but one will believe that it happened based upon a belief had in 'what they are' that can stub their toe in the first place. Like said a thousand times, this is integrated within our belief system, just like the floor will be beneath my feet when I roll out of bed is. My thoughts were aimed towards realisations had and 100% knowings or existential beliefs that are devoid from having a belief in what they conceptually mean in the first place and what is said thereafter in reflection of them. And notice that the point here was that belief happens after-the-fact. Did you notice how you used the past tense? Why does it happen after the fact? A belief system in effect means that the moment you stub your toe, you stub your toe. You don't a while after think, fcuk me, I just stubbed me toe
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 13, 2024 15:58:33 GMT -5
Tenka, I promise you, you have to throw out the words belief and beliefs with the ND people discussion. A Realization is not in any sense a belief. This is the point I have made before. ND peeps have their own guide book and can't refer to key concepts. This in itself should get the alarm bells ringing. I didn't construct the guide book so I will continue to use words that I see fit So, then, you will never be able to communicate, effectively, here. That's just the nature of communication, you have to agree on terms to be about to effectively communicate. I can understand just about everyone's POV here. I have the most trouble with your view. But I think it's a communication problem. ZD has given his view literally hundreds of times. You have begun lately to say, I've already said it.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 13, 2024 16:04:23 GMT -5
This is the point I have made before. ND peeps have their own guide book and can't refer to key concepts. This in itself should get the alarm bells ringing. I didn't construct the guide book so I will continue to use words that I see fit So, then, you will never be able to communicate, effectively, here. That's just the nature of communication, you have to agree on terms to be about to effectively communicate. I can understand just about everyone's POV here. I have the most trouble with your view. But I think it's a communication problem. ZD has given his view literally hundreds of times. You have begun lately to say, I've already said it. For sure. That is why after 10 years I am still having the same disagreements. However there have been small positive developments, for if you remember when I first started speaking of there is only what you are I was abused left right and centre for saying it. Now it's a dead cert
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 13, 2024 16:07:03 GMT -5
And notice that the point here was that belief happens after-the-fact. Did you notice how you used the past tense? Why does it happen after the fact? A belief system in effect means that the moment you stub your toe, you stub your toe. You don't a while after think, fcuk me, I just stubbed me toe laughter thinks he's correct about everything, he's not. Sure, the first belief occurs after the fact. (If you ever stub your toe, you try very hard to try-not-to stub your toe, again). But then, subsequently, beliefs control and filter our perception. So, most beliefs are before the fact. That's the nature of conditioning. inavalan is an expert on how beliefs control perception, before the fact. Superstitions are beliefs before-the-fact. Most superstitions are rather stupid, and most people even know this, but some people will lick their finger and make a cross on their windshield, anyway. Or, sprinkle a pinch of salt over their shoulder.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 13, 2024 16:10:38 GMT -5
The problem with any definition of belief is that the mind makes a ham sandwich out of it. I don’t believe that would ever happen with my kosher friends.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 13, 2024 16:29:22 GMT -5
Perhaps it goes deeper than just language, but even then, the significance (or lack thereof) of any potential attachment to an idea or ideas is a personal matter for tenka. I tried pointing to the relative perspective of personality with a Sun(THIS)/Moon(Individual) metaphor. "Consciousness" would be the light of the Sun. "consciousness" would be the individuated body/mind. I don't recall reading any direct engagement with that in the dialog. As far as the "belief" spur of it goes, "Truth" is a barb to many a mind hook. Personally, I recall hyperminding on both words quite energetically at the start of the time with the head in the tiger's mouth. Tolle explains very early on in Now that he's not offering any sort of theory that he can prove. This opened my mind to his pointing (and opened that mouth). And that's the crux of it: when is an idea a pointer, and when does it become entangled with other notions that aren't? And some pointers can have dual interpretations. Some of those alternative interpretations of mind are downright silly and antagonistic, but not all. The mind makes the "oneness blob", and it seems to me that for most people, Oneness translates into "every thing, is interconnected". I've had dialogs with several members here that I perceive have a great depth of understanding, and yet, there can be some confusion of mind as to where intellect/heart starts and ends. But that's all just various insight about the structure and content of mind. As you point out, noone needs any such insight to pull their hand away from a hot stove. .. but even that was fodder for pages and pages of megathread, back in the day. Yes, I agree that the directness goes deeper than absence of language. It's not easy to express all this with words, but it's not the same as eating an orange, because even in a direct experience of eating an orange, there is still an 'effability' i.e there's something we COULD say about the experience. Whereas with 'the ineffable', the only thing we can say is that nothing can be said about it. So it's not a suspending of language or a stilling of mind. We have to authentically 'go there', or 'here', if that's a better way of saying it. (And yes, 'Oneness' HAS to go beyond 'blob' or 'interconnection') Well, the thing is, that anything you say about eating an orange still doesn't capture it. Ya' gotta' peel, and then .. bite!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 13, 2024 16:30:46 GMT -5
But another way to look at it is that toe stubbing can just happen dude. Ain't nothin' personal 'bout it. I said it happens, but you have to associate the belief that it happens to you and not me. Funnily enough I injured my toe through running this week and I was limping for two days. If I didn't believe it happened to me I would of continued running and created a worser injury. You can't just go through life disassociating stuff like this. It does have an impact on the individual self. Set fire to your clothes while you're wearing them. See how depersonalising and dissociating that from self does for you. (not recommended) Yes, we simply disagree here, no reconciling that.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 13, 2024 16:33:46 GMT -5
The problem with any definition of belief is that the mind makes a ham sandwich out of it. I don’t believe that would ever happen with my kosher friends. They argued with the sandwich even before it got made!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 13, 2024 16:37:44 GMT -5
" "what stubs their toe?" And you have an interest in arguing about this that recurs, seemingly, indefinitely. .. What you are within individuated experience does. That's the common-mind response. It's also the response, in clarity, after mind has been informed of the existential truth. I am uncertain as to which one of those you are expressing. If you have a 100% knowing of what you are that isn't a belief, then you tell me what stubs their toe. That uncertainty is due in part to you posing self-inquiry as a question to me in this dialog, as I predicted that you would. I don't have a conceptual term for what we are that is individuated that is 100% known to be true. Gee, almost as if it's ineffable ... I don't have to know, to know that I have stubbed my toe and believe it to be the case. In this instance, we can reconcile our two views based on language, because you've made what I would characterize as a statement of self-evidence, if I set aside my understanding of "belief".
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 13, 2024 16:40:45 GMT -5
And notice that the point here was that belief happens after-the-fact. Did you notice how you used the past tense? Why does it happen after the fact? A belief system in effect means that the moment you stub your toe, you stub your toe. You don't a while after think, fcuk me, I just stubbed me toe This is another one we can reconcile by language. I say that the pain happens and then there's a follow-on thought and characterization by mind as to the pain. If you don't make a distinction between pain and thought, then the temporal sequence won't fit into your lexicon. But I maintain that it's a useful distinction, for a number of reasons. Or maybe it isn't a language issue. Dunno'.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 13, 2024 22:18:07 GMT -5
No, that us not the definition of "belief". That is the definition of remembrance/recall. Beliefs are things held to be true without evidence or direct experience. Recollections are stories told about actual events or realizations after the fact. Big difference. The problem with any definition of belief is that the mind makes a ham sandwich out of it. urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ham%20sandwich- ham sandwich
slang in police lexicon, meaning an untainted handgun a corrupt cop will have ready to plant on a suspect they've shot. Prevalent in New Orleans culture, during the militant state in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. (seen on PBS' Frontline)
My partner used to carry around a ham sandwich to pin on some poor fucker they might shoot down. by giraffe-o August 26, 2010 wiktionary.org/wiki/indict_a_ham_sandwich- indict a ham sandwich
(chiefly US, law, hyperbolic) To charge (someone) with a crime with ease, despite the innocence of the accused party, a lack of evidence to secure an indictment, etc.
2023 March 31, Maria Cramer, “Here’s how indictments work in the United States’ legal system”, in The New York Times[1]: That one-sided arrangement often leads defense lawyers to minimize indictments and argue that prosecutors could persuade jurors to “indict a ham sandwich,” a proverbial phrase that former Vice President Mike Pence used on CNN Thursday night.
2022 April 14, Ariana Garcia, “Harris Co. Judge Lina Hidalgo on staff indictments: 'A grand jury can indict a ham sandwich”, in Chron[2]: When asked in an interview Thursday with ABC13 if she was worried about being indicted herself, Hidalgo responded "I don't know how far this is going to go and it's very easy if you present one-sided facts to a grand jury. Everybody knows that a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich if that's all they see."
Used hyperbolically to suggest how easy it is to indict someone, and that a mere indictment is not probative of guilt.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 13, 2024 22:51:15 GMT -5
.. Sure enough. It seems to be the crux of most disagreements when peeps are not on the same page. It kinda illustrates there is no absolute meaning to any self reference. I don't see eye to eye with most folk on this forum regarding key terminologies referring to mind and self etc. So when we start to talk of realisations that reflect the person as a SVP then Houston has a problem. yes. Because definitions vary of 'realization', I don't even have a fixed definition now, I float with the wind on it depending on the conversation. I guess it relates to how my path unfolded. I've had transformative moments for sure when something within irreversibly and powerfully changed in the moment, and yet with hindsight, it all just seems like more pathway, more unfolding. It's hard for me to find huge significance in any one thing, so I guess the way I interact reflects that, A "realization" should be " having learned / realized how to learn", and not "being done with learning", nor "being struck by an illumination". I haven't heard about somebody to have proved to be "realized". This is one of those things that if you brag about it, it is very you don't have it. There are some who claim it on their resume
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 13, 2024 22:58:31 GMT -5
For sure, but changing context is changing context. I have been speaking of beliefs that are part of understanding what realisations refer too. Realisations that are as you put it existential beliefs or knowings that can't be explained. Stubbing your toe doesn't relate to what I have been talking about. Z.D. can say what he say's deliberately or not, out of confusion or not. I am not bothered to be honest, I just had to say that what was given as an example wasn't in the same context as what I was speaking of. Tenka, I promise you, you have to throw out the words belief and beliefs with the ND people discussion. A Realization is not in any sense a belief. Is there any way to prove / show that you are realized? There isn't. Not even to yourself. So, it is a belief.
|
|