|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 20, 2024 7:46:12 GMT -5
Not really, I am just explaining that what you say is ineffable reflects a belief in what it conceptually means. Beyond the conceptual meaning you wouldn't know what ineffable refers too beyond the meaning of it. This is obvious. There has to be meaning to what is said and referred too. If one doesn't believe in all these conceptual references, then one can't say anything about anything, but you do. Just as any other N.D. peep does. I think this is so straightforward. Not so much, really. If it was a belief it would be quite effable.  Only if you believe conceptually in what existential beliefs refer to in the first place that matches your definition. A common mind response as you put it is suffice enough to use as a foundation here. Like said without these common mind responses that is integrated within our belief systems one wouldn't say anything about anything. And yet here we all are saying lots of things. Beliefs are effable that's why we can associate the stubbed toe with a self reference in toe (excuse the pun) Making sense of what effable refers to is a belief had that relates to how one can understand and experience life as we do. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 20, 2024 8:00:36 GMT -5
So if a bloke came round your house and said I claim this to be my house and not yours, would you say, yer mate no worries, I don't have a belief in that the house is mine. So then he asks you for the money in your bank account, and you transfer it over to him cos you don't have a belief in that it is your money. Peeps who declare they don't have a belief in a mine or a me or a you doesn't wash with me unless their behaviour matches. There he is (heh heh)! We already covered this ground recently here (and here). And did you notice this? Of course it's "my house", but ultimately that's just a concession to common-mind. Sometimes the concession is quite relevant, but it has no existential meaning. Well when I asked you about YOU stubbing your toe you answered 'The belief that the pain, is "mine"? Is that the "belief" you think I have'? So based upon what you said above regarding the house it would be safe enough to say in the same context which I haven't been changing around as a foundation that it is equally your toe as it is your house. So you have a belief that reflects what you are that can own and live in a house and bash your toe on the skirting board. You have a belief in a self reference that refers to what you are because you don't know 100% what is True regarding what it is that you are in the grand scheme of things. This is all that I have been saying to you for a while now. I don't know why we have gone to the moon and back several times just to get to this straightforward point. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 20, 2024 9:12:21 GMT -5
Notice how in the examples there is a house (while ownership is cited as the belief)? Ownership of both to varying degrees reflects the relationship of what you are that can experience a stubbed toe and ownership of a house. That's either beyond my comprehension, or it's a load of codswallop. Either is possible. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 20, 2024 9:19:41 GMT -5
There he is (heh heh)! We already covered this ground recently here (and here). And did you notice this? Of course it's "my house", but ultimately that's just a concession to common-mind. Sometimes the concession is quite relevant, but it has no existential meaning. Well when I asked you about YOU stubbing your toe you answered 'The belief that the pain, is "mine"? Is that the "belief" you think I have'? So based upon what you said above regarding the house it would be safe enough to say in the same context which I haven't been changing around as a foundation that it is equally your toe as it is your house. So you have a belief that reflects what you are that can own and live in a house and bash your toe on the skirting board. You have a belief in a self reference that refers to what you are because you don't know 100% what is True regarding what it is that you are in the grand scheme of things. This is all that I have been saying to you for a while now. I don't know why we have gone to the moon and back several times just to get to this straightforward point.Because some people keep beating a dead horse. Some people define "thoughts" so broadly that they include feelings and direct sensory perceptions, but most of the posters on this forum define them to ONLY mean mind talk or images seen in "the mind's eye", and they make a distinction between (1) images, ideas, and symbols that appear in the mind and (2) "non-verbal subconscious mental processing." That's no problem as long as we all understand how people are defining these things. People who make that distinction will claim that when the mind is totally silent, there are no thoughts at all even though the body continues to function intelligently and appropriately. ITSW, some people define "beliefs" so broadly that they include existential realizations and direct experiences, but most of the posters on this forum define them to ONLY mean conceptual reflections ABOUT realizations and direct experiences rather than the realizations and experiences themselves. For this reason most posters on this forum who have had significant realizations about the nature of existence would claim that they have no beliefs because mind was not involved in what was seen or experienced. That's no problem as long as we all understand how people are defining these words and thinking about these words. Comprende amigo? |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jan 20, 2024 10:14:50 GMT -5
People who make that distinction will claim that when the mind is totally silent, there are no thoughts at all even though the body continues to function intelligently and appropriately. My first conscious, alert, aware moment in existence at 14 months old was as internally silent as it gets. When the lights came on and the world appeared, there was only pure, silent, observation of; hands on the railing of a baby crib, two dressers with mirrors, linoleum flooring with an odd stain on it, two open windows with floor length sheer curtains billowing gently with a warm spring breeze bright with sun, and birdsong heard from beyond the open windows. There was some degree of felt astonishment and wonder present, but it was completely wordless, thoughtless, beliefless. Pure awareness needs no support from anything like a thought or a belief system. Pure, silent, aware beingness is the ground, the foundation upon which everything else in the human experience, like thinking and belief systems, are built upon. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 20, 2024 11:52:04 GMT -5
People who make that distinction will claim that when the mind is totally silent, there are no thoughts at all even though the body continues to function intelligently and appropriately. My first conscious, alert, aware moment in existence at 14 months old was as internally silent as it gets. When the lights came on and the world appeared, there was only pure, silent, observation of; hands on the railing of a baby crib, two dressers with mirrors, linoleum flooring with an odd stain on it, two open windows with floor length sheer curtains billowing gently with a warm spring breeze bright with sun, and birdsong heard from beyond the open windows. There was some degree of felt astonishment and wonder present, but it was completely wordless, thoughtless, beliefless. Pure awareness needs no support from anything like a thought or a belief system. Pure, silent, aware beingness is the ground, the foundation upon which everything else in the human experience, like thinking and belief systems, are built upon. Exactly! |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 20, 2024 14:00:46 GMT -5
We are connected to everything at inner level, and that's how we get inputs and for beliefs, even in solitude, even in the womb. The way I see it, all realizations are beliefs, meaning they aren't truths. They are layers of assumptions based on which the self tentatively expands, not necessarily and always correctly, in which case beliefs' adjustment will follow. I suppose it's like the Borg and the one mind scenario in your eyes which I wouldn't disagree with in some respects. I was more asking if you believed that there could be a unique belief in something based upon a unique experience had that wasn't tainted by other's. Perhaps the term original thought might help, I mean someone has to get the ball rolling at some point I dare say for something to be adopted by millions in their belief system. A bit like the meaning of non Duality. It came from somewhere and then millions integrated it within their noggins. I believe that "borg" describes probes connected and operated by a single mind. My view is about an endless number of minds, on endless number of levels, that are interconnected but have individual free will, and that associate dynamically according to their affinities and purposes. I don't know exactly what you're asking, because our different views. I don't think there is a unique experience that would be the basis of a unique belief, in the way I think you mean it. In the school analogy, every student that joins the school believes he is a student, but each one understands that differently, comes with a different background and different abilities. When you say "get the ball rolling at some point" that implies a linear time. I subscribe to the hypothesis that the physical reality emerged all at once, in all its potentialities, and that it doesn't follow an evolution, but it can be accessed in any order as time, space, probability, identity. A widely shared belief system was established in some probable realities and not in others according to the free will of the individuals and the groups that are currently part of those realities. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 20, 2024 14:56:32 GMT -5
I suppose it's like the Borg and the one mind scenario in your eyes which I wouldn't disagree with in some respects. I was more asking if you believed that there could be a unique belief in something based upon a unique experience had that wasn't tainted by other's. Perhaps the term original thought might help, I mean someone has to get the ball rolling at some point I dare say for something to be adopted by millions in their belief system. A bit like the meaning of non Duality. It came from somewhere and then millions integrated it within their noggins. I believe that "borg" describes probes connected and operated by a single mind. My view is about an endless number of minds, on endless number of levels, that are interconnected but have individual free will, and that associate dynamically according to their affinities and purposes. That's fine, I was trying to find something that fits the bill where there is interconnectivity.I don't know exactly what you're asking, because our different views. I don't think there is a unique experience that would be the basis of a unique belief, in the way I think you mean it. In the school analogy, every student that joins the school believes he is a student, but each one understands that differently, comes with a different background and different abilities. Okay, so let's take it from the point where there is individuality. Not all individuals have experienced the same thing right? So one would understand things differently, wouldn't that constitute a unique belief based upon that difference? Again just asking. I am not really implying anything here. When you say "get the ball rolling at some point" that implies a linear time. I subscribe to the hypothesis that the physical reality emerged all at once, in all its potentialities, and that it doesn't follow an evolution, but it can be accessed in any order as time, space, probability, identity. Well you were speaking about beliefs that stem from the past. That's a linear time reference. From the fetus to the child was another example you gave. A widely shared belief system was established in some probable realities and not in others according to the free will of the individuals and the groups that are currently part of those realities. Soz, not following, but it doesn't matter. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 20, 2024 15:33:29 GMT -5
I believe that "borg" describes probes connected and operated by a single mind. My view is about an endless number of minds, on endless number of levels, that are interconnected but have individual free will, and that associate dynamically according to their affinities and purposes. That's fine, I was trying to find something that fits the bill where there is interconnectivity.I don't know exactly what you're asking, because our different views. I don't think there is a unique experience that would be the basis of a unique belief, in the way I think you mean it. In the school analogy, every student that joins the school believes he is a student, but each one understands that differently, comes with a different background and different abilities. Okay, so let's take it from the point where there is individuality. Not all individuals have experienced the same thing right? So one would understand things differently, wouldn't that constitute a unique belief based upon that difference? Again just asking. I am not really implying anything here. When you say "get the ball rolling at some point" that implies a linear time. I subscribe to the hypothesis that the physical reality emerged all at once, in all its potentialities, and that it doesn't follow an evolution, but it can be accessed in any order as time, space, probability, identity. Well you were speaking about beliefs that stem from the past. That's a linear time reference. From the fetus to the child was another example you gave. A widely shared belief system was established in some probable realities and not in others according to the free will of the individuals and the groups that are currently part of those realities. Soz, not following, but it doesn't matter. The time line we experience, past / present / future, is made up according to the present beliefs. This isn't the same with the experience we actually went through, or branched from (experience is more like a tree). Beliefs stem from processed experiences, not only from the linear time past. Beliefs can also be directly (as they are) adopted through the inner connections we all have, through our inner senses. Whatever we know, or feel that we experienced, or that we perceive even in this very moment, is read from some kind of memory, and we don't really know how it got there. It could be written by "I' when in another state of consciousness, by my inner guide, by some kind of subconscious routine I am not consciously aware of. If that memory I read is changed, I become something different with no awareness of that having happened (this isn't in terms of linear time). I see this physical reality as a hyperspace having as dimensions time, 3d-space, probabilities, identities. During one's life here, it traces a path through that hyperspace, from a point entered at birth. The past we remember now isn't exactly the path we followed to get here; it reflects our current beliefs, and also our current needs of evolvement, which are mostly beyond our conscious comprehension when awake (not sleeping); mostly for teaching purposes. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 20, 2024 16:16:43 GMT -5
There he is (heh heh)! We already covered this ground recently here (and here). And did you notice this? Of course it's "my house", but ultimately that's just a concession to common-mind. Sometimes the concession is quite relevant, but it has no existential meaning. Notice how in the examples there is a house (while ownership is cited as the belief)? Ah, perhaps you were following that dialog about assumptions. .. but thanks, yes, I didn't think to note that specifically. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 20, 2024 16:27:17 GMT -5
Not so much, really. If it was a belief it would be quite effable. Only if you believe conceptually in what existential beliefs refer to in the first place that matches your definition. A common mind response as you put it is suffice enough to use as a foundation here. Like said without these common mind responses that is integrated within our belief systems one wouldn't say anything about anything.And yet here we all are saying lots of things. Beliefs are effable that's why we can associate the stubbed toe with a self reference in toe (excuse the pun) Making sense of what effable refers to is a belief had that relates to how one can understand and experience life as we do. Well, here what you've done is reduce all words into "common-mind". The speaking/writing of words and other form of expression come in various flavors. One facet of those possible flavors is the distinction between purely mechanistic, conditioned stimuli/response from what is not that. There is what we can think of as a machine. The machine content is all automatic, input/output. This is one way of beginning to untangle the two contexts, the existential context, and the relative, temporal, material context. This is one way to plant the root of pointing to what is not common mind. At this root, the two "contexts" are, necessarily, "mixed". |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 20, 2024 16:32:12 GMT -5
There he is (heh heh)! We already covered this ground recently here (and here). And did you notice this? Of course it's "my house", but ultimately that's just a concession to common-mind. Sometimes the concession is quite relevant, but it has no existential meaning. Well when I asked you about YOU stubbing your toe you answered 'The belief that the pain, is "mine"? Is that the "belief" you think I have'? So based upon what you said above regarding the house it would be safe enough to say in the same context which I haven't been changing around as a foundation that it is equally your toe as it is your house. So you have a belief that reflects what you are that can own and live in a house and bash your toe on the skirting board. You have a belief in a self reference that refers to what you are because you don't know 100% what is True regarding what it is that you are in the grand scheme of things. This is all that I have been saying to you for a while now. I don't know why we have gone to the moon and back several times just to get to this straightforward point. It seems that way to you, yes, but for me, it is not so. You can use all sorts of logic and reasoning to convince yourself otherwise, if you'd like, that's your business. The last word will be yours, as I started the dialog.  |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 21, 2024 6:20:27 GMT -5
Only if you believe conceptually in what existential beliefs refer to in the first place that matches your definition. A common mind response as you put it is suffice enough to use as a foundation here. Like said without these common mind responses that is integrated within our belief systems one wouldn't say anything about anything.And yet here we all are saying lots of things. Beliefs are effable that's why we can associate the stubbed toe with a self reference in toe (excuse the pun) Making sense of what effable refers to is a belief had that relates to how one can understand and experience life as we do. Well, here what you've done is reduce all words into "common-mind". The speaking/writing of words and other form of expression come in various flavors. One facet of those possible flavors is the distinction between purely mechanistic, conditioned stimuli/response from what is not that. There is what we can think of as a machine. The machine content is all automatic, input/output. This is one way of beginning to untangle the two contexts, the existential context, and the relative, temporal, material context. This is one way to plant the root of pointing to what is not common mind. At this root, the two "contexts" are, necessarily, "mixed". I understand that contexts are mixed at times, in some instances however you can get self denying self cos there has been a transcendence of sorts where self is no more. It then brings a whole lotta trouble to the table. I never brought existential beliefs to the table, I was talking about beliefs that relate to a self reference. I was referring to peeps that bash their toes etc. Not having an exact belief in what it is that you are fundamentally from beyond a conceptual understanding or knowing has never negated - dissolved - bypassed your belief in a self referential belief when you bash your toe. It doesn't matter if one can't put a finger on what we are because we carry on regardless. We address what happens accordingly, based upon a belief in our self reference. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 21, 2024 6:23:39 GMT -5
Well when I asked you about YOU stubbing your toe you answered 'The belief that the pain, is "mine"? Is that the "belief" you think I have'? So based upon what you said above regarding the house it would be safe enough to say in the same context which I haven't been changing around as a foundation that it is equally your toe as it is your house. So you have a belief that reflects what you are that can own and live in a house and bash your toe on the skirting board. You have a belief in a self reference that refers to what you are because you don't know 100% what is True regarding what it is that you are in the grand scheme of things. This is all that I have been saying to you for a while now. I don't know why we have gone to the moon and back several times just to get to this straightforward point. It seems that way to you, yes, but for me, it is not so. You can use all sorts of logic and reasoning to convince yourself otherwise, if you'd like, that's your business. The last word will be yours, as I started the dialog. It doesn't just seem that way to me because you have already stated that you had the flu, you acknowledge ownership of your house etc. These are self referential beliefs that reflect what you are that can own a house and bash your toe and get the flu. It doesn't matter like said above if you have an exact pin point belief that refers to what it is that you are exactly. It doesn't matter one bit. You still put a plaster in a gaping wound, you still drink water so you don't die of thirst etc. All reflecting a self referential belief in oneself. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 21, 2024 9:03:25 GMT -5
It seems that way to you, yes, but for me, it is not so. You can use all sorts of logic and reasoning to convince yourself otherwise, if you'd like, that's your business. The last word will be yours, as I started the dialog. It doesn't just seem that way to me because you have already stated that you had the flu, you acknowledge ownership of your house etc. These are self referential beliefs that reflect what you are that can own a house and bash your toe and get the flu. It doesn't matter like said above if you have an exact pin point belief that refers to what it is that you are exactly. It doesn't matter one bit. You still put a plaster in a gaping wound, you still drink water so you don't die of thirst etc. All reflecting a self referential belief in oneself. The horse is dead, so why keep beating it? Many of us don't agree with the way you define either "thoughts" or "beliefs." We understand what you think and how you define various words, and maybe what you think about reality or selfhood are beliefs from your POV, but they're not beliefs in the way that we use that word. I often tell people that I have no beliefs, but people who haven't had any existential insights don't believe me. When I stub my toe, I don't "believe" that I stubbed my toe; I know it because it's a direct experience. No conceptual reflection is necessary, and a belief is a conceptual reflection in the way that most people on this forum define, use, and understand that word. E used to define a belief as "a strong attachment to a thought," but if the mind is silent and there are no thoughts, or if there is no attachment to thoughts, then the idea of a belief never arises. As JLY pointed out, a baby has no beliefs, and an ND sage, whose mind is silent, also has no beliefs. A ND sage interacts with what we call "reality" directly, as reality, so reflective thinking may occur but it's not necessary. Let's agree to disagree about this issue and move on. FWIW, when the sense of "me" vanished in 1999, and this character, as THIS, realized that THIS is all there is, all kinds of subtle past self-referential thinking patterns fell away and never returned. |
|
