|
|
Post by sharon on Sept 8, 2024 9:13:05 GMT -5
What does this word mean? What it takes to be functional. Like when you come to a traffic light, and it's red, you stop. Reality is that which when you quit believing in it, doesn't go away. Philip K D!ck The first obligation, protect the body. (You can't operate, here, without a body). The transient nature of the car that you're driving up to the traffic light must be quite obvious. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 8, 2024 13:02:30 GMT -5
I will sign off from this argument, as it is of no use to me, and it seems to be of no use to you either. Have a nice weekend! ... I feel for your pain and struggle. Honestly, with no condescendence or alike. This reminds of an episode of "Seinfeld", when George realized that his first impulse is always wrong, so he went to do its opposite in every situation, which brought him great success until he fell back on his old reactive mode. This is key, I believe: to flip from a reactive mode to a creative mode; start your breathing cycle with the breath out instead of the breath in. For example: if you read something you disagree with, instead of asking the other to justify himself, try to turn inwards and ask why you experience that contradictory situation, what is the interpretation, the lesson, the guidance for you there. This doesn't mean that the other is right or wrong, as that doesn't matter; it is a prop. What matters is only why you were exposed to that experience, because nothing is without meaning. It is just that the obvious is just a distortion, a low resolution image of something meaningful; always. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Sept 8, 2024 13:31:31 GMT -5
Well there's the golden ticket. Attention does return to wherever that is and awareness and attention go hand in hand. So it doesn't matter how many dreamlike premises one potentially has and how many understandings had of no-one is here and the world is an illusion for examples sake when one finds their attentional awareness here and now. One keeps returning to this point regardless. So the one that can put aside self in meditation and transcend their worldly traumas and the feelings of abuse eventually return back to a point where the self is and world is. This is a point worth thinking about as to why that is. It's like a magnetic pull back to a point in reality. A premise is essential for logic, and plausible premises are essential for a sound conclusion, so if you can tell me a plausible premise for the conclusion that someone is here I might be convinced, but I'm currently convinced that the common conviction that someone is here is assumed on the following grounds: There is experience; therefore I am. The premise is a given, but does the conclusion necessarily follow? Well there must be something plausible that you are believing for you to interact with other's as you do. What would convince you that someone isn't here? I heard you speaking about helping your sister out the other day with gardening bits as that is your forte. It just doesn't make sense to me for peeps to behave in a certain way and then speak in almost opposite terms. It almost goes against the grain. Self awareness is self evident. Now Definitions of someone. noun. a human being. synonyms: individual, mortal, person, somebody, soul. being, organism. So self awareness within the experience of what we know as a human experience reflects the knowings and understandings, the feelings that associate oneself with that to certain degrees. If you don't believe that any of that plausible then I dare say nothing will float your boat. Many believe that anything mindful that encompasses the senses isn't real so there really isn't anything that will tick their boxes. Even though individuality and self awareness go hand in hand with their experience, they will denounce it while showing love or hate for their fellow man. Mind boggles with all that. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Sept 8, 2024 13:32:07 GMT -5
I feel for your pain and struggle. Honestly, with no condescendence or alike. No need fella. I am fine. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 8, 2024 13:37:22 GMT -5
Well there's the golden ticket. Attention does return to wherever that is and awareness and attention go hand in hand. So it doesn't matter how many dreamlike premises one potentially has and how many understandings had of no-one is here and the world is an illusion for examples sake when one finds their attentional awareness here and now. One keeps returning to this point regardless. So the one that can put aside self in meditation and transcend their worldly traumas and the feelings of abuse eventually return back to a point where the self is and world is. This is a point worth thinking about as to why that is. It's like a magnetic pull back to a point in reality. A premise is essential for logic, and plausible premises are essential for a sound conclusion, so if you can tell me a plausible premise for the conclusion that someone is here I might be convinced, but I'm currently convinced that the common conviction that someone is here is assumed on the following grounds: There is experience; therefore I am. The premise is a given, but does the conclusion necessarily follow? is where Niz' focus on "I am" has good merit. He says to start your attempt to knowing by leaving aside everything that you believe, that you believe you know, that you believe there is, that is obvious, that you experience, that you feel, memories, ... everything. You just know that you exist. You don't know what you are, what exists, ... You don't know anything else. Then he seemed to have realized / hypothesized that the physical reality he experienced wasn't an objective reality, it somehow was only his creation. I haven't read enough of his opinions to know if he suggested how this creation happens, or more. He also realized / hypothesized that what he is in the physical reality is actually a state of something else; there is something "behind" it. I don't know what he suggest that that might be. But, it doesn't matter what he believed, if he was right or wrong, how distorted his hypotheses were. To me it matters only what I can learn from my inner source of knowledge and guidance, and in order to minimize the inherent distortions, to leave aside everything, to "completely empty the cup". |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Sept 8, 2024 14:35:12 GMT -5
A premise is essential for logic, and plausible premises are essential for a sound conclusion, so if you can tell me a plausible premise for the conclusion that someone is here I might be convinced, but I'm currently convinced that the common conviction that someone is here is assumed on the following grounds: There is experience; therefore I am. The premise is a given, but does the conclusion necessarily follow? Well there must be something plausible that you are believing for you to interact with other's as you do. What would convince you that someone isn't here? I heard you speaking about helping your sister out the other day with gardening bits as that is your forte. It just doesn't make sense to me for peeps to behave in a certain way and then speak in almost opposite terms. It almost goes against the grain. Self awareness is self evident. Now Definitions of someone. noun. a human being. synonyms: individual, mortal, person, somebody, soul. being, organism. So self awareness within the experience of what we know as a human experience reflects the knowings and understandings, the feelings that associate oneself with that to certain degrees. If you don't believe that any of that plausible then I dare say nothing will float your boat. Many believe that anything mindful that encompasses the senses isn't real so there really isn't anything that will tick their boxes. Even though individuality and self awareness go hand in hand with their experience, they will denounce it while showing love or hate for their fellow man. Mind boggles with all that. Is Spirit someone? |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Sept 8, 2024 14:37:24 GMT -5
A premise is essential for logic, and plausible premises are essential for a sound conclusion, so if you can tell me a plausible premise for the conclusion that someone is here I might be convinced, but I'm currently convinced that the common conviction that someone is here is assumed on the following grounds: There is experience; therefore I am. The premise is a given, but does the conclusion necessarily follow? is where Niz' focus on "I am" has good merit. He says to start your attempt to knowing by leaving aside everything that you believe, that you believe you know, that you believe there is, that is obvious, that you experience, that you feel, memories, ... everything. You just know that you exist. You don't know what you are, what exists, ... You don't know anything else. Then he seemed to have realized / hypothesized that the physical reality he experienced wasn't an objective reality, it somehow was only his creation. I haven't read enough of his opinions to know if he suggested how this creation happens, or more. He also realized / hypothesized that what he is in the physical reality is actually a state of something else; there is something "behind" it. I don't know what he suggest that that might be. But, it doesn't matter what he believed, if he was right or wrong, how distorted his hypotheses were. To me it matters only what I can learn from my inner source of knowledge and guidance, and in order to minimize the inherent distortions, to leave aside everything, to "completely empty the cup". From what I read, it was there when he needed it to be. And wasn't when he didn't. Which makes a lot of sense. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 8, 2024 17:37:12 GMT -5
Well there's the golden ticket. Attention does return to wherever that is and awareness and attention go hand in hand. So it doesn't matter how many dreamlike premises one potentially has and how many understandings had of no-one is here and the world is an illusion for examples sake when one finds their attentional awareness here and now. One keeps returning to this point regardless. So the one that can put aside self in meditation and transcend their worldly traumas and the feelings of abuse eventually return back to a point where the self is and world is. This is a point worth thinking about as to why that is. It's like a magnetic pull back to a point in reality. A premise is essential for logic, and plausible premises are essential for a sound conclusion, so if you can tell me a plausible premise for the conclusion that someone is here I might be convinced, but I'm currently convinced that the common conviction that someone is here is assumed on the following grounds: There is experience; therefore I am. The premise is a given, but does the conclusion necessarily follow? The conclusion has the potential to be engaged as an open question.  In it's purest form, that question is, very simply, "what??  ". This questioning can be an entirely different dimension from tenka's interest in trauma, and even your interest in reactivity (which I find to be far more subtle). "Spiritual bypassing" gets a bad rap, and for good reason, but like every other manifestation in life, it involves a two-sided coin. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 8, 2024 17:43:48 GMT -5
What it takes to be functional. Like when you come to a traffic light, and it's red, you stop. Reality is that which when you quit believing in it, doesn't go away. Philip K D!ck The first obligation, protect the body. (You can't operate, here, without a body). The transient nature of the car that you're driving up to the traffic light must be quite obvious.  (** hangs head in shame at abusing a Zen koan **)  |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Sept 8, 2024 20:57:02 GMT -5
That’s why I left after a few arguments. I anticipated this outcome. Tenka has a way of pushing people into situations where it’s impossible to argue with him anymore. Most have witnessed that you don't answer straightforward questions. Again, same as inavalan you see straightforward questions put forward as being argumentative when all that is happening is questions being asked. How on earth can straightforward questions end up with people refusing to answer and get defensive and make out that I am the aggressor. Kan't peeps just take ownership that what they say doesn't add up at times or that their behaviour doesn't match their beliefs? I am not ready to do any debate with you. Bye. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Sept 8, 2024 21:04:50 GMT -5
I feel for your pain and struggle. Honestly, with no condescendence or alike. This reminds of an episode of "Seinfeld", when George realized that his first impulse is always wrong, so he went to do its opposite in every situation, which brought him great success until he fell back on his old reactive mode. This is key, I believe: to flip from a reactive mode to a creative mode; start your breathing cycle with the breath out instead of the breath in. For example: if you read something you disagree with, instead of asking the other to justify himself, try to turn inwards and ask why you experience that contradictory situation, what is the interpretation, the lesson, the guidance for you there. This doesn't mean that the other is right or wrong, as that doesn't matter; it is a prop. What matters is only why you were exposed to that experience, because nothing is without meaning. It is just that the obvious is just a distortion, a low resolution image of something meaningful; always. People are stamped to carry out certain actions if you notice carefully. There is a purpose behind every such expression. I have been looking at Tenka for very long time and noticing his inability to grasp anything people say therefore, it’s better not to pressure him to comprehend things and instead, let him be as he is. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 9, 2024 3:55:57 GMT -5
A premise is essential for logic, and plausible premises are essential for a sound conclusion, so if you can tell me a plausible premise for the conclusion that someone is here I might be convinced, but I'm currently convinced that the common conviction that someone is here is assumed on the following grounds: There is experience; therefore I am. The premise is a given, but does the conclusion necessarily follow? Well there must be something plausible that you are believing for you to interact with other's as you do. What would convince you that someone isn't here? I heard you speaking about helping your sister out the other day with gardening bits as that is your forte. It just doesn't make sense to me for peeps to behave in a certain way and then speak in almost opposite terms. It almost goes against the grain. Self awareness is self evident. Now Definitions of someone. noun. a human being. synonyms: individual, mortal, person, somebody, soul. being, organism. So self awareness within the experience of what we know as a human experience reflects the knowings and understandings, the feelings that associate oneself with that to certain degrees. If you don't believe that any of that plausible then I dare say nothing will float your boat. Many believe that anything mindful that encompasses the senses isn't real so there really isn't anything that will tick their boxes. Even though individuality and self awareness go hand in hand with their experience, they will denounce it while showing love or hate for their fellow man. Mind boggles with all that. It's weird, but 'this is how it is', so I help my sister with yard stuff, and she's a lot like me with no identity, but of course the personality is there, formed by the whole of the past to turn out like 'this', much like a canyon was formed over eons by the weather that happened - to turn out the way it is. Likewise, I am this way by fate, and there's no actual continuous identity than can make it somehow other, though change is ongoing, but for the majority of people there is an effort of becoming who they want to be, without acceptance of 'this is how I am', but it's not always easy to come to peace with the whole of one's past, and thereby, the person that they are.
|
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 9, 2024 4:04:28 GMT -5
A premise is essential for logic, and plausible premises are essential for a sound conclusion, so if you can tell me a plausible premise for the conclusion that someone is here I might be convinced, but I'm currently convinced that the common conviction that someone is here is assumed on the following grounds: There is experience; therefore I am. The premise is a given, but does the conclusion necessarily follow? The conclusion has the potential to be engaged as an open question. In it's purest form, that question is, very simply, "what?? ". This questioning can be an entirely different dimension from tenka's interest in trauma, and even your interest in reactivity (which I find to be far more subtle). "Spiritual bypassing" gets a bad rap, and for good reason, but like every other manifestation in life, it involves a two-sided coin. Well, I believe in spiritual bypassing, coz you are as you are, traumatised and everything as the case mighy be and most probably is, and where some say it's an obstacle, I claim it isn't an obstacle as such - it's how you are - but I believe in purification, too, and in that sense we can say there's obstacles, blocks etc. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 9, 2024 4:10:04 GMT -5
A premise is essential for logic, and plausible premises are essential for a sound conclusion, so if you can tell me a plausible premise for the conclusion that someone is here I might be convinced, but I'm currently convinced that the common conviction that someone is here is assumed on the following grounds: There is experience; therefore I am. The premise is a given, but does the conclusion necessarily follow? is where Niz' focus on "I am" has good merit. He says to start your attempt to knowing by leaving aside everything that you believe, that you believe you know, that you believe there is, that is obvious, that you experience, that you feel, memories, ... everything. You just know that you exist. You don't know what you are, what exists, ... You don't know anything else. Then he seemed to have realized / hypothesized that the physical reality he experienced wasn't an objective reality, it somehow was only his creation. I haven't read enough of his opinions to know if he suggested how this creation happens, or more. He also realized / hypothesized that what he is in the physical reality is actually a state of something else; there is something "behind" it. I don't know what he suggest that that might be. But, it doesn't matter what he believed, if he was right or wrong, how distorted his hypotheses were. To me it matters only what I can learn from my inner source of knowledge and guidance, and in order to minimize the inherent distortions, to leave aside everything, to "completely empty the cup". I'm a big Nis fan, and that paragraph is good. I don't know what, how and why, but I know 'this is what it's like'. That is not objective in any way - entirely subjective - but at the same time, completely doubtless and undeniable. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 9, 2024 4:18:26 GMT -5
The problem with edicts regarding reality is their slippery nature. Telling people(hahaha-nonexistent people) to stop chasing might as well be telling them to chase stopping chasing. There's quite a bit more to it. It's not really 'stop chasing' as such, but when craving occurs one knows 'this is craving', so in meditation when they say the mind is peaceful etc, it's not actually 'how it is'. Maybe the mind is going completely wild. Meditation is knowing 'the mind is going wild'. One can be on their little sailing boat in a calm still sea, then it gets windy, the swell rises up, and a big storm blows you around, and it passes, so the meditator just knows 'this is what it's like' with the understanding 'it won't last long'. The old salt has seen it come and go a thousand times before, so to him, another storm is just par for the course, and he's not perturbed by anything |
|
In it's purest form, that question is, very simply, "what?? 
