What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[lancek4]

Well, Reasontion said that s/he has some thoughts that are no good for thinking and so I wondered how one would know of which thoughts were the wrong ones, and do I offered the Scientology avenue for discussion. L Ron has a machine that let's you know what thoughts are stemming from bad data.

[chaz wyman]

Well, Reasontion said that s/he has some thoughts that are no good for thinking and so I wondered how one would know of which thoughts were the wrong ones, and do I offered the Scientology avenue for discussion. L Ron has a machine that let's you know what thoughts are stemming from bad data.

... which is bogus. Why did you mention that?

[reasonvemotion]

it is my belief to distance oneself from any group of people calling themselves "whatever"

Lance:

Well, Reasontion said that s/he has some thoughts that are no good

I don't recall using the words "good" (or "bad").


Reasonvemotion:

my description "rubbish in the mind", I think should be replaced with

the garbage that they spew.

[lancek4]

reasonvemotion I apologize. Even in the deapths of seriousness I often find levity. Yes it is easy to distance myself. Is that wrong? what sort of psychological issues might I have? Im sure I could find a near infinity of them from just this aspect of myself.

Perhaps there was a time when I was concerned with such things. I found that they got me nowhere. I find that I take myself so seriously that it is funny. My propositions are rediculous but I still have them. theu mean nothing but have to mean something. I have judgements that are true but really hold little water.
It allows me a greater potential for a more authentic interaction with people.

I am my own worst enemy.
Now what the hell does this mean? I understand the 'emo' thing and all and the 'cool' self deafeating attitudes. Is this what it means?
I might take it in a most philosophical manner and see that you are making a very profound statement, but then you go on along a (what I see) as a different vector...

Thinking too much, just like too much of anything, can be detrimental to oneself.
Perhaps you could look up the 'aphilosophy thread' and read some of Typists stuff about 'not thinking. i think the group of us went on and on around that silliness for pages and pages and pages.

To erase much of the acquired knowledge or rubbish in the mind, almost like restoring a computer to manufacturer's state,
This is what reminded me of Scientology. Im sure you can see the correlation.

so it becomes simple, clear and your heart is the same, perhaps then truth can come into fruition.
So here it is: Truth. Maybe we can get somewhere with this statement. What is this 'truth' you are speaking about here?

To me, so far in you paragraph, I would respond that you are who you are. You cannot separate 'youself' from your 'thoughts'; niether can you segregate what thoughts are 'desireable you' from 'undesirable'. In as much as it seems that you would like to do this, or that you see some thing of your thoughts that is 'rubbish'm I then suggest that in that you have this idea of yourself, as if there is some segregating yourself from youself, that this is exactly the problem that you are dwelling uopn. That is to say, in as much as you have this Being that is you thinking, and these thoughts somehow figure yourself as some object that you can consider 'what i like of' and 'what I dont like of', you are not such Being, but are caught in the illusion that there is some 'Truth' somehwere that you can come upon or know or understand or not understand, that will make you 'complete' or 'comfortable' with youself.

It has certainly eluded me up to this point as I find it almost impossible to clear and still my mind for a substantial amount of time. In Buddhism it is the most difficult of all tasks to achieve.

It is my understanding that the approach that you are indicating is not really what the appraoch is about. Yours indicates some method of comeing to oneself. The intent of the practice actually moves upon an ulterior (sp?) or alternative motive: that such a practice, while indeed eliciting an ability, such as weightliftng yields stringer muscles, but perhaps in the reverse in the case of thinking, the 'larger vehicle' is coming to terms with the fact that a person merely exists, and this existence bars nothing from itself and so where the 'practice' ends, then real existance can proceed.

I am finding that people tend to be caugt up in the insult that they pick up from my comments prior to seeing how the comment yeilds a reaction. the primary and overwhelming assumption is, in many if not most cases, that I am being an ass an trying to insult, and so they take the insult.

Perhaps the reason that Chaz's manouvers, that i have experienced in my interactions with him, only served and serve to spawn more rigourous and effective discussions, so far as to what I have gotten from them, is because my assumption is that I am not insulted, but that both of us are working together in a problem. As to what his actual intent or feelings at the time, I consider them secondarily, and actually I dont really care, because what has occurred is that I have learned and can learn and our interactions have yeilded some sort of common respect between us (even though he can be an ass at times).

[lancek4]

Well, Reasontion said that s/he has some thoughts that are no good for thinking and so I wondered how one would know of which thoughts were the wrong ones, and do I offered the Scientology avenue for discussion. L Ron has a machine that let's you know what thoughts are stemming from bad data.

... which is bogus. Why did you mention that?

see the comment just prior to this posting. She/he made an analogy to a computer or something, and I thought of scientology.

but hey: they have machines that can do all sorts of things, why not one that can detect 'engrams' from an incorporated prior trauma?

[reasonvemotion]

I had prepared a reply to your post and lost all of it. Need some sleep, so I will give it a try tomorrow. Cheers

[jakaos]

Dont you just hate that.

[Arising_uk]

... L Ron has a machine that let's you know what thoughts are stemming from bad data.

No he doesn't, what the Scientologists have with their e-meter is a galvanic response measurer that they combine with closed-questions to suck you into their religion. Its a powerful experience and they use it to great effect upon the credulous, depressed and vulnerable to steal their money.

[chaz wyman]

Well, Reasontion said that s/he has some thoughts that are no good for thinking and so I wondered how one would know of which thoughts were the wrong ones, and do I offered the Scientology avenue for discussion. L Ron has a machine that let's you know what thoughts are stemming from bad data.

... which is bogus. Why did you mention that?

see the comment just prior to this posting. She/he made an analogy to a computer or something, and I thought of scientology.

but hey: they have machines that can do all sorts of things, why not one that can detect 'engrams' from an incorporated prior trauma?

Well.... because there is no such thing as an engram! Obviously really.

Perhaps you were being ironic?

[lancek4]

Perhaps. But Leon won the bet it seems.

[reasonvemotion]

I am my own worst enemy. Thinking too much, just like too much of anything, can be detrimental to oneself.

When my thoughts are extreme, I put too much emphasis on and tremendous energy into activities from which I gain nothing.
.

To erase much of the acquired knowledge or rubbish in the mind, almost like restoring a computer to manufacturer's state, so it becomes simple, clear and your heart is the same, perhaps then truth can come into fruition.

It is extremely hard to rest undistracted in the nature of mind or to be as free as possible from the clamor of preconceived ideas even for a moment.

It has certainly eluded me up to this point as I find it almost impossible to clear and still my mind for a substantial amount of time. In Buddhism it is the most difficult of all tasks to achieve.

still my mind

In one commonly practiced Tibetan Buddhist technique for developing attentional stability and vividness the attention is focused on a mental image of an object such as a flower or a pebble. With mindfulness one seeks to attend to that image continuously without disengaging from it, but in the early phases of this practice, the duration of such continuous attention is extremely short. Indeed, many novices are astonished and dismayed in the early phases of this training to discover how chaotic their minds actually are!


The task is to strike a balance, to find a middle way, to learn not to overextend with extraneous activities and preoccupations, but to simplify life. This journey has taken me through suffering and difficulties, but through them I strive to learn my limitations and discover my strengths.

This will enable me to gather insight to recognize truth if it comes knocking at my door,

but isn't the question "what is stopping us............", not what is.

I have based my answer on my limited knowledge of Tibetan Buddhism, thus far.

[lancek4]

I am my own worst enemy. Thinking too much, just like too much of anything, can be detrimental to oneself.

When my thoughts are extreme, I put too much emphasis on and tremendous energy into activities from which I gain nothing.
.

To erase much of the acquired knowledge or rubbish in the mind, almost like restoring a computer to manufacturer's state, so it becomes simple, clear and your heart is the same, perhaps then truth can come into fruition.

It is extremely hard to rest undistracted in the nature of mind or to be as free as possible from the clamor of preconceived ideas even for a moment.

It has certainly eluded me up to this point as I find it almost impossible to clear and still my mind for a substantial amount of time. In Buddhism it is the most difficult of all tasks to achieve.

still my mind

In one commonly practiced Tibetan Buddhist technique for developing attentional stability and vividness the attention is focused on a mental image of an object such as a flower or a pebble. With mindfulness one seeks to attend to that image continuously without disengaging from it, but in the early phases of this practice, the duration of such continuous attention is extremely short. Indeed, many novices are astonished and dismayed in the early phases of this training to discover how chaotic their minds actually are!


The task is to strike a balance, to find a middle way, to learn not to overextend with extraneous activities and preoccupations, but to simplify life. This journey has taken me through suffering and difficulties, but through them I strive to learn my limitations and discover my strengths.

This will enable me to gather insight to recognize truth if it comes knocking at my door,

but isn't the question "what is stopping us............", not what is.

I have based my answer on my limited knowledge of Tibetan Buddhism, thus far.

Ah. Very good. Much of the tac of this thread has been to try to figure what truth is and then to figure what prevents us from seeing it.
It seems your method is implied in a as of yet unknown truth.
But still, the method suggests an absolute truth of thee situation.
I would suggest there are those who need no 'mental stillness' for their truth.


So I have come back to what truth is not being seen.

[reasonvemotion]

I think you should ask the originator of this post to answer that question.

What's stopping us from seeing the truth? He/she implies by this statement they have the knowledge of what "the truth" is. I have answered the question as it was posed.

I would suggest there are those who need no 'mental stillness' for their truth.

and would that be you?

[SpheresOfBalance]

I think you should ask the originator of this post to answer that question.

What's stopping us from seeing the truth? He/she implies by this statement they have the knowledge of what "the truth" is. I have answered the question as it was posed.

Yes, one could say that his question is ambiguous, what truth? Truth in it's totality, as it would seem he meant, considering it is contained in the metaphysics section, is huge. This is how I took it. So there is only one place to look, deep into the cosmos, to the theory of every thing. But I've talked to Bill and followed his comments and I do not believe that he believed he knew, but I could be wrong. At one time Bill spoke of our optical capabilities via the Hubble Telescope, with a graphic, which was his style, that tended to piss people off, while I enjoyed it. So either way the truth is contained in our minds, whatever the reason for our not being capable.

I would suggest there are those who need no 'mental stillness' for their truth.

and would that be you?

[lancek4]

I think you should ask the originator of this post to answer that question.

What's stopping us from seeing the truth? He/she implies by this statement they have the knowledge of what "the truth" is. I have answered the question as it was posed.

I would suggest there are those who need no 'mental stillness' for their truth.

and would that be you?

No, it would not be me. but there would be some.

But let me offer something from
Ecce Homo:

Sec 9:

"the fact that one becomes what one is, presupposes that one has not the remotest suspicion of what one is ".

If I have to question facets if my thinking, I am avoiding the very fact that it is the faulty thinking that I am using to appraise my thinking, as if I can segregate my self from my self. This feature or ability posits itself into reason and justifies the incompletion of its self for the sake, not of finding a whole ness or solution , but exactly for the sake of problem.