The Philosophy Discussion Forum

And if a fortune-teller looks into a crystal ball in order to focus and sees right away that the miserable person in front of her will or will not get what he desires, this is not enlightenment probably, but it seems to work on the same basis.

Best greetings to snowy Finnland.

duszek wrote:But if you need to take a decision ? Even a simple one: shall I turn left or right, the lights are red, so I should better wait, etc. Would it still be "reflecting reality" ?
Automatic or instinctive behaviour seems to require a bit of processing.

You're still confusing the analogy of processing for the reality. Taking a decision is an excellent analogy for what really happens, but another excellent analogy is that there are no decisions to be made, no driving.

Automatic and instinctive behaviour are not automatic or instinctive behaviours, because there is no person behaving and no world 'out there' to interact with.

I know this is hard to grasp, its hard to get one's head round these analogies. But doing this is precisely the yoga that this thread is about. Learn to see the world as just fleeting scenes that arise and in the swiftest moment pass away. Life can always appear this way for those who have the eyes to see.

When you learn to see things this way there is no driving going on, just passing scenes, a road sign...vanished...a hand on a steering wheel...vanished...a 'memory' of our destination...vanished...a knee rising up from the clutch...vanished...a difficult exam at school...vanished...

Learn to see things this way and there are no decisions to be taken. Life unfolds by itself.

Sometimes in our wisdom we see this other analogy - that the car does not need to be driven. But then we go and ruin it all by calling it 'automatic processing', which is a reversion to the first analogy. There is no such thing as automatic processing because there is no difference between the driver and the car - there are just fleeting scenes of knees and steering wheels and a whole lot of other stuff.

Of course all this is just an analogy too - but only when we see this analogy will we see that 'processing' is also just an analogy. Then above these two analogies - the common one called duality and the rare one called unity - there is the truth and it is so simple you could laugh out loud I'm telling you!

Best wishes, nikolai

Nikolai wrote:Yes, this is what I was doing. In many ways using numbers to make my point can be misleading. Position 1 and position 2 (first and second person) are actually equal to each other. For every position 1, for every thesis, there is of necessity a position 2 (antithesis), which is the thing position 1 is set against. Indeed, for position 1 to make sense position 2 is tacitly implied because when we make a statement we need to also posit what it isn't.

I think its easier to say that it takes two to have language or communication has to involve two or more.

I prefer the description of first position as, how do I feel about the situation? What am I feeling, hearing, seeing, thinking, understanding, what outcome do I want from the situation, etc. Position two is what do I think the other is feeling, hearing, seeing, etc, about first position and the situation. What outcome might they want? How does that affect my first position?

Position 3 is the recognition of the above argument, not only with our head but our heart, and a recognition that reality can always be conceptualised in two contradictory ways. Position 3 is to see positions 1 and 2 as equal and not to attach to either of them. In other words, the moment we accept position 2 we open up position 3.

I have it as, now imagine yourself standing to the side(do it in practice but maybe not in real-life ) and looking on as an observer, observe the postures and relationships, facial responses, breathing tones, timbre, etc, think about what advice you'd give to first position to assist the situation.

Position 3 is wisdom, and we all possess this at various times and in various situations. When we are not in position 3 we are in position 1 - stuck in a one sided viewpoint and blind to the equal and opposite alternative. ...

Not always, many can be stuck in position two.

In day to day life position 2 is often provided for us in our encounters in with other people. When our wisdom is weak in us we need other people to remind us of alternative viewpoints. As our wisdom grows stronger we become increasingly able to generate position 2 from within us and other people are not needed. Philosophically minded people are especially good at doing this and it is often said that the good philosopher is good because s/he is able to argue with themselves and self-perfect their own thoughts.

I think all three positions are provided for our encounters. I agree that you can use this technique internally but you'd better first identify the positive intention of the part you wish to arrange an outcome with, and check it wants to communicate first.

I don't doubt that philosophers hold conversations in their heads, whether it means its the same as doing it with the positions I'm not sure, also not sure it leads to self-perfection, in philosophy that is.

People who are weak in wisdom have more single-minded opinions and are unable to modify their viewpoints without a rather dramatic collision course with their opponent. But they are not necessarily rigid and intransigent. A person weak in wisdom is suggestible and might suddenly reject their own position 1 in favour of the position 1 of someone they subordinate themselves to.

You mean they take position two all the time. I'm not sure about all this 'weak in wisdom' stuff? Lacking some techniques maybe.

As I've said earlier we all have our limits and in some areas we are bound to be stuck in position 1 - a position we probably call the Truth. If we find that there are other people who vehemently disagree with us then this is more evidence that we are in position 1. If we find ourselves thinking that "I am right and they are wrong" then we are emotionally in position 1. If, in the case of philosophers, we are fighting a battle on an issue that has been fought over for centuries and has still not been resolved then we are in position 1 and we are blind to the position 2 that our opponent is desperately trying to show us (position 2 for us is, of course, the opponent's own position 1).

I don't think we are "bound" to be stuck in any of the positions but I take your point. There's nothing inherently 'wrong' with position one, its our subjective understanding of how and what we specifically feel and think about the situation.

When we finally see what our opponent is showing us we absorb position 2 without rejecting our own position 1 - and this is position 3. This is wisdom, seeing things equably and from all perspectives. It is tranquil, just, and tolerant. It is no wonder this has been called the God's Eye view, even though it is rather commonplace and within us in all sorts of situations and places.

About right but I don't think it a "God's Eye view", this'll be when we take fourth position, an overview of all three positions, the 'what else' could bear upon the situation position.

The more we gain of it, the less we need other people to forcefully provide us with position 2s. We start to develop a sense that there is bound to be a second way to view things, and we go actively looking for alternative perspectives rather than unilateral position 1 'truths'. The irony is, that is only when we stop looking for unilateral truths that the only unilateral truth suddenly appears right before us. But this time we recognise it and accept it md our career as a seeker of truth is finally completed.

I agree that with practice this becomes a 'natural' state when communicating. I doubt its the completion of truth seeking. I think you miss that many work form position two and sometimes three but its the process of using all three thats the 'truth' of the matter.

Nikolai wrote: In fact I think the danger lies in thinking that any one approach is better or more powerful than others.

Well, yes, agreed, "better" needs to be defined.

I fully agree that on the individual level, whatever works best for that individual is the ideal. Clearly this opens the door to a wide array of approaches, as individuals vary considerably.

If we were to evaluate approaches in the context of the group, another picture emerges. From this viewpoint, humanity as a whole is seen as the relevant unit, rather than the individual. This is the more holistic "we all are one" idea. From this perspective, helpful messages that are most easily shared across the group are the best.

Take the human body as analogy. It doesn't help much to heal a few cells in our body, if the rest of our body is riddled with cancer.

The enlightenment approach is caught up in the "it's all about me" point of view. Teachers who encourage this perspective will be very popular as the very thing that brings the student to the spiritual quest, the source of the problem driving their interest, is the idea that "everything is all about me".

Except that, everything is not all about us. Our personal situation is fully integrated with and dependent upon the fate of the whole, our nuclear family, our extended family, our neighborhood, our community, our nation, our planet. As we've seen, if somebody in some remote corner of the world gets really mad, that madness can be on our doorstep in hours.

So, from this more global perspective, approaches that are at best of value to only a few, are seen as quite limited.

In this thread I am trying to build on the passion for truth that people on this forum are demonstrating on a daily basis.

Although I find the vast majority of your writing to be eminently wise, I believe you are deluded on this particular point.

We are not interested in the truth.

For all of us here, you and me included, philosophy is not a means to an end, philosophy is the end. We like ideas. We like chewing on ideas. The last thing we want is a conclusion that renders chewing on ideas unnecessary.

We are confusing the cover story with the reality, because the cover story is glamorous, and can indeed be very compelling and persuasive.

The cover story is that our philosophical inquiry is proceeding towards some kind of glorious destination we might call "the truth".

The reality is that we are already exactly where we want to be, chewing on ideas. We have the conceptual food in our mouth, it tastes quite good to us, so there is little chance we are going to actually swallow it.

One can make a reasonable case that you are actually in exactly the wrong place to present an approach which involves taking philosophy through to the end. It's fair to propose that we don't want the end, we like the middle, and that's why we're here.

Hi Arising,

I knew I'd regret this numerical idea - if there's one thing you can't do with this stuff it is turn into maths!

The important thing to understand is that positions 1 and 2 are actually the same. Logically they are indistinguishable because they need each other to make sense. I only differentiate between them because that is what ignorance is - to think that thesis and antithesis are separate arguments. You said:

Arising_uk wrote:Not always, many can be stuck in position two.

To be stuck in position 2 is to be stuck in position 1. Position 2 is only understandable as the equal and opposite counterpart of an ignorant person's position 1. Position 2 only manifests as another ignorant person's position 1.

As we grow in wisdom we assimilate position 2s into our own position 1s - and this is position 3. Position 3 is empty in and cannot be conceptualised - were I to delineate it in any way it would then become a position 1. You seem to make mysterious reference to a position 4 - this baffles me - perhaps it is an inner teaching I have not yet uncovered

Fond regards, Nikolai

Typist wrote:From this viewpoint, humanity as a whole is seen as the relevant unit, rather than the individual. This is the more holistic "we all are one" idea. From this perspective, helpful messages that are most easily shared across the group are the best.

The we are all one idea is a perspective that incorporates the whole cosmos, it doesn't stop with the human family. To draw a line around the group is as arbitrary as the line we draw around the individual ego. You seem to be looking for a message that is shared across this collective of egos, something that is of more general appeal. Do not the organised religions fulfil that role? Or do you think we need a new one?

To be honest, I'm not sure I'm trying to develop such a thing although I would be happy to see anyone better equipped do it. I see myself as a thinker talking to other thinkers. A niche enterprise perhaps, but for the thinker it might be easier to understand this tailored view than the more general idea.

Typist wrote:Take the human body as analogy. It doesn't help much to heal a few cells in our body, if the rest of our body is riddled with cancer.

No, but to heal a few is still worth the effort, though the results be modest.

Typist wrote:The enlightenment approach is caught up in the "it's all about me" point of view. Teachers who encourage this perspective will be very popular as the very thing that brings the student to the spiritual quest, the source of the problem driving their interest, is the idea that "everything is all about me".

You often say this, but some enlightenment approaches are very focussed on charity for others - Christianity for example. Many people who develop spiritual wisdom report that one of the fruits is much greater concern and compassion for others, even if the initial motivation may have been selfish. In Buddhism, one of the most commonly heard teachings is that the ego is an illusion. I could go on.

If a person approaches spirituality in an attempt to alleviate their own suffering, and then learns how to do the same for others - why focus only on what they themselves receive? After all, each individual is as entitled to happiness as the next.

Typist wrote:So, from this more global perspective, approaches that are at best of value to only a few, are seen as quite limited.

To light a bonfire it is the single match that must burn first. I think you are saying that the matches I strike on this thread have no capacity to kindle. You may be right, but I have only lived one life and so only have one path to talk about.

Typist wrote:We are not interested in the truth.

For all of us here, you and me included, philosophy is not a means to an end, philosophy is the end. We like ideas. We like chewing on ideas. The last thing we want is a conclusion that renders chewing on ideas unnecessary.

I no longer match this description. I used to chew on ideas a lot, but then I reached conclusions and stopped. It was the best thing that happened to me. The truth that I always felt I was searching for was attainable - I was not on some wild goose chase. I think it is important for philosophers to hear this.

Typist wrote:The reality is that we are already exactly where we want to be, chewing on ideas. We have the conceptual food in our mouth, it tastes quite good to us, so there is little chance we are going to actually swallow it.

We chew in order to swallow. Philosophers think in order to know.

Now I can say this, while at the same time recognise and maintain that the thought managing, aphilosophy is an extremely powerful teaching. I can say this because I know it is only a teaching that will work for some and not others - thought, in itself, is not some kind of bad.

To the natural thinker they must go through thought in order to see the truth. To the hatha yoga enthusiast bending and stretching, we must not castigate them for being too attached to their carnal bodily existence. It is through their exquisite understanding of the body that the body will be transcended.

Now I'm sure you are thinking that philosophical yoga is appropriate only to the few, and is therefore weak. Well it might be, but its the yoga I know about and the only one I could share here on this forum.

Best wishes, Nikolai

My dear typist,

I do not have any doubt in my mind that you are a quite intelligent person but having said that it looks (at least to me) that you are not using your intelligence in proper way but decided to use it playing with words. That is why you change your stance according to your requirement.

Here are some quotes of you from this thread and as well as from thread ‘aphilosophy’ and this thread also.

aPhilosophy is "a-thought". (aphilosophy page 1)
.As you'll recall, the problem which inspired the spiritual journey in the first place is the pain which arises out the conceptual division between "me" and "everything else". We can't get rid of "everything else", so to heal the division our only choice is to get rid of "me".
The first step in turning off the "me" is understanding what the "me" actually is.
The "me" is thought. So, that's simple enough. The "me" is made entirely of thought. So to turn off the "me", we just need to turn off thought.
The alert spiritual traveler may start to become uncomfortable at this point. The more intelligent they are, the sooner they will realize that when we turn off thought and the "me", we will also be saying goodbye to...

This misconception of yours about “me” is misleading you and unfortunately you have made whole castle of aphilosophy around it.
Let me quote a few lines of my post from the thread “aphilosophy” though I am pretty much sure that you have read it already.

There cannot be any phenomenon which we can call “athought”. It is impossible and out of the question. Meditation or no meditation, it is just unachievable. Even enlightenment is not competent enough for athought. All we can do is to reach such a state where we can reveal that; we are not just our physical body; and we are not just our brain; and we are not just our mind and thoughts; and even excluding all these three; something still remains as a remainder.

So my friend, it is the remainder, which is the real “we”, not the thoughts manifested in it. It is eternal. We can not cause any change in it. It is pure so the thought manifested by it are must be seen as corruption in it because it has the power of will. This power of will enables the remainder to manifest all other thoughts. So, as far as this eternity remains in existence, the thought will remain as well; and it will remain forever. So, the question of turning off the thought is out of the question. Yes, it can be guided towards a particular direction. In meditation or prayer, we use this will to overcome other thoughts, because this will is a constant stream of energy, and if, we do not channelize it, it will use its energy somewhere else and produce irrational thoughts.

What you are confusing the real “you” is with typist. The typist is not real “you”. The typist is just the sum of thoughts, manifested in the real “you” during this incarnation. The typist will vanish when the death of the physical body will happen, but, then the remainder will remain and incarnate once again. It will again collect some thoughts and the sum of all that will perhaps known as "atypist".

You said-Well, the system of life and death has been working just fine for a couple billion of years, without our help. We didn't ask to be born, life is incredibly short, and then we are going to die. Our death is absolutely 100% guaranteed, a zero failure rate operation. So, the reunion with reality we so desperately seek is coming, coming soon, coming for sure, no matter what we do or don't do.

This is a proper argument. Religions (especially western) had been questioned about this since ages, but they failed to provide any proper answer though Islam and Hindu mythologies discuss it in detail.
Nothing ends at death, besides that just a one wrap unfolds. You are not going to reunite with eternity after death.
The real “you” is wrapped in three layers. By removing the wrap of typist only, the real “you” will not unveil. There are two more wraps and unfolding of these wraps is the ultimate aim of religions, spirituality and even philosophy though the last one is not able to do it on its own. Although it all together different subject but one must go through it to understand the mechanism of this labyrinth of the universe.
I cannot claim that what I am saying is absolutely right, but it is alike more or less in the broad sense.
As far as I experience and understood in person and found in the religious literature, each and every living entity in this universe is made of only three components; consciousness, mind/will and matter. But the ratio of these three differs.
In first stage, there is only consciousness with only one will and that is will to exist, nothing else. In this stage, the entity is made of only two components; consciousness and will, as matter is not present here so the major component of the entity is consciousness. Time is present here but runs very slowly; infinitely slow, even almost standstill. We can call this stage eternal.
If will does not stop here and causes other thoughts, then the entity falls to astral realm. This realm is made of astral matter thus, by entering here; an astral wrap covers the falling entity. So, now the entity has three ingredients; consciousness, mind and astral body. Now the entity is subjected to life and death. Time runs slowly here also but fast in comparison to the first stage.
If the will does not stop here and causes more thoughts, then it falls to subtle realm. This realm is made of subtle matter thus, by entering here; the subtle wrap covers the astral wrap. The entity still has three ingredients; consciousness, mind and subtle matter but the proportion of mind and matter is more than astral realm, while the consciousness remains stagnant. Time runs here even more faster than the astral realm. Now, we have an entity which has a pure substance in its core and two wraps around it. This life form is also subjected to birth and death.
Now comes the fourth and final stage, which we call our world. Entity does not fall here on its own but is sent from the astral and subtle realms in the form of souls and encaged here in physical human body. So now we have an entity which has consciousness in its core and three wraps around it.
It is fast forward realm in comparison to other three as time runs very fast here. This realm serves as training and testing centre of the souls of two above realms. This training and testing is done by creating circumstances and that is destiny. If the soul completes the training and passes the test successfully then, he is relieved from here, otherwise she has to incarnate here repeatedly, until she is able to pass the test.
The uniqueness of this realm lies in the fact that it is the only place in the universe, where elevation up to the 1st realm is possible. The entity cannot elevate from third to second and from second to first; but here it is possible. Any entity from the astral and subtle realms, which is worthy for crossover, has to routed through here.
Although I have taken too much liberty with philosophy but allow me to be a little more religious here, this is the fact, that is described in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, by mentioning that God asked angles to bow before Adam. All Hindu mythologies also say that this life is precious so do not waste it.
I did not want to say all this,but to answer the typist, it was necessary. I know how will you react because it impossible to believe. Only a person, which either has blind faith (which is not a wise thing to do) or felt it personally, is able to believe it.

These are some more from you.

hread.The suggestion is not to give up thought entirely. (aphilosophy page 1)

Rather, the suggestion is to explore beyond the boundaries of thought, in order to gain some much needed perspective, and understand thought better. (aphilosophy page 1)

Ok, well, as I said above, we aren't "abandoning" thought, we're just exploring beyond it. (aphilosophy page 2)
I would say aphilosophy involves an open minded creative exploration of methods, and a conscious decision to further develop whatever methods seem most promising. (aphilosophy page 2)

As you can see, I too am thinking, about thinking. (aphilosophy page 4)
I'm am positioning aphilosophy as the mirror image of philosophy. (aphilosophy page 9)
evangelicalhumanist wrote:
You see, when Typist suggests that we "explore beyond the boundaries of thought," he does not give any real suggestion as to how a creature who's primary mechanism for exploration is precisely "thought," might accomplish that.

You see, when EH suggests he doesn't know what meditation is, and isn't smart enough to learn about it on his own, and sits there on his fat ass waiting for somebody to spoon feed him answers he doesn't want, so he can spit them up in your face, and then calls it intelligent dialog, well... (aphilosophy page 27)
bran wrote:
It sounds to me as if a-philosophy has been covered more thoroughly in eastern philosophy. I'm not seeing/reading anything new here. I like the concept, but I feel like I have read it in better sources. I understand that someone with a philosophical bent, might tend to become a little too analytical and left-brained in their pursuit of knowledge. But doesn't Zen offer a better remedy for that? What am I missing?

You're not missing anything. I agree with everything you said above. Nothing new, better sources available, zen a well known option, agree with all. (aphilosophy page 27)
To answer your question, imho, there are a thousand ways to gain some control over our thought rate. The main thig is to find a few ways we like, and explore them as desired.

And no, I've not undergone any big transformation. I've been studying aphilosophy for 40 years. Which is why I will now put the rest of this increasingly silly thread on ignore. (aphilosophy page 23)


These are all said by you. One need not to be a Kant to understand what is you suggesting. In simple words you are saying that; aphilosophy is process in which one tries to look beyond the thought with the help of some kind of mental practices like meditation as Zen monks do and thinking is also involved in it.

Now look once again what you said I this thread.

Well, the system of life and death has been working just fine for a couple billion of years, without our help. We didn't ask to be born, life is incredibly short, and then we are going to die. Our death is absolutely 100% guaranteed, a zero failure rate operation. So, the reunion with reality we so desperately seek is coming, coming soon, coming for sure, no matter what we do or don't do.
Everything is under control. Your help isn't needed. Everything we most deeply want is just around the corner. It's already on the schedule.
We Could Relax
So, one option is just to relax, stop worrying about everything and how to change it, and just enjoy being human for the very short amount of time involved.


So, which of these two is your real face?
If all this useless and you are going to reunite with reality by default then what is you studying since last 40 years and why?
My dear friend, please stop making mockery of phrases like “be here now”. I do not think that you understand that in which state of mind and consciousness these are pronounced.
I must tell you one thing that these phrases are misunderstood by a many generations of Hindu society. They mistaken as just to enjoy and live without worry as you said. This perception caused serious lethargy in the whole society when Buddhism and Jainism were on their peak in Indian subcontinent. As a result, they were invaded by Muslims and defeated and Muslims rule here for centuries.
These phrases are not suggesting to give up the effort but indicating towards a pause after completing the job.

with love,
sanjay

You seem to be looking for a message that is shared across this collective of egos, something that is of more general appeal.

Well, yes, I'm a practical person. I will admit I'm more interested in "how can we feed 10,000 people" than I am "how can we feed 4".

Do not the organised religions fulfil that role? Or do you think we need a new one?

Oh my, no thanks, I'll pass on that one. Here's a model I'd offer as an example instead.

Some doctors teach meditation to their heart attack patients. Such doctors remove any ideological or religious aspects from this teaching, as they understand that any ideology that is included will alienate some of their patients, and thus interfere with treatment. So the focus is kept on the experience itself, and the goal is simply to feel better. I feel this is a wise approach, which is widely applicable to very many people.

I enthusiastically believe in the healthy healing power of the experience itself.

I also believe that most of what we think and say about the experience is a bunch of silly ego driven drivel, including my own many burpings on the subject.

I believe this is extremely simple, and that we'd see that if we weren't so compelled to make everything as complicated as we can.

Let's say I'm hungry. I can talk about food all day, create many interesting theories about it, debate food topics on forums, write a book about food, give lectures on the subject, and so on.

And none of that will address my hunger like picking up an apple and eating it.

There's no big mystery about where the apple is. A quick search of Google for "meditation" will bring up thousands of sites, and many different suggestions.

I see myself as a thinker talking to other thinkers. A niche enterprise perhaps, but for the thinker it might be easier to understand this tailored view than the more general idea.

I understand, and really, please do proceed.

But please understand also, as a fellow thinker it's my job as a philosophy forum poster to subject your proposals to a relentless examination. This is the path of philosophy, yes?

As I understand it, by choosing the Philosophy Yoga path, and sharing it with us, you are inviting us to rip anything you say to shreds, if we can. And of course, by doing so, we invite others to do the same with our contributions.

You often say this, but some enlightenment approaches are very focussed on charity for others - Christianity for example. Many people who develop spiritual wisdom report that one of the fruits is much greater concern and compassion for others, even if the initial motivation may have been selfish. In Buddhism, one of the most commonly heard teachings is that the ego is an illusion. I could go on.

These are good points. I especially like the Christianity example. The priest who gently says, "Never mind about you right now, let's go work in the food kitchen."

However, the spiritual community that discusses enlightenment is not like that priest at all. It's all about "me and my enlightenment." I'm not trying to make anyone feel guilty about that, I'm just saying, if we wish to escape the "me" then a focus on "me and my enlightenment" might be misplaced.

To light a bonfire it is the single match that must burn first. I think you are saying that the matches I strike on this thread have no capacity to kindle.

You are a very articulate person writing on an important topic. My comments are not about your ability. My comments are about the human condition. A fundamental shift in consciousness is not in the cards for the vast majority of us. Again, the example of the Olympic athlete comes to mind.

I no longer match this description. I used to chew on ideas a lot, but then I reached conclusions and stopped.

Oh dear, I see no evidence you've stopped.

The truth that I always felt I was searching for was attainable - I was not on some wild goose chase. I think it is important for philosophers to hear this.

It is a wild goose chase for the vast majority of us. That's not your fault, or our fault, but just how it is.

If you were suggesting we could become financially rich, that could indeed be true for a rare few of us.

For the rest of us, it's one more thing somebody else has that we don't have, one more reason to look to a future we're unlikely to reach, instead of to the moment we're already in.

The moment is revolutionary. It destroys all philosophy. Mine, yours, and everybody else's too.

Nikolai wrote:The important thing to understand is that positions 1 and 2 are actually the same. Logically they are indistinguishable because they need each other to make sense. I only differentiate between them because that is what ignorance is - to think that thesis and antithesis are separate arguments. You said:

Arising_uk wrote:Not always, many can be stuck in position two.

To be stuck in position 2 is to be stuck in position 1. Position 2 is only understandable as the equal and opposite counterpart of an ignorant person's position 1. Position 2 only manifests as another ignorant person's position 1.

I disagree, first position is how I think about things, second is how I think others think about the same thing and my position.

As we grow in wisdom we assimilate position 2s into our own position 1s - and this is position 3. Position 3 is empty in and cannot be conceptualised - were I to delineate it in any way it would then become a position 1. You seem to make mysterious reference to a position 4 - this baffles me - perhaps it is an inner teaching I have not yet uncovered

We sort of agree but third position is not empty, its how I think a third person, looking on, would think about position one and two and offer advice to one about how to achieve their outcome. Its fairly easy to conceptualise, imagine yourself standing at the side of one and two looking and listening on. In practice, and I mean actually when practising, you can literally step to one side. Fourth position is to imagine oneself 'above' looking at all three positions and the whole context, so a 'god-like' view, but essentially its to do with 'what else' or 'what other factors' could be in play in the situation. Nothing mysterious.

Cheers.

zinnat13 wrote:...
So, Arising_uk, I think that I have myself clear enough at the issue of thinking in third person and as well as about what I meant by seer and seen. ...

Sorry? Where did this "seer and seen" come from?

This very stage is the maximum which our thinking or philosophy is able to lead us; not beyond. One needs not to be a religious person or spiritualist up to here. Many scientists fall in this category. I want to mention two names particularly; Einstein and Newton. In my opinion, they are true philosophers. All of their finding is derived by their ability to think in third person. Relativity and curved spacetime are the perfect examples of that. ...

Its a shame there were no NLPers around at the time to ask them how they did it as they have a language to describe it to us. My understanding is that they were probably very good at imaging and had the 'language' of maths to describe what they saw. Not sure your "third person" is the same as my third position when it comes to thought and thinking.

As I said earlier, our mind is possessed by two entities; we can name them as outer mind and inner mind for our comfort. In general they do not concentrate on a single issue at any given time. But, as they are somehow connected and even influence each other, so if such a state comes when they concentrate on a common issue together, their combine capacity increases manifolds. This is the stage where out of the world concepts like curved spacetime came into existence. This precise moment is the starting point of the journey to the ultimate. Theist or atheist, scientist or priest, feeling this moment, one is compelled to believe that there is something else and beyond me and my mind.

There is, its called the external world and others. However, there is doubt there is this 'mind' you talk about in the sense of a separate entity other than being a sensing body with a language. Let alone the idea that there are two of them!?

No one knows exactly how much is there and in which form is there. These are the stages talked by Buddha, Mohammad, Mahavira and Zen monks and many religions. There is no need to stretch the list. ...

I think the Buddha and Mohammad far apart in their thoughts.

There is no need to believe me as one can easily say that he is satisfied with that version of him, which is reflected in the mirror. But I want to ask a very simple question; is one can see his mind in the mirror?

No, because its probably not there in the sense you wish. What one can see is ones bodymind, i.e. ones body in a reflection even if it is the wrong way around. How do you know its your body is whats interesting and I think the answer is obvious, it doesn't move to another's will.

If one finds the answer in affirmative then it is OK. But if not, then try to have a look at your mind. Go on a date with it. If we start spending some time with it, it will automatically show the way, just because it is the very part of the ultimate and as well as the only tool by which the journey could be done. There is no need to look anywhere else.

I think there no need to assume any journey nor destination other than what we decide, no need for this "ultimate".

I think that we have something to share with each other. Just have a look at this thread. I have 5 posts there at page 52, 53,55,56,57 viewtopic.php?f=16&t=6446&start=765

I saw them and have made an attempt at a reply to your conversation with me.
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=6446&start=900

Peace
a_uk.

One of the problems in the type of communication that is being attempted here is that the mode of communication (the terms) belie the meaning intended by the terms.
This is why the teacher becomes unnessisary or that it is said that the student shouldn't listen to anything of the teacher.

This is because though I do sympathize with Typists plight and effort, unfortuanately he/you (typist) is, what I refer to, 'oriented in the object'.

The object is always proposed to be able to be known through a particular method. Thus, typist, I see that you are attempting to be taught a method of this 'enightenment' thing.

I do not believe you can 'turn off' thought and still be human. Do assert that you are doing so is to assert that you are denying your humanity. The issue is to 'come upon' a 'different' kind of experiencing of ones human-ness.

I have tried before to convey to you this:
Here is an excersize which exemplifies the situation we have here :
Convey to me what this non-thought, non-knowledge experience or moment is.
I submit that you cannot convey even to your own self what such an experience is without knowledge or thought, and that whatever you might think that such an experience is is Contained by that very thought you are proposing to avoid

If there is such a moment, then what is it?
I submit it cannot be conveyed. And is not separate from knowledge except as one situates ones knowledge to accomodate for a spearation: hence to deny ones humanity as if there is more to ones humanity than being human.

This method is situated in the object. As if there is an object 'out there' to know as an objective. As if we might 'learn' such a method to gain 'trascendance'.

lancek4 wrote:I do not believe you can 'turn off' thought and still be human.

Apologies, but this simply isn't true.

In fact, you yourself, and everybody else too, does it all the time. It's just that it happens so fast, and is so normal, that we usually don't recognize it for what it is.

You're driving to work on a route you've taken many times. You've memorized the drive, and thus don't need to attend to the driving too much. So as you drive along, you're "lost in thought", you know, thinking about the day ahead etc.

Suddenly, a kid on a bike darts out in to the road!

Instantly, and effortlessly, all your thought stops. Your mind stops processing abstractions, and focuses intently upon the real world, to avoid the impending crisis.

Once you miss the kid, then you shift back in to thought, reliving what just happened, reviewing what you or the kid should or shouldn't have done etc. That is, your focus retreats from the real world, and returns to the arena of abstractions.

This shifting of mental focus back and forth from abstractions to the real world happens continually all day every day, it's completely routine normal functioning.

Meditation is an act of taking conscious control of this process.

It's relatively easy to slow the rate of thought with meditation, and this is all that's needed to be of benefit.

People who work at it for awhile can learn to stop thought entirely. You're fully alert, entirely aware of what's going on around you, and you're not thinking about it, but just observing it. It's nothing more than patiently developing the ability to pay attention.

Learning to slow the thought rate is an entirely worthy goal all by itself. There's really not much point in worrying about whether some expert can stop their thoughts or not.

You'll maybe do better if you describe what you mean by "thought"?

sanjay, thanks for your comments. My apologies that I'm not able to address everything you said right now.

If all this useless and you are going to reunite with reality by default then what is you studying since last 40 years and why?

I study these things because they interest me. Same reason as the rest of us here in the thread I guess. The act of study can be it's own end. It doesn't have to be a means to some other end.

As example, we are posting and reading here because we enjoy posting and reading. We aren't saving the world, and our conversation is not leading up to some big accomplishment. It's unlikely any of us will change our views to any significant degree. That said, posting and reading can be appreciated for themselves. We're enjoying posting and reading, or we wouldn't be doing it, and that can be good enough.

I'm not against a spiritual journey if that's one is interested in. If one enjoys the act of being on that journey, then go for it.

Perhaps I'm saying we might relax, and enjoy whatever journey we're on for itself, as there's no need to worry about the destination, as that's already been taken care of. We aren't really needed to intervene and fix things etc. This is good news, imho.

Whether we become "enlightened" or not isn't a matter of great concern. If we happen to stumble in to such a thing, great, enjoy it. If we have some different kind of life instead, then enjoy that.

Let's be happy with whatever we've got first, before concerning ourselves with what we don't have.

Do we want to be happy? Ok good, so let's be happy now, right here where we already are. The person who is serious about happiness will focus on embracing and enjoying what they've already got, before rushing off to someplace else.

If we are unwilling to make peace with where we already are, then a spiritual journey will always be polluted with our need. We won't be concerned with truth, but with that need.

If we are willing to learn how to enjoy what we've already got, then the spiritual journey is unnecessary. Fun perhaps, but not a requirement.

My dear friend, please stop making mockery of phrases like “be here now”.

Hmm, I'm actually a big fan both of the act of "being here now" and the phrase itself.

Typist wrote:

lancek4 wrote:I do not believe you can 'turn off' thought and still be human.

Apologies, but this simply isn't true.

In fact, you yourself, and everybody else too, does it all the time. It's just that it happens so fast, and is so normal, that we usually don't recognize it for what it is.

You're driving to work on a route you've taken many times. You've memorized the drive, and thus don't need to attend to the driving too much. So as you drive along, you're "lost in thought", you know, thinking about the day ahead etc.

Suddenly, a kid on a bike darts out in to the road!

Instantly, and effortlessly, all your thought stops. Your mind stops processing abstractions, and focuses intently upon the real world, to avoid the impending crisis.

Once you miss the kid, then you shift back in to thought, reliving what just happened, reviewing what you or the kid should or shouldn't have done etc. That is, your focus retreats from the real world, and returns to the arena of abstractions.

This shifting of mental focus back and forth from abstractions to the real world happens continually all day every day, it's completely routine normal functioning.

Meditation is an act of taking conscious control of this process.

It's relatively easy to slow the rate of thought with meditation, and this is all that's needed to be of benefit.

People who work at it for awhile can learn to stop thought entirely. You're fully alert, entirely aware of what's going on around you, and you're not thinking about it, but just observing it. It's nothing more than patiently developing the ability to pay attention.

Learning to slow the thought rate is an entirely worthy goal all by itself. There's really not much point in worrying about whether some expert can stop their thoughts or not.

I submit to you that you just conveyed tome 'whatever it was that was the thoughtless experience' in language, in knowledge. Such that 'whatever it is/was' 'informed' You what it was by the thoiughts/knowledge that could not be determined by you in any other way at that moment. You have conveyed to me this 'experience' that you have relegated to something that was not in language/knowledge only through your denial of your whole being, as if it is somehow segregated in its nature.