Philosophy Now Forum

nameless,

RE: S9: Some say that metaphysics is the apical growth of all religion.
N: At which point, perhaps, it is no longer religion?

S9: Just because we give the apical growth, (shall we say of a tree), a more specific name to designate its function, that doesn’t mean that it is no longer a part of a large grouping called tree. It doesn’t mean that we can therefore cut away the roots, the branches, and/or even the trunk of that tree, and just leave the apical growth of that same tree out there floating in space.

In this same way, religion serves as the very bedrock of this long and changing journey towards ultimate understanding. I believe that ultimate understanding is something that we all must grow into.

Some people will never make the complete journey (some say in this life time). Perhaps this is because they are lacking in some capacity to do so. Who knows? But what are we to do with these poor souls than, deny them all comfort? Religion serves in this way, too.


N: The one common thread that I have found of all religion is 'beliefs'. Believers of a feather seem to flock together, bingo, religion.

S9: Flocking together is another way to seek comfort, or safety in numbers.

Of course mystics might flock together too, if there were enough of us in any one region to create a group.

N: So, I see 'religion' as a place of 'beliefs' not 'thoughts'.

S9: These people think about religion, some almost constantly. What they don’t do is to question it.

But, I am not sure that “us against them” is a pleasant way to spend our time.


Q: Bodhidharma: “If you use your mind to study reality, you won't understand either your mind or reality. If you study reality without using your mind, you'll understand both.”

N: What is Jnana Yoga then? I think that this statement of his leaves much to be desired.

S9: I am a Jnana and I like this quote very much.

I think he is saying that you must transcend the mind in order to look directly AT ‘Reality.’ But once you actually see ‘Reality’ everything comes clear. You even understand the mind.


N: If this is in relation to my defense of 'context', there was someone else complaining the same thing.

S9: I’m not surprised. It obfuscates what you are trying to say.

N: My words are 'me.’

S9: This is a big mistake on your part. You must learn to see them as mere tools. If you do not learn this lesson, you will fall in love with a word or a phrase and forget that your purpose, when speaking with others, is to communicate.

When you are thinking to yourself, obviously you can use any words you want to.


N: Perhaps there are no other words as suitable?

S9: There is always another word. Try harder. If your ‘great word isn’t understood by another, and you still refuse to change it because its such a great word, than you are simply being either unimaginative or doggone stubborn, my friend.


N: All I can do is plant the seeds.

S9: This is not an excuse to be sloppy.

When you plant a seed you do everything you can for that seed. You don’t say to the seed, “I don’t care if you require full sun to prosper, I like the shade, so tough.”

I fully know that Ramana said this Quote above,before you.

But he said this to a disciple, who questioned him about all of the detailed time and trouble he had taken with a fellow,which the disciple considered hopeless and a wate of time. In other words, Ramana really took a lot of trouble with that particular seed.)


N: I understand your frustration.

S9: Yes, I know you do. There is no one on this path that hasn’t tasted real frustration at one time or another.


N: I am writing here is contextual in the sense that all words are 'dualistic' (a poor term, but perhaps, more understandable for some).

S9: Thank you, Jesus!


N: That which is a monism has no 'context', a monism has no 'qualities' or 'features'. It is a perfect symmetry, unbounded, limitless, etc.

S9: Yes, I know.


N: So we have that inherent linguistic problem and so reading between the lines becomes so much more necessary.

S9: Quite so.


N: In forgetting yourself, you become what you do, so your action is free, spontaneous, without ambition, inhibition, or fear.

S9: Thank you for that. It was easy to understand at least for me.

However, You don’t become what you do. Doing takes place automatically, yet all of the time you realizing that you are not the doer, and you are not the action done.

It is rather like sitting beside the river (of life) and not interfering with the river. (AKA Wu Wei).


N: In a state of 'innocence' or Zen Satori all simply is.

S9: The Buddhists call this, “Suchness."

Have you ever had an experience of Satori? I believe that I have. Whatever it was, it was magical.


N: Not is 'One', as that 'One' is a thought/egoic, and the Zen state is not.

S9: I fully understand the word ‘I’ is a concept, But the actual Identity of “I Am that I Am” is not a concept. “ BEING IS,” or “Self knows Self as Being Self.” (AKA Reality knows Reality as Being Reality.) Identity is intrinsic.


N: I'd be happy to say it again a thousand different ways that, perhaps, one will arrive along with understanding. I'm wondering if this is the place for that, though.

S9: There is absolutely nothing more important in this world then this particular understanding or message. Every place is the right place. Shout it from the rooftops.

People throughout the centuries have given up their lives to say these things that we are so free to say here. I’m sure we can risk taking a thread on a forum to do so. ; ^ )


N: We speak as we must.

S9: Yes, when a baby bird cries for food, the mother bird automatically provides. I also feel this. Isn’t this what Satsang is all about?

I can see that you believe that you are not in change of outcomes.

Islam: “We provide the message. It is God/Reality that changes hearts.”

Namaste,
S9

Subjectivity9 wrote:RE: S9: Some say that metaphysics is the apical growth of all religion.

That is an opinion, not an observation.
Religion has not evolved into 'metaphysics' for me.

N: The one common thread that I have found of all religion is 'beliefs'. Believers of a feather seem to flock together, bingo, religion.

S9: Flocking together is another way to seek comfort, or safety in numbers.

Agreed.

Of course mystics might flock together too, if there were enough of us in any one region to create a group.

I'm not sure that i see the relevence of this line re:flocking together. I was just offering a hypothesis of the nature of the origin/context of religion.
Wasn't it Ben Franklin who said that "If we don't flock together, that we shall surely get flocked seperately"? *__-

N: So, I see 'religion' as a place of 'beliefs' not 'thoughts'.

S9: These people think about religion, some almost constantly. What they don’t do is to question it.

Ok, I'm willing to accept the definition of "belief' as an unquestioned (fossilized/ossified/dead) 'thoughts'. Thanx for a context for clarification.

"A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged; it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and time in which it is used." -Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Q: Bodhidharma: “If you use your mind to study reality, you won't understand either your mind or reality. If you study reality without using your mind, you'll understand both.”

N: What is Jnana Yoga then? I think that this statement of his leaves much to be desired.

S9: I am a Jnana and I like this quote very much.

Ahh, another validation of my First Law of Soul Dynamics; "For every Conscious Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Conscious Perspective!"

I think he is saying that you must transcend the mind in order to look directly AT ‘Reality.’ But once you actually see ‘Reality’ everything comes clear. You even understand the mind.

Jnâna yoga teaches that there are four means to salvation:[5]

Viveka - Discrimination: The ability to differentiate between what is real/eternal (Brahman) and what is unreal/temporal (everything else in the universe.) This was an important concept in texts older even than the Bhagavad Gita, and often invoked the image of a Swan, which was said to be able to separate milk (or Soma) from water, whilst drinking.
Vairagya - Dispassion: After practice one should be able to "detach" her/himself from everything that is "temporary."
Shad-sampat - The 6 Virtues: Tranquility (control of the mind), Dama (control of the senses), Uparati (renunciation of activities that are not duties), Titiksha (endurance), Shraddha (faith), Samadhana (perfect concentration).
Mumukshutva - Intense longing for liberation from temporal limitations.

It appears here, that they are egoic practices of making discriminations, but I was taught that Jnana yoga was the finding of 'enlightenment/satori/whatever by pure, unagendized, unadulterated science. Interesting that there days, one is hearing the term 'scientific enlightenment' relating to the 'classical Jnana enlightenment', the path of philosophy, critical thought, honest earnest examination of existence/the Universe.
It seems that, in such a context, Boddhidarma's statement of "If you use your mind to study reality, you won't understand either your mind or reality." is untrue.
If all is truly 'one', what is there to 'transcend' what?

Although interesting food for discussion, I think we are off-topic of "Nothing exists outside the mind"... or are we?

N: If this is in relation to my defense of 'context', there was someone else complaining the same thing.

S9: I’m not surprised. It obfuscates what you are trying to say.

I'm sorry, but the obfuscation is within. It is exactly what I mean to say.

N: My words are 'me.’

S9: This is a big mistake on your part. You must learn to see them as mere tools.

I guess that it is a reasonable observation (judgement) from an egoPerspective, where everyone cannot be 'correct' or 'true', that such things can be said as 'your perceptions are 'incorrect'/'wrong', and one feels in the appropriate place to offer advice on how one 'should' perceive the Universe.
So, i would, naturally, see your criticism and advice as simply egoic 'static'.
If you are as you say "I am a Jnana", then in those moments, when you are truly in such a state, you would be unable to utter the words just uttered as you would not be an egoPerspective at that moment.

If you do not learn this lesson, you will fall in love with a word or a phrase and forget that your purpose, when speaking with others, is to communicate.

Come on back when the ego isn't so strong as to presume to lecture me in who and how to be. If you had read my previous post relating to 'communicating', you would have realized that "your purpose, when speaking with others, is to communicate", ain't necessarily so.

N: Perhaps there are no other words as suitable?

S9: There is always another word. Try harder.

What is a better word for 'dead' that is as 'meaningful'? 'Expired? Like a 'dead'line? Or 'life', for that matter? Got another, better, word for that? Always other words, but not always 'truer', more clear and all inclusive.
Again, shall we wait 'till the ego subsides? Telling what I must do now? Thats a real conversation turn-off. If I want advice, I'll surely ask for it. Ok? I'm glad you are feeling so good, but the ego is derailing a good conversation.

If your ‘great word isn’t understood by another, and you still refuse to change it because its such a great word, than you are simply being either unimaginative or doggone stubborn, my friend.

Actually, is is not for me to 'dumb down' my excellent word to suit your understandings, but for you to attempt to understand the context wherein the word is 'true'. I have been bending backwards attempting to help you in your understanding. Thanx is not necessary, as I have no choice in the matter, but this egoic telling me what I must do and how I must be as I am 'wrong'/incorrect cannot continue.

N: All I can do is plant the seeds.

S9: This is not an excuse to be sloppy.

I do not understand the context of your sudden change to critical egoic judgement, but I am finding it .. unpleasant.

When you plant a seed you do everything you can for that seed.

Perhaps you confuse me for you. Perhaps whenever S9 plants a seed, etc... etc... etc...
I plant seeds where I must and move on. When or where they sprout is not up to me either.

S9: Thank you, Jesus!

That would be 'hay-soos'! *__-

However, You don’t become what you do. Doing takes place automatically, yet all of the time you realizing that you are not the doer, and you are not the action done.

I am as every Conscious Perspective perceives me.
Beyond which there is no 'I'.

It is rather like sitting beside the river (of life) and not interfering with the river. (AKA Wu Wei).

I am the river and the perceiver of the river.
Perceiver and perceived are one.

Have you ever had an experience of Satori?

Of course, many.

I believe that I have. Whatever it was, it was magical.

I can certainly understand the feeling! One can but stand in awe...

N: Not is 'One', as that 'One' is a thought/egoic, and the Zen state is not.

Shout it from the rooftops.

... out to the sea, people everywhere, people got to be freeeee....

N: We speak as we must.

Means that we have no choices, no alternatives, but to say and do as we say and do.

S9: Yes, when a baby bird cries for food, the mother bird automatically provides. I also feel this. Isn’t this what Satsang is all about?

Satsang (Sanskrit sat = true, sanga = company) describes in Indian philosophy (1) the company of the "highest truth," (2) the company of a guru, or (3) company with an assembly of persons who listen to, talk about, and assimilate the truth.[1] This typically involves listening to or reading scriptures, reflecting on, discussing and assimilating their meaning, meditating on the source of these words, and bringing their meaning into one’s daily life. Contemporary satsang teachers in the West - frequently coming from the Advaita Vedanta tradition - sometimes mix traditional Eastern knowledge with methods of modern psychology.

During a satsang with a master, students are likely to ask questions. Satsangs also may contain elements like lectures, meditations, singing and recitations.

I can see that you believe that you are not in change of outcomes.

Are you deliberately trying to jerk my chain? To what end? Why?

Islam: “We provide the message. It is God/Reality that changes hearts.”

nameless: "I plant the seeds, it is god that determines where and when (and if) they sprout and bloom."
('Seeds' can take good root in the heart, for instance, of a lurker (one who reads rather than writes here), completely unbeknownst to me. I wouldn't even know where to 'water'...)

Namaste,

namaste'

nameless,

S9: How do you define ego?


N: If all is truly 'one', what is there to 'transcend' what?

S9: All is truly ‘One.” But some people so misunderstand what this One Is. What they do believe, is often called illusion. What we transcend, or are liberated from, is this mistaken notion.

N: Although interesting food for discussion, I think we are off-topic of "Nothing exists outside the mind"... or are we?

S9: The statement that “Nothing exists outside of the mind" naturally bring up the question, “Does something actually exist outside of the mind.” That is what I have been asking here. But also I have added a side bar, and I have been asking, “How do we best help people to see this ‘outside of the mind’?”

N: I guess that it is a reasonable observation (judgment) from an egoPerspective, where everyone cannot be 'correct' or 'true', that such things can be said as 'your perceptions are 'incorrect'/'wrong', and one feels in the appropriate place to offer advice on how one 'should' perceive the Universe.”

S9: Like the American Indians used to say, “I think you speak with Forked Tongue.” Are you saying that people who are religious, and don’t question their beliefs, aren’t wrong in your way of seeing things?

N: If you are as you say "I am a Jnana", then in those moments, when you are truly in such a state, you would be unable to utter the words just uttered, as you would not be an egoPerspective at that moment.

S9: Jnana is not a state. It is a path, or way of searching for the Ultimate.


N: Come on back when the ego isn't so strong as to presume to lecture me in who and how to be.

S9: You just don’t get it do you, that your words are not you?


N: What is a better word?

S9: I am not going discuss word choice with a person who thinks it would be literally impossible for them to have made a poor choice of words. I am not a masochist.

Later,
S9

Subjectivity9 wrote:... But also I have added a side bar, and I have been asking, “How do we best help people to see this ‘outside of the mind’?”

Try explaining the exact techniques you used to 'see' it, then others can try it for themselves to 'see' if it is true?

Subjectivity9 wrote:S9: How do you define ego?

Again, one definition that i have found for 'ego' is that it is a Perspective that perceives distinction between 'subject' and 'object'.

N: If all is truly 'one', what is there to 'transcend' what?

S9: All is truly ‘One.” But some people so misunderstand what this One Is. What they do believe, is often called illusion. What we transcend, or are liberated from, is this mistaken notion.

Yet this 'misunderstanding' and this 'thought' (and accusation) of 'illusion', and 'liberation', are all features of the one, the balanced, the perfect 'one'... Apparent misunderstanding (merely a contextual discrepency) and illusion, and desire for and belief in liberation, and the distinctions of the ego that there is that to be 'transcended' (ah, ego strokes) and 'liberated' from, remain, all, true and real features of Reality/the complete Universe/existence, all 'one'...

“How do we best help people to see this ‘outside of the mind’?”

Helping people? All ego, the antithesis of the 'enlightened' state.
Has someone asked you for such help? perhaps in that context, I wouldn't get the creepy feeling of you knocking on my door Saturday morning and asking me if i'm 'enlightened'. Coffee mugs are only $2.00!
How can the ego give directions to an egoless state?
If you mean 'thoughts' when you say 'mind', 'ego'. Otherwise, all that is perceived is Mind, 'one' Mind/Consciousness. Monism. There is no one to perceive oneness, in the perception, that autonomous person is subsumed in the reality of 'oneness. There is no longer a 'me' to be 'enlightened', of to 'transcend' anything. It doesn't all become 'one' when perceived, it is always the Reality. Even right now!, whether someone perceives or not.

Are you saying that people who are religious, and don’t question their beliefs, aren’t wrong in your way of seeing things?

Yes, that is so. Since when has this gotten 'personal'?
Their 'illogic' is incorrect in the context of this forum, a place of logic and critical thought!
Whatever people perceive is correct, in context. 'Right' and 'wrong' are morality, which I usually do not manifest. IF 'freewill/choice' is not a 'reality' in the universe that I perceive, from where commeth judgement?
I do not divvy up the Universe into piles of 'right' and 'wrong' and 'good' and 'evil'...
'Morality', by the way, in the JudeoXtian sphere of influence (and even in the east), is a sin, the 'sin' of pride.

N: If you are as you say "I am a Jnana", then in those moments, when you are truly in such a state, you would be unable to utter the words just uttered, as you would not be an egoPerspective at that moment.

S9: Jnana is not a state. It is a path, or way of searching for the Ultimate.

You are correct, yet, also, it seems to me that;
As used in the Bhagavad Gita, the Advaita philosopher Adi Shankara gave primary importance to jnâna yoga as "knowledge of the absolute" (Brahman),

Indicating a state of being, along with the notion of 'path'.
In a 'timeless' and synchronous Universe, there can be no such thing as a 'path' (in such a context) other than as a relic of memory/thought/ego (that which they so doggedly attempt to transcend) as certain Perspectives. Just as the pink elephant is valid and true, but just for certain Perspectives, it is not a Universal Reality (as is the 'oneness')

S9: You just don’t get it do you, that your words are not you?

You just don’t get it do you, that your words are a feature of your complete definition.
How can this sort of thing be fruitful. If you have some good and irrefutable logic or evidence for me to examine, perhaps I'll accept your repeated assertion, but the mere repetetion of an assertion is not a very good argument, in my estimation.
You might well be asserting what you perceive as truth, but unless you can contextualize me, my perceptions cannot accept that assertion. What i perceive is oneness, there is not a thing that is not a feature of the complete definition of 'me'. 'I' am the Universe, that is necessary for any complete definition of anything (including you!). Think about it.

N: What is a better word?

S9: I am not going discuss word choice with a person who thinks it would be literally impossible for them to have made a poor choice of words. I am not a masochist.

I have no 'choice' at all. 'Poor' is ego judgement.
And who would you consider a better authority than myself regarding the concepts that I form into words and whether the words are appropriate or not?? If I say that abc is the best word for the concept that I am attempting to communicate, who are you to disagree? Perhaps a problem is your attachment to other definitions of the particular word in question, according to your understandings rather than making an honest attempt to understand the context in which I am correct/true? Everything is true, would it not be more fruitful to understand how and why, then why not? An egoPerspective can be a poor context to gain such inclusive (towards 'oneness') understanding.
You aren't the first to sputter to a halt, when your position is deemed untennable, with a dismissive wave of the hand ("I am not a masochist.").
With the very least respect, you can always offer a substitute word, along with your reasoning, and ask me if it is or is not a 'superior' word for conveyance of my intended meaning.

Shall we keep further response relevent to the OP's assertion/question "Nothing exists outside the mind"?
If you have one or two important questions or avenues of investigation (from which we might all benefit therefrom) that you still wish to persue, please have at it, but I'm feeling a definite decrease of 'momentum'... *__-

Thank you, Arising,

As usual, you are giving me good advice.

Are you personally interested in these techniques?

What I have so often found to be the case is, that most people aren’t interested in the techniques until some of your ideas make them curious enough to ask for further instruction.

Of course, many of my techniques (at least in the beginning) were (1) to investigating and then (2) thinking things out, because that IS the path of the Jnana.

Only later, when your thinking takes you are far as you can go, using that tool, do you take a leap beyond the mind (AKA thinking) and begin to view the Ultimate directly.

Questions?

S9

nameless,

I believe our discussion here, at least, has hit a wall. Perhaps this is because we are on a different page. But, maybe we are even reading a different book. ; ^ ) No matter.

I want to thank you for your good will, and your time, on this matter.

Have a nice day.

Namaste,
S9

Are you personally interested in these techniques?

That would depend upon what they are?

What I have so often found to be the case is, that most people aren’t interested in the techniques until some of your ideas make them curious enough to ask for further instruction.

Punting for customers then?

Of course, many of my techniques (at least in the beginning) were (1) to investigating and then (2) thinking things out, because that IS the path of the Jnana.

No idea what a "Jnana" is? What do they investigate and what do they mean by "thinking things out"?

Only later, when your thinking takes you are far as you can go, using that tool, do you take a leap beyond the mind (AKA thinking) and begin to view the Ultimate directly.

What 'tool'? What or who's doing the viewing if there is no mind or thinking? What is 'thinking' in your thoughts?

Subjectivity9 wrote:nameless,

I believe our discussion here, at least, has hit a wall. Perhaps this is because we are on a different page. But, maybe we are even reading a different book. ; ^ ) No matter.

I want to thank you for your good will, and your time, on this matter.

Have a nice day.

Namaste,
S9

Nah, same elephant, different perspectives.
All is well, and thank you so much for the thought provoking questions!
Perhaps I have offered you, too, some food for thought.
See you around the corner.. *__-
Namaste'

Arising,

No, I am not in the market for disciples. That is a slippery road into hell. ; ^ )

Just like you, I would imagine, I enjoy the process of self expressing and of sharing with others, what I, myself, have found either useful in my life and/or contributes to my happiness.

A wise master once said, “The only thing that we can aid someone in doing, is in taking the next step that they were about to take, anyway.

You can only hope that a person’s questions will actually point you towards what that next step is. (There is so much game playing.)

The Jnana is someone who is using his mind as the path towards finding the ‘Ultimate.” (Whatever that Ultimate is.) Some call it ‘Ultimate Truth’, other call it ‘Enlightenment’, and so forth.

This is just one of the paths like Dhyana (meditation), or Bhakta (love or worship), etc. But I think that you know some of this, if I remember past conversations with you some years back.

A: What tool?

S9: For instance, one might practice (use a tool) something called Neti/Neti (Not this/Not This) in order to figure out, by use of a litmus, (Does it come and, does it go?) if something is finite, or if it is unchanging and therefore ‘Eternal’.
(Finite meaning temporary or impermanent [very Buddhist])

I fully realize that, I am making some assumptions here. But you have to start somewhere.

This would fall under the heading, IMO, of investigation.

Then, one might go on to reason, “If I am Eternal, (Another premise or assumption in the beginning) what part of what I am seeing daily is ‘Me’? (This being the Ultimate Me, or Enlightened Self.)

This would be a kind of disrobing, in order to get to the fundamentals of my very ‘Being’.


So I repeat:
Only later, when your thinking takes you are far as you can go, using that tool, (thoughts or concepts) do you take a leap beyond the mind (AKA thinking/reasoning) and begin to view the Ultimate directly.

(This is called in Zen, “not looking at the finger pointing,” but actually “looking at where the finger is pointing.” This is a direct insight that fills you with knowing and does not require thought in order to do this.

A: What or who's doing the viewing if there is no mind thinking?

S9: “Spirit looks at Spirit” and knows Spirit as its Self. Or "Looking at Spirit is Spirit" (AKA intrinsic knowing.)

This quote is a little harder to understand, but is basicall say the same thing as the 2 quotes above. "I A that I Am."

Thanks for the good questions. : ^ ) I love this stuff.

S9

Subjectivity9 wrote:Just like you, I would imagine, I enjoy the process of self expressing and of sharing with others, what I, myself, have found either useful in my life and/or contributes to my happiness.

Fair enough.

A wise master once said, “The only thing that we can aid someone in doing, is in taking the next step that they were about to take, anyway.

I'd add, "and have techniques that are explicable and teachable."

You can only hope that a person’s questions will actually point you towards what that next step is. (There is so much game playing.)

I think I understand this, so I agree.

The Jnana is someone who is using his mind as the path towards finding the ‘Ultimate.” (Whatever that Ultimate is.) Some call it ‘Ultimate Truth’, other call it ‘Enlightenment’, and so forth.

Not for me then, as I think its presupposing what its trying to find. For myself, finding useful techniques to deal with others and events appears more of a positive thing for a mind to do.

This is just one of the paths like Dhyana (meditation), or Bhakta (love or worship), etc. But I think that you know some of this, if I remember past conversations with you some years back.

Probably.

S9: For instance, one might practice (use a tool) something called Neti/Neti (Not this/Not This) in order to figure out, by use of a litmus, (Does it come and, does it go?) if something is finite, or if it is unchanging and therefore ‘Eternal’.
(Finite meaning temporary or impermanent [very Buddhist])

With respect to what and when would you practice the use of such a 'tool'? Not that I think I've understood what you mean, as I don't understand what 'problem' this 'tool' is being used on?

I fully realize that, I am making some assumptions here. But you have to start somewhere.

This would fall under the heading, IMO, of investigation.

Fair enough again.

Then, one might go on to reason, “If I am Eternal, (Another premise or assumption in the beginning) what part of what I am seeing daily is ‘Me’? (This being the Ultimate Me, or Enlightened Self.)

This would be a kind of disrobing, in order to get to the fundamentals of my very ‘Being’.

ah! Okay, deduction applied to beliefs to see where they go with respect to ones experience and beliefs about 'self'?

Only later, when your thinking takes you are far as you can go, using that tool, (thoughts or concepts) do you take a leap beyond the mind (AKA thinking/reasoning) and begin to view the Ultimate directly.

What does it look like?

(This is called in Zen, “not looking at the finger pointing,” but actually “looking at where the finger is pointing.” This is a direct insight that fills you with knowing and does not require thought in order to do this.

I've never understood this as who, other than a baby, has ever looked at the finger when something is being pointed out?

S9: “Spirit looks at Spirit” and knows Spirit as its Self. Or "Looking at Spirit is Spirit" (AKA intrinsic knowing.)

Sort of understand but think it more that 'mind', in the sense of self, is thinking looking at thoughts and thoughts are what the body has, with the mind being a result of this and language.

Thanks for the good questions. : ^ ) I love this stuff.

S9

My pleasure.
a_uk

Arising,

Even if a Jnana in the beginning is presupposing what he will find, that doesn’t change what is finally found, just as your presupposing that what is useful will turn out necessarily to be what in fact is useful. We all choose an imaginary goal in the beginning, and as we move towards this goal, it and we change.

Neti/Neti is a tool for eliminating everything that is finite from our mental field of vision in order to ferret out what is Eternal. Most people use Neti/Neti during meditation, at least at first.

The reason for using Neti/Neti is because some people believe that there is a part of themselves that is Eternal, armed with the definition of both finitude and Eternity they begin to ask with is with of each thought and object that crosses there path. They are trying to get a handle on something that at first seems to large and too complex to figure out. They want to go from over-whelmed to under-whelmed, in other words to simplify.

So like you say we are comparing our beliefs with what we actually see when looking directly at life and our own self.

Outside of the mind is not an objective landscape. It is more like an intuition without words or pictures, but at the same time very real. It is full and satisfying in a way that had gone unnoticed previously.

You cannot be too literal about the finger pointing. I don’t think Zen students literally look at the master’s finger. The finger represents words. We look at the words.

Eternity is not a word.

S9

kake wrote:Anybody want to contend?

I challenge anyone to show me that things actually exist. I'm not up for arguing a point, I'm up for finding truth.

For example, show me a chair. You can't, because when you hold up a chair I see billions of electrons. The chair doesn't exist but in our head. Hell, the electrons don't even exist. There is no base particle so really nothing exists but movement, and the mind's attempt to hold that movement still and make a structure out of it.

I show you a chair: h

It existed outside your mind because you never thought that the letter 'h' could be a chair. Our minds are so puny compared to everything that does exist.

thelastmessiah wrote:I show you a chair: h

It existed outside your mind because you never thought that the letter 'h' could be a chair. Our minds are so puny compared to everything that does exist.

You might be interested in reading the entire thread.

And how do you reconcile that statement with your;

thelastmessiah wrote:Mind is the world. The world is Mind.

?

nameless wrote:And how do you reconcile that statement with your;

thelastmessiah wrote:Mind is the world. The world is Mind.

Too much Berkeley?