Spiritual Forums

Home


Donate!


Articles


CHAT!


Shop


 
Welcome to Spiritual Forums!.

We created this community for people from all backgrounds to discuss Spiritual, Paranormal, Metaphysical, Philosophical, Supernatural, and Esoteric subjects. From Astral Projection to Zen, all topics are welcome. We hope you enjoy your visits.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to most discussions and articles. By joining our free community you will be able to post messages, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos, and gain access to our Chat Rooms, Registration is fast, simple, and free, so please, join our community today! !

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, check our FAQs before contacting support. Please read our forum rules, since they are enforced by our volunteer staff. This will help you avoid any infractions and issues.

Go Back   Spiritual Forums > Religions & Faiths > Buddhism

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 24-06-2017, 08:55 AM
sky sky is offline
Master
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 15,533
  sky's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bohdiyana
No there is no I there! Only a perception without content can live there. But yea it seems to be rare to be without content. But then the content is so flashy how can I keep from paying attention to it?
That's a question we all have to figure out. It seems a bit odd but it seems to have something to do with love. Presence is about more than just us.


The 'I ' is wishing to stay in the place with ' No I ' .
Observing without thought is another example.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 24-06-2017, 11:15 AM
BlueSky BlueSky is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,993
  BlueSky's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bohdiyana
But if you are outside of the box, you are not thinking
I'm not sure thinking outside the box is possible.
If you think outside the box...you are just in a bigger box.

Seems to me there is a state of being, where one is fully themselves, it's just one is not thinking.
To be in this state takes awake awareness. One "knows" or is aware they are in this state
but this knowing does not include thinking.
My direct experience is that I am not my thoughts. I say that in the sense that there is nothing there that I can grab onto and say I am that. I can't say I am not that either. They don't go away though.
My point to Ground in reference to thinking outside the box was not to say he changed my thinking and replaced it with something else. It was to say his words awakened in me that those particular thoughts I had had no basis other than unconscious conditioning.
So now, if there was any truth to them, I am free to experience them directly.
__________________
CHITTA VRITTI NIRODHA

The cessation of identifying with the fluctuations arising within consciousness
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 24-06-2017, 12:00 PM
BlueSky BlueSky is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,993
  BlueSky's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ground
These 'Spirit-Gods' of yours. Are those the object of your direct sense perception or the object of your direct introspective perception? If sense perception then your 'Spirit-Gods' should be the perceptible conventional reality of all individuals with healthy senses but they are not. If direct introspective perception then your 'Spirit-Gods' are mere mental constructs and do not exist even conventionally.

And your 'thought outside of you' is this the object of your direct sense perception or the object of your direct introspective perception? It must be the object of your direct sense perception because you assert it to be outside of you. Is your thought visible, audible, has it aroma, is it tangible, does it have taste?



Whatever your conclusions are based on they are not based on direct perceptions and thus they are not valid.
I'm not so sure that our direct perceptions are what we think they are either. I wonder, based on my experience, if they point to the power of the mind.
Short story: I had seen some amazing things within shamanic journeys but even more amazing to me was how they were validated in every detail afterwards.
Where did my direct experience of the validations come from?
Another more powerful example is that wanted to see with my eyes open what it seemed I could only see with them closed in regards to other beings who are not from here. I practiced visualizing what it would be like to see this. In short I saw something that looked like a dog twice and on the 3rd time my wife and I saw it at the same time. My validation this time was more than my eyes open but also a witness. Later I dreamed about it and it was validated again, this time as what is called a djinn.
Then some time later I began to doubt and I attributed it all to the creative power of the mind. I'm still not sure what happened though
__________________
CHITTA VRITTI NIRODHA

The cessation of identifying with the fluctuations arising within consciousness
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 24-06-2017, 01:35 PM
Ground Ground is offline
Suspended
Ascender
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 993
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueSky
I'm not so sure that our direct perceptions are what we think they are either.
So you think the tree that you see may also be a car? If so how do you cope with life? How can you even communicate?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueSky
I wonder, based on my experience, if they point to the power of the mind.
Short story: I had seen some amazing things within shamanic journeys but even more amazing to me was how they were validated in every detail afterwards.
Where did my direct experience of the validations come from?
Another more powerful example is that wanted to see with my eyes open what it seemed I could only see with them closed in regards to other beings who are not from here. I practiced visualizing what it would be like to see this. In short I saw something that looked like a dog twice and on the 3rd time my wife and I saw it at the same time. My validation this time was more than my eyes open but also a witness. Later I dreamed about it and it was validated again, this time as what is called a djinn.
Then some time later I began to doubt and I attributed it all to the creative power of the mind. I'm still not sure what happened though

Of course you can tell such stories. Based on my direct perception I know validly that many people do tell many stories. This is one valid knowledge I gained relying on direct perception only. Not more and not less.
Don't get me wrong. Take this as an illustration how one can and does know validly for oneself.

Knowing validly for oneself also can mean 'discipline' in the sense of not jumping or delving into the stories of others. At least it should be a discipline in case of lack of insight into self and others.

Knowing validly for oneself is also a great protector against useless speculation. What one does not validly know for oneself is not worthwhile thinking about. One can focus one's thinking time on things that are validly known instead - not as a self purpose but e.g. to rationally analyse them if necessary in the context of the pursuit of aims that are worthwhile.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 24-06-2017, 02:16 PM
Jeremy Bong Jeremy Bong is offline
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 2,817
  Jeremy Bong's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ground
So you think the tree that you see may also be a car? If so how do you cope with life? How can you even communicate?



Of course you can tell such stories. Based on my direct perception I know validly that many people do tell many stories. This is one valid knowledge I gained relying on direct perception only. Not more and not less.
Don't get me wrong. Take this as an illustration how one can and does know validly for oneself.

Knowing validly for oneself also can mean 'discipline' in the sense of not jumping or delving into the stories of others. At least it should be a discipline in case of lack of insight into self and others.

Knowing validly for oneself is also a great protector against useless speculation. What one does not validly know for oneself is not worthwhile thinking about. One can focus one's thinking time on things that are validly known instead - not as a self purpose but e.g. to rationally analyse them if necessary in the context of the pursuit of aims that are worthwhile.

This is simple because how far you can go is what truth you can get. If your knowledge or information is just at the level of kindergarten or level half to level one then I'm sure you can take food that's too hard or knowledge that's too far from your perception. And your direct perception will never right.

If I can change the weather, fighting with the elites in the universe and healing the severe diseases without any trace to let human to know about. Then what things I can't do? What secondary truth|perception I can't understand? Even I understand without seeing.... And what problem I can't solve? Doing everything is a degree of dharma tackling jobs. And I do things I always bring my Cupidson as my witness.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 24-06-2017, 11:53 PM
BlueSky BlueSky is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,993
  BlueSky's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ground
So you think the tree that you see may also be a car? If so how do you cope with life? How can you even communicate?



Of course you can tell such stories. Based on my direct perception I know validly that many people do tell many stories. This is one valid knowledge I gained relying on direct perception only. Not more and not less.
Don't get me wrong. Take this as an illustration how one can and does know validly for oneself.

Knowing validly for oneself also can mean 'discipline' in the sense of not jumping or delving into the stories of others. At least it should be a discipline in case of lack of insight into self and others.

Knowing validly for oneself is also a great protector against useless speculation. What one does not validly know for oneself is not worthwhile thinking about. One can focus one's thinking time on things that are validly known instead - not as a self purpose but e.g. to rationally analyse them if necessaryhowxwevu in the context of the pursuit of aims that are worthwhile.
I think that I cannot see past what I think a tree is to actually see the tree.
Direct perception can be directly affected by how I may conditionally see things but the purpose of my story was to show that I had a witness and this witness knew nothing about the other two times I saw this thing when she saw it. It existed at some level.
__________________
CHITTA VRITTI NIRODHA

The cessation of identifying with the fluctuations arising within consciousness
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 25-06-2017, 06:38 AM
Ground Ground is offline
Suspended
Ascender
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 993
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueSky
I think that I cannot see past what I think a tree is to actually see the tree.
Direct perception can be directly affected by how I may conditionally see things but the purpose of my story was to show that I had a witness and this witness knew nothing about the other two times I saw this thing when she saw it. It existed at some level.
Direct perception certainly is conditioned. It is at least conditioned by the senses, the sense consciousnesses and mental consciousness (-> mental direct perception always following sense direct percpetion, see here) and it may be affected in addition to these regular conditionings by irregular dis-functioning of the senses, the sense consciousnesses and mental consciousness.
But when talking about direct perception in the context of righ/valid knowledge nowhere have I asserted that innate direct perception would perceive how things ultimately exist because ultimate existence is completely irrelevant for direct perception and right/valid knowledge. However without direct perception and right/valid knowledge there is no way to get at the mode of the ultimate existence of things.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 25-06-2017, 11:33 AM
BlueSky BlueSky is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,993
  BlueSky's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ground
Direct perception certainly is conditioned. It is at least conditioned by the senses, the sense consciousnesses and mental consciousness (-> mental direct perception always following sense direct percpetion, see here) and it may be affected in addition to these regular conditionings by irregular dis-functioning of the senses, the sense consciousnesses and mental consciousness.
But when talking about direct perception in the context of righ/valid knowledge nowhere have I asserted that innate direct perception would perceive how things ultimately exist because ultimate existence is completely irrelevant for direct perception and right/valid knowledge. However without direct perception and right/valid knowledge there is no way to get at the mode of the ultimate existence of things.
Ok I may be wrong but I think what you are saying in regards to direct perception, right valid knowledge and ultimate existence lies in this example: if in the dim light a group of people see a rope and perceive it as a snake, move closer to it and see that it being a snake was completely empty, then that doesn't mean they now perceive ultimate existence, it means they now have right knowledge that perception is empty. It exists but it exists empty.
What I saw and was witnessed by my wife didn't change what is in regards to there being other beings from other dimensions, it pointed at the power of the emptiness in perception. The right knowledge being that perception is empty and therefore ultimate existence cannot be perceived. In fact, it itself is empty.
__________________
CHITTA VRITTI NIRODHA

The cessation of identifying with the fluctuations arising within consciousness
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 25-06-2017, 11:44 AM
BlueSky BlueSky is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,993
  BlueSky's Avatar
Pondering on my last statement a bit, I can see that knowing the emptiness of things brings with it knowing the fullness of that emptiness as expressed as life.
__________________
CHITTA VRITTI NIRODHA

The cessation of identifying with the fluctuations arising within consciousness
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 25-06-2017, 01:50 PM
Ground Ground is offline
Suspended
Ascender
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 993
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueSky
Ok I may be wrong but I think what you are saying in regards to direct perception, right valid knowledge and ultimate existence lies in this example: if in the dim light a group of people see a rope and perceive it as a snake, move closer to it and see that it being a snake was completely empty, then that doesn't mean they now perceive ultimate existence, it means they now have right knowledge that perception is empty. It exists but it exists empty.
What I saw and was witnessed by my wife didn't change what is in regards to there being other beings from other dimensions, it pointed at the power of the emptiness in perception. The right knowledge being that perception is empty and therefore ultimate existence cannot be perceived. In fact, it itself is empty.

Seeing that it is distracting I regret that I brought up the topic 'ultimate existence' here but why I brought it up is just to exclude it from the topic of right knowledge just in case you wanted to speculate about what is ultimately true.
your example of the rope and the snake just illustrates that the rope is empty of being a snake. It neither illustrates the ultimate mode of existence of a rope nor the ultimate mode of existence of a snake.

As to your story: Sorry but I will not jump into your story. What others assert to have directly perceived is completly irrelevant for me in the first place. It will only be relevant for me if 1. I can certify the existence of it with my own direct perception and 2. it is relevant for any of the aims I pursue.
Since neither item 1 nor item 2 applies please discuss your story with someone else.

The points we left off are: what are relevant aims and how does one know for oneself and 'out of the box' thinking.

If your story is relevant for the aims you are pursuing which you consider worthwhile then we do not have a common ground as to the aims but I can only refer you to the basis of right/valid knowledge which is direct perception and logical/rational analysis, i.e. inference.
That means I only present a template to attain right/valid knowledge. With me presenting a template I do not subscribe to what others claim to be their direct perception or their inferences but I leave it completely up to them to use the template or not.
I have validated the template in my case and with the thread 'Right knowledge' I started to systematize it.

So again:
One asks oneself applying the template: what are aims worthwhile to pursue for me? Is there something I want to liberate myself from?
and then again applying the template: by what means can these aims be realized?
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) Spiritual Forums