RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

thumbnail
triple think, modified 7 Years ago.

triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 362 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
been meaning to ask?
ask.


rainbows & whirled peas
nathan

the above posted: triplethunk: ask triplethink 11/15/13 8:26 PM
_______________________________________________________________
Asked and Answered; So Far:

Triplethink Transporter Deck

December 17, 2013
________________________________________________________________
the below index and Rant posted to all active triplethink threads as of the above posted date:

Triplethink:
- for the moment, here is a supplementary index to triplethink threads throughout the DhO.
This list will be amended to the first post of any and all active triplethink initiated threads.

threads about triplethink

triplethunk: ask triplethink

tripleops - methodology

tripleplay

tripleslam - Welcome to the Arena

triplethink initiated threads

? = Atman ><?> Zoo Station<? = .Camp Concentration =>


KAMMA SURFER SUTTA - How to work to 0 - Outflow and Inflow

Inclining towards = VOID LOGOS => VOID STATION => the Deathless

Universal Scalar Bubble Nesting

SIT Tank - Tank Time - Tank Talk - Tank Tips

DOB - Dhamma Oceanic Bestiary

See Also:

Karmic view of war

______________________________________________________________________________________

A note about the ever slower-ness of computers and computer networks


It is a shame, but computers just get dumber. I could see it coming as the stuff got rolling but I have to admit I was disappointed at first.

I don't know if anyone else is old enough to remember this, but there was a time when transistors were "new" and we used tubes to do what transistors do now.

Anyways I was already into electronics (in grade 5, age 10) when the first silicon chip became available ( the 555 timer chip ).

I don't remember what I paid for it at radio shack but I had a bag full and I well understand what this technology is and is not.

I remember holding it in my hand at the time, kid that I was, bag full of marvel comics in the other hand ( circa. 1973 ) and I could "see it", see it all, all of this, that IS, right now. The 52 inch plasma screen that I am watching a re-run of an old SNL
Christmas Special on right now, the Mac Book Pro, the digital audio playing "George Winston's - December", the remote controls, the whole ninety-nine yards. I could see way back then, in an instant, what digital tech was/is capable of, and also I could just as easily see what it was/is not capable of. The net, the tech, all of it, right down to the laser temperature meter, all OBVIOUS.

It has it's uses, many uses, but it is not capable of bringing any human being even a hairs width closer to AWAKENING TO THEIR OWN NATURE.

Just saying, it does nothing for that. Not a thing.

AWAKENING
IS
A RETURN TO YOUR SENSES
AND
A RETURN TO SENSIBILITY

I highly recommend it, almost urge people to do it, but I won't ever push or insist or compel anyone to do or think or feel or imagine ANYTHING.

Right now I have state of the art computers. I have a direct Fibre Optic Line into the backbone of the Net.

My Computer has NEVER BEEN SLOWER.

Take note of this, it is worth knowing.

OK, RANT COMPLETED resume normal life...........

- triplethink
thumbnail
sawfoot _, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 507 Join Date: 3/11/13 Recent Posts
Hi Nathan,

What is the difference between enlightenment and delusion, and if there is a difference, how can one tell that they are different?
thumbnail
triple think, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 362 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
sawfoot _:
Hi Nathan,

What is the difference between enlightenment and delusion, and if there is a difference, how can one tell that they are different?


hi sawfoot

To clarify, Triplethunk is not Dear Abbot. Also Triplethunk is not a wiktionary. For wiktionary see: Wiktionary.

Triplethunk can be taken to mean 'what Triplethink knows about _______.'

For more info on how triplethink thunks refer to the previously posted introductory comments.

So, Triplethink may know some how about it or may not know some how about it but perhaps will look into how it and then again also may not look into how it.

How difference between what and what? Could you possibly be more vague?

gew gew guh chew
triplethink
___________________________
The above was posted in this thread in this same post (post number five) at some time on 11/16/13 before any and all other subsequent unamended or to my knowledge any subsequent posting on anyone's part, in this thread, apart from my initial and otherwise unamended post number four (and any of my previously amended subsequent posts which would be a one or two previously or still under considerable revision or amendment somewhere around post number 90 or so.

The following is posted as an additional amendment to the above, posted on 11/25/13 by nathan/triplehink.

It is an amendment previous to any other possible further revision or amendment of any otherwise originally subsequent post related to the initially subsequent posts by myself or anyone else, to my knowledge.
____________________

As the most profoundly endemic and globally widespread example of Delusion see my immediately preceding amendments to my post above, number four in this thread.

As the best definition I can provide, as of this same date, 11/25/13, for Enlightenment, in Theory and in Practice see my definitions in post number ten of this thread:

RE: In your opinion, what do you believe enlightenment to be?
http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/4917585

thus twice now
-triplethunked
thumbnail
sawfoot _, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 507 Join Date: 3/11/13 Recent Posts
The reappreance of TT - It is a bit like the bat signal...when they need him most, he will come.

triple think:
sawfoot _:
Hi Nathan,

What is the difference between enlightenment and delusion, and if there is a difference, how can one tell that they are different?


hi sawfoot

To clarify, Triplethunk is not Dear Abbot. Also Triplethunk is not a wiktionary. For wiktionary see: Wiktionary.

Triplethunk can be taken to mean 'what Triplethink knows about _______.'

For more info on how triplethink thunks refer to the previously posted introductory comments.

So, Triplethink may know some how about it or may not know some how about it but perhaps will look into how it and then again also may not look into how it.

How difference between what and what? Could you possibly be more vague?

gew gew guh chew
triplethink


Hi Triplethink,

If the question was confusing, you could see it reframed, as "what Triplethink knows about what he knows", or "how does Triplethink know about what he knows is worth knowing?", or eventually, "why should we care about what Triplethink knows or knows he knows?", or "why should we care about answers to questions from Triplethink?"

I think you had a fair stab at the knowing question in your second post in the thread, along with the formulation of my original question, and as attention seeking excercises go this is all jolly good fun, so that settles my "why should we care" question, which means we can move onto a new batch. Here goes:

Why should we care about anything? Some people think we should care about the welfare of ourselves, and the welfare of others, and act in the best way we can to maximise that welfare. Should we? Why should we? How should we? You describe yourself spending a lot of getting to know yourself and meditating, so would assume that you think this worth caring about. Do you advise others to do the same? If so, why so?

I apologise if this is not a question type appropriate for TripleThunk, but it's on my mind right now.

Richard Zen:
Wow this is like Dear Abby for Buddhists.

Hi Triplethink,

How much concentration is necessary for classical stream-entry (losing sense of time)? I hear from different people that access concentration is all that is needed and others that you need up to the 8th jhana. I've also heard that the 4th jhana for 1st path and that 2nd path needs the 8th.


Richard, can we unforget the forgetting of asking this question, as TT didn't seem to be offended by the asking of it? I am not sure to what extent TripleThink would be able to able to give a good answer to this question from his own experience, since this is supposedly a once in a lifetime event then he would only have a n=1, unless he was able to access his memories from previous lives. And he may have a good idea from hanging around buddhists so may have opinions, but then we have a lot of ancedotal reports ourselves floating around on places like the DhO. But I don't really get the question - do we even need access concentration? Access concentration does not involve insight, and stream entry is meant to come from insight, and so can't we get all the way there from just noting, for example, without ever experiencing access concentration at all? It seems that what you are really getting at is that do we need to have accessed and/or explored certain states of mind (to "uncling" ourselves from them, or see the 3C's?) to allow whatever happens at stream entry to happen? As we know stream entry can happen at apparently random times, such as outside of meditation.

For those wanting to know how to calm the mind, you can ask dear abbot
thumbnail
triple think, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 362 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
hi Sawfoot

"The reappreance of TT - It is a bit like the bat signal...when they need him most, he will come."

You have gathered all this to be so, in one day, and claim to be prevailingly rational? Well, I caution you against relying on this or any similar reasoning in any way particularly if your life does depend upon it for some odd reason. I do not begrudge you your impression that these are reasonable assertions. However I assure you these new assertions are thus far not at all well reasoned. Then again of no more or less merit than any of your reasoning that I have encountered thus far.

"What is the difference between enlightenment and delusion, and if there is a difference, how can one tell that they are different?

If the question was confusing,…"

No, very poorly parsed, needlessly vague and therefore needlessly complicated to address. Try again, oh look you appear to trend toward the somewhat OCD side about stuff, cool, we can get somewhere with that maybe, someday.

"...you could see it reframed, as "what Triplethink knows about what he knows", or "how does Triplethink know about what he knows is worth knowing?", or eventually, "why should we care about what Triplethink knows or knows he knows?", or "why should we care about answers to questions from Triplethink?"

I dunno, this sounds very complex, and even less clear. I fairly sure none of it has very much to do with me anyways. Do you even know what you are asking about? I still don't follow you for the most part. This leaves me with the even more vague impression that you may want to know why, if you were me, you would care about being me, as if you perhaps could be or would be me? I wouldn't become concerned if you aren't experiencing anything of being me now. I can't foresee anything about any of that imposing itself unnecessarily. So I would relax entirely any concern about it.

"I think you had a fair stab at the knowing question in your second post in the thread, along with the formulation of my original question, and as attention seeking excercises go this is all jolly good fun, so that settles my "why should we care" question,.."

If I am following you, you have worked whatever all that was previous all out to your own satisfaction without any further input from me. Splendid. Because I still don't get it, but I can totally accept that and live with never getting it. Carry on.

In passing. As you've mentioned it. I have a thesis that all living beings require and desire attention and are variously nurtured by various forms of it. Have you observed this?

",,, which means we can move onto a new batch."

You can try. I didn't recognize the aforementioned movement but if you see what you were looking for then that is great for you.

"Here goes: Why should we care about anything?"

I don't know, do you? Again, can you be more vague, we could move through all of this even faster. I find it very boring, in the classical sense of boring.

"Some people think we should care about the welfare of ourselves, and the welfare of others, and act in the best way we can to maximise that welfare. Should we?"

That is relatively very specific and contrasts considerably with everything else you have written so far.

I am with the Buddha on this one specifically. After careful consideration I've found that which is in my best interests just so happens to correspond entirely with what is in everyone's best interests as well. So, either way yes. However note that my conception of that mutual best interest may not correspond in whole or in part to any similar conceptions of the same on your part. Perhaps it does in some respects and not in others.

"Why should we?"

We are under no compulsion to do so. Because we've found sufficient cause to do so? That work for you?

"How should we?"

My response. Any way you like. I will go at it as I do, you go at it your way. Sound reasonable?

"You describe yourself spending a lot of getting to know yourself and meditating, so would assume that you think this worth caring about."

That is as vague a statement about me as any statement you have made so far about anything, so, thanks for being consistent with that. I would not describe this that way but if that is what something transliterates into in your mind I am good with leaving it at that, for you.

"Do you advise others to do the same? If so, why so?"

Sometimes yes, generally no. Sometimes some kind of meditation may be appropriate advice for me to give in some regards to someone, more likely on occasion in a venue like this. Mostly I have found it not suitable or appropriate to bring any of this up with anyone at any time apart from far less common occasions with sufficient specific causes and conditions.

"How much concentration is necessary for classical stream-entry..."

I am aware of a dozen ways each of the terms in this phrase mean something different enough to make a difference to different people in this forum. If you are going to employ specific jargon you will have to explain precisely what all of that jargon means to you specifically and how you are asking me to interpret that and comment. Otherwise we can't even get the ball rolling with it.

Just the same feel free to ask me to clarify any particular terms or jargon that I might employ or anything about how I may apply it. It may well creep in, there is a lot of it about. Note also that I do not necessarily or entirely either agree or disagree with anyone else's doctrines or dogmas including any of these commonplace within the DhO. There is this and that and the next gnosis of this or that thing that does approach the status of say 'gospel' for me.

"…can we unforget the forgetting of asking this question, as TT didn't seem to be offended by the asking of it?"

You can refer to me as nathan. That is my name. TT is ok if you prefer that. Sounds very trendy like any moment I might switch to all consonants and capitals and become more sick and dope and such.

"I am not sure to what extent TripleThink would be able to able to give a good answer to this question from his own experience,"

A fair shot if we can clarify the concerns involved adequately.

"Since this is supposedly a once in a lifetime event…"

What is what why? As I said before, explain as if I do not follow any of the references on this so far at all. Presume as if I lack the capacity to assume much of anything about any of this.

"…then he would only have a n=1, unless he was able to access his memories from previous lives. And he may have a good idea from hanging around buddhists so may have opinions, but then we have a lot of ancedotal reports ourselves floating around on places like the DhO."

Again it seems you make better progress without my involvement. Maybe you could find some other scratch paper somewhere less public to deal with similar questions.

"But I don't really get the question - do we even need access concentration? Access concentration does not involve insight, and stream entry is meant to come from insight, and so can't we get all the way there from just noting, for example, without ever experiencing access concentration at all?"

You are just parroting stuff out when you aren't making stuff up, aren't you? You have no idea what you are talking about, do you? Anyways, I still don't follow you at all. But as I've said, this has not become an important concern for me thus far.

"It seems that what you are really getting at is that do we need to have accessed and/or explored certain states of mind (to "uncling" ourselves from them, or see the 3C's?) to allow whatever happens at stream entry to happen? As we know stream entry can happen at apparently random times, such as outside of meditation."

It seems 'we know' quite a lot about this whichever and whatever it is which you also appear entirely unfamiliar with yourself. If any of this is an accurate reflection, and I should hope it isn't, then maybe I am getting a better sense of how you approach everything and this might eventually lead to a real concern about this of some type on my part.
thumbnail
sawfoot _, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 507 Join Date: 3/11/13 Recent Posts
triple think:


"But I don't really get the question - do we even need access concentration? Access concentration does not involve insight, and stream entry is meant to come from insight, and so can't we get all the way there from just noting, for example, without ever experiencing access concentration at all?"

You are just parroting stuff out when you aren't making stuff up, aren't you? You have no idea what you are talking about, do you? Anyways, I still don't follow you at all. But as I've said, this has not become an important concern for me thus far.

"It seems that what you are really getting at is that do we need to have accessed and/or explored certain states of mind (to "uncling" ourselves from them, or see the 3C's?) to allow whatever happens at stream entry to happen? As we know stream entry can happen at apparently random times, such as outside of meditation."

It seems 'we know' quite a lot about this whichever and whatever it is which you also appear entirely unfamiliar with yourself. If any of this is an accurate reflection, and I should hope it isn't, then maybe I am getting a better sense of how you approach everything and this might eventually lead to a real concern about this of some type on my part.


Dear nathan,

Though I wouldn't presume to know the the mind of the TripleThinK (AKA the one who is no one AKA TT), this seems more like what you want to be thunked about, so it might be more productive to focus our attention here, though perhaps less entertaining for everyone concerned and less of a waste of time.

Yes, I am parroting stuff about stream entry. I entirely agree I don't know what I am talking about. I believe I have experienced the kind of state commonly talked about as access concentration, given its description in various places, but do not believe I have the experience(s) commonly called stream entry. And as such, am entirely unfamiliar with it as you very correctly point out. So it might be reasonable to say there is no point me discussing or thinking about it at all. I can parrot various things I have read, such as reports of when it has occurred to others, but since I don't know really what it is, or how it is achieved, I can't say that much of use about it. And since I don't know anything about it first hand, it is difficult to define it, other than by pointing to what is commonly talked about on this forum and elsewhere. And since everyone seems to experience it (or not experience it) in such seemingly different and unique circumstances (from what I read), it is difficult for to define any consistent characteristics, in its character and how it came to happen, and its consequences. And yet, in these circles, there is consensus view that achieving it, whatever it is, is a desirable goal, and people are full of various advice on steps to maximise the likelihood of it occurring, though no-one seems to have of much of an idea of what "it" is or how to achieve it. So I don't know what kind of definition I can provide to get balls rolling. It is a phrase that points to something. But I can't define it precisely. Often words are phrases are like that.

In the spirit of rolling balls, is there an experience you have had which seems to have some resemblance to the experiences others talk about when they talk about stream entry? Can you then give your own personal definition to it, a definition that might be helpful for people like me to understand it better, and help us get to the bottom of Richard's question?

The sawfoot
thumbnail
triple think, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 362 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
sawfoot _:
Dear nathan,

Yes, I am parroting stuff about stream entry. I entirely agree I don't know what I am talking about. I believe I have experienced the kind of state commonly talked about as access concentration, given its description in various places, but do not believe I have the experience(s) commonly called stream entry. And as such, am entirely unfamiliar with it as you very correctly point out. So it might be reasonable to say there is no point me discussing or thinking about it at all. I can parrot various things I have read, such as reports of when it has occurred to others, but since I don't know really what it is, or how it is achieved, I can't say that much of use about it. And since I don't know anything about it first hand, it is difficult to define it, other than by pointing to what is commonly talked about on this forum and elsewhere. And since everyone seems to experience it (or not experience it) in such seemingly different and unique circumstances (from what I read), it is difficult for to define any consistent characteristics, in its character and how it came to happen, and its consequences. And yet, in these circles, there is consensus view that achieving it, whatever it is, is a desirable goal, and people are full of various advice on steps to maximise the likelihood of it occurring, though no-one seems to have of much of an idea of what "it" is or how to achieve it. So I don't know what kind of definition I can provide to get balls rolling. It is a phrase that points to something. But I can't define it precisely. Often words are phrases are like that.

In the spirit of rolling balls, is there an experience you have had which seems to have some resemblance to the experiences others talk about when they talk about stream entry? Can you then give your own personal definition to it, a definition that might be helpful for people like me to understand it better, and help us get to the bottom of Richard's question?

The sawfoot
Dear Old Saw,

No, I do not think "there an experience {I -triplethink} have had which seems to have some resemblance to the experiences others talk about when they talk about stream entry…" If the doctrines detailed in the Pali Canon are to be taken at face value, any such thing would perhaps more likely have occurred previous to my lifetime. So, no, I have nothing novel to add on the stream entry stuff except that as with much of western buddhism the moral and ethical dimensions have been reduced to a weak afterthought as opposed to being a vital and central concern as this continues to be in many places in the east.

Yes much of this is highly resistant to "defin{ing} any consistent characteristics" in the ways that the western modalities of ideation inclines to doing that. I don't expect it to ever succeed; square pegs, round holes, etc..

Whatever the consensus view is, assuming this is not yet another mythic animal, count me out, in principle at the very least.
C C C, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 946 Join Date: 3/9/10 Recent Posts
When I read this thread, the movie "A Beautiful Mind" comes to mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressured_speech
thumbnail
triple think, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 362 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
C C C:
When I read this thread, the movie "A Beautiful Mind" comes to mind.
I'm considering taking it in a more of a "Being There" direction. I'm just back from a long 'almost silent retreat' which began during our "Fight Club" phase. How is the "Forest Gump" thing working out?
C C C, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 946 Join Date: 3/9/10 Recent Posts
triple think:
C C C:
When I read this thread, the movie "A Beautiful Mind" comes to mind.
I'm considering taking it in a more of a "Being There" direction. I'm just back from a long 'almost silent retreat' which began during our "Fight Club" phase. How is the "Forest Gump" thing working out?


Triplethink, I used to enjoy your early posts but now you've overstimulated your mind with all this meditating and philosophy and gone a bit strange.

It seems likely that you understand philosophical concepts that most others would grapple with. And it seems likely that you have experienced some far out things with your meditation. But all you've done in here is show off your storehouse of knowledge in the most conspicuous way possible, full of flamboyance and unnecessary wordiness. It just indicates a need for approval and attention. Those posing questions tried to match your flamboyant wordiness just so that you might give them the time of day, but all you did was 'up the stakes' to see if they could match you. No questions got answered.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 2198 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
C C C:
triple think:
C C C:
When I read this thread, the movie "A Beautiful Mind" comes to mind.
I'm considering taking it in a more of a "Being There" direction. I'm just back from a long 'almost silent retreat' which began during our "Fight Club" phase. How is the "Forest Gump" thing working out?


Triplethink, I used to enjoy your early posts but now you've overstimulated your mind with all this meditating and philosophy and gone a bit strange.

It seems likely that you understand philosophical concepts that most others would grapple with. And it seems likely that you have experienced some far out things with your meditation. But all you've done in here is show off your storehouse of knowledge in the most conspicuous way possible, full of flamboyance and unnecessary wordiness. It just indicates a need for approval and attention. Those posing questions tried to match your flamboyant wordiness just so that you might give them the time of day, but all you did was 'up the stakes' to see if they could match you. No questions got answered.
What this thread indicates is that a lot of people posting here seem to be severely lacking a sense of humor!

Matthew Horn:
Didn't you call Ian a "bitter old man" a few months ago in a thread where he was giving you advice? You owe it to yourself to show your betters a fraction of the respect they deserve.
Ha, well not everyone I guess!
C C C, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 946 Join Date: 3/9/10 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:

What this thread indicates is that a lot of people posting here seem to be severely lacking a sense of humor!


The humour is a way of hiding the fact that he is just trying to get 'one up' on you. And he did. He beat you! It's a game to see who is the superior philosopher and witty wordsmith. Horn fell for it too.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 2198 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
C C C:
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:

What this thread indicates is that a lot of people posting here seem to be severely lacking a sense of humor!


The humour is a way of hiding the fact that he is just trying to get 'one up' on you. And he did. He beat you! It's a game to see who is the superior philosopher and witty wordsmith. Horn fell for it too.

He beat me? Darn, I didn't even notice. Could you point out where he did that so I can feel properly defeated?
thumbnail
sawfoot _, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 507 Join Date: 3/11/13 Recent Posts
C C C:
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:

What this thread indicates is that a lot of people posting here seem to be severely lacking a sense of humor!


The humour is a way of hiding the fact that he is just trying to get 'one up' on you. And he did. He beat you! It's a game to see who is the superior philosopher and witty wordsmith. Horn fell for it too.


It is indeed humorous, especially how everyone probably feels that they have won in their attempts at oneupmanship. So when in nathan's head he thinks he has demonstrated his superiority over me, I can smugly rest feeling he has sufficiently embarrassed himself to see my job done without hardly trying.

But what first seemed like fun becomes tiredly quickly.

So I am going to play my "better man" card, which is about 76% sincere.

Nathan,

You have a very unique and individual perspective, and great knowledge and experience in matters of Dharma, which has value to this community. I agree with you on the importance of morality and the ethical dimension in practice. In fact, for many or most spiritual traditions, this is the practice. Yet it is so easy to forget this, as I have done here, and with this in mind I apologise for teasing you.

In gasho,

Old Saw
C C C, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 946 Join Date: 3/9/10 Recent Posts
You do it too. It's all about: "look at me and my flamboyant wordiness and philosophical highness". Just showing off. Not interesting or helpful.
thumbnail
sawfoot _, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 507 Join Date: 3/11/13 Recent Posts
triple think:


Dear Old Saw,

No, I do not think "there an experience {I -triplethink} have had which seems to have some resemblance to the experiences others talk about when they talk about stream entry…" If the doctrines detailed in the Pali Canon are to be taken at face value, any such thing would perhaps more likely have occurred previous to my lifetime. So, no, I have nothing novel to add on the stream entry stuff except that as with much of western buddhism the moral and ethical dimensions have been reduced to a weak afterthought as opposed to being a vital and central concern as this continues to be in many places in the east.

Yes much of this is highly resistant to "defin{ing} any consistent characteristics" in the ways that the western modalities of ideation inclines to doing that. I don't expect it to ever succeed; square pegs, round holes, etc..

Whatever the consensus view is, assuming this is not yet another mythic animal, count me out, in principle at the very least.


Dear N-dog,

That is a shame. Upstairs you indicated that you might "a fair shot if we can clarify the concerns involved adequately" at answering the question from Richard, so I naively thought you might have some something interesting or insightful to say on the matter. I must appear rather foolish now for making a concerted effort to coax some semblance of a useful reply from you.

Have you ever considered playing minecraft? It might lead to a better use of everyone's time.

triple think:


I'm not back here at DhO to paint pretty pictures. I don't have a map or a cosmology to offer. Maps and cosmologies don't work for me. I've been investigating, first hand, for a long time. For better or worse, from way back I've taken a form follows function approach. I wanted to know the hows and calculated that whats and whys, if these mattered at all, might one day follow from there.



p.s. the bit about the bat-signal was poking fun at the grandiosity of someone who can write stuff like this with a straight face.

bye
thumbnail
triple think, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 362 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
sawfoot _:
Dear N-dog,

That is a shame. Upstairs you indicated that you might "a fair shot if we can clarify the concerns involved adequately" at answering the question from Richard, so I naively thought you might have some something interesting or insightful to say on the matter. I must appear rather foolish now for making a concerted effort to coax some semblance of a useful reply from you.

Have you ever considered playing minecraft? It might lead to a better use of everyone's time.

triple think:


I'm not back here at DhO to paint pretty pictures. I don't have a map or a cosmology to offer. Maps and cosmologies don't work for me. I've been investigating, first hand, for a long time. For better or worse, from way back I've taken a form follows function approach. I wanted to know the hows and calculated that whats and whys, if these mattered at all, might one day follow from there.



p.s. the bit about the bat-signal was poking fun at the grandiosity of someone who can write stuff like this with a straight face.

bye
I'm still willing to reply to Richard if he can clarify his question for me. We have already established that you have no idea what you are talking about in these regards and so I have addressed this question as such from you as irrelevant.

No, I have not and will not consider playing minecraft. Is that where you were during your school hours? This would explain much. Son, you do not need any help in appearing foolish.

Btw, my face is always visibly asymmetrical.

have a nice week everyone,
don't starve or over feed the trolls, they are the wandering mendicants of our times.

triplethink
thumbnail
Richard Zen, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 1623 Join Date: 5/18/10 Recent Posts
Wow this is like Dear Abby for Buddhists.

Hi Triplethink,

How much concentration is necessary for classical stream-entry (losing sense of time)? I hear from different people that access concentration is all that is needed and others that you need up to the 8th jhana. I've also heard that the 4th jhana for 1st path and that 2nd path needs the 8th.
thumbnail
triple think, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 362 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
Richard Zen:
Wow this is like Dear Abby for Buddhists.

Hi Triplethink,

How much concentration is necessary for classical stream-entry (losing sense of time)? I hear from different people that access concentration is all that is needed and others that you need up to the 8th jhana. I've also heard that the 4th jhana for 1st path and that 2nd path needs the 8th.


hi Richard

Nope, this is like dear abbey not for not buddhists.

Classical what? What this reads like to me is a whole lot of labels for stuff that does not interest me and I can't see why it should. How much of whatever for what? How does a quantitative measure of whatever relate to the other what? And that means what? Different people say whatever? Whatever for?

Try to think of me as a not very bright person. Lets try again if you like. What is concentration, to your mind and what might you seek to know and understand about how concentration is related to whatever else?

P's and Q's
triplethink
thumbnail
Richard Zen, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 1623 Join Date: 5/18/10 Recent Posts
No worries. Just pretend I never posted.emoticon
thumbnail
triple think, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 362 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
Richard Zen:
No worries. Just pretend I never posted.emoticon


hi Richard

No worries. Awesome. Good to hear.

Must I? Why pretend? I haven't objected to your/anyone's posting, post whatever you like wherever you like. Thank you for your concern.

haveaniceday

nathan
thumbnail
triple think, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 362 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
Y' know, just throwing this out there for anyone's consideration. People may often suggest that the world we collectively think we live in is constructed on the basis of our considerable shared conceptions of that world. In this regard I propose these additional suggestions, that the world we think we live in may also to a considerable extent be constructed on the basis of our shared misconceptions and on the basis of considerable differences amid our collective conceptions and misconceptions of this world.
thumbnail
triple think, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 362 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
A final note:

On the use of the word fuck as I and some others have variously employed it previous to this date.

I take the primary implication of this verb to be "to penetrate."
I take the usage to imply that such an act of penetration is undertaken correctly and under suitable and or appropriate conditions and circumstances, such that a form of penetration was, is or will be successful and therefore it may be assumed to be sanctioned and or effective;
or that such an act of penetration is undertaken incorrectly and under unsuitable and or inappropriate conditions and circumstances, such that a form of penetration was, is or will be unsuccessful and or may be assumed to be unsanctioned and or ineffective, therefore constituting not only a type of penetration but also a type of violation.

I had employed the word previously from time to time in the early days of the DhO 1.0 as did many others at that time who were likewise early adopters of this forum. At that time the DhO was primarily a 'secular forum' and there was a rush to engage with the very avant-garde nature of this site. The orthodox "buddhist" realms can be confining for some and there are many with important questions and concerns who were and are very frustrated within this kind of climate. Here we have encouraged an open dialog with truth and it my hope that this openness will continue, so far as embracing truth is concerned. At the same time, only interminable fools assume other people to be infinitely capable of tolerating their futility beyond the bounds of mortal exasperation.

My advice here then remains fundamentally the same, one must penetrate the mystery of one's own mind and also this;
it is never wise to assume one has encompassed the minds of any others until one truly has so done. Only a fool would attempt to begin to penetrate the mysteries of their own mind by means of attempting a futile violation of the mind of another. Given sufficient appropriate attentions one may eventually encompass enough of the mind of another to develop the appropriate forms of respect and some very faithful understandings.


triplethink /// 2REM / 2WIT / Touche'd & a microphone

________________________________
RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink
11/25/13 6:42 AM as a reply to triple think.

Originally posted on 11/16/13 and entirely unrevised, amended or redacted (in any way except possibly for any minor spelling or grammatical correction, but I do not think even this was or is so) previously to the given amendment.
________________________________

hi all

I asked Daniel to hook me up here at DhO again in response to these majik words uttered by him, "Man, I wish Triplethink was still around…".

So as for 'powers', there you have it, 'causal evidence'.

If you are looking for a 'dear abbot' kind of thing, you are still looking for it.

On the faeries thing for instance. Who really needs evidence? Scientists I suppose. People who work specifically with substantive and replicable empirical evidence. Them and people who oddly enough believe in a totality of ideas, and who speculate that together with some sort of a comprehensive ideology, they can establish and impose a supreme ideological totalitarianism upon the realms of forms.

If this is you then kindly go fuck yourself.

[This is a Vital, Crucially Relevant and Most Important (my express position) Note on Ideological Totalism: later added to the immediately above. Henceforth further expanded and explicated as:

If this is you (an ideological totalitarian), then (please abandon this tactic and in any other way) more kindly go fuck yourself, and indeed all of us.

(The implication of the term "fuck" here is to penetrate, and in a very similar sense to make contact with, know, or better to know and or in a related sense to potentially and or in fact to harm.)

As I can not and will not make any effort to satisfy the likes of you.

("You", as with previously was "yourself" here implying apparently or ostensibly any or all who might be exceptionally ignorant or delusional in this same respect.)

As this is, and shall remain, until I directly perceive, or I might be thoroughly persuaded otherwise, I am now and will continue to remain thoroughly and entirely convinced, our individually and collectively Biggest Problem.

That it is this: Ideologically Totalitarian Expressions and Impositions, from us and upon us, which was, is and will continue to be personally or individually and or socially or collectively our Biggest Problem(s).

Which is The Persisting and Persistent Biggest Problem, in any and all known or knowable forms in any and all known and knowable times, in this Human and in this Terrestrial Realm, which have been, are and shall continue to be, in the widest and deepest senses of these considerations, profound sources of suffering and of considerable unnecessary and needless pain, as a consequence of practicing any kind or type of individual or collective governance on the basis of such ignorance and delusions, in any such ways.

All of this, the immediately above, has been later edited and revised considerably since the initial post. Following the proceeding demonstrations of just such effects and affects, even in a climate and atmosphere already sensitive to such causes, conditions and the related and relevant concerns, to one or another extents; and in a subsequent effort for much greater clarity and directness.

My sincere apologies to any and all for this, my lack of consideration and any oversights in these and or any other regards, and any suffering or discomfort this lack of the same on my part has caused, as this thread amply shall demonstrate henceforth and, at a minimum, if not indefinitely, for some period of time in innumerable ways.

May any and all who recognize hereby or by any other means the error of these ways, Repent, Reform, Pick up their Mats and Walk, and Go Forth, henceforth, to Sin No More. For only in such a way, may one or all, truly and fully, lastingly, be Forgiven, Saved and or in any such or similar way be Enlightened.

-triplethink 11/25/13]

So if you are a scientific materialist of any kind, good luck with it. You may find it helpful to note that the 'hard sciences' have comprehensively abandoned scientific materialism to the fields of sociology and literary criticism and could conceivably look for your 'answers' there. Otherwise why would you require empirical evidence of faeries? What for? Are you an Icelandic legislator or a Thai real estate developer?

As I see this, if you don't see fairies or anything else like this with your own eyes or via some other kind of related sense faculty then you should count yourself fortunate and carry on. If you do have experiences with what seems like some sort of intelligent or animate beings of some sort that aren't like experiences with humans or animals or whatever, be these real or imagined, then you have a different sort of concern. I would expect your concerns in those cases would not be the same as the concerns of a scientific researcher or cosmological theorist. I would expect your concerns, if any, would be more immediate, along the lines of 'what is this now?'.

In the event you have found you are being addressed by a floating holographic head or have found your mind has merged with some sort of millions of years old entity with a body that resembles a field of high voltage current in the range of about 11000 volts or some other weirdness like this then I would expect your actual concerns to be more or less along the lines of 'WTF!'

To be honest, I have had and do have experiences like this. On enough occasions to have had more time then perhaps most have had to investigate it. Such that I can broadly suggest that on any given occasion with these sorts of phenomena one or two or ten of any number of things may be going on. It will depend on various interrelated conditions. Developing any better sense of how and what is happening, for better or worse, is going to depend on how skillfully or unskillfully the person experiencing it will respond to whatever is happening for them.

One could go online or to a cafe and collect opinions about it. What does one have then? A collection of opinions and arguments. So great, if that is satisfying for you, go right ahead and make your list and if you must, pick one opinion and argument and pretend that is your answer. If that is not satisfying for you (and why should it be?) then you have really only one hope for satisfaction in relation to understanding any of this kind of phenomena. To develop insight and understanding into this, as with anything else related to your own body and mind, you are going to have to comprehensively, exhaustively and (always) directly investigate it until it is directly understood.

It is important going into an investigation like this to consider with as much clarity as possible the role of ignorance. If there were no ignorance then there would be no arising of questions would there? So consider carefully what you may know for certain. Anything? No? Fine, so long as you are clear on that. [Where do I set the bar for the certainty of insights, knowledges and understandings? "Such and such has these qualities and functions, it is such not ever otherwise, always, and may be repeatedly and consistently verified as such." You will need to set your own bar wherever is genuinely satisfying for you.] Have a few solid clues on how your mind works and how your body and senses work? Good, get clear and clearer on that. What is certain about this insight and understanding, what is not? Have any insight or understanding into how life, the universe and everything works in general? Really? Ok, if so, clarify that understanding and its basis and make certain it is an entirely inviolable insight and understanding. Is it really? Wow, lucky you, ok factor that in. Is it not? Good you have come closer to correctly determining the actual effective extents of your ignorance. Now, what do you still not understand and as or possibly more importantly (in relation to y/our limited resources) why would it be of primary importance to understand this or that in particular? With stuff in the faery category often a more important question is found to be something along the lines of 'What more foundational determinations giving rise to what sort of understanding might actually be necessary before I might honestly understand this or that.'

If you have honestly clarified and reviewed what you absolutely do know and what you absolutely do not know then you should be a step closer to recognizing how whatever this is that you do not understand stands in relation to whatever it is that you do understand.

As very brief example lets suppose now that we are unsure if this ten foot flaming demon with the ice cream cone and the bullwhip is actually real and standing there with us in our meditation hut or merely a projection of our mind. Well if we have some understanding of that mind of ours and some understanding of how to manipulate it we can investigate to what extent those manipulations of our perceptions bear on the perception of this critter. Are there functional relationships? What are the functional natures of these relationships?

Investigating as directly and skillfully as possible is the most viable candidate for an approach we can undertake with the aim of arriving at a satisfying understanding. One may eventually develop insights and these may become reliable kinds of knowledge and that knowledge may eventually give rise to understanding and satisfaction. Unless ignorance or any kinds of assumed second hand insight, knowledge and understanding in these or any other regards is satisfying for you, these questions and these answers are entirely in your hands and any progress or regress in understanding begins and ends in your hands.

In my experience thus far it would appear there are very likely no dependently conditioned/ing and compounded/ing phenomena that won't eventually give up it's secrets to the relentless application of skillful, methodical and exhaustive investigation. Sometimes it takes very little time and sometimes it takes a very very long time.

In my experience any insight, knowledge and understanding satisfying to my mind are all forged by and within my own mind from the raw stuff of existing. To make progress with this requires always referring back to ignorance and being ruthlessly honest about the extent of that ignorance and referring very carefully to whatever margins of insight, knowledge and understanding you have already cultivated which narrowly or widely frame that ignorance, whether that insight, knowledge and understanding are absent, initial and tentative or comprehensively and inviolably certain, and working very carefully from there.

I'm not back here at DhO to paint pretty pictures. I don't have a map or a cosmology to offer. Maps and cosmologies don't work for me. I've been investigating, first hand, for a long time. For better or worse, from way back I've taken a form follows function approach. I wanted to know the hows and calculated that whats and whys, if these mattered at all, might one day follow from there.

I've discovered more than a few things. I know where many of the metaphorical buttons, dials and levers are in my mind and body and may by extension be able to suggest an approximation of how, where or why similar phenomena may be examined within and by means of your mind and body. I've traced quite a bit of this out quite carefully and I've been re-examining it continually for a long time. So I can offer suggestions for ways to investigate and/or suggest when, where and how quite a few of the dependent conditions involved in the productions of apparent phenomena can be investigated in the aim of cultivating insights, knowledges and understandings.

If only direct, first hand knowledge and understanding satisfy you and for you most all of the rest is mere talk (with occasional hand gestures), then you are like me and I can probably offer some perspectives that will aid you with your own thorough and comprehensive investigation with the aim of arriving at an understanding. Otherwise, I don't really hold to any 'opinions' or views. I have no map, have attained nothing, claim that I mostly don't care and that I am no one. So if that seems helpful, ask away, otherwise, go ask 'abbot'.
thumbnail
Richard Zen, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 1623 Join Date: 5/18/10 Recent Posts
I agree that scientific theory can just be new dogma, but there is advancement and that requires OBSERVATION with tools beyond our senses. We still have things like Dark Matter which constitute a large portion of the universe to understand and we haven't found a "graviton" to explain gravity. We aren't likely to know what happened before the big bang (if anything), how many dimensions there are and how many universes there are, in our lifetimes. There's a place for science as long as there's continued improvements for observation. We don't have to know everything to learn more. Theory should never be fixed dogma.

For the more outlandish claims of the powers I would be interested in studies that compared dopamine levels for people with amazing concentration levels and compare that to schizophrenics and their dopamine levels. There's probably 0 funding for something like that. I certainly wouldn't recommend testing someone who thinks they can walk on water with a deep lake. LOL! I do believe that a person can manipulate their perceptions to think the puddle they are standing in is solid and not wet. That just shows the amygdala isn't too smart. People can be sexually turned on when they feel pain proving a malleability in perception.

Oh well I just have to ask elsewhere on my other question. emoticon Dear Abbot...
thumbnail
triple think, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 362 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
Richard Zen:
I agree that scientific theory can just be new dogma, but there is advancement and that requires OBSERVATION with tools beyond our senses. We still have things like Dark Matter which constitute a large portion of the universe to understand and we haven't found a "graviton" to explain gravity. We aren't likely to know what happened before the big bang (if anything), how many dimensions there are and how many universes there are, in our lifetimes. There's a place for science as long as there's continued improvements for observation. We don't have to know everything to learn more. Theory should never be fixed dogma.

For the more outlandish claims of the powers I would be interested in studies that compared dopamine levels for people with amazing concentration levels and compare that to schizophrenics and their dopamine levels. There's probably 0 funding for something like that. I certainly wouldn't recommend testing someone who thinks they can walk on water with a deep lake. LOL! I do believe that a person can manipulate their perceptions to think the puddle they are standing in is solid and not wet. That just shows the amygdala isn't too smart. People can be sexually turned on when they feel pain proving a malleability in perception.

Oh well I just have to ask elsewhere on my other question. emoticon Dear Abbot...


hi Richard

You are not quoting me when you write "scientific theory can just be new dogma". I will suggest that you cannot imply that I agree with your statement as a suitable definition for what science can or can not be. As for the statement, "there is advancement and that requires OBSERVATION with tools beyond our senses", with the necessary specific qualifications, why would anyone disagree with such an argument?

Yawn. Moving on, "We still have things like Dark Matter..." Think about this phrase, seriously, just think about it. Is that so? Uh huh. You, someone, is certain that they, we "have" these "things"? "...which constitute a large portion of the universe..." You, someone, also knows it to be an absolute certainty that this and that are so and not otherwise. Uh huh. Or no wait, presumably hopes to one day, "...to understand..." Ah yes that sounds more probable. And, "and we haven't found a "graviton" to explain gravity." And we must have a what to explain what? Must we? What if we don't. Are we going to just stop everything else?

So, "We aren't likely to know what happened before the big bang (if anything), how many dimensions there are and how many universes there are, in our lifetimes."

Oh God, how can I go on living, not knowing these things! Wait a minute, I have no idea why I would need to be concerned with this at all. Thank you Jesus.

About this, "For the more outlandish claims of the powers I would be interested in studies that compared dopamine levels for people with amazing concentration levels and compare that to schizophrenics and their dopamine levels. There's probably 0 funding for something like that. {I would like to think so -triplethink} I certainly wouldn't recommend testing someone who thinks they can walk on water with a deep lake. LOL! {Seems like the most effective way to me -triplethink} I do believe that a person can manipulate their perceptions to think the puddle they are standing in is solid and not wet. {Perhaps this could serve as an example of a what Sawfoot refers to as delusion? -triplethink} That just shows the amygdala isn't too smart. {Are you sure this is evidence of that ? Are you a practicing MD or a PhD clinical researcher or something Richard? Might we examine the evidence? -triplethink} People can be sexually turned on when they feel pain proving a malleability in perception." {What is proof of what? Think of me as considerably slower to pick up on something than this allows for. In my case you would have to methodically explain such a proof, as if to a child. -triplethink}

all the blissed
triplethink
thumbnail
Brian Eleven, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 221 Join Date: 9/14/10 Recent Posts
"I don't really hold to any 'opinions' or views."

Thank Christ for that...if you had any opinions I'd still be reading your first post.


Brian
thumbnail
triple think, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 362 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
Brian Eleven:
"I don't really hold to any 'opinions' or views."

Thank Christ for that...if you had any opinions I'd still be reading your first post.
Brian


Read it more carefully. I don't hold to any opinions or views. I do collect them. So I very likely have many more opinions and views running around in here than most people ever will. I just don't have to feed or water them or be concerned when they are butchered in the street or sold into slavery by other more hostile and aggressive opinions and views.
James Yen, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 2 Join Date: 11/18/13 Recent Posts
If you are looking for a 'dear abbot' kind of thing, you are still looking for it.


Thi-

...

What?

On the faeries thing for instance. Who really needs evidence?


I would assume... people that are trying to suss out the existence of faeries?

The rest of your paragraph is difficult for me to understand, it seems that you are cagey about making positive (in the "asserting the truth of something" sense) claims. As a consequence, though it is not my place to say, and I apologize, your words consistently take detours, often times within the same sentence.

It's difficult for anyone to understand what you are saying, if you are saying anything.

As I see this, if you don't see fairies or anything else like this with your own eyes or via some other kind of related sense faculty then you should count yourself fortunate and carry on. If you do have experiences with what seems like some sort of intelligent or animate beings of some sort that aren't like experiences with humans or animals or whatever, be these real or imagined, then you have a different sort of concern. I would expect your concerns in those cases would not be the same as the concerns of a scientific researcher or cosmological theorist. I would expect your concerns, if any, would be more immediate, along the lines of 'what is this now?'.

In the event you have found you are being addressed by a floating holographic head or have found your mind has merged with some sort of millions of years old entity with a body that resembles a field of high voltage current in the range of about 11000 volts or some other weirdness like this then I would expect your actual concerns to be more or less along the lines of 'WTF!'


Totally, that is a rational response.

To be honest, I have had and do have experiences like this. On enough occasions to have had more time then perhaps most have had to investigate it. Such that I can broadly suggest that on any given occasion with these sorts of phenomena one or two or ten of any number of things may be going on. It will depend on various interrelated conditions. Developing any better sense of how and what is happening, for better or worse, is going to depend on how skillfully or unskillfully the person experiencing it will respond to whatever is happening for them.


See this is basically word spaghetti, your sentences sound like fragments, I have no idea where the... what are you saying?

One could go online or to a cafe and collect opinions about it. What does one have then? A collection of opinions and arguments. So great, if that is satisfying for you, go right ahead and make your list and if you must, pick one opinion and argument and pretend that is your answer. If that is not satisfying for you (and why should it be?) then you have really only one hope for satisfaction in relation to understanding any of this kind of phenomena. To develop insight and understanding into this, as with anything else related to your own body and mind, you are going to have to comprehensively, exhaustively and (always) directly investigate it until it is directly understood.


So what?

This is what you are saying:

1) No opinions or arguments are valid.
2) Direct experience.

You did not make a positive or assertion or statement? It's like copping out. You can't really say something is invalid and then say "come and see". One of the opinions has to be valid, unless we are talking about subjective opinions.

What are you asserting?

It is important going into an investigation like this to consider with as much clarity as possible the role of ignorance. If there were no ignorance then there would be no arising of questions would there? So consider carefully what you may know for certain. Anything? No? Fine, so long as you are clear on that. [Where do I set the bar for the certainty of insights, knowledges and understandings? "Such and such has these qualities and functions, it is such not ever otherwise, always, and may be repeatedly and consistently verified as such." You will need to set your own bar wherever is genuinely satisfying for you.] Have a few solid clues on how your mind works and how your body and senses work? Good, get clear and clearer on that. What is certain about this insight and understanding, what is not? Have any insight or understanding into how life, the universe and everything works in general? Really? Ok, if so, clarify that understanding and its basis and make certain it is an entirely inviolable insight and understanding. Is it really? Wow, lucky you, ok factor that in. Is it not? Good you have come closer to correctly determining the actual effective extents of your ignorance. Now, what do you still not understand and as or possibly more importantly (in relation to y/our limited resources) why would it be of primary importance to understand this or that in particular? With stuff in the faery category often a more important question is found to be something along the lines of 'What more foundational determinations giving rise to what sort of understanding might actually be necessary before I might honestly understand this or that.'


Ok. Again, don't really understand what you are saying.

Basically you are saying:

1) Before contemplating faeries.
2) "What more foundational determinations giving rise to what sort of understanding might actually be necessary before I might honestly understand this or that."

Again, extremely vague.

If you have honestly clarified and reviewed what you absolutely do know and what you absolutely do not know then you should be a step closer to recognizing how whatever this is that you do not understand stands in relation to whatever it is that you do understand.


What?

As very brief example lets suppose now that we are unsure if this ten foot flaming demon with the ice cream cone and the bullwhip is actually real and standing there with us in our meditation hut or merely a projection of our mind. Well if we have some understanding of that mind of ours and some understanding of how to manipulate it we can investigate to what extent those manipulations of our perceptions bear on the perception of this critter. Are there functional relationships? What are the functional natures of these relationships?

Investigating as directly and skillfully as possible is the most viable candidate for an approach we can undertake with the aim of arriving at a satisfying understanding. One may eventually develop insights and these may become reliable kinds of knowledge and that knowledge may eventually give rise to understanding and satisfaction. Unless ignorance or any kinds of assumed second hand insight, knowledge and understanding in these or any other regards is satisfying for you, these questions and these answers are entirely in your hands and any progress or regress in understanding begins and ends in your hands.

In my experience thus far it would appear there are very likely no dependently conditioned/ing and compounded/ing phenomena that won't eventually give up it's secrets to the relentless application of skillful, methodical and exhaustive investigation. Sometimes it takes very little time and sometimes it takes a very very long time.

In my experience any insight, knowledge and understanding satisfying to my mind are all forged by and within my own mind from the raw stuff of existing. To make progress with this requires always referring back to ignorance and being ruthlessly honest about the extent of that ignorance and referring very carefully to whatever margins of insight, knowledge and understanding you have already cultivated which narrowly or widely frame that ignorance, whether that insight, knowledge and understanding are absent, initial and tentative or comprehensively and inviolably certain, and working very carefully from there.

I'm not back here at DhO to paint pretty pictures. I don't have a map or a cosmology to offer. Maps and cosmologies don't work for me. I've been investigating, first hand, for a long time. For better or worse, from way back I've taken a form follows function approach. I wanted to know the hows and calculated that whats and whys, if these mattered at all, might one day follow from there.

I've discovered more than a few things. I know where many of the metaphorical buttons, dials and levers are in my mind and body and may by extension be able to suggest an approximation of how, where or why similar phenomena may be examined within and by means of your mind and body. I've traced quite a bit of this out quite carefully and I've been re-examining it continually for a long time. So I can offer suggestions for ways to investigate and/or suggest when, where and how quite a few of the dependent conditions involved in the productions of apparent phenomena can be investigated in the aim of cultivating insights, knowledges and understandings.

If only direct, first hand knowledge and understanding satisfy you and for you most all of the rest is mere talk (with occasional hand gestures), then you are like me and I can probably offer some perspectives that will aid you with your own thorough and comprehensive investigation with the aim of arriving at an understanding. Otherwise, I don't really hold to any 'opinions' or views. I have no map, have attained nothing, claim that I mostly don't care and that I am no one. So if that seems helpful, ask away, otherwise, go ask 'abbot'.


Ahhh, I got it. Basically you're saying that direct experience is king and that is not really possible to tell what's real or not.

Is that what you're saying? Say I was to ask you what's real or not real?

Could you tell me? Or are you cagey about asserting the existence of your mind, or your body, in other words are you lost in a thicket of views?

Let me try this again:

Do you or do you not exist?

Don't avoid the question. Just answer it.

If you can't answer that, then it seems that you are lost in some sort of faerie-tale world.

(pun intended)
thumbnail
triple think, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 362 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
Noteworthy Revisions to Posts 4 and 5, originally posted on 11/16/13 have as of now been noted and clearly posted by triplethink.

These amendments have been made, entirely and solely by triplethink, on 11/25/13.

These shall henceforth remain in place 'as is' unless otherwise similarly noted and clearly posted at some time in the future, also by triplethink. So far as triplethink, for its/his part can or will do anything about any of this.



Considerable revisions and additions have been made to my initial posts, numbers four and five, in this thread which are amendments entirely of my own origin and fabrication, so far as this thread is concerned.

I encourage anyone with an interest in the related considerations or concerns to review these more recent changes.

Thank you for your kind attention, consideration, concern, and any further expression in reflection (in future, in this or any other thread of my origin and fabrication) upon these, strictly speaking as stated, my own considerations and concerns, either those initially or subsequently noted or related, be they shared by any others or not, in any similar or any other sense.

yours truly,
remains to be seen
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 2198 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Oh this is so much fun so far! I want to join in, and thus I will do so forthwith.

1) I've always been curious. Is that you in your avatar picture with a tiger there? What's the story behind that one?

2) What've you discovered so far about what it means to be alive? As in, what's the point? Or is there no point, or is it a silly question, etc. I equate being alive with being conscious, if that helps you to figure out where I'm coming from.

3) Also more of a curiosity question: what have you been discovering lately? Like in the last year or two. What're you looking into? What're you finding? Changing any preconceived notions you previously had? How do you go about figuring out what to figure out next?

EDIT: Prompted by your latest post, 4) What've you found out in your experience (well obviously you wouldn't have found it out in anybody else's experience) about whether there is an objective world? As in, a world outside of anyone's perception of it. A tree with no one to see it. Definite yes? Definite no? Or is the question unimportant/misguided for various reasons, etc., as in, we could never know anyway.

Cheers,
Claudiu
Matthew Horn, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 119 Join Date: 1/30/13 Recent Posts
What does your practice consist of these days?
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 2198 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Matthew Horn:
What does your practice consist of these days?

This is triplethunk not beoman-thunk! But if you'd like to know then I have written a bit recently on this thread.
Matthew Horn, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 119 Join Date: 1/30/13 Recent Posts
I meant to ask Triplethink, but thanks.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 2198 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Matthew Horn:
I meant to ask Triplethink, but thanks.

Oh indeed, that makes more sense. Your message was a reply to mine which is why I thought you were asking me, which I did find odd, but now all has been elucidated. Praise Jesus!
thumbnail
triple think, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 362 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
Matthew Horn:
What does your practice consist of these days?


hi Matthew

Nothing special, somewhere back down the line I passed from practicing to fully habituated. I've been on this reading jag in western philosophy as I mentioned. Very tedious. I'm about one and a half wall length bookshelves in. I think I see daylight on the other side of it. Very much looking forward to putting that exercise in the rear view mirror as soon as possible.

Some old school meditation, same general approaches as I've been undertaking for a long time. It works for me. I focus most of my attention on strictly discernible and definable qualities (or the absence thereof) and how these function in relation to other qualities. This approach runs right through my understanding of what dependent conditions are and are not. The derived insights together form the knowledge I have cultivated thus far towards developing any direct in situ understanding of what existing is. I have done and do continue to undertake cross comparisons of my research findings with the contents of the pali sutta discourses. I have the strong impression that that guy and his friends were really good at this stuff. They must have been very interesting and had a lot of fun. Some of the anecdotes around here are interesting and fun as well.

to infinity and blond
triplethink
thumbnail
triple think, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 362 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
I had a thought.

I don't think of any of it as practice, it looks like you get one moment with anything anyhow and that is it, also gone. So by way of comparison I wrote up a bit about what my existence is generally like instead:

Hey, here is some rope for anyone anticipating a future triplethink mob lynching w/ or w/o sentimental wake or crucifixion w/ or w/o beatification down the road.

Here is how the shit went down for me and something about the consequences and implications since.

I had no idea what existing is or why it is. As I passed through my early youth I knew I was growing increasingly concerned about the apparent importance of this kind of a complete ignorance.

Then one day in my mid teens I tried out an approach described in brief as meditation which I understood might be a way of examining this, the 'existing problem'.

What happened, shortly thereafter, was very very unusual. The exercise was absurdly effective, right away and in very little time. A fools rush in high adventure. I have done a ridiculous amount of very broadly based research into however and whatever meditation might eventually accomplish for anyone and the very general picture this paints is that this would almost never happen like this.

I would not expect anyone will ever have the anything quite like the same story to tell. I was there, I was looking into what being there is and I got to the end of all of that and then that existing in its entirely was not existing anymore. I would never have believed this might be so or expected that I would discover this as such. I didn't know word one of buddha or buddhism or have anything beyond the most preliminary idea of what meditating might even potentially be about. It was many years before I looked into buddhism at all. It looked as if it might be interesting but probably difficult and maybe I would look into it one day but at the time I had more pressing concerns. Many years later I read buddhism quite extensively and have considered it now for many years also.

So anyone interested can expect that most of what I've learned so far I've learned by rediscovering a wheel largely in an entirely independent manner and with no preconceptions whatsoever and not by relying on anyone else's work. After I got as far as I could with my own wheel that was when I started comparing it to other wheels for a comparative sense of trueness. I do highly value the work of others but from this point of view and in these specific regards I can only advise one must build one's own wheel and set it rolling oneself. No one else's wheel will ever adequately serve to take one along what is ironically always the only path but no less ironically is also always by a completely different course.

Take the previously expressed concerns about rationality and reasoning. These rationalities and reasonings are provisionally useful constructions to various limited extents and for various specific purposes. In various respects necessary and required. Beyond any demonstrable imminent requirement the same demonstrably useful and beneficial constructions of rationality and reasoning rapidly incline to becoming as capable of demonstrating considerable harmfulness. There is the old metaphor about the correct way to safely hold a snake.

Anyways back to my little story. I existed, then one day I determined to examine the qualities of that existing reductively. I did that with a naive fascination until all of it very unexpectedly vanished in its entirety and I then I did not exist anymore, in any sense. Ever since that occurred I have had to consider the existing of anything in the light of how that contrasts with the complete disappearance of existing. I have to confess that I find the complete extinction of any and all existing conditions and qualities is always entirely and incomparably preferable. Preferring any conceivable existing conditions, even any one quality of any one condition, is comparatively imponderable for me so far. So I suppose this is how this existing stuff is in its persisting for me since that complete revision of my concerns. If you are interested I hope you can somewhat follow this because this is by far the briefest and simplest version of this story I have come up with so far.

On the existing side I find there is the phenomenal existing in any sense, in any form, on the not existing side there is the incomparable not existing. I consider the not existing the only aspect about which one need have no concern. The not existing is the inviolably sacred not condition which demonstrably and verifiably certainly does exist but exists in no relation whatsoever to the existing conditions. The valid concerns, mine, yours, if any, such as they are, are all to do with the existing qualities and conditions such as these may be seen to arise, persist, change and in due course blessedly vanish.

So for me any valid concern is not ever in the slightest about how awesome it is when the candle inclines to fading or goes completely out. It is incomparably… supremely… yes, no problem. Anyways, the only honest concerns I have are all like, 'what is this existing, this that is persisting and changing now, this that is now observable, somehow apparently still inclined to spontaneously burst into flaming appearance from what deeply secreted and obscured glowing ember?' How might one confidently end all potential also for this kind of fire emerging in any form forever?' God help us all if this is an inexhaustible source of potentially flammable conditional compounds. And like this.

eye smiles

nathan
thumbnail
Richard Zen, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 1623 Join Date: 5/18/10 Recent Posts
triple think:
I've been on this reading jag in western philosophy as I mentioned. Very tedious. I'm about one and a half wall length bookshelves in. I think I see daylight on the other side of it. Very much looking forward to putting that exercise in the rear view mirror as soon as possible.


There are some similarities between Eastern and Western philosophy so hopefully you'll find some of it more interesting.

Gelassenheit
thumbnail
triple think, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 362 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
Richard Zen:
There are some similarities between Eastern and Western philosophy so hopefully you'll find some of it more interesting.
Gelassenheit

Yes there are comparable areas of interest. Sometimes western philosophy is very interesting or especially clever indeed. The tediousness is in the broad strokes and long term developments. It is really sad to see, lets say, Plato make a very lame argument for a very dubious premise and then see most everyone since then up to the present continue to run with it even as they present progressively ever more excellent arguments for how very dubious this line of thought has been all along. It looks more and more to me very like an almost criminally irresponsible application of some very extensive and specialized mental skills which everyone concerned has already long agreed is more often than not completely futile or counterproductive owing to chronically systemic misapplications of effort.

I can see what, where and how they do these kinds of philosophical work. I just can't comprehend why any of them would continue to do this kind of work so ineffectively so repetitively for so long when there are so very few discernible benefits arising from doing so. Which is not to say that western philosophy is without any discernible benefits whatsoever. What I am suggesting is that the considerable work involved often appears relatively extensive whereas any benefits related to that work often appear contrastingly inconsequential. Not always, not as a rule or anything, just in general, overall. If western philosophy was to western peoples what Ford Motors was and is to America, Mr. Ford's intellectual heirs would still be considering what a prototype of a horseless carriage might one day look like and America would still be on horseback for many centuries to come. There would also be various competing schools of thought about muleless carriages and camelless carriages and penquinless carriages and so on.

Thanks for the pdf. I'll look it over.
thumbnail
Richard Zen, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 1623 Join Date: 5/18/10 Recent Posts
A lot of what you say is true about how useless some philosophy can be. All you have to do is read some long tome of a philosophy book and then just think "what I'm I going to eat for lunch?" and start finding it hard to apply to your life in a way that advances it.

Heidegger is difficult and I find just reading books about his book easier to do but he does at least challenge that Descartes "I think therefore I am" so that we don't have to be only stuck in "thing-ness" for a self. Meditation allowed for me to look at experience as it is. Gelassenheit seems to point to a mindfulness where we wait for things to unfold as we talk and act but there's no particular final goal or final purpose. You still act but you are not getting addicted to conceptuality but letting concepts advance while still using them. Some of his warning about technology is very prescient in our age of using screens everywhere.

Heidegger on Gelassenheit

In order to understand what this means, Heidegger suggests that we look at the comportment we have towards technological devices. We recognize that, in today’s world technological machineries are indispensable. We need just to think of computers and their usage in daily life activities to be convinced, above any doubt, that “we depend on technical devices” (Heidegger 1966b, p.53). By thinking calculatively, we use these machineries at our own convenience; we also let ourselves be challenged by them, so as to develop new devices that would be more suitable for a certain project or more accurate in the carrying out of certain research.

If calculative thinking does not think beyond the usefulness of what it engages with, meditative thinking would notice and become aware of the fact that these devices are not just extremely useful to us. It would also notice that they, by being so extremely useful, at the same time are “shackling” us: “suddenly and unaware we find ourselves so firmly shackled to these technical devices that we fall into bondage to them” (ibid., p. 53-54). If man, not being aware of this, is in a situation of being chained to these machineries, then by becoming conscious of this he finds himself in a different relation to them. He becomes free of them. With this awareness man can utilize these instruments just as instruments, being at the same time free to “let go of them at any time” (ibid., p. 54). And this is so because once we acknowledge that their usefulness implies the possibility for us to be chained to them, we deal with them differently; we “deny them the right to dominate us, and so to wrap, confuse, and lay waste our nature” (ibid., p.54). It is a matter of a different comportment towards them; it is a different disposition to which Heidegger gives the name “releasement toward things” [die Gelassenheit zu den Dingen] (ibid., p.54)


There is a usefulness to thing-ness but it can't replace experience and observation.

I'm still chewing on a lot of this stuff because it's so dense. I still haven't gotten into Wittgenstein yet which will also be difficult to read. German Existentialism hurts the brain. emoticon
thumbnail
triple think, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 362 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
Richard Zen:
A lot of what you say is true about how useless some philosophy can be. All you have to do is read some long tome of a philosophy book and then just think "what I'm I going to eat for lunch?" and start finding it hard to apply to your life in a way that advances it.

Heidegger is difficult and I find just reading books about his book easier to do but he does at least challenge that Descartes "I think therefore I am" so that we don't have to be only stuck in "thing-ness" for a self. Meditation allowed for me to look at experience as it is. Gelassenheit seems to point to a mindfulness where we wait for things to unfold as we talk and act but there's no particular final goal or final purpose. You still act but you are not getting addicted to conceptuality but letting concepts advance while still using them. Some of his warning about technology is very prescient in our age of using screens everywhere.

There is a usefulness to thing-ness but it can't replace experience and observation.

I'm still chewing on a lot of this stuff because it's so dense. I still haven't gotten into Wittgenstein yet which will also be difficult to read. German Existentialism hurts the brain. emoticon


There is a long standing complaint here at DhO that goes back to at least Daniel's book about 'a mushroom culture' within the buddhist subculture. I think it was and is an important critique and I would have like to have seen more attention given to resisting cultivating yet another version of that here. Perhaps all we have demonstrated is that it will follow you everywhere just like the stink from his cigarettes followed Ajahn Chah everywhere he went. It probably proves to be far more work that it is worth to weed it out as meticulously as would likely be necessary and it would all be highly unpleasant work.

By way of comparison I would suggest that the mushroom culture supported by western philosophy is more or less equivalent to western culture overall.

If we consider many of the dubious premises that run through much of the contemporary western spirituality and self help industry and how much capital that industry turns over, that sector, together with the high state church of psychology will probably the represent the larger part of the mainstream religion of the future. Many of these bizarre hybrid ideas begin as western distortions and misinterpretations of eastern notions.

What is very interesting is reading through western work translating and commenting on buddhism over the last three hundred years along side of western philosophy over the same period. The picture that emerges is enlightening (in the sense that traces back to the renaissance period). You can observe how from the very beginning the completely alien aspects of eastern thought have consistently eluded western thinkers and interpreters. So if you are familiar with various schools and premises in western philosophy you can then note how eastern thought, be it buddhist or otherwise always passes through a filter of western philosophical and cultural biases as the western culture continues its attempts to appropriate anything 'useful' or 'marketable' from the alien culture.

If you understand something of the greek philosophers you can trace this interaction between east and west all the way back almost to the buddha's lifetime and before. There are some significant mental barriers for the psychological makeup in the west in relation to many of the key eastern philosophical notions. The western conceptions of state and of self are far more advanced in many ways and this has its advantages and disadvantages. With the western attempts to interpret eastern thought it has been mostly disadvantageous. What can be seen is quite similar to the way that without key notions which we can trace back to Plato or Aristotle much of the new testament would have made no sense to western christians over the last 18 centuries.

Similarly the European or western mindset can be seen to have been attempting to find something to relate to in the eastern mindset at various points throughout the last 2000 years as well. The results of these efforts are mostly strange hybrids of various kinds. Something in the eastern mindset is kind of like something in the western mindset so we use this or that western notion to stand in for wherever that seemingly very similar eastern notion appears. However they are not the same notions at all. So as western philosophy continues to reformulate and exchange notions in a very dynamic and rapid manner it has to continue to replace these notions that are standing in for their seeming eastern correlates.

The result has been a long series of western philosophical hybrid misinterpretations. One could research and label them all for a PhD thesis or something similar. It's history would look something like; Greek Buddhism, Reformed Orthodox Greek Buddhism, Decartian Buddhism (still very popular), Romantic Buddhism (still very big today), Kantian Buddhism, Hegelian Buddhism, Utilitarian Buddhism (also very big), Wittgensteinian Buddhism, Freudian Buddhism, Jungian Buddhism, Perrenialist Buddhism, etc., etc., etc..

It leads to the obvious question, has there ever been any unfiltered and unmodified appropriations by the west of alien cultural property and the answer proves to be very likely no.

This 'movement' Pragmatic Buddhism for instance, is fascinating when viewed through the lens of Marxist theory. If you add Lacanianism or Althussarianism it begins to appear even more monstrous and menacing. Really great stuff if you like those little unexpected kinds of shocks like you get in movies of the horror genre.

I kind of like Wittgenstein, a real breath of fresh air after reading someone like Neitzsche.
thumbnail
Richard Zen, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 1623 Join Date: 5/18/10 Recent Posts
I think the West is also trying to compete with Buddhism because there are some correlates like Stoicism and Pre-Socratic philosophers which lead into modern psychology.

Rational Emotive Behaviour

What I like about the above system is that it countered some of my beliefs in a good way. I remember being late for a doctor's appointment and I was in my car speeding like crazy. I looked at my belief (which any actions or emotions have as a basis) and noticed that the belief must be that all the cars should get out of my way and I should be allowed go as fast as I wanted. Just bringing that to consciousness got me to laugh at myself and slow down.

What I do like about Existentialism is that they seem to embrace the self-reactivity as a call to responsibility. The worry then can be used for good instead of just worrying. Also noting the worry and why it's there has a therapeutic quality to it like Mahasi noting. This could also be seen in Logotherapy by Frankl, where a person taking care of their sick relative could find meaning in that, thereby reducing the mental stress just by recognizing that and bringing it's purpose to their attention. A belief changes and so does the emotion.
thumbnail
Pablo . P, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 378 Join Date: 3/21/12 Recent Posts
Richard Zen:
A lot of what you say is true about how useless some philosophy can be. All you have to do is read some long tome of a philosophy book and then just think "what I'm I going to eat for lunch?" and start finding it hard to apply to your life in a way that advances it.

Heidegger is difficult and I find just reading books about his book easier to do but he does at least challenge that Descartes "I think therefore I am" so that we don't have to be only stuck in "thing-ness" for a self. Meditation allowed for me to look at experience as it is. Gelassenheit seems to point to a mindfulness where we wait for things to unfold as we talk and act but there's no particular final goal or final purpose. You still act but you are not getting addicted to conceptuality but letting concepts advance while still using them. Some of his warning about technology is very prescient in our age of using screens everywhere.

There is a usefulness to thing-ness but it can't replace experience and observation.

I'm still chewing on a lot of this stuff because it's so dense. I still haven't gotten into Wittgenstein yet which will also be difficult to read. German Existentialism hurts the brain. emoticon


triple think:


Similarly the European or western mindset can be seen to have been attempting to find something to relate to in the eastern mindset at various points throughout the last 2000 years as well. The results of these efforts are mostly strange hybrids of various kinds. Something in the eastern mindset is kind of like something in the western mindset so we use this or that western notion to stand in for wherever that seemingly very similar eastern notion appears. However they are not the same notions at all. So as western philosophy continues to reformulate and exchange notions in a very dynamic and rapid manner it has to continue to replace these notions that are standing in for their seeming eastern correlates.

The result has been a long series of western philosophical hybrid misinterpretations. One could research and label them all for a PhD thesis or something similar. It's history would look something like; Greek Buddhism, Reformed Orthodox Greek Buddhism, Decartian Buddhism (still very popular), Romantic Buddhism (still very big today), Kantian Buddhism, Hegelian Buddhism, Utilitarian Buddhism (also very big), Wittgensteinian Buddhism, Freudian Buddhism, Jungian Buddhism, Perrenialist Buddhism, etc., etc., etc..


You may well be interested in having a look at Xavier Zubiri (1898-1983), a Spanish philosopher, whose works are deeply rooted in western philosophy (plus Spanish mystics tradition and comparisons with Indian's traditions), yet is as theravadish as you can get. His main development was the "Sentient Intelligence" (nowadays in English).

************************************

A key element in Zubiri’s Thought: The overwhelming force of our direct perception of reality. For Zubiri, this is the salient characteristic of human intelligence and must be the starting point for any firmly grounded theory of the intelligence and any epistemology.

Phenomenology and Reality: Zubiri takes two critical ideas from phenomenology (Husserl, Ortega y Gasset, and Heidegger). First is a certain way or "idea" of philosophy. In particular, he accepts that phenomenology has opened a new path and deepened our understanding of things by recognizing that it is necessary to position philosophy at a new and more radical level than that of classical realism or of modern idealism (primarily Hegel).

Secondly, he accepts that philosophy must start with its own territory, that of "mere immediate description of the act of thinking". But for him, the radical philosophical problem is not that proclaimed by the phenomenologists: not Husserl’s "phenomenological consciousness", not Heidegger’s "comprehension of being", not Ortega’s "life", but rather the "apprehension of reality". He believes that philosophy must start from the fundamental fact of experience, that we are installed in reality, however modestly, and that our most basic experiences, what we perceive of the world (colors, sounds, people, etc.) are real. Without this basis—and despite that fact that such experience can at times be misleading—there would be no other knowledge either, including science. But because the world discovered to us by science is quite different from our ordinary experience (electromagnetic waves and photons instead of colors, quarks and other strange particles instead of solid matter, and so forth), a critical problem arises which thrusts Zubiri towards a radical rethinking of the notion of reality.

Zubiri’s Major Insights and Innovations:

- Recognizes the inseparability of the sensible and intellective aspects of human knowledge, the seat of which he terms sentient intelligence. The distinction between sensing and intellective knowing is not something immediately given in human apprehension, but belongs to the rational order.

- Creates a new definition of human intellection: "... mere actualization of the real in the sentient intelligence".

- Distinguishes the formality of reality (i.e., the aspect of reality delivered to us in an impression) from the content of reality of a thing.

- Establishes three stages or levels of human knowledge: reality, logos, and reason or ratio. Truth is ultimately grounded in the first, not the second and third, as has traditionally been assumed (this, in effect, is Zubiri’s "Copernican Revolution").

- Expands our conception of reality to encompass both reity (reality delivered in sensible apprehension, i.e., formality actualized in apprehension) and reality (reality "beyond" apprehension; traditionally the only meaning of the term). The latter is ultimately founded upon the former.

- Recognizes that while the senses (of which he identifies 11 rather than the usual 5) differ in content, it is with respect to their formality, i.e., the way in which they deliver reality to us, that the difference is most important. This implies that there are as many forms of actualization of reality as there are senses; but because the sentient intellection is indivisible, they correspond to different modes of intellective presentation of reality.

- Truth, in the most fundamental or primordial sense, is imposed upon us, through the force of reality, rather than being something we conquer (that applies rather to the derivative sense of truth in rational knowledge).

- A new definition of intelligence: not capability to process information, but actualizing things as "de suyo" (in its own right).

- Recognition of human intelligence as something which is not flawed, but rather limited, and therefore subject to error while yet quite capable of apprehending reality and of truth.

- Distinguishes what he terms the talitative and transcendental orders within reality, the former having to do with the content of things (primarily the focus of science), and the latter their formality of reality (primarily the focus of metaphysics).

- Causality vs Functionality (sort of dependent origination).

Full introduction text here.

Here an easy introduction to Zubiri's philosophy.
thumbnail
Richard Zen, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 1623 Join Date: 5/18/10 Recent Posts
Wow! Thanks! I didn't know this guy at all and just reading the Wikipedia summary I can see why, with Franco interfering. Looks like another guy like Sartre who took the earlier phenomenologists and tried to add to them and correct them.
thumbnail
triple think, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 362 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
hi Pablo

Thanks for this introduction to Zubiri Pablo. It does sound like he has done some interesting work. I'm running into Hegel everywhere these days and he seems like one of the influential figures here as well. When I get a better sense of what Hegel's work is like and how people use his body of thought in their work I will be that much better prepared to understand the Phenomenologists work in general. I look forward to better appreciating the Phenomenologists and now also to reading Zubiri.

Thanks
nathan
thumbnail
triple think, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 362 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Oh this is so much fun so far! I want to join in, and thus I will do so forthwith.

1) I've always been curious. Is that you in your avatar picture with a tiger there? What's the story behind that one?

2) What've you discovered so far about what it means to be alive? As in, what's the point? Or is there no point, or is it a silly question, etc. I equate being alive with being conscious, if that helps you to figure out where I'm coming from.

3) Also more of a curiosity question: what have you been discovering lately? Like in the last year or two. What're you looking into? What're you finding? Changing any preconceived notions you previously had? How do you go about figuring out what to figure out next?

EDIT: Prompted by your latest post, 4) What've you found out in your experience (well obviously you wouldn't have found it out in anybody else's experience) about whether there is an objective world? As in, a world outside of anyone's perception of it. A tree with no one to see it. Definite yes? Definite no? Or is the question unimportant/misguided for various reasons, etc., as in, we could never know anyway.

Cheers,
Claudiu

hi Claudiu

It is more pleasant when it is more fun. Generally for me if I have an actual interest online forum-ulations may well be fun also, so if it is not fun I find I need to go back and find out when I stopped having an interest and stopped having fun. Often when reading arguments (ugh, the always everywhere so very lame arguments) such an 'end of fun' will follow several sequentially failed attempts at rationality presented as if I should unquestioningly accept the given premises as if these were some sort of a sound rational argument for some particular view of some particular thing. The path from there can only lead to not fun-ness. Otherwise, I'm easy, if it's genuinely interesting I'm probably enjoying the heck out of it.

pressing on

1) Me too, very curious. Yes that is me and that is a tiger and we were both in southern Thailand at that wat where they hang out with tigers all the time shortly after noon one day in the May of 2009, and that is the story of that picture. Yes, it was interesting and fun.

2) "What've you discovered so far about what it means to be alive? As in, what's the point? Or is there no point, or is it a silly question, etc. I equate being alive with being conscious, if that helps you to figure out where I'm coming from."

Not looking for much, huh?

Ok, I'll bite, in the interests of whirled peas and everything. Well, hmm, I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you have a body and a maintain some ongoing conscious awareness of that body. Now bear in mind that this is only an approximation but my suspicion is that 'being alive' is very much like that, very similar to whatever it is that is happening there with the body and the conscious perception of and by it is happening for you. In other words it might mean any number of things. Same with the points. I'm not a bullet if that is what your asking.

Honestly, I would need much more to go on to have even an inkling of where anyone is coming from.

If you don't mind terribly, if I were to viciously redact the question to say, "What have you discovered about existing?" In the simplest terms I would frame my concerns about it with the observations that it would appear to be a far greater task than it might initially appear to have been to prevent an ongoing existence from continuing onward indefinitely. Further, if such conditions don't concern one directly, then one hasn't consciously attended to the persisting conditions in and of existing sufficiently to need to question why it might concern anyone. In that case we would have to back up from there. Otherwise we could proceed from there.

We could examine what I might submit I may have discovered on any number of tacks. It would require a lot of fun on both our parts to sustain my enthusiastic interest.

3) "...what have you been discovering lately? ...in the last year or two. What're you looking into? What're you finding? Changing any preconceived notions you previously had? How do you go about figuring out what to figure out next?"

I suppose in my case many of the insights that have arisen and any knowledge and understanding I have wrested from these is in a kind of mid-life no crisis phase. I was much younger when a barrage of mind and life altering lightning strike kinds of events occurred within my perceptions and conceptions. I can well understand the enthusiastic interest in the event this occurs, especially when the iron is hot. If something similar happens now for me its more like, 'huh, this again, ok, whatever.' So, in general, over time there arise longer term more considered perspectives.

In brief, I was completely unclear regarding some critical existential concerns, then some stuff became entirely clear. Then "I" stopped being obsessively interesting entirely in anything like the same ways as before. That came as a complete relief. I've been sort of half seemingly here half obviously not here ever since. I've sort of adjusted to that or that adjusted me to it or something.

For the last year or so I've been reading a lot of western philosophy. I'm satisfied with my reading of the buddhist stuff. I know what I like, I like what I know and I will continue to read that repeatedly. I do not much care what anyone else thinks I should think about anything about it. Likewise I don't think much of the idea that whatever I might think about any of that needs to become the concern of anyone else.

I've been reading the western philosophy just because. A lot of people seem to think or feel that they are very rational and that western culture is very rational. So I'm looking into it. Discovering, nope, not even a little bit rational, no big surprise there but discovering considerable detail as to how and why there is the so much not rationality and examining how, why and if and when rational is what really is so gosh darned important anyways. There is some. Some limited and provisional rationality to be found and there is also some promising tentative reasoning given acceptably rational premises. Not very much. Some.

This last, "How do you go about figuring out what to figure out next?" That is a really fun place to start from. With the existence investigations I backtrack until I identify the extents of any significant sources of insight and knowledge that is unquestionably established and continue from there. Whatever consistently reliable understanding I might bring to bear naturally predetermines how and why I might continue to investigate.

A limited metaphor for investigating existence in the ways I have is how it might be compared to focusing one camera on one image and continuing to leave it there. Once sufficiently focused the image appears quite clear. Assuming it could always be more clear one may continue to refine the focus indefinitely. Over time one may determine various qualities and specific discernible details that were not initially obvious. So this is generally how it has been going for me with the 'staring into the abyss of existence thing'. The picture that has emerged hasn't changed much over time but with continued interest it has become increasingly possible to variously comprehend that picture.

4) "is {there} an objective world?"

It certainly appears 'as if' we are constrained to acting on the premise that there is.

"As in, a world outside of anyone's perception of it."

By definition such a perception is not possible. Is this not so?

People who frequent DhO are not infrequently engaged in efforts to objectify their bodies and their conscious attention are they not? I would consider any success with self objectification to be an indication that by extension objectification of not only the body, conscious attention and the sense faculties but of that which is sensed is entirely realizable if one is interested in applying an objective frame of reference to 'the sensed qualities'. This is assuming one has not already found it broadly necessary to do so regardless of the soundness of any such perceptions and conceptions. Do we not collectively find sense objects generally to appear to be those compounded sensed qualities most readily susceptible to complete objectification?

lotsa fun everone
triplethink
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 2198 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
triple think:
It is more pleasant when it is more fun. Generally for me if I have an actual interest online forum-ulations may well be fun also, so if it is not fun I find I need to go back and find out when I stopped having an interest and stopped having fun. Often when reading arguments (ugh, the always everywhere so very lame arguments) such an 'end of fun' will follow several sequentially failed attempts at rationality presented as if I should unquestioningly accept the given premises as if these were some sort of a sound rational argument for some particular view of some particular thing. The path from there can only lead to not fun-ness. Otherwise, I'm easy, if it's genuinely interesting I'm probably enjoying the heck out of it.

Nice! I really like fun as well. Would you agree with the notion that if it's not fun then what's the point really? Given some qualifications, of course. For example when I sometimes say something like that to someone they will say, if all they wanted to do was have fun, they would just do drugs all the time, or something. To which my answer is usually, but no, that doesn't sound like very much fun at all if you think about it a bit.

Agreed also about the end of fun. I think I usually err on the side of going too far after the fun has ended before I stop and think about why the fun has ended.

triple think:
2) "What've you discovered so far about what it means to be alive? As in, what's the point? Or is there no point, or is it a silly question, etc. I equate being alive with being conscious, if that helps you to figure out where I'm coming from."

Not looking for much, huh?

Hehe. Just getting right to the nub of it!

triple think:
Ok, I'll bite, in the interests of whirled peas and everything. Well, hmm, I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you have a body and a maintain some ongoing conscious awareness of that body. Now bear in mind that this is only an approximation but my suspicion is that 'being alive' is very much like that, very similar to whatever it is that is happening there with the body and the conscious perception of and by it is happening for you. In other words it might mean any number of things. Same with the points. I'm not a bullet if that is what your asking.

Honestly, I would need much more to go on to have even an inkling of where anyone is coming from.

I do indeed have a body though I would say that it does the hard work of maintaining the ongoing conscious awareness so I don't have to. I like the way you formulated the question in terms of "What have you discovered about existing?" so let's go with that. Yes, existence is indeed what I am interested in.

triple think:
In the simplest terms I would frame my concerns about it with the observations that it would appear to be a far greater task than it might initially appear to have been to prevent an ongoing existence from continuing onward indefinitely. Further, if such conditions don't concern one directly, then one hasn't consciously attended to the persisting conditions in and of existing sufficiently to need to question why it might concern anyone. In that case we would have to back up from there. Otherwise we could proceed from there.

We could examine what I might submit I may have discovered on any number of tacks. It would require a lot of fun on both our parts to sustain my enthusiastic interest.

Alright, I'm game. If it stops being fun then we can just - stop talking about it!

Existence does concern me greatly. This bit is interesting: "it would appear to be a far greater task than it might initially appear to have been to prevent an ongoing existence from continuing onward indefinitely". Because at first glance, it would indeed seem straightforward to do so. Namely, apply knife to throat or bullet to temple or whatever. However I get a fuller picture by combining it with this other bit you said: "I existed, then one day I determined to examine the qualities of that existing reductively. I did that with a naive fascination until all of it very unexpectedly vanished in its entirety and I then I did not exist anymore, in any sense. Ever since that occurred I have had to consider the existing of anything in the light of how that contrasts with the complete disappearance of existing. I have to confess that I find the complete extinction of any and all existing conditions and qualities is always entirely and incomparably preferable. Preferring any conceivable existing conditions, even any one quality of any one condition, is comparatively imponderable for me so far."

So by existence you mean... well yes, let's start from there - what do you mean by existence, exactly? Because you see, I find myself also currently existing, and have also tasted non-existence, and I do wish to experience that non-existence on a permanent basis.. yet the non-existence I crave still involves conscious experience, you see? And it seems yours does too, because you said: "The not existing is the inviolably sacred not condition which demonstrably and verifiably certainly does exist but exists in no relation whatsoever to the existing conditions." So the non-existence you speak of does exist in some way. I think it's time we start using some different terms, or perhaps coining new ones!

Actually, I've tasted two different kinds of non-existence, yet both of which involved some sort of experience, and I'm really particularly after one of them at the moment and not the other one, and to me it sounds like you're talking about the "other one". The one I'm after involved a continuation of sense experiencing, and the one I am not after currently though which was quite striking at the time involved a discontinuation of sense experiencing.

triple think:
A limited metaphor for investigating existence in the ways I have is how it might be compared to focusing one camera on one image and continuing to leave it there. Once sufficiently focused the image appears quite clear. Assuming it could always be more clear one may continue to refine the focus indefinitely. Over time one may determine various qualities and specific discernible details that were not initially obvious. So this is generally how it has been going for me with the 'staring into the abyss of existence thing'. The picture that has emerged hasn't changed much over time but with continued interest it has become increasingly possible to variously comprehend that picture.

I found perhaps something similar with regards to audio. A while ago I purchased some hi-quality in-ear headphones, and had great joy in listening to all the music I had listened to before with them. I heard a lot of things that I simply never noticed before. Then the earphones started getting wonky so I ordered a new pair. And again, I thought these were higher quality, because I again heard stuff I never had before, and I grew to like them way more than the old ones. Now I happened to lose these in the subway, so I went to purchase a replacement. I saw that the more hi-end version of the recent ones was about $400 or something and I didn't know whether to spend dat kinda cash. And then I looked at the model number on my old phones and - they were those!

So it's not that the newer phones were higher-quality. They were the lower-end model. But they still brought out stuff *differently* than the higher-quality ones, and that gave my ears new focus. So I appreciated some songs on a level I hadn't before. Now that I've gone back again I'm hearing new things. Thus it's not so much that there is a one perfect focus, but rather, different clear-enough focuses bring out different things differently. And it wouldn't be possible to have all those things at once because then the balance would change again and it'd be something else instead.

triple think:

4) "is {there} an objective world?"

It certainly appears 'as if' we are constrained to acting on the premise that there is.

"As in, a world outside of anyone's perception of it."

By definition such a perception is not possible. Is this not so?

Certainly it is impossible to perceive a world outside of anyone's perception of it. But is it impossible to *know* that there is a world outside of anyone's perception of it? I say no - it is possible to know this. But you say you do not - you say it "appears as if we are constrained to acting on the premise that there is", which is quite different. Perhaps I can ask: what is it which prevents certitude of whether or not the world objectively exists? The question of whether the world objectively exists seems a binary one - with a yes or a no answer. Yet most of the time I find I cannot answer it from direct experience - I am not sure. However, sometimes, when I'm not existing, I can answer it from direct experience - yes it does. Other times from direct experience I was able to answer that no, it doesn't. Nowadays I think of the experience wherein I experience that it does objectively exist as factual and the experience wherein I experience that it doesn't objectively exist as non-factual, for a variety of reasons. Do you remain in the "it seems as if but can't really be sure" position?

triple think:
I would consider any success with self objectification to be an indication that by extension objectification of not only the body, conscious attention and the sense faculties but of that which is sensed is entirely realizable if one is interested in applying an objective frame of reference to 'the sensed qualities'. [...] Do we not collectively find sense objects generally to appear to be those compounded sensed qualities most readily susceptible to complete objectification?

Hmm, perhaps... what do you mean by "objectification"? And particularly do you draw any distinction between "self objectification" and sense-object objectification?

I refrained from commenting on the western philosophy stuff as I have very little experience with all that, but thanks for sharing. I read a little bit of Wittgenstein but I found myself just agreeing with what he said that was similar to what I already thought true and disagreeing with what he said that was different, so that wasn't too productive. I did find this conclusion in Tractatus Logic-Philosophicus really funny (and fun), though:
Wittgenstein:
6.53. The correct method in philosophy would really be the following: to say nothing except what can be said, i.e. propositions of natural science—i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy—and then, whenever someone else wanted to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had failed to give a meaning to certain signs in his propositions. Although it would not be satisfying to the other person—he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy—this method would be the only strictly correct one.


Fun & whirled peas!
- Claudiu

P.S.
Yes that is me and that is a tiger and we were both in southern Thailand at that wat where they hang out with tigers all the time shortly after noon one day in the May of 2009, and that is the story of that picture. Yes, it was interesting and fun.

But why... why is the tiger all on its back and you appear to be rubbing its belly? I was under the impressions tigers would tend to eat those who are not the people that raised them. I guess I was mistaken? Admittedly it is not a very well-informed impression.
thumbnail
triple think, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 362 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
hi Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem

"Would you agree with the notion that if it's not fun then what's the point really? Given some qualifications, of course."

In terms of social interaction of any kind that might be considered recreational, more likely yes, otherwise no. For my own part, in solitude, probably not most of the time. Not that my life even when alone can't be so, only that it isn't an important indicator of value for me in most important respects. I can take an interest in most subjects if I apply myself and learn how it is fun in time regardless.

"Existence does concern me greatly. This bit is interesting: "it would appear to be a far greater task than it might initially appear to have been to prevent an ongoing existence from continuing onward indefinitely". Because at first glance, it would indeed seem straightforward to do so. Namely, apply knife to throat or bullet to temple or whatever."

I would emphatically insist that death and final lasting extinction are not the same kinds of occurrences except for very exceptional people who would well understand most if not all of the full implications of each type of ending. I think people who expect that these are somehow causally linked except under exceptional circumstances to be very upset to learn otherwise. Everyone is naturally free to think differently or differently for whatever reasons but I am unlikely to shift my thinking about this. Perhaps in another life I will take another position on it - but I think it unlikely even if I as I suspect is highly likely that - I at some point loose all memory of life previous again and yet I am later in a position to form any equivalent understandings subsequent to any rebirth in any form.

I have been dead a couple of times and was not seeking to be and that was instructive, not much to say about death except that the two are not at all the same. Death has an appearance of continuity more resembling a kind of continuity of that of life, particularly of the life immediately previous and which wanders on in a slightly altered form. The symbol for the void which the mind generates upon emerging from extinction is and will remain entirely unique within the mind and serves an entirely different function.

"So by existence you mean... well yes, let's start from there - what do you mean by existence, exactly? Because you see, I find myself also currently existing, and have also tasted non-existence, and I do wish to experience that non-existence on a permanent basis.. yet the non-existence I crave still involves conscious experience, you see? And it seems yours does too, because you said: "The not existing is the inviolably sacred not condition which demonstrably and verifiably certainly does exist but exists in no relation whatsoever to the existing conditions." So the non-existence you speak of does exist in some way. I think it's time we start using some different terms, or perhaps coining new ones!"

Well it is true that this is not a functionally or structurally useful description and so I will attempt to describe this in that way for you now.

Bearing in mind the following;

I have had to examine and ponder the nature of just this for a very long time very carefully, and this is not an absolute certainty for me yet but nearer than it has ever been, yet this description satisfies all of my related observations and all of my relevant understanding in the most satisfying way so far, I expect it highly unlikely I could further improve my understanding about this in any way I have yet to consider and it is in accord with the related declarations which are a part of the Buddha Vacana;

By existence I mean the ongoing presence of whatever qualities of whatever number which when compounding always begin with and include as a minimum - percipience, the supreme nutriment, as the Buddha described it, which can not be investigated directly as this is the quality most directly related to insight.

Further when this quality is isolated it cannot act to produce insight as insight requires at a minimum two qualities. When this quality is isolated one is in the fourth jhana and in the realm of neither percipience nor non percipience. So it can be deduced in this way and others that insight is most directly related to this one quality of percipience. When this first and last quality of percipience is abandoned then all existence is in that moment, for however long that moment persists, extinct for such a one and that is nibbana, extinction, cessation or not existence as I have elsewhere referred to this. Nothing is felt or perceived or exists together or in concert together with not existing. Percipience of extinction is impossible as is clear for all who directly and rightly understand this.

In this lifetime my first direct experience of complete cessation took place when I was 15 and I did not understand what occurred at all and I had no access to any other sources of understanding to draw upon after that for over 20 years. I was searching for any such understanding and eventually I found the best sources I think are available. Today such information is much more readily accessible and we are all very fortunate that this is this way at the moment. In my case even after discovering to my great joy and surprise that the Pali Canon existed and was accessible for the likes of me I began studying with every spare moment available. I also significantly improved my practices, habits, methods and so on including my understandings in many ways thereby.

So after another 15 years of significantly better directed study and research and careful methodical consideration I can very confidently give you the explanation I am attempting to give you now.

Upon emerging from extinction, which I am happy to declare unknowable and inviolable, the immediate absorption is unified in one of the three signs as others have well explained. It is mistaking that subsequent sign for the extinction for the extinction itself which for many of us, particularly those who have accessed this kind of experience but for various reasons have lacked the nec essary insights or guidance for a long time, may all too easily and persistently be cause to entirely misunderstand these truths.

Directly and correctly understanding this important difference between complete absence of qualities of sensation, of sense forms, of all qualities of form and of all mental qualities and the like; understanding the difference between that complete extinction and the sign which the mind fabricates to symbolize this complete absence of qualities and properties and conditions and how the purpose of the sign is of primary importance in the way that it impresses directly just this, correctly relating the nature of the extinction or not existing to the nature of existing or samsara is of vital importance for still further progress on the path."

I will stop there for today Claudiu. I suggest you chew on this, I admit, very deep subject and very densely phrased response for a while. I will pick up here again later this weekend. So if there is something about what I said so far or how I have worded or phrased this that is unclear for you we can return to that before I move on with replying to your post. I say so because I think there is far too much involved in your questions to be in any way easily or adequately dealt with in simply this or any one post in any response from anyone and we will have to work through this with much more care or else tolerate posts, at least on my part, that are extremely dense and extremely long to treat the subjects you have so casually raised with anything resembling a competent and considered response.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 2198 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
triple think:
I will stop there for today Claudiu. I suggest you chew on this, I admit, very deep subject and very densely phrased response for a while. I will pick up here again later this weekend. So if there is something about what I said so far or how I have worded or phrased this that is unclear for you we can return to that before I move on with replying to your post. I say so because I think there is far too much involved in your questions to be in any way easily or adequately dealt with in simply this or any one post in any response from anyone and we will have to work through this with much more care or else tolerate posts, at least on my part, that are extremely dense and extremely long to treat the subjects you have so casually raised with anything resembling a competent and considered response.

Thanks, Nathan. I'll have to read it again a few times but on first reading everything seems clear enough, so feel free to move on. Think of my initial questions as a scatter-shot to point our conversation in, I hope, a mutually interesting direction. Now, as you are doing, it will require some more work to address them properly. But fun work I hope =).
Chuck Kasmire, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 559 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
triple think:
When this first and last quality of percipience is abandoned then all existence is in that moment, for however long that moment persists, extinct for such a one and that is nibbana, extinction, cessation or not existence as I have elsewhere referred to this. Nothing is felt or perceived or exists together or in concert together with not existing. Percipience of extinction is impossible as is clear for all who directly and rightly understand this.


Hi Nathan. It's great to see this topic come up again. The above caught my eye (as you might imagine:-). Over the years I have come upon a number of statements that seem to imply something different though admittedly it may be that I don't have the terminology straight and these refer to something else. Thoughts?

MN 111:
"Seeing with discernment, his fermentations were totally ended. He emerged mindfully from that attainment"

AN 9.43 Bodily Witness:
"Furthermore, with the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, he enters &
remains in the cessation of perception & feeling. And as he sees with discernment, the mental fermentations go to their
total end
. He remains touching with his body in whatever way there is an opening there. It is to this extent that one is
described by the Blessed One as a bodily witness without a sequel."

AN 9.44 - Released Through Discernment

"Furthermore, with the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, he enters &
remains in the cessation of perception & feeling. And as he sees with discernment, the mental fermentations go to their
total end. And he knows it through discernment.
It is to this extent that one is described by the Blessed One as released
through discernment without a sequel."

AN 9.45 Released Both Ways

"Furthermore, with the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, he enters &
remains in the cessation of perception & feeling. And as he sees with discernment, the mental fermentations go to their
total end. He remains touching with his body in whatever way there is an opening there, and he knows it through
discernment.
It is to this extent that one is described by the Blessed One as released both ways without a sequel."


AN 10.6:

Then Ven. Ananda ...said to the Blessed One, "Lord, could a monk have an attainment of concentration such that he would
neither be percipient of earth with regard to earth, nor of water with regard to water, nor of fire... wind... the
dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of
nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception... this world... nor of the next world with regard
to the next world, and yet he would still be percipient?"

"Yes, Ananda, he could..."

"But how, lord, ...?"

"There is the case, Ananda, where the monk would be percipient in this way: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the
resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation;
Unbinding.'
It's in this way that a monk could have an attainment of concentration such that he would neither be
percipient of earth with regard to earth, nor of water with regard to water, nor of fire... wind... the dimension of the
infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension
of neither perception nor non-perception... this world... nor of the next world with regard to the next world, and yet he
would still be percipient
."
thumbnail
triple think, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 362 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
triplethunk Post 99 triplethink 11/28-29/13 Note on Void Percepts and Note on Idhhi

Chuck Kasmire:
triple think:
When this first and last quality of percipience is abandoned then all existence is in that moment, for however long that moment persists, extinct for such a one and that is nibbana, extinction, cessation or not existence as I have elsewhere referred to this. Nothing is felt or perceived or exists together or in concert together with not existing. Percipience of extinction is impossible as is clear for all who directly and rightly understand this.


Hi Nathan. It's great to see this topic come up again. The above caught my eye (as you might imagine:-). Over the years I have come upon a number of statements that seem to imply something different though admittedly it may be that I don't have the terminology straight and these refer to something else. Thoughts?

MN 111:
"Seeing with discernment, his fermentations were totally ended. He emerged mindfully from that attainment"

AN 9.43 Bodily Witness:
"Furthermore, with the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, he enters &
remains in the cessation of perception & feeling. And as he sees with discernment, the mental fermentations go to their
total end
. He remains touching with his body in whatever way there is an opening there. It is to this extent that one is
described by the Blessed One as a bodily witness without a sequel."

AN 9.44 - Released Through Discernment

"Furthermore, with the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, he enters &
remains in the cessation of perception & feeling. And as he sees with discernment, the mental fermentations go to their
total end. And he knows it through discernment.
It is to this extent that one is described by the Blessed One as released
through discernment without a sequel."

AN 9.45 Released Both Ways

"Furthermore, with the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, he enters &
remains in the cessation of perception & feeling. And as he sees with discernment, the mental fermentations go to their
total end. He remains touching with his body in whatever way there is an opening there, and he knows it through
discernment.
It is to this extent that one is described by the Blessed One as released both ways without a sequel."


AN 10.6:

Then Ven. Ananda ...said to the Blessed One, "Lord, could a monk have an attainment of concentration such that he would
neither be percipient of earth with regard to earth, nor of water with regard to water, nor of fire... wind... the
dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of
nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception... this world... nor of the next world with regard
to the next world, and yet he would still be percipient?"

"Yes, Ananda, he could..."

"But how, lord, ...?"

"There is the case, Ananda, where the monk would be percipient in this way: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the
resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation;
Unbinding.'
It's in this way that a monk could have an attainment of concentration such that he would neither be
percipient of earth with regard to earth, nor of water with regard to water, nor of fire... wind... the dimension of the
infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension
of neither perception nor non-perception... this world... nor of the next world with regard to the next world, and yet he
would still be percipient
."
hi Chuck

So, far, not having persisted long enough in the nirodha, likely no more than 2-3 minutes, if not under a minute generally, at this point I am willing to accept the thinking that nothing can be said about this short of working towards a conscious resting state approaching that of the/a Buddha. For very many years I had felt that some aspect of perception existed within the resting state, however, short of this or any similar 'Such' (conditional) statements by the Buddha personally, any that might be "Such (condtional) statements about the 'Thus' aka void aka conditional resting state, I take it that those seeming perceptions were actually the more likely a perception of the sign of the void taken up as an object in the Realm of Infinite Perception. The Buddha's presentation varies from structural to functional and without considerable scholarly-ish research I would not have a proper survey of the Pali on this question. I don't think even a comment from a great Disciple (perfected 4 + at minimum 3 more attainments would qualify to comment) is in the existing records. Care to comment further? What's your thinking on this one Chuck?

For the time being I will go with perceptually, "it very much feels this way", yet cognitively I lean towards one of the signs for the void as replacing infinite consciousness and effectively becoming a 9 th immaterial Jhana, perhaps fits one of Kenneth's paradigms or Daniel. Not sure, haven't moved on into the heterodox stuff yet, baby steps...

Want me to put this on the list next time I pull out all the baskets and jump in for a year? I would be happy to do so. Let me know else where sometime.
thx
triplethink

A Brief Note on Iddhi

I had a thought on iddhi work. Iddhi questions come up a lot, probably anything functional in detail will come up for more detailed scrutiny in the ops thread at some point. Should a competent group determine to focus on this, that and Such.

In any case I will post a brief note on this here in case someone is scanning for such details.

I would say the most accomplished iddhi work I do now is equatable to method acting which is to say Projected Self Rule Appearances, which others who buy into this as a given are delusional in persisting in. However, most are, so simply as the most expedient form of self defense I have found it is more often than not most appropriate to give people the minimum of what they are expecting to encounter if they are ignorant completely or significantly delusional. This is short of projecting a treatment modality to correct any delusion or ignorance. I save that for times when it appears doable and likely successful. For the most part I simply offer the flow its minimums or a slight positive adjustment.

So, rather than buy into the Self Rule per se, I simply present an appearance which can be taken as 'normal' and 'happy' for all practical intents and purposes, to the extent possible considering the present givens, unless qualities and conditions present otherwise.

I couldn't do this kind of work initially and prefer when alone or amongst those who have known me for a long time to default to the present conditions and back into satipatthana mode or something deeper in. I had to sit down with the TV on for a few years and watch the representations the pro's present. Even post second or third splash or whatever it was everyone in high school figured I was from outer space or something. It took a while to find a girl who would even consider me as other than sexless and neuter, that was uncomfortable. Sorry kids for all the 'experiments' performed back then. I sincerely hope no one is still freaked out about anything I attempted back then today I was probably most exploratory with this between 15 and 30 and it was some craaaaazzeeeeeee shhhhhhhhheeeeeeeeit! My bad.

I think I would make a competent professional method actor, based on knowledge of the representations linked to the given qualities and conditions, should that present and appear acceptable, without any further training, and project pretty much anything quite convincingly at a camera or an audience.

Anything majical would be too much for me to bother with in that sense and probably more likely counter-indicated. Again considering how this went down for the last big time Wheel Turner. Best thing he for his own As Such sakes was float off and fade out. The rest just got him a lot of grief. Hopefully it has been instructive, and would appear to have been and be so to many extents. Thing is sometimes a little metta is good, beyond that the karuna can be heavily debilitating. But for those who have a lot to give, there is nothing to do but let them do and learn from this kind of work, and I will be the last to criticize any of the Brahmaviharas, per se. Praiszims via Nuttins 2 y'all.

I do think he was a Wheel Master who's Dominion and Authority was rejected by the Existing Asura Regime as three of the Magi from Magadhi did recognize and head west to acknowledge his arising. I can't testify as a direct witness on the three and the references are a cultural retention but it makes sense to have 3 go in context and 'represent' for the Triple Gem. So, its all obvious what is what at some point.

So, nuff said, yup, real and as always objectifiable, trickery or mastery to the initiated and Magic to the ignorant and deluded.

A subjective premise that is falsifiable or verifiable and fully objectified is completely delusional, irrational and illogical anyways, and cannot be faithfully represented, as is also obvious. So, the 'real magicians' today are, simply, those completely lost to ignorance and delusion, who are likewise only fooling themselves - the vernacular for this is "Iddhi Ots" or "Iddhi 0s" - would be good in this venue - in reference to the 01234 models.

yer'z
Fire Eating Moon Phoenix Fire Bathing Earth Dragon
-triplethink
thumbnail
triple think, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 362 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
triplethunk Post 101 triplethink A note on Conscience-ness & Constructing the Moral Compass - Gyroscopic Operations

Been musing a lot about the form of the moral compass that keeps everything play safe outside.

Many good point outs to consider lately, thx all.

So been thinking more like a gyroscope to always keep it right.

Here's a bead for it then if you still have a mind to listen.

Think of many concentric bubbles all in one big boat.

Heading out towards the heavens somewhere and in towards nothing in particular at the center.

Pride is any pole, to always direct outward towards the largest spheres,

humility oriented all the way in, in contrast,

and one will see level(s), at all times indeed.

Looking global
being local
speaking all I know
acting out the same as always
thinkin' this is all she wrote.

easy ways,
- 3bird

More studies are needed, your results may vary,
let us know if they do.
------------------------------
Still continually directing traffic, (re)orienting the inflows and outflows local to this point, seems effective, for all kinds of vectors and radiations, this approach, and the like; so back 2 it.

Somewhere in all the too much already stuff, I was working on this in the tech talk looking for the words outside, but that all started looking highly inappropriate to the cause and not the effect I was after, so sorry about that. Another failed experiment so far, not enough abhidhamma to build it yet. Anyhow, the giantmostspecificterm-inator contraption is still on the frix too, so stuck in the any old language mode and resting up for the doctor level details n' stuff, if and when that ever comes back online. Until then, still a crummy post and under construction. Not even going to link to it from here.

Nov. 28 - 29? 2013
----------------------------------
Post 101 add Sat. after more SIT in IT

Nov. 30

Been reflecting and czeching, void, objector, reflector, time, space, ignition elements & cogitation, this U so far completely nested U fully In & Out (re: the 3D4D5... bubbles). Need to stop at that and check with all of U, U 's.

Been staring up and down the same dumb old trunk of the same old elephant sitting here in the zoo. Backed against a tree, feel very confident about the N & S of these expanding & encompassing points, check my work for your _
as any mote should do.

So, if anything It feel/think thunk some confident this much is correct about the sub nested U 's & IT ALL wherever IT ALL gets away to.

As always check your gear and get back to me w/better insights, knowledge and understanding if at all possible.

Thx for all U hip so far. Sisters and Brothers too.

Flows In/Out As Such still highly unstable but also follows trends, time will tell...upon considerable review....

encompassing and expanding re:
Notes on Such and Thus so far
-3bird

uppekkha U 2
external Bubble U's permeable no safety except accept for the upekkha. Much same flow back as inflow always usually always +++
thumbnail
Florian Weps, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 1028 Join Date: 4/28/09 Recent Posts
triple think:
triplethunk Post 101 triplethink A note on Conscience-ness & Constructing the Moral Compass - Gyroscopic Operations

Been musing a lot about the form of the moral compass that keeps everything play safe outside.

Many good point outs to consider lately, thx all.

So been thinking more like a gyroscope to always keep it right.

Here's a bead for it then if you still have a mind to listen.

Think of many concentric bubbles all in one big boat.

Heading out towards the heavens somewhere and in towards nothing in particular at the center.

Pride is any pole, to always direct outward towards the largest spheres,

humility oriented all the way in, in contrast,

and one will see level(s), at all times indeed.

Looking global
being local
speaking all I know
acting out the same as always
thinkin' this is all she wrote.

easy ways,
- 3bird

More studies are needed, your results may vary,
let us know if they do.


Maybe not a variant result but a progress report from where I'm laying the groundwork:

Humility is a form or expression of cessation / release / letting go / surrender.

Pride is dependent on conditions, i.e. something to be proud of; it is binding and limiting, defined by boundaries against what is not agreeable to pride or what pride can not abide; it can not surrender, for it in itself is what would be surrendered.

Cheers,
Florian

Edited to add: "pride and humility" is a very sharp blade, and I bear many scars and scabs and open wounds from where I keep grabbing it at the sharp end.
thumbnail
triple think, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 362 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
4) "is {there} an objective world?"

triple think:
I would consider any success with self objectification to be an indication that by extension objectification of not only the body, conscious attention and the sense faculties but of that which is sensed is entirely realizable if one is interested in applying an objective frame of reference to 'the sensed qualities'. [...] Do we not collectively find sense objects generally to appear to be those compounded sensed qualities most readily susceptible to complete objectification?

Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Hmm, perhaps... what do you mean by "objectification"? And particularly do you draw any distinction between "self objectification" and sense-object objectification?

I refrained from commenting on the western philosophy stuff as I have very little experience with all that, but thanks for sharing. I read a little bit of Wittgenstein but I found myself just agreeing with what he said that was similar to what I already thought true and disagreeing with what he said that was different, so that wasn't too productive. I did find this conclusion in Tractatus Logic-Philosophicus really funny (and fun), though:

Wittgenstein:
6.53. The correct method in philosophy would really be the following: to say nothing except what can be said, i.e. propositions of natural science—i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy—and then, whenever someone else wanted to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had failed to give a meaning to certain signs in his propositions. Although it would not be satisfying to the other person—he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy—this method would be the only strictly correct one.

hi Wittgenstein,

Nice book btw.
Ok, lets do this, by the book, so to speak.

So to begin with we can rule out an objective universe because as we know from either one or fifty or however many philosophy problems we are as hard wired as a brain in a bucket and can never pin down the answer to this one by turning the senses outward. Darn it all.
Moving on.

Does not knowing anything ever about an objective universe in this way then mean we have to accept that we are all doomed to being permanently solipsistic?

Before we solve that one I'm just going to go and actually enjoy a couple of things... sweet, ok, I'm back.

What if we turn the senses inward...

"Ooooooooooooooooohhhhh, Ooo Ooo Ooo, I know, I know, I know...!!!"

"Yes, you have something to say", says Mr. Wittgenstein.

"Yes, I think I do,", I says to him, "and it is 'by the book' as well, your book."

All right then, so here it is:

If you turn the senses inwards...
All the way to the end...
until the final sense...
the percipience sense...

you can objectify all of that
all the way in
until you cannot
and you can not objectify the percipience or the emptiness of that whole universe when all of that is gone.

So there is ONLY 2 distinct items remaining, in this inside universe that are undefined as either objective, subjective, both or neither.

All of the rest of the 'inside of nathan universe' can at a minimum be objectified. So the inside of nathan can be objectified
which makes all of that an entirely objective universe so far.

The one item, void, is unknowable and therefore indefinable entirely and not inside that universe anyways and therefore moot.

The other item percipience, is the quality that is objectifying all of the other qualities and conditions within the objectified universe of nathan. Now it can be shown that it cannot objectify itself, but it can be shown that it can and does objectify
all of the others so it is "the objector" (cool huh, I should email Angel Fire "it's the objector, objector, objector...." hee hee)

So is the objector then subjective? Hmmm, it kind of looks sort of that way-ish but to even try to label it that way we are somehow labeling it objectively by reasoning which is a compounded mental labeling or symbolizing function which is also a kind of 'objector with benefits' so even then, no, not subjective. So....

Yes!

Eureaka!

Yes, there is at least one objective universe.

Hi, pleased to meet you.
[Edit - Whoops, forgot the rest of the math. We did the first half where I demonstrated that we could, in fact, objectify the entire universe within (internally) and that we could not consider any of it as subjective or subject. Therefore, based on this calculus, we can by extrapolation conclude, that regardless of whether or not the bucket, everything else (externally) which the brain is wired into, whether that is big or bigger than that, it must therefore also be objectified to be known at all. As that is all we can do to know any of that, indeed to know at all or to know anything, and we can not know it in any other way, it is only and all objective. Therefore in conclusion, it is all either objective, or not known, or not existing at all.]

Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Fun & whirled peas!
- Claudiu

P.S.
triple think:
Yes that is me and that is a tiger and we were both in southern Thailand at that wat where they hang out with tigers all the time shortly after noon one day in the May of 2009, and that is the story of that picture. Yes, it was interesting and fun.

Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
But why... why is the tiger all on its back and you appear to be rubbing its belly? I was under the impressions tigers would tend to eat those who are not the people that raised them. I guess I was mistaken? Admittedly it is not a very well-informed impression.
.
Well, kitty was purring like a well tuned BMW. I must have superpowers, I mean, just look at this edit, this was a real agitated female canine to pin down, how did I do it? ; }
thumbnail
Jeff Grove, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 310 Join Date: 8/24/09 Recent Posts
TT

y'know, I guess it is all kinda like Dr. Who. He can tell people where he is coming from or where he is going to and sometimes some understand, but no one else really gets it until they find themselves in the same box.


Beoman "is {there} an objective world?"


TT
hi Wittgenstein,

What if we turn the senses inward...

"Ooooooooooooooooohhhhh, Ooo Ooo Ooo, I know, I know, I know...!!!"

"Yes, you have something to say", says Mr. Wittgenstein.




Hi triple think and Beoman

have enjoyed reading the exchanges and a question about Triplethink's Theorem,

I imagine that turning the senses inward would be similar to walking into the box and someone turns out the lights and suddenly you imagine your in another universe/dimesion, the lights come on and your back again. These senses that you can turn around could get stuck if the wind changed. If you try to discern this internal/external boundary I don't imagine that you will find one that is not fabricated.

Beoman has often raised this question about the objective world in comparison between buddhism and actualism. I take the objective world to mean as existing independent of the mind/perception/counsciousness. Hard one to prove as you pointed out above. I would be interested to read beomans reasons for his belief.

Looking forward to your answer to Chucks question if you get the time.

As this is the pleasant thread (at least I hope it is) and I don't know what feeling you get from these plain words on a screen I will have a go at making it pleasant ......

sorry cant seem to work out how to post a picture of justin bieber, seems a lot of people find him pleasant

just have to go with the luv and kisses

enjoy
Jeff
thumbnail
triple think, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 362 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
Jeff Grove:
TT

y'know, I guess it is all kinda like Dr. Who. He can tell people where he is coming from or where he is going to and sometimes some understand, but no one else really gets it until they find themselves in the same box.


Beoman "is {there} an objective world?"


TT
hi Wittgenstein,

What if we turn the senses inward...

"Ooooooooooooooooohhhhh, Ooo Ooo Ooo, I know, I know, I know...!!!"

"Yes, you have something to say", says Mr. Wittgenstein.




Hi triple think and Beoman

have enjoyed reading the exchanges and a question about Triplethink's Theorem,

I imagine that turning the senses inward would be similar to walking into the box and someone turns out the lights and suddenly you imagine your in another universe/dimension, the lights come on and your back again. These senses that you can turn around could get stuck if the wind changed. If you try to discern this internal/external boundary I don't imagine that you will find one that is not fabricated.

Beoman has often raised this question about the objective world in comparison between buddhism and actualism. I take the objective world to mean as existing independent of the mind/perception/counsciousness. Hard one to prove as you pointed out above. I would be interested to read beomans reasons for his belief.
hi Jeff

Yeah, the void is the tough one, given the conditional is where the pain is and that it certainly appears sukkha in relation, even by sign, it must be sweeter than all of the other compounds. However the issue of percipience as a property of the void is typically said to be unspeakable in the Pali Canon and considered material only a Buddha can address. Given the last Wheel Turning Monarch didn't even make it to 30 years of age, the odds of a Buddha since are taken to be zero ongoing unless we have a global sea change. No outgoing tide I can see. So, best to not speak to it unless you perceive and conceive you are a Buddha. If anyone is a Buddha, it would be to get their take on it. If anyone has been in contact, with anyone known to be even so much as "Perfectly both Such and Thus", please let me know.

In the resting state, percipience is inoperative, therefore there is no other perceptible universe, beyond this universe. Now given that, this universe perceived directly as a multiverse is a "known" in my case and considered "Obvious."

I think I will bow out on this one until I can come down on the affirmative in relation to the Perfect 4 Conditions which I consider Perfectly Such and Thus is doable for a full week. So, if someone can abide in NS for even so much as lets say half a day, it would be great to hear from them on this. I'm not going to say I could rest like that for more than even a few minutes so, I have a long way to go on 'attaining' that kind of data. I work to a high bar on 'certainties' 100%, so, no ruling from me on it. Sorry man.

Hmmm. My bits on the multiverse simply vanished on me. For now I am going to take that to be operator error on my part and while it may be more evidence I don't find it compelling. In any case, I think I have plenty of multiverse related first hand, enough to count that as a certainty. It is all objectively maddening to get into either multiverse or time travellish stuff first hand, so if you must experiment best to stick with the telekinetic and telepathic stuff. If that doesn't totally put you into a straight jacket, then you may be ready to tackle the big times, space/time wise. My advice on that. p.s. Yes it is all the same and as Such objective and objectifiable.

This remains a mathematical theorem so far as the mathematical and physical science community is concerned. However both groups are variably optimistic. I think and feel that they should remain optimistic in these respects however they will need to see the more relevant data before these fields of study reorient attention appropriately.

Jeff Grove:
Looking forward to your answer to Chucks question if you get the time.

As this is the pleasant thread (at least I hope it is) and I don't know what feeling you get from these plain words on a screen I will have a go at making it pleasant ......

sorry cant seem to work out how to post a picture of justin bieber, seems a lot of people find him pleasant

just have to go with the luv and kisses

enjoy
Jeff
Anything anyone might consider agreeable (pleasant) can go here, unpleasant has been re-directed to Tripleslam.
There's some bumps and scrapes up to about post 50 or so, so fair warning and hindsight as always 20/20.
Seems 5/5 scaning forward at this point, so onwards and upwards...
thx

Here's what I have so far on Chuck's Question a couple posts hence... Post 99

Thanks for the postage.

-triplekathunkishly speaking
thumbnail
Psi Phi, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 1095 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Jeff, I had a question from a post you posted on Dho, somewhere and sometime, so if everyone could please forgive me or give me a mulligan for barging in on this thread. Anyway, you had described a phenomoenon and asked if anyone had experienced it, it did not look as though you received an answer.

Anway here is what I experienced, see if this is close, It is like , say when you are meditating or were falling asleep somewhere and you jolt up, there is the feeling that arises like a shift or something, I almost want to describe there is ankother type of inner sensory feel too it. At first, I just wrote it off thinking it was waking up related to sloth and torpor, but then it happened with full awakefulness (in meditation), a couple of times. It has also happened at the occurence of realization of types of what seem to be memories, but they couldn't have been my memories because what I saw firsthand never happened.

I hope you remember what I am talking about, and again many apologies for interrupting.

Bryan
thumbnail
Jeff Grove, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 310 Join Date: 8/24/09 Recent Posts
Hi Psi,

yes I remember this post from a few years ago, it was when I worked out I had been experiencing cessation for some time, and really started to notice the cycling. At the time its wasn't as apparent what was going on. worth investigating the lead up and after.

cheers
Jeff
thumbnail
Psi Phi, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: Triplethunk: ask triplethink

Posts: 1095 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Thank you , That was very open and honorable of you to share.

Peace

Breadcrumb