Any Buddhists on the board? - Page 9 - Religion, God, and Theology

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Religion, God, and Theology

Any Buddhists on the board?

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 9 of 47

First

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 19 29

Last

Page 9 of 47

First

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 19 29

Last

03-14-2013 , 03:48 PM

#201

ajmargarine

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 21,228

Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy1234

Is it possible to never again validate the A state, that is the conventional one, to have no thoughts. To end thought and thus time forever.

Hmm. I don't know. What is the perfectly valid experiment you are talking about that can test this?

Quote

03-14-2013 , 03:49 PM

#202

newguy1234

self-banned

Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 3,101

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajmargarine

What isn't temporary? Not much!

I'm going to show you, and you can see it for yourself. We'll call it duration perhaps.

Quote:

What is it that strives for permanence and concludes with a "therefore" that temporary is unsatisfactory?
What judges and categorizes things into what is unsatisfactory and what is satisfactory?
What fears being deceived by illusion? Isn't illusion "wrong" conclusions made about what is seen? What is the origin of those conclusions?

The conventional egoic self-state.

Exactly so we are going to see something that is NOT born from the conventional egoic state.

Quote

03-14-2013 , 03:50 PM

#203

ajmargarine

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 21,228

Quote:

Originally Posted by neeeel

Why are you setting such store in a state? Thats all it is, nothing special. You are just assigning special meaning to it.

Where are you drawing these conclusions from?

Quote

03-14-2013 , 03:52 PM

#204

ajmargarine

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 21,228

Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy1234

I'm going to show you, and you can see it for yourself. We'll call it duration perhaps.

Exactly so we are going to see something that is NOT born from the conventional egoic state.

...waiting...

Quote

03-14-2013 , 03:53 PM

#205

newguy1234

self-banned

Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 3,101

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajmargarine

Hmm. I don't know. What is the perfectly valid experiment you are talking about that can test this?

Well its strange that while im explaining it to you that you are butting in asking me to explain it.

So we see state be that has not thought and is not of time, not dogmatic, egoless and so on.

State A says, ego must come and go, we are sometimes ego and we are sometimes not, its impossible to negate state a totally and completely.

Newguy1234 questions that, says you have no proof, so lets go into it, lets test for ourselves...

Let's negate the ego, thought, time and see if anything stops us from never letting these things arise again....

Quote

03-14-2013 , 03:53 PM

#206

newguy1234

self-banned

Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 3,101

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajmargarine

...waiting...

do you call this patience?

Quote

03-14-2013 , 04:03 PM

#207

ajmargarine

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 21,228

saying "waiting", I mean I am sitting by my computer, refreshing this thread, waiting for you to post your experiment and that I am immediately available to respond to you if needed...

Quote

03-14-2013 , 04:07 PM

#208

newguy1234

self-banned

Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 3,101

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajmargarine

saying "waiting", I mean I am sitting by my computer, refreshing this thread, waiting for you to post your experiment...

no you are ignoring the experiment and asking me to tell you the experiment.

Quote:

Experiment:

it is not a trial or partial test, its not a practice, you are going to actual try to do it, that is the experiment, if something prevents you, we might suggest its not possible, but if nothing prevents you we can cleary see its possible.

What we are talking about for the umpteenth time is can we eliminate state A forever.

Quote

03-14-2013 , 04:17 PM

#209

ajmargarine

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 21,228

Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy1234

I'm going to show you...(and) we are going to see something that is NOT born from the conventional egoic state.

go on...

Quote

03-14-2013 , 04:21 PM

#210

newguy1234

self-banned

Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 3,101

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajmargarine

go on...

post 208 clearly states the experiment, it is clearly quoted, and i have clearly explained it multiple times and you have clearly ignored it every time.

Quote

03-14-2013 , 04:57 PM

#211

ajmargarine

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 21,228

I haven't been in state A, the conventional state, for a number of years now, newguy. So, yes, it seems possible.

Last edited by ajmargarine; 03-14-2013 at 05:07 PM.

Quote

03-14-2013 , 05:12 PM

#212

newguy1234

self-banned

Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 3,101

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajmargarine

I haven't been in state A, the conventional state, for a number of years now, newguy. So, yes, it seems possible.

thank you i think so too...

Ok but that was a question was a side one that needed to be broke, I was asking nek.....

to the actual question, that we can still test for ourselves, 'what happens when one never again validates state A'

this is what i want to go into

Quote

03-14-2013 , 05:37 PM

#213

ajmargarine

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 21,228

Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy1234

'what happens when one never again validates state A'

Well, as I said in post 185, most commonly what happens is that awareness withdraws from the conventional state into an observer state, a state which eventually stabilizes and awareness is now centered there instead of in the conventional state. Hasn't that been your experience?

Quote

03-14-2013 , 05:42 PM

#214

newguy1234

self-banned

Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 3,101

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajmargarine

a state which eventually

See this implies time.

I know we have to use words like time, and me and you and experience, but I want to make sure we go slow with these words.

But saying it eventually stabilizes is bring conventional time from A and using it outside of both A and B.

Conventional time, 'eventually' is only in A it does not encompass B.

Do we agree on this?

Quote

03-14-2013 , 05:56 PM

#215

jokerthief

No reason to get excited

Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 4,765

Isn't this whole thread an example egoic thought?

Quote

03-14-2013 , 06:00 PM

#216

ajmargarine

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 21,228

newguy: I used the word "eventually" for you because it isn't a turning off of a switch, one moment you're centered in A, and the next moment you are out of it. It takes a practice for the habits and conditionings to be overcome and the momentum energizing state A to play itself out. Or hasn't that been your experience?

Quote

03-14-2013 , 06:00 PM

#217

ajmargarine

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 21,228

Quote:

Originally Posted by jokerthief

Isn't this whole thread an example egoic thought?

idk. Is all thought egoic?

Quote

03-14-2013 , 06:03 PM

#218

newguy1234

self-banned

Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 3,101

Quote:

Originally Posted by jokerthief

Isn't this whole thread an example egoic thought?

for you perhaps, but what I am asking is for YOU, to go into this, can you turn off thought forever is the question, and it can't be answer intellectually you have to try it, you have to test it. So you see you cannot drop by to comment on comments etc. you have to test it and then comment...

thank you.

Quote

03-14-2013 , 06:05 PM

#219

ajmargarine

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 21,228

You really need to take "forever" out of that question, newguy.

Also, go with the flow. JT has a cool question. It's ok.

Quote

03-14-2013 , 06:05 PM

#220

newguy1234

self-banned

Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 3,101

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajmargarine

Ok good we have to be slow with these words of course.

But here it is, practicing and conditioning imply time, time we know is thought, or maybe we need to go back into the construct of time. But practicer requires the practicer.

I denounce these things, they are not needed, time is born of thought and its the very thing we are questioning.

Do we see this as a conflict, that one need time to get rid of time?

Quote

03-14-2013 , 06:11 PM

#221

neeeel

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 4,731

Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy1234

No you cant turn off thought, because, guess what, there is no one there who is in control of thought, who can turn it on and off. In the same way that you can practice riding a bike, you can practice noticing the thoughts, noticing the reactions to thoughts, and in that way they will come to have less significance. Or not. theres still no control over it. They come when they come, and you cant stop them, cos they are already there.

Quote

03-14-2013 , 06:15 PM

#222

ajmargarine

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 21,228

Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy1234

idk. what has been your experience in turning off the conventional state?

Quote

03-14-2013 , 06:25 PM

#223

newguy1234

self-banned

Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 3,101

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajmargarine

You really need to take "forever" out of that question, newguy.

Yes again the semantics, by forever we mean in a state in which there is no beginning and no end, so we don't take time and stretch it forever, time didn't start and doesn't' exist.

In other words to never come back the A state.

Quote:

Also, go with the flow. JT has a cool question. It's ok.

I did acknowledge it, perhaps you hadn't read my response or perhaps it wasn't satisfactory.

Quote

03-14-2013 , 06:30 PM

#224

newguy1234

self-banned

Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 3,101

Thank you, this is furthering the discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by neeeel

No you cant turn off thought, because, guess what, there is no one there who is in control of thought, who can turn it on and off.

I want to clear this up, if you will agree, that you are saying there is no thinker can turn off thought, because the think is not separate from thought.

Quote:

In the same way that you can practice riding a bike, you can practice noticing the thoughts, noticing the reactions to thoughts, and in that way they will come to have less significance.

Again this implies psychological evolution, time over a period, I want to do away with that, it is not needed those things are born of the very thing we are questioning.

Quote:

Or not. theres still no control over it. They come when they come, and you cant stop them, cos they are already there.

I do not wish to imply a 'you' thats is the 'stopper'. I want to no longer validate A, or thought and therefore eradicate the thinker AND thought without using time or 'process'.

Quote

03-14-2013 , 06:32 PM

#225

newguy1234

self-banned

Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 3,101

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajmargarine

idk. what has been your experience in turning off the conventional state?

this question i will acknowledge because thats what we want discussion...

your question is a derail, but you don't realize it, this is something you have to go into for yourself. If i give you my 'experience' then I am talking something born of time, and something that my 'I' experienced.

I appreciate the question and it helps the talk.

Quote

Page 9 of 47

First

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 19 29

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 9 of 47

First

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 19 29

Last