It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

It's time to wake up!

page: 33
25
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 05:49 PM
link   


And here is the wrench.
You just can't get away from this can you?
You just said "Just whatever is happening now minus thoughts about it."
and a couple lines down "thoughts must still be used to function".

It has more variables in it. Although reality is what is happening minus thought, I did not mean no thoughts at all, just no assuming about thoughts and sensations. Thoughts can be seen objectively in DE. Just not believed assumptions about thoughts, those cannot be seen clearly in DE.

Two examples of DE and not DE.

DE version: leaves rustling, green-ness, sound of a creaking branch.

Non DE version: I see a tree, it's an oak tree I think which is my favourite tree. It looks quite old so hope it doesn't fall down soon that would be a shame as I really like that tree.




posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   


Everything is the same except for thoughts about it.

Yes.



Back to the all there is is the now sentiment.

So life isn't happening here and now? Where else would it?



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 06:02 PM
link   



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Also, don't ignore the other posts but the main point is this. Using DE we can discover some things which we can know for sure which are happening in our experience. We can first know intellectually there is no free will then using DE we can verify this. Can you know what your next thought will be or will it just pop up? There is no controlling thoughts is there? This is a fact, not only intellectually but can be verified in experience as well.
If you haven't read the link, it basically says, when you look at an apple, there is usually an assumption that "I" am here, looking at the apple. But in reality, "I" am looking is just a thought, in reality, looking is just happening.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
Two examples of DE and not DE.

DE version: leaves rustling, green-ness, sound of a creaking branch.

Non DE version: I see a tree, it's an oak tree I think which is my favourite tree. It looks quite old so hope it doesn't fall down soon that would be a shame as I really like that tree.

Biased example.

If you were looking to chop a tree down for a certain purpose you would be all DE and also looking at the type and other qualities of the tree.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Andy1144

Nothing wrong with going back to the DE angle but all the unsubstantiated claims are a waste of time.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 02:33 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




Biased example.
If you were looking to chop a tree down for a certain purpose you would be all DE and also looking at the type and other qualities of the tree.

Yes, you can remain in DE while thinking about that tree but only as long as those thoughts aren't assumed to be true about reality/DE.

Did you read the link? I'm basically trying to say that we think reality is what we think and feel it to be not what it actually is. For example thoughts look at what appears to separate and labels it so. For example, I, which is me my body and brain, am here and the world is out there. But this separation does not exist in DE. In reality the seeing is just happening, it doesn't belong to anyone whose doing it. This would imply a thought looking at something.

So I can know for sure there is no free will/ no control over thoughts. It is verified logically and most importantly can be seen clearly in experience because there is no idea what next thought will arise. It's all on automatic. Tell me if you agree with this point or not? Or atleast if you understand it.

So seeing there is verifiable proof both logically and experientially, where specifically is the unsubstantiated proof? Maybe I need to introduce more variables sometimes because the implications of this can be stretched and discussed further.
edit on 18-11-2015 by Andy1144 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 02:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Andy1144




Or atleast if you understand it.

Oh! Oh! Me! Me!
I understand it!

It means no personal responsibility for anything! Because nothing we do has anything to do with anything! Yaaaaaaaaay!

If I cut your throat it's cool because I had no choice! Because I will cut your thoat, did cut your throat, and will always cut your throat!

Yaaaayyyy!

edit on 11/18/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
Yes, you can remain in DE while thinking about that tree but only as long as those thoughts aren't assumed to be true about reality/DE.

But you have not proven that to be any better than assuming things about reality.

The only argument you have is that it is supposed to be linked to anguish even though that isn't necesarily a guaranteed result.


edit on 18-11-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik


The only argument you have is that it is supposed to be linked to anguish even though that isn't necesarily a guaranteed result.


If it is found that there is no one - then what is any appearance going to stick to?
Misery happens, happiness happens, seeing happens, hearing happens, sounds happen, trees happen - everything happens but nothing sticks, all is passing - there is no one suffering from anything.


edit on 18-11-2015 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   


But you have not proven that to be any better than assuming things about reality.
The only argument you have is that it is supposed to be linked to anguish even though that isn't necesarily a guaranteed result.

I am getting there. Take what itisnowagain said, and anguish was only an example. Non acceptance is a good one. If there is no assumption that this moment could have been different then there would by default be unconditional acceptance. Acceptance is a more rational approach to any situation then non-acceptance which is a redundant idea.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Does this make sense to you?
"So I can know for sure there is no free will/ no control over thoughts. It is verified logically and most importantly can be seen clearly in experience because there is no idea what next thought will arise. It's all on automatic. Tell me if you agree with this point or not? Or atleast if you understand it. "



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
If it is found that there is no one - then what is any appearance going to stick to?

Doesn't have to stick either way.


Misery happens, happiness happens, seeing happens, hearing happens, sounds happen, trees happen - everything happens but nothing sticks, all is passing - there is no one suffering from anything.

Tell that to Andy1144. He seems to think you two are saying the same thing.
edit on 18-11-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 11:49 AM
link   
It is the belief in the story - 'I am miserable' that is the issue which gets even more stories happening - 'Why am I miserable? Is it because such and such did that to me earlier blah, blah, blah' 'I don't like being miserable, I want to be happy - what can I do to make myself happy?'

The thing is 'YOU are not miserable - there is misery. But even saying 'there is misery' is claiming that a feeling is a certain thing which maybe unwanted - it is just a vibration - energy vibrating.

If there is just feeling happening and no naming and framing then life feels whole and complete with nothing lacking - nothing else needed. But if there is naming and framing then life is experienced as a story - the story extends outside what is happening (sensation - vibration - energy) to what is not happening (fairy stories of things happening in time - past and future) - then the stories conflict with what is and life will not feel harmonious.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




He seems to think you two are saying the same thing.

Another assumption. We are saying the exact same thing. All is happening, there is no one separate observing them happening.

EDIT:


It is the belief in the story - 'I am miserable' that is the issue which gets even more stories happening - 'Why am I miserable? Is it because such and such did that to me earlier blah, blah, blah' 'I don't like being miserable, I want to be happy - what can I do to make myself happy?'

Exactly, in direct experience, is there actually anyone experiencing misery, or is that an assumption, a thought? Misery is just happening, but the idea that it's happening to someone is redundant and incoherent with reality.
edit on 18-11-2015 by Andy1144 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Andy1144

Being redundant does not mean that something is bad. That is a fallacious argument.

Acceptance or non-acceptance?

Most people that I know accept things. Take religious people, they give up their thoughts about what happens or why to god. It might be incorrect that whatever is happening is because of god but they are pretty much in the same place.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain

And if you are not miserable then you don't need to realize anything.

Or at least it won't make any difference.


ETA: Also, since it seems any pacifier will do, maybe, there isn't anything special about your claims.



edit on 18-11-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




Being redundant does not mean that something is bad. That is a fallacious argument.

Who said it is bad? It is just unnecessary and set back.



Acceptance or non-acceptance?
Most people that I know accept things. Take religious people, they give up their thoughts about what happens or why to god. It might be incorrect that whatever is happening is because of god but they are pretty much in the same place.

My point was different. Even religious people don't fully accept things otherwise they wouldn't need a dogma to keep their ego's safe. It's because of fear they develop those beliefs.

Do you think a religious person accepts when his idea of god is threatened? I don't think so. Any identification can be threatened. Maybe there can be acceptance but it is temporary. If you truly want to accept, then find out the root of who is not accepting. The sense of self, out of which all thoughts arise from.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
Who said it is bad? It is just unnecessary and set back.

DE has a benefit?

That implies that the thoughts not cancelled out by DE are somehow negative. You have been saying it throughout the thread.


My point was different.

I didn't say it was the same. I said that it addressed the point of acceptance.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




DE has a benefit?
That implies that the thoughts not cancelled out by DE are somehow negative. You have been saying it throughout the thread.

They aren't negative but they can seem that way unless you see through them in DE.



I didn't say it was the same. I said that it addressed the point of acceptance.

And your reason was not the best. Blind dogma is not the way promote unconditional acceptance. Religion is itself a condition and if it does bring acceptance it is temporary. If you want to accept unconditionally then see through the self in direct experience, enough blind faith.




top topics



 
25
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join