Daniel

Thank you very-very much. If you've been reading my posts where I contemplate math as a method for a realization of 無, this fits very much with my own experience. But, for me it's not scary at all. I don't consider it the only way, naturally. If possible, I would very much appreciate more detail regarding: "In fact, to our mind , abstraction is always something difficult ; there are analytic abstraction , say maths , which deal with abstractions of numerical quantity , relations , arrangements or spacial dimensions of things around us , that makes us frightened". Why frightened? I can understand painful, because the mind is stretching. Perhaps, as I'm typing this, it has to with challenging assumptions about reality? And if those strongly held beliefs are disturbed, it's frightening?

Thank you, From the link for reference: "You can refer to someone's heart when you are talking about their deep feelings and beliefs." Inserting this into what you wrote: "enlightenment means deep feelings and beliefs die to the mortal world while the heavenly heart awakens to eternal life" OK, thank you. Question, please: when you say "traditional" which tradition is it? Or is that cultural?

I vote YES!

You can keep posting here as long as you follow the rules. No one wants to read about moderation in the Buddhist forum. The right thing to do, is drop it. It never should have been introduced into this discussion in the first place. Think about it. The only reason the banned subject matter entered the discussion is because you kept pushing the moderation-diversion. Then I asked how you could possibly know so much about the moderation after being here for 9 months only. That's when you disclosed your participation in a group that had been promoting banned content. Had you not been playing this, "shut-up or you'll get suspended" card repeatedly, none of this would be an issue. Only if you break the rules, and if you cannot drop this issue and focus on the topic: observed, observation, observer.

Well, I think the option for you to get clarity is to open a thread in Tech Support. You did this before. You somewhat openly discussed the prohibited content. You somewhat challenged the mod's decisions. Not strongly, politely. It was much-much more overt than anything that's happening here. Like I've said. You're not doing it at all. And, dude, you're still here. So, let's just not worry about the mods. They're going to be aware of this thread. It's getting beaucoup activity. You don't want to discuss it further in the open, OK. But if during our private convos I make a good strong point, I reserve the right to post it here. And you can do the same. It's actually a good system. We can both exercise some freedom behind the scenes. And then if either of us comes up with new, on topic, material... we post it in public. It's no different than if you or I come across a new research study about the topic independently and post it here in a few days, a few weeks, a few months... etc. But this hyper-sensitivity about getting banned is not needed at all.

That's different. That's not a page-count issue. That's about repetitive unsolicited SPAM. Since I am not repeating over and over, I am not concerned about moderation. I agree my earlier posts in this thread were borderline insulting. Not intentionally, and I felt I was meeting you in your hostility to me, but, I have made a conscious effort to soften that and not to react to perceived insults from you in that way. It's possible for several reasons that I could get moderated or suspended. I can see that happening for various reasons, but I trust the folks here to do that right thing. If I get suspended it will be for good reason, and I'll learn from that. Until then your threats about it seem like nothing more than a distraction because you have nothing more to add.

Page count is not the metric. This is probably a skewed perception based on ignorance and/or denial of the actual reasons of prior moderation.

I'm not repeating. I'm trying to move the thread forward. Here's what I said. And notice, there is a projected end in sight.

If you're judging my behavior, it might be good to read the whole thread.

Hee. I think if you scroll through the thread, there is approx. equal line breaks, but my posts have much more content organized into paragraphs. Honestly, what you're observing from me is usually just being in a rush. I haven't forgotten your comment about this, and I apologize if it's... not good.

So be it. We disagree.

Maybe you haven't been following the thread closely, but, the OP made this same claim to me in a much harsher mocking fashion. But when they said it, it was false. They claimed I didn't know what the word "understanding" means. In this case, I'm 100% correct. Please look up "trolling". It's not even close to what I'm doing. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it and thank you for the correction.

It's not bullying. I simply disagree.

Hee. My turn... Trolling. I don't think you know what that word actually means.

In light of this,would you please share some feedback on my initial reply to this post? Is it opposing the point of view? Is it embracing it? Perhaps a moderate middle path?

Or... it's willful ignorance.

Bro-seph... that's not real. Your fear is unfounded. My inbox is open for you. Absolutely open door policy. We can discuss it as much as you want. But I'm not leaving this venue for several reasons. Primarily I think it's best that your group is not interfering in what we're saying. You have my permission to converse with me. They do not. Also, making your ideas stronger will only happen if you use your own mind to assess what I'm saying. The collective, please forgive me, is a crutch. If there is one thing hopefully you've noticed: I am advocating for your independence from the collective. If there is just 1 flaw to focus on, the most important weak point in your methods, it seems to me, it's an over reliance on this collective. It's established that this group does not possess complete knowledge. So, I think it would be wise to seek ways to complete it. That requires independence. A great first step would be reading the opposing view of Hoffman's theory and discussing it like gentlemen.

This whole moderation threat is a diversion. Pak is not a mod. Shadow_self is a repeat offender. Literally. Let's talk about the observer, the observation, and the observed. Ok? That's the topic. The two most recent agenda items are: Hoffman's theory. And the gloves analogy vs. The tank driver analogy. I've noticed inconsistency on your position regarding Hoffman's theory. Without rehashing it, I think your best option is to abandon it. Just admit it's self defeating, and you probably shouldn't have brought it into the discussion at all. After that, I think it makes sense to discuss the two differing, but, similar analogies the tank driver compared to the pair of gloves. At the end, if we actually discuss it in a non-biased rational manner, I think it will be difficult, perhaps impossible to deny the gloves are a closer match to the perceptual experience of most human beings. Then we can go back to color, shape, smell, etc and realize that there is very good reason to believe these qualities have inherent accurate correspondence to actual phenomena outside the brain. This matches what I posted on page 1. And that will be the end of our discussion barring any backpedaling on your part in future posts.

It's only circular if you keep repeating the same arguments, virtually verbatim. I keep bringing new content, new examples. If you are concerned about moderation, you know what to do... You see? This whole moderation threat is a diversion. You know where to go to get clarity on this. Go open a thread in Tech Support just like you did when you first created the account you're using now. If your group is lurking here... it's not a good look for you to keep avoiding discussion like this It's like I said before. Engaging with an opposing view is useful! It will make your ideas stronger. Maybe ask your "senior"? What do they say?

What? That doesn't make any sense. I've posted the critical information here. Not a single whiff of moderation resulted from it. Here it is again. LINK You clearly don't know how the moderation works here. Reading the criticism and discussing it moves the conversation forward and avoids circular posts. But you refuse to read criticism of the ideas you are promoting here. And none of it has anything to do with banned subject matter. That's a diversion. Because it's unneeded. Unless you want to preach about an incomplete stolen tradition. If that's your intention, it's off topic anyway. False. You can discuss this topic, here and now without any risk of moderation. All you need to do is read the opposing view why the observer is not the observed and discuss its strengths, if it has any, and/or the weaknesses, if it has any. Repeating the same faulty arguments over and over is on you ,not me. I'd prefer that you click the link, read the paper, inform yourself of the faults and the fraud of Hoffman's theory, then admit it was foolish to introduce it. Then go back and read my post on page 1, realize I was 100% correct, and have some gratitude for bringing clarity to the grandiose claims posted in this thread. Then go back and review the sources you've posted here, excluding Hoffman, realize you misinterpreted them and cultivate some healthy humility.

Why won't you read the critical analysis of Hoffman's theories? What are you afraid of?

It's not difficult to understand if a person can look at the thread objectively and try to see both sides of the issue. I replied on page 1. I answered honestly and correctly. The attempts to argue against what I have said have all failed. The sources posted have been cherry picked and misinterpretted. That's what's happening here. There shouldn't be any objections to pointing that out.

Status Update: The private convo continues regarding "is the Observer the Observed?" One of the criticsms of Hoffman's theories by scientists as that Hoffman over simplifies and that they force their computer simulations in order to produce the pre-desired outcome. This is the same thing happening in the private conversation. The analogies are being forced to produce a sharp border between the external phenomena and the inner-perception. Examples like driving a tank are being brought, because, driving a tank creates the imagery of a thick heavy walled insulation seperating and protecting the inner-perception from the outer phenomena. But a better analogy is like wearing gloves. And I think I've mentioned this before. There is a causal chain which is producing perception. What happens ant one end of the chain is perceived at the other end. And vice versa. This produces the feedback loop in the Ted-Talk brought by the OP as a scientific resource. But the OP is denying what is actually in the video. When a person is wearing gloves, and they make a snowball, there is no doubt that they are not touching the snow. But there is also no doubt that the snow exists and it is being formed into a ball. The external phenomena is known to exist. The perception of the snowball is a direct consequence of the snowball. The snowball is causing the perception. If a person squeezes the ball too strongly, because their perception is hampered by the gloves, the mind auto-corrects next time as a result of the feedback loop. All of it is produced by the external phenomena which is being detected by the sensory apparatus. So, its not like a camera and a screen, or a person driving a tank. It's like wearing gloves. That accurately describes the sensitivity and feedback that is occuring constantly with the perception in the mind. The observer is not the observed. If it was, they would never accidentally crush the snowball, nor handle it more gently the next time.

@Cobie, apologies, I missed the notifiications on this thread last week. I love that translation of Chap. 25. And the ideas you brought about ziran are really cool. regarding the Jewish influence, I vote no, so far. I think you saw that. I'm not sure what to make of the ming2 connection to "HaShem". HaShem is nothing more than hebrew meaning "the name" Ha="the" Shem ="name". I can explaiin that if you want, but, it doesn't make much sense to me to link up HaShem with 名 based on what is in Chap 1. Both 無, and 有 are HaShem? It doesn't fit. And then there would be 道, above and beyond HaShem? That's not Jewish. It can be stretched, I can force it to fit if I get very creative. VERY creative. But it's not worth even typing that out.

Three? 道, 無, and 有?