Apech

There's a couple of themes that I want to consider here. I know everyone has their own, to a certain extent entrenched opinions about ideas but I think it is worth just suspending all preconceptions and looking again at what exactly we mean by ideas, thoughts, perceptions and so on. There's a very simplistic view of perceptions - like the image of a pin hole camera - where some kind of input comes in, is processed by the sense organ (eg. the eye) and then sent to the brain via the optic nerve to produce a pattern in the cerebellum (or some part of the brain) whereon the brain 'recognises' the object, a candle a tree or whatever ...and this is what is happening in every moment when we look around. So perceptions are nothing but electrical sparkings in the brain and so on. This model quickly breaks down in real life. For instance if we were playing tennis and someone serves the ball at 100 miles an hour and we instinctively react and move to return the ball in a time scale which could not possibly be accounted for in simple perception models. Something else is happening. The there are thoughts. A bland terms for a variety of types of events. For instance most of us (with exceptions) have an internal dialogue, a stream of often unsummoned thoughts like a background chatter in our mind about this, that and the other. We might even train in meditation to switch this off. We call these thoughts. But we also have consciously voiced thoughts where we for instance try to solve a problem. We run through mentally and deliberately the possible solutions. Beyond this we have visual thoughts. If some one says apple most of us see an apple in our minds. Some do not it is said - but I think most people do. And this is also called a thought - but is it the same as our internal dialogue. Sometimes in reverie, daydreaming or actual sleep we might experience a stream of images which are also mental events and thus thoughts. Are they the same thing as our normal waking thoughts? Then we have emotions, we might feel anger or joy, which is also an event in our minds - is this the same as out other thoughts? So do we have an adequate vocabulary to deal with all our mental activity? Probably not. Then we come to ideas themselves. Are ideas the same as thoughts or perceptions? And whence do they come? How do we position ourselves in relation to ideas?

This thread is about Christianity and not dick measuring.

In terms of evolution I think it is the opposite. When survival pressures are high people form supportive groups but when as now life is soft and over protective people become more self centred and divorced from reality.

I thought we agreed for a moment but then I realised we don't. But at least we share a respect for ideas.

I would like to suggest that ideas are not abstract at all but are real within their own sphere/realm. I could explain but it gets spooky

I think ideas are hierarchical after all concepts are big ideas which 'hold together' families of ideas. Although the hierarchy must be multidimensional with the 'top' idea changing with context. I see it as a vast net or perhaps a honeycomb of interrelated ideas. On either side of this are deniers - on one side the materialists like the Marxists who see ideas like bubbles floating to the surface of sewage forming a froth. On the other side are the 'non-conceptual' people who just like to drop the whole idea business as a bit too difficult and 'problematic'. I spend some time each day with my partner's aged mother and her aunties. They are all at least 80+ and mad as hatters. They do a lot and are very spritely - but very prone to sudden emotional outbursts and when they do things together they just shout continuously. It's just so odd that they manage to get things done - which they do because they are tough as old boots. Forces of nature run by fuzzy logic.

In ancient China someone had the idea of mixing milk solids and ice with sugar, Marco Polo saw this and brought the idea back to Europe where someone thought of the idea of placing the substance in a cone made of wafer biscuit. Then it was served to @steve as a non-conceptual dessert which caused him to burst into song.

But there is plenty on here - in fact it is the first resort of those that cannot explain themselves. Since without ideas how can you explain. Agreed, Really? What about for example 'a triangle has three sides' - when does that 'go' and before that when did it come? I think you may be mixing up thoughts, feelings and perceptions with ideas. What kind of life are you leading - sipping wine, looking at Dali ... and well, nevermind. I would say all of these are fully appreciated through ideas. If the Dali painting doesn't spark of thoughts and ideas then you are not really appreciating it. That Nuncle, is the secret. But I would like, if permitted to continue to praise ideas, without them life would be jejune.

Yes the main thing that holds me back from Christianity is Christianity itself.

Towards the window.

I find my orientation to be generally north by north east unless there’s a stiff southerly which can cause me to tilt west. On a rough day the weather cock can swing wildly leading to scattered spume on deck. Look lively ye lubbards and hoist the top sail.

THIS!!!!!!

Yes we’ve had quite a few conversations on here about spiritual bypassing - I don’t think that we should confuse meditation with therapy.

I have no idea what that means.

Same as me? Really how bizarre.

I wasn’t trying to grade you but I just wondered where you derive the authority with which you speak about meditation. I actually agree that it can be used as avoidance strategy - there’s a term for it which I can’t remember. I would suggest though that whatever knowledge you have may be incomplete as you seem to assume that people are saying things which they are not. That’s all.

How much meditation practice experience do you have, may I ask. Also I don’t remember mentioning a 24/7 Sati so why do you assume that is what I am talking about?

The point I was trying to make is that the ‘meditation’ ceases to be a practice - for instance there is a stage called ‘ non meditation’ of Mahamudra.

A non-dual realisation (even tho this is a nonsense term really) is a direct insight of the 'not two ness' of subject and object. It has feeling associated with it, joyful loving feelings, but it is not the feelings. 'Body' is another matter of course which is changed in perspective by the realisation - there is no actual transcendence in this respect - as transcendence is only something we think about from our side of the thing. The 'unborn' is the cause, the path and the result - even the obstruction is the path. In Mahamudra practice the view of shamatha/vipasanya is different. In a way they no longer comprise practices or techniques but are the actual settling or resting in the immediacy of mind/awareness and the seeing what the awareness is, its nature. Techniques may be used to introduce yourself to this experience (wrong word but will have to do) but the meditation has no process or technique in the end. There is no further stage of elaboration needed.

Actually I find that quite normal. Love should always be to the person and not their attributes. on the other hand Buddhism and gurgling like a baby is a bit odd 😃

What is zapchen? your story confused me can you do the cliff notes version?

By the time we got to Woodstock we were half a million strong…

There is no gradual path which is not sudden. There is no sudden path which is not gradual. There is no path. Everything is the path unless it isn’t.

…not.

Not really.