No facts, only interpretations

Originally posted by black beetle
Of course, however your various phenomenological reports are not what I wanted to extract; I asked you these questions because I wanted to clarify that your nature is merely the nature of your mind, and that your inner balance is a product of the full understanding of your nature alone😵

I think more is required than full understanding. We also must dispose ourselves to think and act appropriately on the basis of such understanding. This is actually what I meant by "getting out of my own way". There are a host of habitual thoughts and motivations that arise, but there is also that which can detach from these; allow them to pass through without being driven this way and that. In that stillness I can think and act clearly and purposefully.

Originally posted by black beetle
There is no thing to be found
😵

But there is an inhabitable state.

Originally posted by bbarr
I think more is required than full understanding. We also must dispose ourselves to think and act appropriately on the basis of such understanding. This is actually what I meant by "getting out of my own way". There are a host of habitual thoughts and motivations that arise, but there is also that which can detach from these; allow them to pass through with ...[text shortened]... ing driven this way and that. In that stillness I can think and act clearly and purposefully.

I will try to sort it out: all is required is just full understanding per se. You see, what exactly one will become prepared to do when one has seen his real face before one's birth is irrelevant, for whatever one then will accomplish would be merely a product of his own nature alone and thus it will be manifested seemingly automatically -and effectively if once one's practice is well conducted.
This irrelevance I mentioned is the cornerstone of behaviours like, say, Musashi's: at that stage one cultivates no thoughts and no motivations but merely unleashes pure action out of his existence, action manifested "naturally" out of a "clear mind" that does not suffer of obsurations. Of course the practitioner accomplishes such a thing because s/he gained this ability thanks to her/ his practice, her/ his meditation and her/ his pure conduct alone
😵

Originally posted by bbarr
But there is an inhabitable state.

Who are you?
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
I will try to sort it out: all is required is just full understanding per se. You see, what exactly one will become prepared to do when one has seen his real face before one's birth is irrelevant, for whatever one then will accomplish would be merely a product of his own nature alone and thus it will be manifested seemingly automatically -and effectivel ...[text shortened]... lity thanks to her/ his practice, her/ his meditation and her/ his pure conduct alone
😵

But who is the one? And whose face is seen? And who is doing the seeing? These are just verbal games, and pointless. This is why I rarely talk about my internal work here in the fora. There is just no way to explain it without speaking nonsense. In any case, you are presupposing that "full understanding" has motivational and practical entailments. That's fine, it just means that you pack everything I was saying above into the notion of "full understanding".

Originally posted by black beetle
Who are you?
😵

Blah.

Originally posted by black beetle
Reality as we grasp it by means of our 6 senses ends up strictly in dependence upon the stage and the altitude of the consciousness of each individual. Nietzsche, well aware of the existence of all these possible real worlds, stated that there are no facts, only interpretations;

Methinks one's interpretation of reality depends upon the kind of the structure of his cognizance in relation to the consciousnesses that one is working on😵

You have touched upon something that I have been saying for some time which is that facts in and of themselves are meaningless. They are only assigned meaning when we interpret them and give them value.

Having said that, I would disagree that there are no facts. Surely there are. The real question is what belief structure do we create to help give these facts meaning? I would argue that all of our belief structures can be both flawed and accurate. In fact, everyone incorporates both in their lives.

Originally posted by bbarr
But who is the one? And whose face is seen? And who is doing the seeing? These are just verbal games, and pointless. This is why I rarely talk about my internal work here in the fora. There is just no way to explain it without speaking nonsense. In any case, you are presupposing that "full understanding" has motivational and practical entailments. That' ...[text shortened]... means that you pack everything I was saying above into the notion of "full understanding".

"One" is the individual. And the individual "sees his face before his/ her birth" when s/he is aware of the exact essense of her/ his own nature. This approach, based on this specific koan, is neither verbal game nor pointless to the members of the zennist community.

You may rarely talk about your own internal work here or there, but I was talking solely about specific products out of specific ways of meditation. And surely there is a way to explain it without speaking nonsense: in our tradition we are transmitting these "products" directly from mind to mind through objects (that they are causing specific mental stages).

In any case I am not presupossing at all that "full understanding" has motivational and practical entailments although by means of "full understanding" one (the practitioner, that is) covers motivational and practical entailments too by means of stopping the suffering (that is caused out of an ever moving mind). I just mentioned that without "full understanding" the practitioner remains dead in water because there is no wu wei at all!
However, I do pack everything you were saying above into the notion of "full understanding"
😵

Originally posted by bbarr
Blah.

Who are you?
😵

Originally posted by whodey
You have touched upon something that I have been saying for some time which is that facts in and of themselves are meaningless. They are only assigned meaning when we interpret them and give them value.

Having said that, I would disagree that there are no facts. Surely there are. The real question is what belief structure do we create to help give these ...[text shortened]... structures can be both flawed and accurate. In fact, everyone incorporates both in their lives.

Edit: "The real question is what belief structure do we create to help give these facts meaning?"

It seems to me that, regardless of the meaning one attributes, there is no meaning at all that is not dependent to one's own mind; the "facts" are fabricated interpretations of one's own mind alone and they exist solely in absolute dependence to specific stages of one's own mind😵

Originally posted by bbarr
But who is the one? And whose face is seen? And who is doing the seeing? These are just verbal games, and pointless. This is why I rarely talk about my internal work here in the fora. There is just no way to explain it without speaking nonsense. In any case, you are presupposing that "full understanding" has motivational and practical entailments. That' ...[text shortened]... means that you pack everything I was saying above into the notion of "full understanding".

Its a koan. Logic is not required. You either get an insight or you dont. Doesn't matter either way.