well, whatever it takes. 
Forgive my intrusion , peace to you brother on your journey. 
Witty reply! A reply not to my writing, but to your take on it. How logical is that? Even if I accept your interpretation, we could argue ad infinitum: Is time real? Is space real? Is the universe real? Are we speaking here of âsilenceâ as the absence of sound, or something else? Can the world âcollapseâ? Why do I write this as poetry? etc. (Could not argue about SMR and SI, as I do not know about themâŚ)
You rightly point out that all this makes no sense. It is non-sense. I agree with you - it does not make sense from a rational viewpoint. It does make sense from another view point, not a logical view point, but a state of being.
Logic can take one only so far, and rational lucidity has sharp edges. What I am trying to say is that reason and logic are great tools in epistemological pursuits, but they are false friends when applied ubiquitously. Logic is meaningless from the viewpoint of life.
All this reminds me of a story told by Osho: A safari expedition set camp in a dangerous place. To protect themselves from the wild animals, they built a high fence around the camp, and dug a deep ditch around the fence. One evening, one of the members of the expedition, a famous professor of logic, went for a walk out of the camp. Suddenly, he was attacked by a lion. He had no gun, so he ran back to the camp and fell into the ditch, all the time with the lion right behind him. His friends heard the yelling and screaming, and they came to the fence, just to see the professor running around the camp, in the ditch, followed by the lion. âWatch out! The lion is getting closer!â they yelled. âThatâs all right,â the professor yelled back. âI am one round ahead of him.â
Iâm not trying to convince you of anything. You are exactly where you are supposed to be. All is well. But I dare to say that if you release these questions in silence - and move the silence ( and I assure you that âmoving silenceâ is no metaphor), the answers will surprise you.
Amen Blanche 
If you argue Blanche then you must make a claim that something is true or real. A thing is a thing.
Even your own beliefs/ arguments are governed by that very same logic that you are questioning. If you cannot know anything for certain, then how you can you claim you know what you know? You then disqualify yourself from further discussion by being unable to know anything with any certainty. How could I possibly take such a person seriously ?
So, now, if you are rational you must prove what you say is truth and real. You must put it terms I understand-in ditch digger English.
If you say âmoving silenceâ is this absence of sound, of thought, of energy. How, if it is absent can it be also moving ? Something that is absent cannot also possess the quality of movement. You see you are fighting reality by defying rational logic.
I would also be defying rational logic to argue you did not believe what you say. I agree with reality. A thing is a thing.
Logic is meaningless to a cat or a tree, that is certainly true. Man distinguishes himself from animals by the application of reason. It is what separates us from all other animals. It is not simply an arbitrary tool waved around on the surface of life, but the absolute nadir for a human animal. Logic is just a more refined facet of human reasoning. It is highly conscious reasoning, practised reasoning. It takes us from what is subjective and superstitious to what is true and real. Surely that is the very essence of enlightenment ?
Blanche!
Enticing, compelling, strongâŚGrrr⌠
Nice Blanche, thank you!..âmove the silenceâ.
In this context that hits home for me.
Sunyata
Karl,
Are you saying that I am a fool when it comes to arguing? Because I agree with you. One of Ryokanâs poems goes like this:
Last year: a fool.
This year: no change.
It is true for me.
As I said, I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am not arguing with you. When it comes to spiritual life, what is the point of replacing a set of intellectual beliefs with another set of intellectual beliefs? None.
Do I say that abiding inner silence is âthis absence of sound, of thought, of energy?â Or you say so? You are practicing meditation for so long - you must know what I am talking about. Are you doing samyama? Because in samyama, you MOVE SILENCE. If you practice samyama, you know what I am talking about. If you donât, you may want to try it.
In spiritual life, there is âknowingâ - having the information, and based on it one can have beliefs and arguments. And there is what I call âknowing without knowingâ assimilated experience. Knowledge without the experience is incomprehensible. Without the assimilated experience, knowledge is food for the mind, that is, the mind uses this knowledge to strengthen the ego. The more one argues, the stronger the ego gets.
Why do you argue? Why such a cognitive complexity for something so simple? Maybe because you know that there is something else, something beyond the mind? Something infinite more powerful than the mind? Something that when arises will put the mind on the side-line?
Greetings to that infinite in you, my fellow traveler.
Bodhi and BillinL.A.,
Bows to the silence in you
Blanche a millions thanks for going to the trouble of expressing your silence here.
Did I say you were a fool ? No I didnât, neither did I infer it. I said if you begin an argument from the perspective that logic has no place, then you effectively disqualify yourself from the argument.
Iâm not trying to win points in a discussion like a lawyer, Iâm only interested in finding the truth of things. Sticking with reality, what is valid, proven and truth. Unless that is accomplished there is no point in any discussion and if you go knocking yourself out of the quest before we start by saying logic and reason are unnecessary, then we are left with pure intuition and emotion. They have never proven themselves accurate at very much at all.
You are making assumptions when you say âI must knowâ or âitâs obviousâ. Iâm asking if you would be so kind as to define in concrete terms what you are saying. If you tell me you believe a square circle exists, or a moving stillness, then you need to define it, because it appears to me that these things are entirely in opposition and conflict.
This is not about what I can feel, imagine, create the scenery of, the story of. Those things I have already said are beyond investigation or proving. They are scenery, no more no less unless proof can be provided of their existence. If it cannot, then we can say they are not real, they conflict with reality.
You say there is a âknowingâ what you are really saying is that you just âfeelâ it. Something just seems true. Yet you have not investigated if it is true. You are so certain that it is that you donât question it. Essentially this is the point of Self Inquiry. As I said, I donât think itâs particularly a good method, but is effective. It is the refusal to test the limits of this âknowingâ that shows the false self remains in place.
You think in terms of simplicity but have made a cage out of a web of untested illusions, scenery and complex emotional twisting. simplicity has no âknowing without knowingâ or âmoving silenceâ or â culmative experienceâ instead it is plain truth through rational logical questioning. Eventually a self generated fallacy can be spotted before it gets going. It is precisely what Yogani said would happened with the witness, except there is no need for this separatie witness anymore. It was an attachment. It vanishes when the false ego vanishes.
You talk as if the mind were separate to you. You are one. There is only the self. There is nothing more than the self, thatâs all there is. It is not a question of there being something more powerful or different. You already are as you are. You are the self there is nothing more. It sounds weird for me to say it, because I thought it was weird when SRM said it. It seemed to have some amazing cosmic significance at the time, some outer worldly power, but I see that it is not what he meant at all. He was specific, you are you, there is nothing else, you are the self.
Find the self. Dig for it. You will find everything else is false. I cannot stress it much more. If you want to call it preaching then fine, let it be that, calls it Karls false ego, Karlâs delusion. Whatever you like. You are here as a seeker of truth. You have not asked me to lecture you, preach to you, but all the same we are here now and communicating. It would be crass of me to say âfollow this, follow that, this is the right wayâ, I can only ask you to prove your own beliefs in the cold light of reasoning. If we cannot even get to that neutral ground, I can see Iâm never going to be much good at this and I will do little more than cause friction.
I donât even know if it should matter, or does matter if you know these things or not, I donât know why it should. It feels like Iâm shouting at a peach and saying âripenâ over and over ike some demented lunatic , the peach will ripen in its own time, my shouting at it seems wasted effort, yet Iâm compelled, driven to continue. Maybe then I still have some way to go, I expect so. âA lot to learn has this oneâ â strong with the force but careless with it and too eager. Enthusiastic but clumsyâ
Hi everyone
Wonderful to hear about your reaching this milestone Charliedog.
The discussion here reminds me of something I heard once: âThose who know donât talk and those who talk donât knowâ. A little pessimistic perhaps, but this thread illustrates what happens when those who know (had the experience) talk to those who have not had the experience (yet). I guess that is the reason why Yogani focuses so much on describing the techniques, without much detail about where the techniques take us. 
It[quote=âBlueRaincoatâ]
Hi everyone
Wonderful to hear about your reaching this milestone Charliedog.
The discussion here reminds me of something I heard once: âThose who know donât talk and those who talk donât knowâ. A little pessimistic perhaps, but this thread illustrates what happens when those who know (had the experience) talk to those who have not had the experience (yet). I guess that is the reason why Yogani focuses so much on describing the techniques, without much detail about where the techniques take us.
[/quote]
Yet we havenât determined which is which yet BR. There is really nothing to know in that sense. There is no experience, there is a casting out of experience and knowing until there is only that which is and was always.
I agree that is why Yogani spends more time in that direction. Yet he also dwells on the results even to the point of the short novel based on AYP techniques. We are all here on this forum trying to do something, itâs a melting pot, so why should it be a problem if we discuss these things, itâs why we are here.
Itâs not a problem Karl, just more productive to do our practices IMHO.
Isnât that the principle behind that organised Yoga group. SRF or some such thing ? Where they must not discuss aspects of progress ?
This forum is proof of the need to discuss results. Surely thatâs part and parcel of it ?
Hi Blue,
I missed you , nice to see you back
Love to you all
Super great to have you back Blue!
Bill, the silence reverberates all the way to L.A.
What can I say, Karl? I find this reply hysterically funny. Thank you.