|
Post by michaelsees on Jan 4, 2011 16:14:52 GMT -5
Nice response Karen you are on the the few who writes the least but says the most. For me it's not a capacity thing at all. I believe that in truth the essence of who we are is the absolute and it's nonsense to think that the absolute needs any thing to know it is. But around the essence we have all this mind junk. The mind junk can never ever know the absolute. Now it will try to the end of the world to think it can and do this but it never will hence we have so many many many religions, schools of thought, schools of non thought whatever trying endlessly to explain something that can never ever be explained. The truth just is. Free-will or no free will only enter the picture from the mind junk trying to make sense of it's all. Michael Well it's a we don't know because knowledge is limiting and finite and only applies to our deductive map we use to understand the world, whereas reality is. But it's not a we don't know because we simply don't have the capacity to see a potential objective truth.
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Jan 4, 2011 17:11:14 GMT -5
The question then becomes, does the eternal, God or IT, being the one and only will, (if you believe in oneness) have the freedom to express it's will? If you believe so, then there is free will. I don't see how to the first question, and to the second: reality isn't a deductive structure, but the mind is. Reality is unperturbed by either of our beliefs. Hi Karen, It's kind of like the tail chasing the dog. What you call Reality and giving it a quality like imperturbability, is also a thought rising from the mind. The fact is I am here, you are here. The form that we take, is debatable and also inconsequential, but it is a fact. If you would say there is only "awareness" and everything else arises out of that, I might be swayed to believe it. But to say reality is this or that, well, we all know that anything that arises out of the mind is an illusion. TRF
|
|
|
Post by karen on Jan 4, 2011 17:32:56 GMT -5
Hi Karen, It's kind of like the tail chasing the dog. What you call Reality and giving it a quality like imperturbability, is also a thought rising from the mind. The fact is I am here, you are here. The form that we take, is debatable and also inconsequential, but it is a fact. If you would say there is only "awareness" and everything else arises out of that, I might be swayed to believe it. But to say reality is this or that, well, we all know that anything that arises out of the mind is an illusion. TRF I wouldn't get too caught up in my words. I never said the nature of reality is imperturbability. I said that reality is unperturbed by belief. The former is some grand pronouncement - the later: is what seems to be the case. For me my words stops my mind when I think of it. If it doesn't do the same for you and it reminds you of what others have said please ignore it. The words "there is only awareness and everything else arises out of that" just does nothing for me as an example. But I wouldn't assume those words are dead to you as they are to me.
|
|
|
Post by karen on Jan 4, 2011 17:34:48 GMT -5
And BTW, I don't know we are here as a fact. I know I am. I haven't the foggiest about you though.
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Jan 4, 2011 20:13:09 GMT -5
Hi Karen, It's kind of like the tail chasing the dog. What you call Reality and giving it a quality like imperturbability, is also a thought rising from the mind. The fact is I am here, you are here. The form that we take, is debatable and also inconsequential, but it is a fact. If you would say there is only "awareness" and everything else arises out of that, I might be swayed to believe it. But to say reality is this or that, well, we all know that anything that arises out of the mind is an illusion. TRF I wouldn't get too caught up in my words. I never said the nature of reality is imperturbability. I said that reality is unperturbed by belief. The former is some grand pronouncement - the later: is what seems to be the case. For me my words stops my mind when I think of it. If it doesn't do the same for you and it reminds you of what others have said please ignore it. The words "there is only awareness and everything else arises out of that" just does nothing for me as an example. But I wouldn't assume those words are dead to you as they are to me. Hi Karen, That's the trouble with words, people do form their realities and beliefs from them. Rearranging your statement about the imperturbability of reality is just that. The action of attributing qualities to a thought from the mind, is I think, a relative truth and not the truth. I get the sense that what I believe to be reality and what you believe, is quite different and I'd be interested in hearing yours. Since I believe there is nothing outside of "awareness", you must believe otherwise, for that statement to not even have a tiny reaction, is rather unique. Anyway, good topic of discussion... TRF
|
|
|
Post by karen on Jan 4, 2011 23:01:38 GMT -5
Why would that be unique?
I don't often use the word reality in such a bold way, but it seemed to fit. But the only thing I know for sure that is real is me. Not my body as that has changed. Me. Not some grand high minded hundred dollar me, but plain ol' me that has never been absent. Is there anything else you can know? And since it is the foundation of all my experience, what is the bigger badder reality than this?
|
|
|
Post by karen on Jan 4, 2011 23:07:21 GMT -5
Aww it just dawned on me what you might have meant by unique via my not resonating "awareness is all" etc. and so on...
I doubt this is unique at all. I'd wager that it doesn't resonate with most people here - though they might parrot it. (probably it resonates with a few though)
Maybe it's unusual that someone would mention this though.
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Jan 4, 2011 23:31:37 GMT -5
Why would that be unique? I don't often use the word reality in such a bold way, but it seemed to fit. But the only thing I know for sure that is real is me. Not my body as that has changed. Me. Not some grand high minded hundred dollar me, but plain ol' me that has never been absent. Is there anything else you can know? And since it is the foundation of all my experience, what is the bigger badder reality than this? Hi Karen, That's really my question to you. Apart from "awareness", meaning you are "aware" of yourself or your presence, how do you know you exist?
|
|
|
Post by karen on Jan 4, 2011 23:50:51 GMT -5
I think I see where you are going and this is where I point to myself. It's just the word. Dig. It doesn't grab me.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 5, 2011 1:34:18 GMT -5
equating it with the truth ? m Sounds to me like Michael is saying he doesn't know if free will is true or not and is trying to convince us that it's unknowable by equating it with Truth. Illusions can, in fact, be seen for what they are. This is not Truth realization, it's just the realization that a particular idea is an illusion. If one is willing to see, it can be seen that free will is an illusion. What?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 5, 2011 1:37:47 GMT -5
Sounds to me like Michael is saying he doesn't know if free will is true or not and is trying to convince us that it's unknowable by equating it with Truth. Illusions can, in fact, be seen for what they are. This is not Truth realization, it's just the realization that a particular idea is an illusion. If one is willing to see, it can be seen that free will is an illusion. Hi Enigma, I think that, even Truth realization or God cannot not be excluded as an illusion, based on the assumption that thoughts are illusions. Being that those two idea's are both fundamentally thoughts that someone believes to be true. Just because they are holier or closer to the truth, doesn't exclude them from being illusions created by the mind. As far as free will is concerned, I do believe we have a sense of free will, but only in one capacity, that being the ability to resist the truth of who and what we are until death. TRF What's true is seen/realized, it's not thought.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 5, 2011 2:28:14 GMT -5
Since the general consensus seems to be that nothing can be realized and we're all talkin through our butts, it seems silly to do more butt talking, butt.....maybe consider the possibility that a realization isn't knowledge as such, and so it's not bound by concepts, nor does it lend itself to doubt as all concepts must. What is realized must, of course, be talked about conceptually, butt we all know the analogy by now of the finger thingy pointing at the moon thingy.
Knowledge is an invention of mind, and while most of it has a limited utility, none of it is ultimately True. Is this true knowledge? Separation and multiplicity is a fun idea, but it's just an idea. Is this true knowledge? Free will is a natural conclusion for an imagined entity to derive, but it's just an idea and has no validity from any perspective. Is this true knowledge?
I don't see any true knowledge. That's what I know.
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Jan 5, 2011 9:22:32 GMT -5
Hi Enigma, I think that, even Truth realization or God cannot not be excluded as an illusion, based on the assumption that thoughts are illusions. Being that those two idea's are both fundamentally thoughts that someone believes to be true. Just because they are holier or closer to the truth, doesn't exclude them from being illusions created by the mind. As far as free will is concerned, I do believe we have a sense of free will, but only in one capacity, that being the ability to resist the truth of who and what we are until death. TRF What's true is seen/realized, it's not thought. Hi Enigma, What then is the mechanism for seeing/realizing, other than the mind? If you didn't have a mind, would you see/realize anything, I'm not so sure you would. And if it does come from the mind, it arises in the awareness, or actually if it can be observed at all, through any mechanism by the awareness, it only has a relative truth and is not truth itself, in my opinion. TRF
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 5, 2011 18:38:15 GMT -5
TRF: You wrote to E: "What then is the mechanism for seeing/realizing, other than the mind?"
Most of us use the word "mind" synonymously with "intellect," and the intellect is not necessary for seeing or body-realizing (which is different from mind-realizing). All living things are connected to the universe directly through their senses. In the deepest sense they are not even connected because they are one and the same. The universe is alive, Igor! An amoeba, for example, directly perceives and interacts with its environment, but it does not have an intellect. We are unified with reality in exactly the same way. The intellect is like a personal computer that allows us to mentally model what we see through the power of abstraction, but it is not necessary for everyday life. People who practice mental silence can function quite effectively without any thoughts whatsoever.
You also wrote, "If you didn't have a mind, would you see/realize anything?"
Sure. You would see "what is," beyond name and form. This is what we call "the actual."
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Jan 5, 2011 19:00:10 GMT -5
You also wrote, "If you didn't have a mind, would you see/realize anything?" Sure. You would see "what is," beyond name and form. This is what we call "the actual." Not sure about that ZD you sill need a mind to bring it back that you are seeing the actual if not how can you even say you are seeing? You can just be being without a mind like even a rock but honestly you think a rock realizes it's a rock? Michael
|
|