|
Post by enigma on May 19, 2011 15:14:20 GMT -5
Yeah, head exploded on that one. ----Cleaning up the mess and moving on----- Boundaries that are transcended don't disappear. To transcend means to include and go beyond. Enigma and cat haven't gone anywhere, they're right here. Everything is right here. Agreed, let's move on... Indeed everything is right here except for one thing....the truth. You could have saved yourself some typing on knowing what it's like to be a cat, by using only 3 words... "I don't know" ;D Sorry, i dunno where the confusion is. How many consciousnesssesssess do you think there are? Where is 'your' consciousness as opposed to 'kitty' consciousness?
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on May 19, 2011 15:55:07 GMT -5
Agreed, let's move on... Indeed everything is right here except for one thing....the truth. You could have saved yourself some typing on knowing what it's like to be a cat, by using only 3 words... "I don't know" ;D Sorry, i dunno where the confusion is. How many consciousnesssesssess do you think there are? Where is 'your' consciousness as opposed to 'kitty' consciousness? I thought we were done with this? All's I know is that I am aware and it looks like my cat at home is also aware. Now if you multiply that by the number of sentient entities in the universe, well it's mind boggling... But you see that's an observable reality, by virtue of a little principle of the universe called reductionism. And it's not like I don't believe in invisible stuff either... There's gravity, electromagnetism so I can use my cell phone, UV rays that I need sun screen for, etc, etc, And whether I believe in them or not, they have an observable reality. Where is yours located, under which rock should I look, how far out into space is it, or how deep into a molecule is too deep? Where is it's effect in the universe?
|
|
|
Post by Portto on May 19, 2011 17:40:03 GMT -5
All's I know is that I am aware and it looks like my cat at home is also aware. How do you decide if another being is conscious or aware? Is there any good test?
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on May 19, 2011 18:25:32 GMT -5
Like you said, awareness and consciousness are products of the brain.
So I could set up a lab and ask volunteers to come in and have the top of their heads removed to see if there was anything in there.
If there’s nothing in there, there’s a good chance they are not aware or conscious.
It’s kind of messy though.
Not sure about plants and trees though, someone could surely come up with something…
|
|
|
Post by Portto on May 19, 2011 18:39:01 GMT -5
Like you said, awareness and consciousness are products of the brain. I didn't say such a thing. At least not recently. I said: "mind is the structure of the brain." Mind appears in awareness. Actually, I'm absolutely sure there are no tests to determine if someone else is conscious or aware. That is, conscious of their own existence. People can tell you they are, but how can you know that? A computer can also say that it's self conscious. But yes, we can try many tests... So there are no real tests, but people obviously are aware and conscious. We know this because we are the same awareness.
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on May 19, 2011 21:33:31 GMT -5
Like you said, awareness and consciousness are products of the brain. I didn't say such a thing. At least not recently. I said: "mind is the structure of the brain." Mind appears in awareness. Actually, I'm absolutely sure there are no tests to determine if someone else is conscious or aware. That is, conscious of their own existence. People can tell you they are, but how can you know that? A computer can also say that it's self conscious. But yes, we can try many tests... So there are no real tests, but people obviously are aware and conscious. We know this because we are the same awareness. I’m really not concerned with whether you believe you’re the only consciousness in the universe and your family and friends are conscious less figments of your consciousness imagination or whatever. What I am concerned with is peeps trying to convince other peeps that it’s true. Believing something to be true, doesn’t make it true. I’ve got nothing against spirituality, except when it tries to convince people that you can become rich, more beautiful, and have whatever your heart desires, by ‘thinking’ about it. hehehe It’s a false belief created by a few rich folks who have taken advantage of a human’s natural tendency to believe the unbelievable. I don’t care if a person thinks he’s a kumquat or a cat. The problem arises when he thinks that his thoughts were the cause of the fire at the kumquat farm. Heheh There is no reliable evidence that ‘thought’ can have any effect on the physical universe whatsoever. And that truth is relevant whether I believe I am a kumquat or consciousness. Because the universe is what it is, and not what we ‘think’ it is. PS: Too bad E couldn't explain the procedure to knowing what it's like to be a cat, cus I'd really like to know what's going on in my cat 'Karma's' mind, when I give her catnip.... ;D
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 19, 2011 21:46:18 GMT -5
I guess you're connecting this conversation with manifesting stuff a la 'The Secret', which is a little odd to me. Thoughts aren't separate from anything else, so there is a correlation between thoughts and experiences, but there isn't somebody creating those thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by question on May 20, 2011 11:40:44 GMT -5
Enigma, first I want to ask a question for clarificaton of what exatcly we're talking about here. So you're saying that when you align with a cat's consciousness you're simultaneously looking out of specifically your eyes and specifically the cat's eyes? You actually understand cat language and you know and love how fresh mouse and bird meat tastes like?
The confusion is enormous, I'm surprised that you don't see it. Essentially what it comes down to is that I can't construct a scenario in which you're not making a category mistake (at the very least).
The category mistake is thus: First assumption is that there is only One Awareness. Within and as this one awareness there manifest different forms defined by boundaries of form (cat consciousness, Enigma consciousness). Oneness doesn't need to transcend anything in order to know cat consciousness, because Oneness already knows what it's like to be a cat simply by being that cat consciousness (which means precisely experiencing from within the boundaries of the form of cat consciousness). The only one who needs to transcend form is someone who experiencing himself from within something that he imagines to be a boundary. Oneness doesn't need to do that because it already has complete information by virtue of being everything that is, complete information here is contextual, i.e. relative to the respective form (cat knows what it's like to be a cat and doesn't know what it's like to be dog, dog knows what it's like to be dog and doesn't know what it's like to be a cat).
And the big question is how the dog can possibly learn what it's like to be a cat 100% without leaving his dog-ness behind in the process (and thus never learning what it's like to be a cat), how can you transfer a subjective experiene qua subjective experience to another subjectivity? Again, the problem only applies to dogs, cats, humans etc. To Oneness this problem doesn't apply, because it already knows dogness, catness, humanness simply by virtue of already being all that. And more importantly: if Oneness "wants" to know what it's like to be a dog, it will be that dog, but it won't be a cat aligning with dog's consciousness (unless it's that alignment that Oneness wants, but in that alignment does the cat know something other than a continuation of cat-ness?).
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on May 20, 2011 12:22:46 GMT -5
I guess you're connecting this conversation with manifesting stuff a la 'The Secret', which is a little odd to me. Thoughts aren't separate from anything else, so there is a correlation between thoughts and experiences, but there isn't somebody creating those thoughts. Heh, well that’s the thing, it’s not really that odd. In fact any student of the philosophy, or principle, or theology of non-dualism would feel right at home with it. Well except for the irrationality part of it. Like I said before, it’s the non-dualist who goes up to the hot dog vendor and says “Make me one with everything”. So when I look into the claims of non-dualism as an alternate description of reality, compared to the standard dualist view, I see some really goofy stuff happening. Like being able to get rid of headaches and attracting health simply by thinking about it. It’s no different than the ‘secret’ folks trying to attract money and fame by thinking about it. And then there’s the business of knowing what it’s like to be a cat. Should be child’s play for a non-dualist, except for one thing, no one can prove that it’s true. You’d think that they would want to prove it, validating the claim of a single consciousness. Then there’s this premise that there isn’t somebody creating thoughts. Except that the thought of somebody not creating thoughts, actually creates somebody who is thinking that thought… So while non-duality appeals to my sense of believing the unbelievable, why must I also be forced to give up sensibility and critical thinking?
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on May 20, 2011 12:41:32 GMT -5
Enigma, first I want to ask a question for clarificaton of what exatcly we're talking about here. So you're saying that when you align with a cat's consciousness you're simultaneously looking out of specifically your eyes and specifically the cat's eyes? You actually understand cat language and you know and love how fresh mouse and bird meat tastes like? The confusion is enormous, I'm surprised that you don't see it. Essentially what it comes down to is that I can't construct a scenario in which you're not making a category mistake (at the very least). The category mistake is thus: First assumption is that there is only One Awareness. Within and as this one awareness there manifest different forms defined by boundaries of form (cat consciousness, Enigma consciousness). Oneness doesn't need to transcend anything in order to know cat consciousness, because Oneness already knows what it's like to be a cat simply by being that cat consciousness (which means precisely experiencing from within the boundaries of the form of cat consciousness). The only one who needs to transcend form is someone who experiencing himself from within something that he imagines to be a boundary. Oneness doesn't need to do that because it already has complete information by virtue of being everything that is, complete information here is contextual, i.e. relative to the respective form (cat knows what it's like to be a cat and doesn't know what it's like to be dog, dog knows what it's like to be dog and doesn't know what it's like to be a cat). And the big question is how the dog can possibly learn what it's like to be a cat 100% without leaving his dog-ness behind in the process (and thus never learning what it's like to be a cat), how can you transfer a subjective experiene qua subjective experience to another subjectivity? Again, the problem only applies to dogs, cats, humans etc. To Oneness this problem doesn't apply, because it already knows dogness, catness, humanness simply by virtue of already being all that. And more importantly: if Oneness "wants" to know what it's like to be a dog, it will be that dog, but it won't be a cat aligning with dog's consciousness (unless it's that alignment that Oneness wants, but in that alignment does the cat know something other than a continuation of cat-ness?). TRF likes what Q has said. Seems perfectly logical to me and wonderfully stated... I'll have your double (duality) dog with onions, ketchup and mustard please... ;D
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 20, 2011 13:16:39 GMT -5
Enigma, first I want to ask a question for clarificaton of what exatcly we're talking about here. So you're saying that when you align with a cat's consciousness you're simultaneously looking out of specifically your eyes and specifically the cat's eyes? You actually understand cat language and you know and love how fresh mouse and bird meat tastes like? The confusion is enormous, I'm surprised that you don't see it. Essentially what it comes down to is that I can't construct a scenario in which you're not making a category mistake (at the very least). The category mistake is thus: First assumption is that there is only One Awareness. Within and as this one awareness there manifest different forms defined by boundaries of form (cat consciousness, Enigma consciousness). Oneness doesn't need to transcend anything in order to know cat consciousness, because Oneness already knows what it's like to be a cat simply by being that cat consciousness (which means precisely experiencing from within the boundaries of the form of cat consciousness). The only one who needs to transcend form is someone who experiencing himself from within something that he imagines to be a boundary. Oneness doesn't need to do that because it already has complete information by virtue of being everything that is, complete information here is contextual, i.e. relative to the respective form (cat knows what it's like to be a cat and doesn't know what it's like to be dog, dog knows what it's like to be dog and doesn't know what it's like to be a cat). And the big question is how the dog can possibly learn what it's like to be a cat 100% without leaving his dog-ness behind in the process (and thus never learning what it's like to be a cat), how can you transfer a subjective experiene qua subjective experience to another subjectivity? Again, the problem only applies to dogs, cats, humans etc. To Oneness this problem doesn't apply, because it already knows dogness, catness, humanness simply by virtue of already being all that. And more importantly: if Oneness "wants" to know what it's like to be a dog, it will be that dog, but it won't be a cat aligning with dog's consciousness (unless it's that alignment that Oneness wants, but in that alignment does the cat know something other than a continuation of cat-ness?). Most of the difficulty seems to be the assumption that oneness is somehow separate from catness or Enigmaness such that 'oenness already knows what it's like to be a cat', but Enigmaness does not. Oneness means that what is experiencing Enigmaness is precisely what is experiencing catness. Again, they are both 'here', because there is only 'here'. This is likely to lead to more perception of Enigma delusion, but it's okay, it'll match my karma points. Hehe. The first time I really 'looked' at a flower, i 'fell into it'. I remember thinking something like 'OMG! How joyfull you are to just BE!', and I seem to remember crying for a half hour. It's all 'in here'. Where else would it be? What else is there?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 20, 2011 14:50:15 GMT -5
I think everyone is talking at cross purposes here. I think I understand where E. is coming from and I definitely understand where Q. and TRF are coming from. I'm big on both experiences and realizations because they both have frequently picked this body/mind to arise within. One of my first major realizations occurred as a result of my first kensho experience. I saw that the entire universe was alive and also unified. From that point on I never again imagined that there were such things as INanimate objects. The whole blooming thing is alive, Igor; it's alive! LOL. Yes, I look around and see rocks, automobiles, and electric utility poles, and I accept the conventional distinction of "inanimateness," but I simultaneously know that the distinction is an illusion--an appearance, only. If I tell peeps that even rocks, stars, and empty space is alive, they will look at me as if I am nuts, and this is why I only say such things to people who might be driven to a deeper level of exerience and understanding by the seeming insaneness of such a comment. This is what Master Rinzai was doing to one of his students after a polo game when he asked, "Were even the goalposts tired?" The student knew that he (as a participant in the game) was tired, and he knew that the horses were tired, but the goalposts? That question paralyzed his mind, and that night he had a major breakthrough. The following day he returned to Rinzai and said with great authority, "Yes, even the goalposts were tired!"
I assume that E. was talking about catness in this sense rather than as having experienced catness as a human. If I'm wrong, then he can clarify this. I have COMMUNED with a cat, with flowers, and with much else, but as a human being, I have never experienced the world from the perspective of some other entity. That might be possible (the universe is very weird), but it hasn't happened to this body/mind yet.
The headache/pain remedy thing he mentioned is commonly taught in pain management classes at hospitals, so I don't know what the problem is with that issue.
I would never expect anyone to take my word that the universe is unified and alive, but I try to point peeps in a direction that might lead to the same kind of experience that I had. I tell them to ATA, and as they escape the confines of the thought machine, unusual stuff often happens. The truth is unimaginably mysterious. he he
|
|
|
Post by ivory on May 20, 2011 15:03:32 GMT -5
The whole blooming thing is alive, Igor; it's alive! LOL. Yes, I look around and see rocks, automobiles, and electric utility poles, and I accept the conventional distinction of "inanimateness," but I simultaneously know that the distinction is an illusion--an appearance, only. If I tell peeps that even rocks, stars, and empty space is alive... Rocks rock !
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 20, 2011 15:16:21 GMT -5
Oh, thanks for reminding me. I meant to mention that fortunately I don't know what fresh mouse tastes like (hehe) nor do I see through cat eyes. I had no idea I was giving that impression.
Every being has a sense of existence as well as a sense of being whatever they are being. The sense of existence is the same. The sense of being enigma or question or zen or cat is different. It's this sense I'm talking about. It's possible to have a sense of what it is like to be anyone on this forum, beyond the words they would use to describe that experience. Likewise, there are no words to describe 'catness'.
|
|
|
Post by klaus on May 20, 2011 16:01:12 GMT -5
Sorry, i dunno where the confusion is. How many consciousnesssesssess do you think there are? Where is 'your' consciousness as opposed to 'kitty' consciousness? I thought we were done with this? All's I know is that I am aware and it looks like my cat at home is also aware. Now if you multiply that by the number of sentient entities in the universe, well it's mind boggling... But you see that's an observable reality, by virtue of a little principle of the universe called reductionism. And it's not like I don't believe in invisible stuff either... There's gravity, electromagnetism so I can use my cell phone, UV rays that I need sun screen for, etc, etc, And whether I believe in them or not, they have an observable reality. Where is yours located, under which rock should I look, how far out into space is it, or how deep into a molecule is too deep? Where is it's effect in the universe? Oh, my, my!
|
|