|
Sleep
May 14, 2011 17:09:58 GMT -5
Post by enigma on May 14, 2011 17:09:58 GMT -5
Can you describe, recall or think about that experience without using boundaries? If not, what makes it an experience? Is it an undulating field as opposed to a fixed field? Isn't that a boundary? Is it a feeling sense or sensory perception? Boundary? There's nothing to describe, but I know it happened. If I want to talk about it, yes, I have to use boundaries. I'm saying 'undulating' as an alternative to 'changing.' Because it's not something fixed/constant, but something alive/vibrating. Fine. When I say experience, I mean an event that can be recalled in the mind. To the extent that you even know it happened, you're recalling an event in the mind, unless it's happening right now. This recollection has a structure to it that's made up of boundaries. (alive/vibrating and not fixed/constant, etc) I'm just saying this is how experience itself has to work. As such, there's not an experience of the actual, just _________. The experience is a reflection in the mind.
|
|
|
Sleep
May 14, 2011 17:19:44 GMT -5
Post by therealfake on May 14, 2011 17:19:44 GMT -5
Looking at the world without thinking is possible and is happening. So I might as well call it an experience. But there are no boundaries; just an 'undulating' field. Can you describe, recall or think about that experience without using boundaries? If not, what makes it an experience? Is it an undulating field as opposed to a fixed field? Isn't that a boundary? Is it a feeling sense or sensory perception? Boundary? Well, what then is the boundary of the experience of a belief, a desire, hope or an intention? That kind of experience/awareness is neither a sense or sensory perception. It seems to me boundaries are only applicable to the awareness of things or mental objects. But when it comes to the awareness or experience 'about' things, how is the idea of a boundary applied?
|
|
|
Sleep
May 14, 2011 17:27:56 GMT -5
Post by enigma on May 14, 2011 17:27:56 GMT -5
You mean to investigate or to do?? Either! I'd say the process of convincing oneself that the 'impossible' is possible usually consists of a series of tiny iterations in which something is tried for a while and in this open focus, something is created, (however insignificant it might be) so there's encouragement and more confident attempts, and something more significant happens, etc. IF there's the determination and willingness to suspend disbelief and remain open to the possibility, (discipline and faith) slowly the belief is strengthened, as is the manifestation of that belief in the experience. Hencely, it's a process of subjective creation and belief rather than objective practice and learning and testing to see if something works. It works if and when you 'say' it works. (BTW, this applies to all mind states that come about in meditative practice)
|
|
|
Sleep
May 14, 2011 17:49:50 GMT -5
Post by enigma on May 14, 2011 17:49:50 GMT -5
Can you describe, recall or think about that experience without using boundaries? If not, what makes it an experience? Is it an undulating field as opposed to a fixed field? Isn't that a boundary? Is it a feeling sense or sensory perception? Boundary? Well, what then is the boundary of the experience of a belief, a desire, hope or an intention? That kind of experience/awareness is neither a sense or sensory perception. It seems to me boundaries are only applicable to the awareness of things or mental objects. But when it comes to the awareness or experience 'about' things, how is the idea of a boundary applied? All experiences about things are conceptual, (and all experiences are ABOUT things) and all concepts are boundaries. (This as opposed to that) All beliefs, desires, hopes and intentions have origins in concepts. Your entire experience, if it can be recalled at all, is conceptual. Even the framework of time and space in which it seemingly occurs and can be recalled is conceptual. What we're trying to do with all this awakening biznis is not to create an experiences that are somehow not conceptual, but to get out of the conceptual world in the mind and be present to 'what is' now, for which there are no concepts because you haven't invented them. That conceptual world has no depth or life to it. That's why Porto is trying to talk about vibrancy and aliveneness.
|
|
|
Sleep
May 14, 2011 17:53:05 GMT -5
Post by therealfake on May 14, 2011 17:53:05 GMT -5
Either! I'd say the process of convincing oneself that the 'impossible' is possible usually consists of a series of tiny iterations in which something is tried for a while and in this open focus, something is created, (however insignificant it might be) so there's encouragement and more confident attempts, and something more significant happens, etc. IF there's the determination and willingness to suspend disbelief and remain open to the possibility, (discipline and faith) slowly the belief is strengthened, as is the manifestation of that belief in the experience. Hencely, it's a process of subjective creation and belief rather than objective practice and learning and testing to see if something works. It works if and when you 'say' it works. (BTW, this applies to all mind states that come about in meditative practice) In a lucid dream, there seems to be none of that... The only factor needed is 'will', you fly because you 'will' yourself to fly... Why it is active in the dream state and not the waking state, is a mystery...
|
|
|
Sleep
May 14, 2011 18:13:33 GMT -5
Post by enigma on May 14, 2011 18:13:33 GMT -5
I'd say the process of convincing oneself that the 'impossible' is possible usually consists of a series of tiny iterations in which something is tried for a while and in this open focus, something is created, (however insignificant it might be) so there's encouragement and more confident attempts, and something more significant happens, etc. IF there's the determination and willingness to suspend disbelief and remain open to the possibility, (discipline and faith) slowly the belief is strengthened, as is the manifestation of that belief in the experience. Hencely, it's a process of subjective creation and belief rather than objective practice and learning and testing to see if something works. It works if and when you 'say' it works. (BTW, this applies to all mind states that come about in meditative practice) In a lucid dream, there seems to be none of that... The only factor needed is 'will', you fly because you 'will' yourself to fly... Why it is active in the dream state and not the waking state, is a mystery... Why is it a mystery? If you are lucid dreaming, you know that it is a dream of your own making. Why would you imagine that there are boundaries to what can happen in a dream?
|
|
|
Sleep
May 14, 2011 19:10:18 GMT -5
Post by therealfake on May 14, 2011 19:10:18 GMT -5
Well, what then is the boundary of the experience of a belief, a desire, hope or an intention? That kind of experience/awareness is neither a sense or sensory perception. It seems to me boundaries are only applicable to the awareness of things or mental objects. But when it comes to the awareness or experience 'about' things, how is the idea of a boundary applied? All experiences about things are conceptual, (and all experiences are ABOUT things) and all concepts are boundaries. (This as opposed to that) All beliefs, desires, hopes and intentions have origins in concepts. Your entire experience, if it can be recalled at all, is conceptual. Even the framework of time and space in which it seemingly occurs and can be recalled is conceptual. What we're trying to do with all this awakening biznis is not to create an experiences that are somehow not conceptual, but to get out of the conceptual world in the mind and be present to 'what is' now, for which there are no concepts because you haven't invented them. That conceptual world has no depth or life to it. That's why Porto is trying to talk about vibrancy and aliveneness. That's great, got nothing against that, but isn't it dependent on one of two beliefs? That there is a verifiable objective world or that the 'objective world' is really a projection of the mind. I'm not sure what belief your basing your premise on, or if it even matters. What say ye?
|
|
|
Sleep
May 14, 2011 19:12:07 GMT -5
Post by Portto on May 14, 2011 19:12:07 GMT -5
There's nothing to describe, but I know it happened. If I want to talk about it, yes, I have to use boundaries. I'm saying 'undulating' as an alternative to 'changing.' Because it's not something fixed/constant, but something alive/vibrating. Fine. When I say experience, I mean an event that can be recalled in the mind. To the extent that you even know it happened, you're recalling an event in the mind, unless it's happening right now. This recollection has a structure to it that's made up of boundaries. (alive/vibrating and not fixed/constant, etc) I'm just saying this is how experience itself has to work. As such, there's not an experience of the actual, just _________. The experience is a reflection in the mind. Indeed. There's nothing to recall in the mind, but it can be 'visited.'
|
|
|
Sleep
May 14, 2011 19:19:10 GMT -5
Post by Portto on May 14, 2011 19:19:10 GMT -5
I'd say the process of convincing oneself that the 'impossible' is possible usually consists of a series of tiny iterations in which something is tried for a while and in this open focus, something is created, (however insignificant it might be) so there's encouragement and more confident attempts, and something more significant happens, etc. IF there's the determination and willingness to suspend disbelief and remain open to the possibility, (discipline and faith) slowly the belief is strengthened, as is the manifestation of that belief in the experience. Hencely, it's a process of subjective creation and belief rather than objective practice and learning and testing to see if something works. It works if and when you 'say' it works. (BTW, this applies to all mind states that come about in meditative practice) Okay, but how do you even know that something is impossible? There's no belief about it until we imagine that something that's not currently here would be possible. I don't see this as driven by belief, but rather by creation/imagination.
|
|
|
Sleep
May 14, 2011 19:28:37 GMT -5
Post by therealfake on May 14, 2011 19:28:37 GMT -5
In a lucid dream, there seems to be none of that... The only factor needed is 'will', you fly because you 'will' yourself to fly... Why it is active in the dream state and not the waking state, is a mystery... Why is it a mystery? If you are lucid dreaming, you know that it is a dream of your own making. Why would you imagine that there are boundaries to what can happen in a dream? Well that's the thing, I know it's a dream, but it's not a world of my own making. I wouldn't make a world of darkness and objects that have their own obvious awareness. Of entities that move with purpose and determination, of fantastic cities, or people that aren't real. I'd be on a cruise ship sailing around the galaxy... lol
|
|
|
Sleep
May 14, 2011 19:45:21 GMT -5
Post by kate on May 14, 2011 19:45:21 GMT -5
Yes, that is where my confusion came from I think, but what you've said here makes sense to me. I do wonder though, how boundaries that exist for some people don't exist for others. If there is no separation between thoughts/belief and what is being actualized 'out there' in the world and it's not a matter of one begetting the other, then what is the cause for the yogi being able to fly or levitate or whatever it is they do and met not being able to? Is it just conditioning? Well, experience is individualized by it's nature and is literally defined with boundaries. No boundaries, no experience. Thought doesn't cause the sense perception (flying, or whatever) because thought is also a happening. Thoughts happen, flying happens. They are integrated as part of the same happening, but don't have a cause/effect relationship. What happens in one individualized experience isn't separate from what happens in another because they both unfold from the same intelligence, which means all of creation is fully integrated. Some will talk about this by saying everything in the universe affects everything else, but this is just a fairly easy way to understand it and the boundary of that concept is met pretty quickly. Why flying happens through one individuated perspective and not another would be impossible to know, though we can look in the context of thoughts and beliefs happening in an individual and correlate that with experience to some degree. (Since they're part of the same happening) The practice of, say, using woo woo energy to throw somebody across the room, is not really about perfecting some technique, it's about the usually tedious process of convincing oneself that it's possible. If, after 'accomplishing' it, it's still believed that the practice is necessary, this is likely mind trying to own the accomplishment and see itself as special. Success results from the collapsing of certain mental boundaries about what's possible, and is not caused by some practice, and of course the collapsing of those boundaries is caused by the integrated intelligence of creation and not the person. Yeah, that makes sense. I can see that experience is defined with boundaries and I at least understand the concept of all of creation being fully integrated. I think I was trying to understand whether or not different boundaries are dissolved in different ways. Whether the would-be levitating monk is doing anything different in convincing himself that levitation is possible than I am doing when looking at any of the ideas I have about how things are. I don't have much interest in levitating monks and people who throw others across the room with their woo woo energy beyond that. At least I didn't think I did, but last night I had a dream that I could make people itch by staring at the spot on their body that I wanted to be itchy. I love that in my wildest dreams the 'super power' that I give myself is the power to create itchiness.
|
|
|
Sleep
May 14, 2011 20:47:47 GMT -5
Post by enigma on May 14, 2011 20:47:47 GMT -5
All experiences about things are conceptual, (and all experiences are ABOUT things) and all concepts are boundaries. (This as opposed to that) All beliefs, desires, hopes and intentions have origins in concepts. Your entire experience, if it can be recalled at all, is conceptual. Even the framework of time and space in which it seemingly occurs and can be recalled is conceptual. What we're trying to do with all this awakening biznis is not to create an experiences that are somehow not conceptual, but to get out of the conceptual world in the mind and be present to 'what is' now, for which there are no concepts because you haven't invented them. That conceptual world has no depth or life to it. That's why Porto is trying to talk about vibrancy and aliveneness. That's great, got nothing against that, but isn't it dependent on one of two beliefs? That there is a verifiable objective world or that the 'objective world' is really a projection of the mind. I'm not sure what belief your basing your premise on, or if it even matters. What say ye? Well, I don't think it matters, but ye says it's always created from the inside out, meaning an expression of the one consciousness that is here, both creating and experiencing. Whether or not it's a projection of the mind depends on what the concept of mind includes. If mind is a thinking process, then it doesn't really apply. If it's a process of perception, then sure.
|
|
|
Sleep
May 14, 2011 20:49:40 GMT -5
Post by enigma on May 14, 2011 20:49:40 GMT -5
Fine. When I say experience, I mean an event that can be recalled in the mind. To the extent that you even know it happened, you're recalling an event in the mind, unless it's happening right now. This recollection has a structure to it that's made up of boundaries. (alive/vibrating and not fixed/constant, etc) I'm just saying this is how experience itself has to work. As such, there's not an experience of the actual, just _________. The experience is a reflection in the mind. Indeed. There's nothing to recall in the mind, but it can be 'visited.' In the 'now' or in the mind?
|
|
|
Sleep
May 14, 2011 21:06:46 GMT -5
Post by enigma on May 14, 2011 21:06:46 GMT -5
I'd say the process of convincing oneself that the 'impossible' is possible usually consists of a series of tiny iterations in which something is tried for a while and in this open focus, something is created, (however insignificant it might be) so there's encouragement and more confident attempts, and something more significant happens, etc. IF there's the determination and willingness to suspend disbelief and remain open to the possibility, (discipline and faith) slowly the belief is strengthened, as is the manifestation of that belief in the experience. Hencely, it's a process of subjective creation and belief rather than objective practice and learning and testing to see if something works. It works if and when you 'say' it works. (BTW, this applies to all mind states that come about in meditative practice) Okay, but how do you even know that something is impossible? There's no belief about it until we imagine that something that's not currently here would be possible. I don't see this as driven by belief, but rather by creation/imagination. I agree. God's a creative, imaginative dude. I'd say the difference between imagination and 'reality' is the depth of belief, which makes life an interactive game. Anything that can be imagined is possible because the limiters are not in the potential, (formless) but in the actualization. (form) This is why it gets a bit irksome when folks get too deeply into the neti-neti world of no-me to no-do no-nothing. It can be useful in removing the personal aspect, but it seriously flies in the face of the infinite potential that I can't help but see as continuously present every moment.
|
|
|
Sleep
May 14, 2011 21:16:53 GMT -5
Post by enigma on May 14, 2011 21:16:53 GMT -5
Why is it a mystery? If you are lucid dreaming, you know that it is a dream of your own making. Why would you imagine that there are boundaries to what can happen in a dream? Well that's the thing, I know it's a dream, but it's not a world of my own making. I wouldn't make a world of darkness and objects that have their own obvious awareness. Of entities that move with purpose and determination, of fantastic cities, or people that aren't real. I'd be on a cruise ship sailing around the galaxy... lol Maybe this gets back to the spontaneous function of creation, which happens in the same way whether asleep or awake. Maybe we could say it forms out of pre-conscious material in your individual conditioning, so it's more an expression of your experiences than of your desires. However, it's still 'of your own making'.
|
|