Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2013 12:17:00 GMT -5
Oh so when folks use unchanging and everywhere it just means right here right now? That's funny! So, when some enlightened bloke prattles on about Oneness and the universe, they're just talking about their little perception bubble? Okay, check! Back to qualia! I have no idea what other folks mean, nor do I mean anything, what I'm saying is what does finding the right model of how things are matter....why are you trying to fi d the right model of understanding, quailia, or god or otherwise? What purpose would having the right answer serve? And how can you ever be sure that you have the right answer, the right understanding? The experience and awareness of Raw Existence, as you call it, is quite enough really why complicate it with explanations and models and understandings? Its as though you are trying to find a hidden reality that is right here right now all around and within you. The Big Other. Raw existence includes being unsure, includes wonder and amazement that folks can assert stuff with complete confidence and sureness. And so I engage here. Models are just models, little things that encapsulate a body of thought. You can put them together, sniff glue, hold 'em, set fire to them and throw em out the window. I'm looking at some and throwing out others. But right, none of them can really capture what's happening.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2013 12:27:47 GMT -5
Greetings.. Anything that sounds like a conclusion has been handled by the thinker and in that, it is what it is. For example, here are two different suggestions: 1) There is a subject that is not subject to identification and that is what you are -- you can't know the knower because if you turn around to look you just see more objects. You can't get behind yourself. What you are is not subject to objectification. 2) Turn your attention 180 degrees, and look directly inward and be aware of being aware. To the intellect, these sound like opposites -- or at least, as if they contradict one another, but they're pointing to exactly the same ineffable absence. They are pointing to the person you are suggesting to "Turn your attention 180 degrees, and look directly inward", that person is the 'doer' of the awareness you are suggesting they turn inward.. what they will be aware of is themselves looking outward, experiencing their interconnected existence.. the mystical implications of 'being aware of being aware' are nonexistent, it is the person's 'self-awareness', the reference point for their physical existence, their 'part' of their 'whole'.. Be well.. When I point back at that which is looking re: Douglas Harding, I don't see any shapes, any colors, any movement, any thing... What I see is emptiness, nothingness, capacity for the entire universe... And then I see/perceive a thought floating in that emptiness that announces that the 'capacity for the entire universe' is me...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2013 12:29:56 GMT -5
I have no idea what other folks mean, nor do I mean anything, what I'm saying is what does finding the right model of how things are matter....why are you trying to fi d the right model of understanding, quailia, or god or otherwise? What purpose would having the right answer serve? And how can you ever be sure that you have the right answer, the right understanding? The experience and awareness of Raw Existence, as you call it, is quite enough really why complicate it with explanations and models and understandings? Its as though you are trying to find a hidden reality that is right here right now all around and within you. The Big Other. Raw existence includes being unsure, includes wonder and amazement that folks can assert stuff with complete confidence and sureness. And so I engage here. Models are just models, little things that encapsulate a body of thought. You can put them together, sniff glue, hold 'em, set fire to them and throw em out the window. I'm looking at some and throwing out others. But right, none of them can really capture what's happening. So what, if anything, are you trying to figure out? Are you just entertaining yourself, in a kind of mental masterbation? or are you trying to get other folks to drop models and ideas?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 9, 2013 12:33:42 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. They are pointing to the person you are suggesting to "Turn your attention 180 degrees, and look directly inward", that person is the 'doer' of the awareness you are suggesting they turn inward.. what they will be aware of is themselves looking outward, experiencing their interconnected existence.. the mystical implications of 'being aware of being aware' are nonexistent, it is the person's 'self-awareness', the reference point for their physical existence, their 'part' of their 'whole'.. Be well.. When I point back at that which is looking re: Douglas Harding, I don't see any shapes, any colors, any movement, any thing... What I see is emptiness, nothingness, capacity for the entire universe... And then I see/perceive a thought floating in that emptiness that announces that the 'capacity for the entire universe' is me... And........ what about the vehicle that allows this to 'happen'? The 'body-mind' that separates 'you' from the entire universe so 'you' can experinece the entire universe is no less 'you' that the thoughts you are sharing on this forum.. the hammer that cannot hit itself is still a hammer in the toolbox of other tools.. Be well..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2013 12:43:28 GMT -5
The Big Other. Raw existence includes being unsure, includes wonder and amazement that folks can assert stuff with complete confidence and sureness. And so I engage here. Models are just models, little things that encapsulate a body of thought. You can put them together, sniff glue, hold 'em, set fire to them and throw em out the window. I'm looking at some and throwing out others. But right, none of them can really capture what's happening. So what, if anything, are you trying to figure out? Are you just entertaining yourself, in a kind of mental masterbation? or are you trying to get other folks to drop models and ideas? I think I'm driven by a need to fill insecurity and a lack of confidence, but also curiosity, entertainment, connection, procrastination. But if I knew what I was trying to figure out that'd be the end of the story. When peeps say that something really really amazing happened to them and now they enjoy just unlimited peace and potential, I think whoah get me some of that. As far as getting others to drop models and ideas...I think of it as you scratch my back I'll scratch yours.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2013 13:00:52 GMT -5
So what, if anything, are you trying to figure out? Are you just entertaining yourself, in a kind of mental masterbation? or are you trying to get other folks to drop models and ideas? I think I'm driven by a need to fill insecurity and a lack of confidence, but also curiosity, entertainment, connection, procrastination. But if I knew what I was trying to figure out that'd be the end of the story. When peeps say that something really really amazing happened to them and now they enjoy just unlimited peace and potential, I think whoah get me some of that. As far as getting others to drop models and ideas...I think of it as you scratch my back I'll scratch yours. Man I can appreciate that whole wanting to check out other folks stuff when they say talk about the big woo woo stuff, I think I just took a different approach than you are. Meaning that I always set aside whatever they said ABOUT the experience, and looked into HOW they came to that experience so that I could try to follow a similar route and see what it was like for myself, and make my own assessments. This usually entails finding out what they did, and do it myself to see if a similar result was created, and not focus on what they came to realize after they did whatever they did. Said another way, if someone describes a big woo woo, and its interesting to me, I'm not interested in what the big woo woo means or portends, I'm interested in HOW they arrived at the big woo woo so that I can investigate it via direct experience.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2013 13:03:16 GMT -5
Greetings.. When I point back at that which is looking re: Douglas Harding, I don't see any shapes, any colors, any movement, any thing... What I see is emptiness, nothingness, capacity for the entire universe... And then I see/perceive a thought floating in that emptiness that announces that the 'capacity for the entire universe' is me... And........ what about the vehicle that allows this to 'happen'? The 'body-mind' that separates 'you' from the entire universe so 'you' can experinece the entire universe is no less 'you' that the thoughts you are sharing on this forum.. the hammer that cannot hit itself is still a hammer in the toolbox of other tools.. Be well.. If I turn back around at the world I see things, I see shapes, colors, I see a you and I see a me separate from you. What I'm perceiving is the sense of sight, I don't actually perceive a mind or a body...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2013 13:09:48 GMT -5
Greetings.. And........ what about the vehicle that allows this to 'happen'? The 'body-mind' that separates 'you' from the entire universe so 'you' can experinece the entire universe is no less 'you' that the thoughts you are sharing on this forum.. the hammer that cannot hit itself is still a hammer in the toolbox of other tools.. Be well.. If I turn back around at the world I see things, I see shapes, colors, I see a you and I see a me separate from you. What I'm perceiving is the sense of sight, I don't actually perceive a mind or a body... True dat, and if you don't cognitively seperate stuff in the visual field, its just all one visual field with variations of color and light. Tzu seems to think that cognitively separating stuff in the visual field is seeing things "as they are" and if you don't cognitively separate them then you are seeing things through belief....seems bas ackward to me lol
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2013 13:57:49 GMT -5
I think I'm driven by a need to fill insecurity and a lack of confidence, but also curiosity, entertainment, connection, procrastination. But if I knew what I was trying to figure out that'd be the end of the story. When peeps say that something really really amazing happened to them and now they enjoy just unlimited peace and potential, I think whoah get me some of that. As far as getting others to drop models and ideas...I think of it as you scratch my back I'll scratch yours. Man I can appreciate that whole wanting to check out other folks stuff when they say talk about the big woo woo stuff, I think I just took a different approach than you are. Meaning that I always set aside whatever they said ABOUT the experience, and looked into HOW they came to that experience so that I could try to follow a similar route and see what it was like for myself, and make my own assessments. This usually entails finding out what they did, and do it myself to see if a similar result was created, and not focus on what they came to realize after they did whatever they did. Said another way, if someone describes a big woo woo, and its interesting to me, I'm not interested in what the big woo woo means or portends, I'm interested in HOW they arrived at the big woo woo so that I can investigate it via direct experience. I'm getting the impression that you perhaps think that this isn't the particular approach I'm taking as well? Just yesterday I spent time with the I/we/THIS am/are/is God activity. This morning I did effortless meditation. Driving in, ATA. Sitting here, headless direct pointing...Then describing from my experience. From my perspective, usually the descriptions of experiences and realizations that I read here sound a lot more fancy and mind-blowing than the stuff I experience when trying out the same thing. I'm totally willing to accept that maybe I'm not doing it right, with enough verve or alertness or concentration or whatever.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 9, 2013 13:57:52 GMT -5
Greetings.. If I turn back around at the world I see things, I see shapes, colors, I see a you and I see a me separate from you. What I'm perceiving is the sense of sight, I don't actually perceive a mind or a body... True dat, and if you don't cognitively seperate stuff in the visual field, its just all one visual field with variations of color and light. Tzu seems to think that cognitively separating stuff in the visual field is seeing things "as they are" and if you don't cognitively separate them then you are seeing things through belief....seems bas ackward to me lol If there were no separate 'stuff' the visual field would be blank.. there is no 'cognitive' separation between the wall and the door, it is what it is, you get past the wall by 'realizing' the difference between wall and door.. Be well..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2013 14:14:30 GMT -5
Greetings.. True dat, and if you don't cognitively seperate stuff in the visual field, its just all one visual field with variations of color and light. Tzu seems to think that cognitively separating stuff in the visual field is seeing things "as they are" and if you don't cognitively separate them then you are seeing things through belief....seems bas ackward to me lol If there were no separate 'stuff' the visual field would be blank.. there is no 'cognitive' separation between the wall and the door, it is what it is, you get past the wall by 'realizing' the difference between wall and door.. Be well.. This is the return of the quibbles about the meaning of 'separate.' Because 'no separation' is such a cornerstone pointer by nondualists and others (!) tzujanli focuses on the narrow meaning of the term and doesn't fully engage with how the term is being used by those who he is debating. I'm sure there is some debate tactic name for this, but I'm ignorant of it. When steven or whoever acknowledges variations of color and light -- a scientist might point to probability fields -- there is a tacit recognition of that narrow meaning of separation. Distinguishing and discernment of differences, etc. all are in reference to that narrow definition of separation. But that's not really the way separation is being used in this case. It's just more ocean/wave stuff. Sure a wave can be distinguished from the ocean. But can the wave be separated from the ocean? It can be called separate in the narrow sense, but fundamentally, in essence, it isn't.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 9, 2013 14:30:38 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. If there were no separate 'stuff' the visual field would be blank.. there is no 'cognitive' separation between the wall and the door, it is what it is, you get past the wall by 'realizing' the difference between wall and door.. Be well.. This is the return of the quibbles about the meaning of 'separate.' Because 'no separation' is such a cornerstone pointer by nondualists and others (!) tzujanli focuses on the narrow meaning of the term and doesn't fully engage with how the term is being used by those who he is debating. I'm sure there is some debate tactic name for this, but I'm ignorant of it. When steven or whoever acknowledges variations of color and light -- a scientist might point to probability fields -- there is a tacit recognition of that narrow meaning of separation. Distinguishing and discernment of differences, etc. all are in reference to that narrow definition of separation. But that's not really the way separation is being used in this case. It's just more ocean/wave stuff. Sure a wave can be distinguished from the ocean. But can the wave be separated from the ocean? It can be called separate in the narrow sense, but fundamentally, in essence, it isn't. The "ocean/wave" analogy is used as confirmation bias, because it confirms the story you are telling.. what about the snowflake, raindrop, or hailstone that is separate from the ocean AND made of the same essence? you are attaching to what you want to believe, let that go if you want to see what 'is'.. what 'is' needs no story about 'what' it is, 'is' happens no matter which story the experiencer is attached to.. the only issue is whether the experiencer interacts with what 'is' is,or with what they 'think' is is.. Be well..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2013 14:35:07 GMT -5
If I turn back around at the world I see things, I see shapes, colors, I see a you and I see a me separate from you. What I'm perceiving is the sense of sight, I don't actually perceive a mind or a body... True dat, and if you don't cognitively seperate stuff in the visual field, its just all one visual field with variations of color and light. Tzu seems to think that cognitively separating stuff in the visual field is seeing things "as they are" and if you don't cognitively separate them then you are seeing things through belief....seems bas ackward to me lol Yeah, it's true that what I 'see' is a cognitive layering of what I 'perceive' and it's fun to switch between the two. The cognitive layering carries with it a knowing associated with what is seen, which lends practical and predictive qualities to what is seen... While the perceiving of the sense of sight for instance contains an absence of knowing and predictability in the homogenous field. Both views are valid and mutually inclusive, meaning they happen at the same time. The habit of my attention is to focus on what is seen and not on what is perceived...when it does switch views it's usually an awesome experience...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2013 15:09:26 GMT -5
The "ocean/wave" analogy is used as confirmation bias, because it confirms the story you are telling.. what about the snowflake, raindrop, or hailstone that is separate from the ocean AND made of the same essence? you are attaching to what you want to believe, let that go if you want to see what 'is'.. what 'is' needs no story about 'what' it is, 'is' happens no matter which story the experiencer is attached to.. the only issue is whether the experiencer interacts with what 'is' is,or with what they 'think' is is.. Be well.. how is your snowflake story any different from the wave analogy? ocean .. evaporation, clouds, snow, melt, rivers .. ocean. rinse and repeat.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 9, 2013 15:14:56 GMT -5
Greetings.. The "ocean/wave" analogy is used as confirmation bias, because it confirms the story you are telling.. what about the snowflake, raindrop, or hailstone that is separate from the ocean AND made of the same essence? you are attaching to what you want to believe, let that go if you want to see what 'is'.. what 'is' needs no story about 'what' it is, 'is' happens no matter which story the experiencer is attached to.. the only issue is whether the experiencer interacts with what 'is' is,or with what they 'think' is is.. Be well.. how is your snowflake story any different from the wave analogy? ocean .. evaporation, clouds, snow, melt, rivers .. ocean. rinse and repeat. The ocean/wave analogy is used to signify no separation.. the 'snowflake story' acknowledges BOTH separation AND wholeness, a condition rejected by non-dualists, even though both conditions are directly experiencable.. Be well..
|
|