|
page 72
Jul 9, 2014 18:06:01 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Jul 9, 2014 18:06:01 GMT -5
To the observer not aligned with either story, an unchallenged story that presents only one perspective begins to seem valid.. to 'neutralize' is not about the believer attached to their beliefs, it is about the novice observer seeing more than one biased perspective.. the debate exists because people present their preferred story while denouncing other stories.. Volition/non-volition, separate/no-separation, duality/non-duality, are opinions/beliefs/stories about what is happening.. attachment to any of those stories is a self-fulfilling prophesy: by attaching to a story, the believer rejects other information that might revise or contradict what is believed as true and looks for information that supports the belief..
I see people choosing, some people choose differently than others.. there's no value added by the introduction of ideas like volition/non-volition, separate/no-separation, duality/non-duality, people choosing is what is happening.. creating conceptual models/structures to explain the experiencer's understanding of seeing people choose, is adding complexity and distortion to the experience of people choosing.. That is exactly my point. It seems to me that, if what you are actually concerned with, is peeps attachment to stories, you'd want to point out that stories abound on both sides of the debate. And you have done this but then you also fall back on arguing vociferously for the other side of the debate. This tactic that advanced teacher's use regarding neutralizing one conceptual falsehood with another is done with great finesse, I imagine. A moment arises for it, the opportunity taken, and then it passes. It is a temporary tactic not an overall strategy. If it is ineffective in the moment then it is discarded. Also, it requires the student to not know that the teacher is knowingly using a conceptual falsehood. The "fall back" is invoked by a preacher's continued mantras.. the counter-story vanishes when the original story vanishes, and the regular parties here at ST know these 'stories' are not real, so.. it becomes clear that it is theatre intended to influence the SVPs (Separate Volitional Persons) that are alleged to not exist.. The conflict of SVP vs No SVP, is fueled by belief that people 'identify with' their temporary separate manifested physical existence and reject their eternal unified non-tangible existence, and.. it is my experience that people understand both, and the 'identify with' allegation is a meaningless pejorative expression used to manipulate the experiencer based on an emotional reaction to the expression.. Person, as a term, references what is actually happening in this physical experience while interacting with other persons.. the temporary physical existence is happening at the same time, simultaneously, with eternal unified wholeness.. it is realized by the awareness that wholeness/oneness is revealed through the experience of that which is not whole/one, otherwise those terms have no reference/meaning..
|
|
|
page 72
Jul 9, 2014 18:46:53 GMT -5
Post by topology on Jul 9, 2014 18:46:53 GMT -5
That is exactly my point. It seems to me that, if what you are actually concerned with, is peeps attachment to stories, you'd want to point out that stories abound on both sides of the debate. And you have done this but then you also fall back on arguing vociferously for the other side of the debate. This tactic that advanced teacher's use regarding neutralizing one conceptual falsehood with another is done with great finesse, I imagine. A moment arises for it, the opportunity taken, and then it passes. It is a temporary tactic not an overall strategy. If it is ineffective in the moment then it is discarded. Also, it requires the student to not know that the teacher is knowingly using a conceptual falsehood. The "fall back" is invoked by a preacher's continued mantras.. the counter-story vanishes when the original story vanishes, and the regular parties here at ST know these 'stories' are not real, so.. it becomes clear that it is theatre intended to influence the SVPs (Separate Volitional Persons) that are alleged to not exist..
The conflict of SVP vs No SVP, is fueled by belief that people 'identify with' their the stories they tell about a temporary separate manifested physical existence and reject have no real understanding of their eternal unified non-tangible existence, and.. it is my experience that people understand both, and the 'identify with' allegation is a meaningless pejorative expression used to manipulate the experiencer based on an emotional reaction to the expression..
Person, as a term, references what is actually happening in this physical experience while interacting with other persons.. the temporary physical existence is happening at the same time, simultaneously, with eternal unified wholeness.. it is realized by the awareness that wholeness/oneness is revealed through the experience of that which is not whole/one, otherwise those terms have no reference/meaning.. I would propose that the statement prior to my adjustment is what you see others believing and the statement after my adjustment is probably more in alignment with how those others would characterize their beliefs.
|
|
|
page 72
Jul 9, 2014 20:01:41 GMT -5
Post by silence on Jul 9, 2014 20:01:41 GMT -5
Wonder and awe are a daily aspect of life. Yes. Wordless curiosity. Silent questions. Different than the intellectual pursuit for knowledge. I don't have any silent questions. I don't even know what that would mean. I mean really, this is it man. The moment I basically let this be it, a sort of depth to life unfolded. I don't own it, I can't grasp it. It's profoundly powerful and awe inspiring, yet I know nothing about it. Everything that I perhaps once was pursuing is immediately available to me in a astoundingly obvious way. It always was.
|
|
|
page 72
Jul 9, 2014 20:17:49 GMT -5
Post by silence on Jul 9, 2014 20:17:49 GMT -5
I was never able to really take existential questions seriously. They always appeared like vague abstractions that people enjoy specifically because they're so mysterious and ambiguous. There was always an interest in clarifying what I wished to know and because of that I made an interesting discovery. That is, the more I clarified what I wanted to know, the less of a hold it had and the more I lost interest. It was the mysterious nature of the question that I actually enjoyed and the more I penetrated any question, the more blatantly obvious it was to me that all of the questions were merely a big game of sidestepping silence. Their very presence required that they be shrouded in mystery and ambiguity. Yes, people are amazingly different. Some people have no curiosity at all about existence, or science, or psychology, or lots of other things, whereas some people are deeply curious. Not too many people spend time wondering, "What is a subatomic particle, really?" or "How does the macroscopic world differ from the subatomic world?" or "What could explain the observer paradoxes in every field of science?" or "What is matter composed of?" or "Is there a smallest particle of matter?" or "Is there a God? etc. etc. Meiers-Briggs, and other psychologists, have speculated that most people see the world horizontally--sort of on the surface like "what you see is what you get" whereas a smaller group of people are primarily interested in understanding the world vertically--"what explains various phenomena or why do things happen as they do or what motivates people, or what is the underlying causes of whatever is happening? etc. Meiers-Briggs speculated that the first group of people primarily relate to the world through sensing and they are termed "S," and the second group of people primarily relate to the world through intuition, and they were termed "N." I have always been amazed by people who were NOT interested in delving into the world vertically. The questions that consume N's always seemed very straight-forward, unambiguous, and simple to me. We talk about subatomic particles, but what are they, really? The double-slit experiment implies that something truly odd is going on below the surface of matter, but what is it and what can explain it? If someone reads about subatomic issues and has no curiosity about what's really going on, then they're probably more S than N. Nothing wrong with that; people are different. I know many people who have a casual interest in religion, but it's no big deal. For others its a huge deal. If someone grows up in a fundamentalist religion that teaches eternal hell or heaven after death, and doubts about this develop, then whether this is true or not, and how that truth can be discovered, is a monstrously big deal. There's nothing mysterious or ambiguous about it at all; are those truth claims valid or not? An S will generally either accept or reject the issue, but its not a big deal. For an N it's a matter of life and death importance. If I call up a person who is ultra-S and say, "Hi, what's going on in your life?" here is the kind of answer I often get: "Well, I got up this morning a little later than usual and went to the store to get some eggs. We were out of eggs. Then, I came home and cooked breakfast; I was in the mood for an omelet, but I made it a little different than usual by adding red peppers and onions. Afterwards I read the newspaper and then............" This kind of descriptive response, which may last for twenty minutes, drives an N crazy. An N is thinking, "Hey, cut to the chase. What's happening vertically in your life? What's new? What sort of important or unusual things have happened? Have you had any insights? What do you think about what's happening politically or economically and what are the implications for the future? What are your thoughts about what's going on in the world? etc" I don't know, but I suspect that most people who are drawn to this forum are on the N end of the S-N spectrum, and I suspect that they are significantly interested in existential issues and existential questions or they wouldn't be here. Then, there is the T-F spectrum (thinking versus feeling), but we won't go there for now. Ha ha! Or the O-P spectrum (optimism versus pessimism), whose differences can be amazingly funny. Or the E-I spectrum (extroversion versus introversion). Or the J-P spectrum (judging versus perceiving). Suffice it to say that human beings differ in many extraordinary ways. Curiosity has definitely been a major factor for me. Vertically, horizontally or whatever other way we want to talk about it. At the very least I'm saying a question/answer format has typically seemed somewhat irrelevant to me existentially.
|
|
|
page 72
Jul 9, 2014 20:21:01 GMT -5
Post by silence on Jul 9, 2014 20:21:01 GMT -5
I was never able to really take existential questions seriously. They always appeared like vague abstractions that people enjoy specifically because they're so mysterious and ambiguous. There was always an interest in clarifying what I wished to know and because of that I made an interesting discovery. That is, the more I clarified what I wanted to know, the less of a hold it had and the more I lost interest. It was the mysterious nature of the question that I actually enjoyed and the more I penetrated any question, the more blatantly obvious it was to me that all of the questions were merely a big game of sidestepping silence. Their very presence required that they be shrouded in mystery and ambiguity. I think existential questions like "what's the meaning of life?" and "what is my true purpose??" are sort of like rookie pointers. They're popular questions in the culture/society that are used as labels because folks don't know what they're talking about. But by asking them and pursuing answers, the questions are refined, hopefully. Someone with a deep hunger based on stuff just not feeling right, feelings like there must be something else out there, some greater truth, ask those type of questions because they think that's what they're supposed to be asking. And there are books galore telling them what the right answer is, BTW, so it must be the right question! But if exhausted the answers don't measure up either. And perhaps more focused questions happen in their stead, or perhaps they remain in a constant cycle of telling themselves they are living by their true purpose. And in the refinement and/or discarding of those types of questions maybe eventually folks stumble upon the silence idea or the awareness idea or whathaveyou. The misidentification as the questioner concept happens.... And then other pointers start to make sense "you are what you seek" for example. Sure, I agree.
|
|
|
page 72
Jul 9, 2014 20:24:53 GMT -5
Post by justlikeyou on Jul 9, 2014 20:24:53 GMT -5
Yes. Wordless curiosity. Silent questions. Different than the intellectual pursuit for knowledge. I don't have any silent questions. I don't even know what that would mean. I mean really, this is it man. The moment I basically let this be it, a sort of depth to life unfolded. I don't own it, I can't grasp it. It's profoundly powerful and awe inspiring, yet I know nothing about it. Everything that I perhaps once was pursuing is immediately available to me in a astoundingly obvious way. It always was. Its all good.
|
|
|
page 72
Jul 9, 2014 21:59:53 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Jul 9, 2014 21:59:53 GMT -5
From my perspective, all stories are not created equal in the sense that one story is as deceptive as another and is only used to shake up the first story. One might get that impression from the thorn analogy, but really it means the goal is not to acquire the best thorn but to stop sticking oneself. It's true that both volition and nonvolition are stories about a mythological separate person, and absent that separate person, there's no need for either story, but in that personal context, one of those stories is true and the other false. Are you using nonvolition to mean being a handpuppet of God, for example, or absence of volition? I just mean the alleged person does not have volition.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
page 72
Jul 9, 2014 23:32:23 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2014 23:32:23 GMT -5
That is exactly my point. It seems to me that, if what you are actually concerned with, is peeps attachment to stories, you'd want to point out that stories abound on both sides of the debate. And you have done this but then you also fall back on arguing vociferously for the other side of the debate. This tactic that advanced teacher's use regarding neutralizing one conceptual falsehood with another is done with great finesse, I imagine. A moment arises for it, the opportunity taken, and then it passes. It is a temporary tactic not an overall strategy. If it is ineffective in the moment then it is discarded. Also, it requires the student to not know that the teacher is knowingly using a conceptual falsehood. The "fall back" is invoked by a preacher's continued mantras.. the counter-story vanishes when the original story vanishes, and the regular parties here at ST know these 'stories' are not real, so.. it becomes clear that it is theatre intended to influence the SVPs (Separate Volitional Persons) that are alleged to not exist.. The conflict of SVP vs No SVP, is fueled by belief that people 'identify with' their temporary separate manifested physical existence and reject their eternal unified non-tangible existence, and.. it is my experience that people understand both, and the 'identify with' allegation is a meaningless pejorative expression used to manipulate the experiencer based on an emotional reaction to the expression.. Person, as a term, references what is actually happening in this physical experience while interacting with other persons.. the temporary physical existence is happening at the same time, simultaneously, with eternal unified wholeness.. it is realized by the awareness that wholeness/oneness is revealed through the experience of that which is not whole/one, otherwise those terms have no reference/meaning.. What concrete evidence do you have of an eternal unified intangible existence? Sounds pretty woo woo.
|
|
|
page 72
Jul 10, 2014 5:16:51 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Jul 10, 2014 5:16:51 GMT -5
The "fall back" is invoked by a preacher's continued mantras.. the counter-story vanishes when the original story vanishes, and the regular parties here at ST know these 'stories' are not real, so.. it becomes clear that it is theatre intended to influence the SVPs (Separate Volitional Persons) that are alleged to not exist.. The conflict of SVP vs No SVP, is fueled by belief that people 'identify with' their temporary separate manifested physical existence and reject their eternal unified non-tangible existence, and.. it is my experience that people understand both, and the 'identify with' allegation is a meaningless pejorative expression used to manipulate the experiencer based on an emotional reaction to the expression.. Person, as a term, references what is actually happening in this physical experience while interacting with other persons.. the temporary physical existence is happening at the same time, simultaneously, with eternal unified wholeness.. it is realized by the awareness that wholeness/oneness is revealed through the experience of that which is not whole/one, otherwise those terms have no reference/meaning.. What concrete evidence do you have of an eternal unified intangible existence? Sounds pretty woo woo. Common sense.. everything you see/feel/are is energy 'behaving as' what you see/feel/are, and energy is conscious.. that energy has created temporary independently functioning versions of itself is directly observable.. i'm not attached to this understanding, but it works within the context of what is experienced in the current happening.. I am not limited by this physical existence, neither am i separate from it.. i am this physical manifestation of my greater wholeness, both part and whole, not either/or, and conflict dissolves..
|
|
|
page 72
Jul 10, 2014 5:23:48 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Jul 10, 2014 5:23:48 GMT -5
The "fall back" is invoked by a preacher's continued mantras.. the counter-story vanishes when the original story vanishes, and the regular parties here at ST know these 'stories' are not real, so.. it becomes clear that it is theatre intended to influence the SVPs (Separate Volitional Persons) that are alleged to not exist..
The conflict of SVP vs No SVP, is fueled by belief that people 'identify with' their the stories they tell about a temporary separate manifested physical existence and reject have no real understanding of their eternal unified non-tangible existence, and.. it is my experience that people understand both, and the 'identify with' allegation is a meaningless pejorative expression used to manipulate the experiencer based on an emotional reaction to the expression..
Person, as a term, references what is actually happening in this physical experience while interacting with other persons.. the temporary physical existence is happening at the same time, simultaneously, with eternal unified wholeness.. it is realized by the awareness that wholeness/oneness is revealed through the experience of that which is not whole/one, otherwise those terms have no reference/meaning.. I would propose that the statement prior to my adjustment is what you see others believing and the statement after my adjustment is probably more in alignment with what how i believe those others would characterize their beliefs. The bolded portion of your reply was added by me to reveal the actuality of what is happening..
|
|
|
page 72
Jul 10, 2014 7:42:05 GMT -5
Post by zendancer on Jul 10, 2014 7:42:05 GMT -5
[/quote]Curiosity has definitely been a major factor for me. Vertically, horizontally or whatever other way we want to talk about it. At the very least I'm saying a question/answer format has typically seemed somewhat irrelevant to me existentially.[/quote]
Understood, but the question/answer format is of the highest relevance to scientists, specifically, and most thinkers (versus feelers a la the MB spectrum). A scientist has to conceive an issue clearly, and usually verbally, in order to know how to set up an experiment capable of verifying or refuting an idea that is part of the scientific paradigm. The problem is that no one tells scientists that existential questions, which deal with issues BEYOND the model, cannot be resolved by the mind. Answers to existential questions inform mind (1) about the issues one is curious about, (2) about incorrect assumptions that underlie the questions, (3) about the limitations of mind, and (4) about the value and usefulness of becoming free of the mind. Non-duality teachers spend all of their time telling interested people, "You can find what you are looking for (including answers to all of your questions), but you can't do it with the mind; a different approach is necessary."
Imagine that someone is consumed with the question, "How can I get enlightened?" S/he doesn't know what is being searched for, but because enlightened people are described and discussed in books, and because enlightenment supposedly leads to psychological unity with the cosmos as well as peace, equanimity, etc, the goal seems worth pursuing. The person can never find enlightenment by thinking about it, but if attention is shifted away from thoughts to "what is," finding an answer to the question becomes possible.
If the person finds what is being sought, what does she find? She finds that who she THOUGHT she was was NOT who she was. She finds that her previous "I" was based upon an illusion of separateness created and maintained by thought. She discovers that what she IS is the entire cosmos and that there was never a separate entity who could become unified with what she already IS. If someone then asked her, "Did your question get answered?" she would probably say, "Yes, I discovered that who I thought I was could never become enlightened because the person I thought I was never existed. Who I REALLY am was never born."
|
|
|
page 72
Jul 10, 2014 7:50:18 GMT -5
Post by zendancer on Jul 10, 2014 7:50:18 GMT -5
The "fall back" is invoked by a preacher's continued mantras.. the counter-story vanishes when the original story vanishes, and the regular parties here at ST know these 'stories' are not real, so.. it becomes clear that it is theatre intended to influence the SVPs (Separate Volitional Persons) that are alleged to not exist.. The conflict of SVP vs No SVP, is fueled by belief that people 'identify with' their temporary separate manifested physical existence and reject their eternal unified non-tangible existence, and.. it is my experience that people understand both, and the 'identify with' allegation is a meaningless pejorative expression used to manipulate the experiencer based on an emotional reaction to the expression.. Person, as a term, references what is actually happening in this physical experience while interacting with other persons.. the temporary physical existence is happening at the same time, simultaneously, with eternal unified wholeness.. it is realized by the awareness that wholeness/oneness is revealed through the experience of that which is not whole/one, otherwise those terms have no reference/meaning.. What concrete evidence do you have of an eternal unified intangible existence? Sounds pretty woo woo. The "concrete evidence" comes from either a direct experience or a realization, but the truth of it is self evident when it happens. When it comes from an experience, it is extremely woo woo, but when it comes from a realization, it can be ordinary and quite subtle (sort of like, "Oh, things are very different than what I thought.").
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
page 72
Jul 10, 2014 7:59:19 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2014 7:59:19 GMT -5
Are you using nonvolition to mean being a handpuppet of God, for example, or absence of volition? I just mean the alleged person does not have volition. Just so I am clear, what I hear you proposing is that there is a personal and an impersonal perspective. From within the personal perspective -- this might also be called 'fully within the dream' -- you are saying that the dreamed person has no volition, and that this is more relatively true than the dreamed person having volition. And again, that this is true entirely within the personal context. Is that what you are saying? The volition issue, to me, seems primarily about the social contract. Our legal system, for example, depends on it. 1st degree vs 2nd degree vs insanity defense -- all of these hinge on the presence or absence of volition. The question "what motivated this action?" is built within the framework of assumed volition. Relatedly, volition describes the 'will to power' genre of thinking. Where there is a pattern of choices which tell the story of someone applying will/volition to drive the decisions in their life. The stories we hear about and celebrate are the one's where there is a clear pattern and power, wealth, success are the result. We do not hear about and do not celebrate the stories where a similar clear pattern of choices are made which could be described as exemplifying volition and yet nothing comes of it. The celebration of and attention to the volition stories resulting in success is directly related to the necessary role of it being in the social contract. To my thinking, the alleged person may be described as exercising volition or not. But the presence or absence of volition wholly depends on the alleged person being assumed in the first place. So I don't really get why you think it is more true that the alleged person has no volition. It seems to me you are applying what informs the mind from an impersonal perspective to judge the relative truth that is within the personal perspective.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
page 72
Jul 10, 2014 8:11:33 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2014 8:11:33 GMT -5
That is exactly my point. It seems to me that, if what you are actually concerned with, is peeps attachment to stories, you'd want to point out that stories abound on both sides of the debate. And you have done this but then you also fall back on arguing vociferously for the other side of the debate. This tactic that advanced teacher's use regarding neutralizing one conceptual falsehood with another is done with great finesse, I imagine. A moment arises for it, the opportunity taken, and then it passes. It is a temporary tactic not an overall strategy. If it is ineffective in the moment then it is discarded. Also, it requires the student to not know that the teacher is knowingly using a conceptual falsehood. The "fall back" is invoked by a preacher's continued mantras.. the counter-story vanishes when the original story vanishes, and the regular parties here at ST know these 'stories' are not real, so.. it becomes clear that it is theatre intended to influence the SVPs (Separate Volitional Persons) that are alleged to not exist.. In my opinion, this is similar to the 'mirroring' strategy employed by some. It's basically the child's argument: "he started it!" Escalation ensues yada yada. The conflict of SVP vs No SVP, is fueled by belief that people 'identify with' their temporary separate manifested physical existence and reject their eternal unified non-tangible existence, and.. it is my experience that people understand both, and the 'identify with' allegation is a meaningless pejorative expression used to manipulate the experiencer based on an emotional reaction to the expression.. From my perspective, you must run in an unusual crowd. FWIW, count me as one who understands neither, especially the eternal unified non-tangible existence. Person, as a term, references what is actually happening in this physical experience while interacting with other persons.. the temporary physical existence is happening at the same time, simultaneously, with eternal unified wholeness.. it is realized by the awareness that wholeness/oneness is revealed through the experience of that which is not whole/one, otherwise those terms have no reference/meaning.. For example, I have no clue what you're going on about there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
page 72
Jul 10, 2014 9:50:22 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2014 9:50:22 GMT -5
What concrete evidence do you have of an eternal unified intangible existence? Sounds pretty woo woo. The "concrete evidence" comes from either a direct experience or a realization, but the truth of it is self evident when it happens. When it comes from an experience, it is extremely woo woo, but when it comes from a realization, it can be ordinary and quite subtle (sort of like, "Oh, things are very different than what I thought."). I'm unclear about the difference between experience and realization. Is experience more visceral, while realization is primarily intellectual?
|
|