|
page 72
Jul 10, 2014 10:19:33 GMT -5
Post by zendancer on Jul 10, 2014 10:19:33 GMT -5
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? Yes, experiences are extremely visceral, and the experiences that are the most dramatic and the most visceral are the ones we call "kensho" or "cosmic-consciousness experiences" where there is a direct seeing into the nature of what we are coupled with a direct illumination and massive change in brain functioning. These are very woo woo and very mind-blowing, literally. Experiences that are important in the realm of the non-dual involve the actual rather than the imaginary. If you pick up a rock and look at it, that is different than imagining picking up a rock and looking at it. What you see with your eyes is "what is" if thought is absent; what you imagine is imaginary. You can have either experiences involving "what is" in the absence of ideas or experiences involving ideas. What we're talking about regarding non-duality are experiences that do NOT involve ideas. Ideas, however, will change as a result of the mind becoming informed by either direct experiences or realizations. Realizations are not intellectual because no ideas are being projected or manipulated. If you thought you saw a snake and suddenly realized that what you thought was a snake was really a rope, the truth would become obvious, but not in as dramatic a way as if the entire universe disintegrated or turned inside out.
|
|
|
page 72
Jul 10, 2014 11:05:08 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Jul 10, 2014 11:05:08 GMT -5
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? Yes I see the social aspects more as a consequence of the belief in individual volition. Yes, that's what I'm doing. Maybe that's the wrong way to go about it.
|
|
|
page 72
Jul 10, 2014 11:18:08 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Jul 10, 2014 11:18:08 GMT -5
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? Realization is not intellectual at all. There is a non-conceptual 'seeing' that initially does not involve mind at all, which is why one is encouraged to relax the mental activity, whether it be through meditation, attending to the bodily senses or some other method. Ultimately, the realization doesn't change anything unless mind becomes involved (informed), but this happens after the realization. At the moment of realization, mind does not know what is being realized.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
page 72
Jul 10, 2014 12:02:21 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2014 12:02:21 GMT -5
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? Yes I see the social aspects more as a consequence of the belief in individual volition. Yes, that's what I'm doing. Maybe that's the wrong way to go about it. Heck if I know. As long as we're talking dreamland, not many debates are going to be resolved, IMO.
|
|
|
page 72
Jul 10, 2014 12:23:28 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Jul 10, 2014 12:23:28 GMT -5
Yes I see the social aspects more as a consequence of the belief in individual volition. Yes, that's what I'm doing. Maybe that's the wrong way to go about it. Heck if I know. As long as we're talking dreamland, not many debates are going to be resolved, IMO. Yeah, nobody ever resolves a debate here, but maybe the discussions offer an opportunity for our own inward focus that can lead to some clarity if we're so inclined.
|
|
|
page 72
Jul 10, 2014 12:27:14 GMT -5
Post by zendancer on Jul 10, 2014 12:27:14 GMT -5
I'm unclear about the difference between experience and realization. Is experience more visceral, while realization is primarily intellectual? Realization is not intellectual at all. There is a non-conceptual 'seeing' that initially does not involve mind at all, which is why one is encouraged to relax the mental activity, whether it be through meditation, attending to the bodily senses or some other method. Ultimately, the realization doesn't change anything unless mind becomes involved (informed), but this happens after the realization. At the moment of realization, mind does not know what is being realized. Well stated.
|
|
|
page 72
Jul 10, 2014 21:18:39 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Jul 10, 2014 21:18:39 GMT -5
I'm unclear about the difference between experience and realization. Is experience more visceral, while realization is primarily intellectual? Yes, experiences are extremely visceral, and the experiences that are the most dramatic and the most visceral are the ones we call "kensho" or "cosmic-consciousness experiences" where there is a direct seeing into the nature of what we are coupled with a direct illumination and massive change in brain functioning. These are very woo woo and very mind-blowing, literally. Experiences that are important in the realm of the non-dual involve the actual rather than the imaginary. If you pick up a rock and look at it, that is different than imagining picking up a rock and looking at it. What you see with your eyes is "what is" if thought is absent; what you imagine is imaginary. You can have either experiences involving "what is" in the absence of ideas or experiences involving ideas. What we're talking about regarding non-duality are experiences that do NOT involve ideas. Ideas, however, will change as a result of the mind becoming informed by either direct experiences or realizations. Realizations are not intellectual because no ideas are being projected or manipulated. If you thought you saw a snake and suddenly realized that what you thought was a snake was really a rope, the truth would become obvious, but not in as dramatic a way as if the entire universe disintegrated or turned inside out. Do the edits/strikes-through change the accuracy of the description of the happening?.. that post, as edited, feels very closely approximate to my understanding of the process described.. The last paragraph feels like there's a missing connection, where the realization may not itself be intellectual, it is 'made known' through the mind's interface, and it informs the experiencer's intellect.. realization shapes the experiencer's mindscape and informs the experiencer's relationship with what is happening, realization informs the experiencer's choices and actions.. Realization changes the experiencer's understanding of the term 'intellectual', by realizing that realization is not 'apart from' the meaning of intellectual.. the realization is thoughtless, wordless, and immediately affects the experiencer's mind/awareness/intelligence, realization is change, and it changes the experiencer..
|
|
|
page 72
Jul 11, 2014 3:35:13 GMT -5
Post by zendancer on Jul 11, 2014 3:35:13 GMT -5
Yes, experiences are extremely visceral, and the experiences that are the most dramatic and the most visceral are the ones we call "kensho" or "cosmic-consciousness experiences" where there is a direct seeing into the nature of what we are coupled with a direct illumination and massive change in brain functioning. These are very woo woo and very mind-blowing, literally. Experiences that are important in the realm of the non-dual involve the actual rather than the imaginary. If you pick up a rock and look at it, that is different than imagining picking up a rock and looking at it. What you see with your eyes is "what is" if thought is absent; what you imagine is imaginary. You can have either experiences involving "what is" in the absence of ideas or experiences involving ideas. What we're talking about regarding non-duality are experiences that do NOT involve ideas. Ideas, however, will change as a result of the mind becoming informed by either direct experiences or realizations. Realizations are not intellectual because no ideas are being projected or manipulated. If you thought you saw a snake and suddenly realized that what you thought was a snake was really a rope, the truth would become obvious, but not in as dramatic a way as if the entire universe disintegrated or turned inside out. Do the edits/strikes-through change the accuracy of the description of the happening?.. that post, as edited, feels very closely approximate to my understanding of the process described.. The last paragraph feels like there's a missing connection, where the realization may not itself be intellectual, it is 'made known' through the mind's interface, and it informs the experiencer's intellect.. realization shapes the experiencer's mindscape and informs the experiencer's relationship with what is happening, realization informs the experiencer's choices and actions.. Realization changes the experiencer's understanding of the term 'intellectual', by realizing that realization is not 'apart from' the meaning of intellectual.. the realization is thoughtless, wordless, and immediately affects the experiencer's mind/awareness/intelligence, realization is change, and it changes the experiencer.. I have no problem at all with the edits. Realizations, however, may or may not become known to the mind or understood by the mind, and that's why I said that they are not intellectual. Tolle is an example of someone who had a huge shift in consciousness that we could say involved several realizations, but it was two years before he understood, conceptually, what had happened to him or understood the shift in consciousness within a broader context.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
page 72
Jul 11, 2014 10:31:15 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2014 10:31:15 GMT -5
Yes, experiences are extremely visceral, and the experiences that are the most dramatic and the most visceral are the ones we call "kensho" or "cosmic-consciousness experiences" where there is a direct seeing into the nature of what we are coupled with a direct illumination and massive change in brain functioning. These are very woo woo and very mind-blowing, literally. Experiences that are important in the realm of the non-dual involve the actual rather than the imaginary. If you pick up a rock and look at it, that is different than imagining picking up a rock and looking at it. What you see with your eyes is "what is" if thought is absent; what you imagine is imaginary. You can have either experiences involving "what is" in the absence of ideas or experiences involving ideas. What we're talking about regarding non-duality are experiences that do NOT involve ideas. Ideas, however, will change as a result of the mind becoming informed by either direct experiences or realizations. Realizations are not intellectual because no ideas are being projected or manipulated. If you thought you saw a snake and suddenly realized that what you thought was a snake was really a rope, the truth would become obvious, but not in as dramatic a way as if the entire universe disintegrated or turned inside out. Do the edits/strikes-through change the accuracy of the description of the happening?.. that post, as edited, feels very closely approximate to my understanding of the process described.. The last paragraph feels like there's a missing connection, where the realization may not itself be intellectual, it is 'made known' through the mind's interface, and it informs the experiencer's intellect.. realization shapes the experiencer's mindscape and informs the experiencer's relationship with what is happening, realization informs the experiencer's choices and actions.. Realization changes the experiencer's understanding of the term 'intellectual', by realizing that realization is not 'apart from' the meaning of intellectual.. the realization is thoughtless, wordless, and immediately affects the experiencer's mind/awareness/intelligence, realization is change, and it changes the experiencer.. Nice. Does the fact that scratching out the term "nondual" in an otherwise shared understanding perhaps put discussions involving the term "nondual" in a better light for you? IOW, perhaps focus on the discussion around the term rather than let the discussion be hijacked by your associations of the term.
|
|
|
page 72
Jul 11, 2014 11:24:02 GMT -5
Post by topology on Jul 11, 2014 11:24:02 GMT -5
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.. Yes, I was being honest about how I saw things. And I'm being honest that I see a discrepancy between what you think you see and what I think I see in other's writing. I also believe that most of the posters here that you've ranted against primarily ignore you because of this discrepancy. See Max's latest post. Your aversion to the term non-duality seems like it hijacks finding a common ground. You have certain trigger-phrases which seem to turn off the acknowledgment of agreement and focus on a disagreement. I'm proposing that the triggers are adding pre-conceptions about what is "really there" that are not "really there". Such trigger phrases: non-duality. no-self. non-volition. no-separation. You act like these no-X phrases are attacks on X. There is no attack. These are descriptive characterizations that emerge in language where contrast is the basis of language. The focus is on the absence of the ideas. Non-volition is the absence of thinking that one is individually in control of anything. no-separation is the absence of thinking that anything is separated. no-self is the absence of all the stories and absence of the emotionality tied up in a self-conception or self-consciousness. Yes, terms are being used to describe absences, which is actually counter-intuitive and can definitely cause confusion. Terms typically denote presences, not absences. The confusion comes in when someone tries to imagine "what is it like to have no-self?" and then they try to morph their behavior to conform to some imagining of what it must be like. That is the exact opposite of what is meant with the term "no-self". The state of no-imagination can not be imagined about. And yet if we want to help someone become more aware and possibly fall into that state, of knowing the difference between reality and imagination, then we have to assert no-X in response to the assertions of X when X is believed to be reality when it is imagination. Of course for someone who takes their imagination for reality, they feel like they are being attacked when they have their beliefs challenged. It gets really messy to confront a person who is convicted of the reality of what they imagine to be true. And when the person goes into a sense of being victimized and projects that image strongly, it can appear as if the challengers are being abusive. I'm not claiming that there hasn't been real abuse by people claiming to be non-dualists. Ruthless Truth, in my opinion, was abusive, domineering, and actually created more unconsciousness than bringing people into awareness. When you first joined the forum, it seemed like you were primed to combat the perception of abusiveness. And you joined in the middle of some confrontation with Silver. She was projecting the victim vibe pretty strongly. I think that initial perception of "what is really happening on the forum" has taken a long time to bleed off and evaporate from the way you are relating to certain other people here. This is why I think that even with a "still mind", there is cleaning up to do in the way people perceive. Because when the mind stops being still, the sub-conscious still interprets what was perceived when the mind was still. The actions generated with a still mind can still be colored through the sub-conscious interpretation schemas.
|
|
|
page 72
Jul 12, 2014 6:07:20 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Jul 12, 2014 6:07:20 GMT -5
The bolded portion of your reply was added by me to reveal the actuality of what is happening.. Yes, I was being honest about how I saw things. And I'm being honest that I see a discrepancy between what you think you see and what I think I see in other's writing. I also believe that most of the posters here that you've ranted against primarily ignore you because of this discrepancy. See Max's latest post. Your aversion to the term non-duality seems like it hijacks finding a common ground. You have certain trigger-phrases which seem to turn off the acknowledgment of agreement and focus on a disagreement. I'm proposing that the triggers are adding pre-conceptions about what is "really there" that are not "really there". Such trigger phrases: non-duality. no-self. non-volition. no-separation. You act like these no-X phrases are attacks on X. There is no attack. These are descriptive characterizations that emerge in language where contrast is the basis of language. The focus is on the absence of the ideas. Non-volition is the absence of thinking that one is individually in control of anything. no-separation is the absence of thinking that anything is separated. no-self is the absence of all the stories and absence of the emotionality tied up in a self-conception or self-consciousness. Yes, terms are being used to describe absences, which is actually counter-intuitive and can definitely cause confusion. Terms typically denote presences, not absences. The confusion comes in when someone tries to imagine "what is it like to have no-self?" and then they try to morph their behavior to conform to some imagining of what it must be like. That is the exact opposite of what is meant with the term "no-self". The state of no-imagination can not be imagined about. And yet if we want to help someone become more aware and possibly fall into that state, of knowing the difference between reality and imagination, then we have to assert no-X in response to the assertions of X when X is believed to be reality when it is imagination. Of course for someone who takes their imagination for reality, they feel like they are being attacked when they have their beliefs challenged. It gets really messy to confront a person who is convicted of the reality of what they imagine to be true. And when the person goes into a sense of being victimized and projects that image strongly, it can appear as if the challengers are being abusive. I'm not claiming that there hasn't been real abuse by people claiming to be non-dualists. Ruthless Truth, in my opinion, was abusive, domineering, and actually created more unconsciousness than bringing people into awareness. When you first joined the forum, it seemed like you were primed to combat the perception of abusiveness. And you joined in the middle of some confrontation with Silver. She was projecting the victim vibe pretty strongly. I think that initial perception of " what is really happening on the forum" has taken a long time to bleed off and evaporate from the way you are relating to certain other people here. This is why I think that even with a "still mind", there is cleaning up to do in the way people perceive. Because when the mind stops being still, the sub-conscious still interprets what was perceived when the mind was still. The actions generated with a still mind can still be colored through the sub-conscious interpretation schemas. Yes, when non-dualists are confronted/challenged on their beliefs it gets "messy", here at ST the tribe of non-dualists react rather than remain open and explore what is happening 'now'.. the "victim vibe" wouldn't be present if there weren't stimuli that evoked that imagery, IOW, at ST discussions must be flavored in favor of non-duality or the non-dualists attempt to reprogram their perceived imbalance.. such that people intending to have discussions without aligning with a belief-system can feel victimized by a concentrated effort of several members trying to make everyone's discussions have the same flavor.. There is no "cleaning up" needed with a still mind's perception, it is what is is.. it is in the beliefs of the experiencers that filter the perceptions into the subconscious/mindscape that housekeeping is in order.. Trigger phrases like: non-duality, no-self, non-volition, no-separation are triggers for the people that hold them to be true, too.. for them it's a trigger that they use to shoot at people that disagree with their beliefs.. the issue is in the attachment to beliefs.. The subconscious is like a tape recorder, it plays back what was put in.. so if the input was filtered through beliefs, the play-back 'feels' authentic and defensible because it 'comes from within', and.. if the input was unfiltered through still mind's awareness it will also 'feel' authentic.. can you see the 'issue'?
|
|
|
page 72
Jul 12, 2014 7:29:21 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Jul 12, 2014 7:29:21 GMT -5
still mind = positionless position = personal perspective One could argue that Exhibit A is a conflict being waged within the personal perspective. The weapons being thorns to remove thorns. Two beliefs doing WWF cage match, annihilation imminent. And then, to demonstrate understanding of an impersonal perspective, Exhibit B is stated. It's all a show, afterall. But to claim both Exhibit A and Exhibit B in the same run on sentence, it seems like Exhibit B trumps Exhibit A, unless you'll pay to see a fake fight to the death. It's Exhibit C, the final utterance, that shows to me no comprehension of Exhibit B. Exhibit A is the default personal perspective. Which means the 'still mind' that is talked about here is the personal perspective in its raw state (which means there are certain built-in assumptions which makes it just a very basic belief system). So that's not worth calling a 'still mind'. Exhibit B would be the impersonal perspective, where the volition dilemma doesn't even arise because the assumptions of the personal perspective aren't there, which means the volition dilemma has no basis. So that would be worth calling a 'still mind'. Exhibit C is the result of too much thinking as is the attempt to end the volition dilemma by presenting (seemingly) equally valid statements that contradict each other. Mental kungfu is not going to solve the dilemma because the basis of the volition dilemma remains untouched. The core issue here is the separate volitional person myth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
page 72
Jul 12, 2014 8:07:50 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2014 8:07:50 GMT -5
I'm unclear about the difference between experience and realization. Is experience more visceral, while realization is primarily intellectual? Yes, experiences are extremely visceral, and the experiences that are the most dramatic and the most visceral are the ones we call "kensho" or "cosmic-consciousness experiences" where there is a direct seeing into the nature of what we are coupled with a direct illumination and massive change in brain functioning. These are very woo woo and very mind-blowing, literally. Experiences that are important in the realm of the non-dual involve the actual rather than the imaginary. If you pick up a rock and look at it, that is different than imagining picking up a rock and looking at it. What you see with your eyes is "what is" if thought is absent; what you imagine is imaginary. You can have either experiences involving "what is" in the absence of ideas or experiences involving ideas. What we're talking about regarding non-duality are experiences that do NOT involve ideas. Ideas, however, will change as a result of the mind becoming informed by either direct experiences or realizations. Realizations are not intellectual because no ideas are being projected or manipulated. If you thought you saw a snake and suddenly realized that what you thought was a snake was really a rope, the truth would become obvious, but not in as dramatic a way as if the entire universe disintegrated or turned inside out. Did the universe disintegrate upon your realization?
|
|
|
page 72
Jul 12, 2014 9:37:37 GMT -5
Post by zendancer on Jul 12, 2014 9:37:37 GMT -5
Yes, experiences are extremely visceral, and the experiences that are the most dramatic and the most visceral are the ones we call "kensho" or "cosmic-consciousness experiences" where there is a direct seeing into the nature of what we are coupled with a direct illumination and massive change in brain functioning. These are very woo woo and very mind-blowing, literally. Experiences that are important in the realm of the non-dual involve the actual rather than the imaginary. If you pick up a rock and look at it, that is different than imagining picking up a rock and looking at it. What you see with your eyes is "what is" if thought is absent; what you imagine is imaginary. You can have either experiences involving "what is" in the absence of ideas or experiences involving ideas. What we're talking about regarding non-duality are experiences that do NOT involve ideas. Ideas, however, will change as a result of the mind becoming informed by either direct experiences or realizations. Realizations are not intellectual because no ideas are being projected or manipulated. If you thought you saw a snake and suddenly realized that what you thought was a snake was really a rope, the truth would become obvious, but not in as dramatic a way as if the entire universe disintegrated or turned inside out. Did the universe disintegrate upon your realization? No, it disintegrated during an initial CC experience, and then it came alive. Tolle had the same sort of experience. These kinds of experiences are like being suddenly jerked out of the mind and into Presence. In fact, the pathless path that we discuss on this forum is, in essence, a path that leads to becoming consciously/psychologically present rather than remaining stuck in the dead world of imagination. Most people on this path GRADUALLY become present as a result of their experiences and realizations, but some people have experiences that SUDDENLY wrench them into Presence. If the path is followed far enough, both groups end up present, but HOW they got there differs somewhat.
|
|
|
page 72
Jul 13, 2014 5:34:53 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Jul 13, 2014 5:34:53 GMT -5
Do the edits/strikes-through change the accuracy of the description of the happening?.. that post, as edited, feels very closely approximate to my understanding of the process described.. The last paragraph feels like there's a missing connection, where the realization may not itself be intellectual, it is 'made known' through the mind's interface, and it informs the experiencer's intellect.. realization shapes the experiencer's mindscape and informs the experiencer's relationship with what is happening, realization informs the experiencer's choices and actions.. Realization changes the experiencer's understanding of the term 'intellectual', by realizing that realization is not 'apart from' the meaning of intellectual.. the realization is thoughtless, wordless, and immediately affects the experiencer's mind/awareness/intelligence, realization is change, and it changes the experiencer.. Nice. Does the fact that scratching out the term "nondual" in an otherwise shared understanding perhaps put discussions involving the term "nondual" in a better light for you? IOW, perhaps focus on the discussion around the term rather than let the discussion be hijacked by your associations of the term. No, it doesn't put it in a better light for me, it neutralizes an opportunity for conflict, taking out the ideological component.. i didn't replace the scratched-out words with more/different ideology, the absence of opinion/belief/ideology clears-up much of the perceived distortion, and reveals clarity.. the absence of the ideological component in the post you referenced is a description of what is happening that is consistent with the happening, and a much more open and less contentious way of communicating with a broad spectrum of people without distorting or diluting the description with opinion/ideology.. it puts it a 'better light' for everybody..
|
|