|
Post by laughter on Dec 16, 2014 9:43:24 GMT -5
Thanks ZD. Very helpful. I cant help but to think of the concept of original sin and how after the fall from innocence (as the story goes) the progeny who followed thereafter were born with a sort of flaw or inclination toward episteme (fruit of the tree of knowledge). Perhaps there is some truth in the myth after all, and it is a sort of built in program? jly .......... here's my take on the fall. I was raised in the Southern Baptist church, so was thoroughly indoctrinated in Protestant Christian teaching. The Catholic Church had it pretty-much correct, the indoctrination thingy, back in the Middle Ages when they wouldn't let the common man read the Bible. I did read my Bible and there was just a lot of stuff in there that didn't line up with church doctrine. So I inched my way out and began studying other religions, mostly Eastern, and other philosophies. I eventually extricated myself out-from the erroneous Christian memes. Eventually I could see that the church today, and even parts of the Bible, are distortions of the reality of the life of Jesus. I eventually saw that Augustine's idea of original sin just couldn't be right, that it would be an abomination to create the universe in such a manner that one person could be responsible for another person's separation from God. So we don't inherit the guilt of Adam or anyone else, but we do inherit the conditions of the "sin" of other people. Today we have this new word which is a pretty good word. We could say we "inherit" the memes of the past. So what exactly is the fall? I would say that the fall is a fall out of unity, a fall into separation. It's the formation of ego, or cultural self. A baby doesn't have a sense of separation, there is no "I". A baby is who it really is, which could be called essence. But simultaneously with the acquisition of language, child forms a cultural self, this is the fall. So the fall isn't a >natural< biological thing. Ego-self is a collection of memories related to a particular mind-body. These come from the immediate environment, IOW, mind-body collects the memes of its immediate family, friends, baby-sitters and other care-givers, eventually TV, etc. Ego isn't who a person really is. Who we really are, is essence. I later learned that the Eastern Orthodox Church likewise doesn't have Augustine's concept of original sin. Eastern Orthodox theologians do not believe we inherit, in any type of genetic sense, the guilt of Adam. So we don't in some sense inherit the fall, it occurs anew with every person. The formation of cultural self is in some sense an aberration. Ego is meant to be a temporary 'fix'. Ego is our link to other people, without the acquisition of language, it's pretty hard to have a relationship with other people and the world. But instead of wearing ego like a mask, most people take the mask/persona/ego to be their essential nature, and do so for the remainder of their life. Our living being is our essential nature. Ego is a collection of information, collected memories. Most of us mis-take this abstract-self-referentiality, to be our essential nature. The passage from ego back to essence is through our attention (and more broadly, awareness). Ultimately speaking, "knowledge of good and evil" and "ignorance of true nature" point exactly the same.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 16, 2014 9:45:42 GMT -5
I get that; what I be looking for is a lot more definitive. I suppose my question most would look upon as rhetorical, but I guess I'm like the x-files guy- the answers are out there, ha ha! Putting the mind to rest requires one or more realizations (depending upon how many questions there are). You can find the absolute answer to any question by looking inside, but no one can do that for you. The intensity of interest will determine the outcome. If the question is one of mild curiosity, then it is unlikely that any deeply satisfying answer will be found. If the interest is all-consuming, then answers will probably be forth coming. ... well, there's always the lottery ...
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 16, 2014 9:49:29 GMT -5
jly .......... here's my take on the fall. I was raised in the Southern Baptist church, so was thoroughly indoctrinated in Protestant Christian teaching. The Catholic Church had it pretty-much correct, the indoctrination thingy, back in the Middle Ages when they wouldn't let the common man read the Bible. I did read my Bible and there was just a lot of stuff in there that didn't line up with church doctrine. So I inched my way out and began studying other religions, mostly Eastern, and other philosophies. I eventually extricated myself out-from the erroneous Christian memes. Eventually I could see that the church today, and even parts of the Bible, are distortions of the reality of the life of Jesus. I eventually saw that Augustine's idea of original sin just couldn't be right, that it would be an abomination to create the universe in such a manner that one person could be responsible for another person's separation from God. So we don't inherit the guilt of Adam or anyone else, but we do inherit the conditions of the "sin" of other people. Today we have this new word which is a pretty good word. We could say we "inherit" the memes of the past. So what exactly is the fall? I would say that the fall is a fall out of unity, a fall into separation. It's the formation of ego, or cultural self. A baby doesn't have a sense of separation, there is no "I". A baby is who it really is, which could be called essence. But simultaneously with the acquisition of language, child forms a cultural self, this is the fall. So the fall isn't a >natural< biological thing. Ego-self is a collection of memories related to a particular mind-body. These come from the immediate environment, IOW, mind-body collects the memes of its immediate family, friends, baby-sitters and other care-givers, eventually TV, etc. Ego isn't who a person really is. Who we really are, is essence. I later learned that the Eastern Orthodox Church likewise doesn't have Augustine's concept of original sin. Eastern Orthodox theologians do not believe we inherit, in any type of genetic sense, the guilt of Adam.So we don't in some sense inherit the fall, it occurs anew with every person. The formation of cultural self is in some sense an aberration. Ego is meant to be a temporary 'fix'. Ego is our link to other people, without the acquisition of language, it's pretty hard to have a relationship with other people and the world. But instead of wearing ego like a mask, most people take the mask/persona/ego to be their essential nature, and do so for the remainder of their life. Our living being is our essential nature. Ego is a collection of information, collected memories. Most of us mis-take this abstract-self-referentiality, to be our essential nature. The passage from ego back to essence is through our attention (and more broadly, awareness). The sense in which we inherit the fall may refer to the societal contributions to cultural conditioning, which doesn't deny that conditioning occurs anew with every person. Regardless of what we mean by conditioning, the guilt that was referenced is just a control mechanism. Guilt is read into sin.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2014 10:15:25 GMT -5
Okay. So when someone claims A is right, you claim not-A. And you engage in this because you find the insistence on rightness to be dangerous or harmful in some way. No, i'm not claiming 'not-A', 'A' is only a vehicle for the 'dream weavers', so enamored with sleep imaginings that they try to model their understandings similarly.. my interest is finding others willing to let those attachments go, so that the communications don't get bogged down in endless side-shows at the Spiritual Circus.. funny!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 16, 2014 10:19:13 GMT -5
The sense in which we inherit the fall may refer to the societal contributions to cultural conditioning, which doesn't deny that conditioning occurs anew with every person. Regardless of what we mean by conditioning, the guilt that was referenced is just a control mechanism. Guilt is read into sin. Oh, yes, if what we mean by the fall is falling into self delusion, and what we mean by sin is 'missing the mark', guilt is just a manipulation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2014 10:19:46 GMT -5
How do you reconcile Niz statement here: "As Absolute, I am timeless, infinite, and I am awareness without being aware of the awareness." In any case I will wait to hear E speak for himself. To be aware of the awareness, it has to come-in-to the level of the mind, it has to come into the mind. I'd respond to this but the ten foot pole keeps getting in the way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2014 10:28:59 GMT -5
Deep sleep is oftentimes referred to as a state where there is no consciousness, no perception. Thus the claims that awareness is present during deep sleep offers a bit of a puzzle. How with no consciousness, no perception, can this claim be made? Memory must have been formed to be able to report on it during wakefulness. Therefore long term memory must have been created without the input of perception or consciousness. I bring this puzzle up because I was wondering how you would think of it, given that you have slightly different understandings of perception. Why distinguish one thought as empty and another not if they are not different? Understood, For an example, assume a condition you are staring at your kettle for long time, that means there is only thought in your awareness that's kettle, If there is no feedback to interact with you that 'you are staring long time' or 'we need to go to market now' or some other thought, you can't know how long you are staring at there, I am saying feedback is completely absent. Assume such a condition in your deep sleep, one particular thought repeated continuously without any feedback behind it, thought with has no content in it. Feed back is necessary for you to operate. I can understand sense-perception as needing feedback. Like how seeing/vision requires saccades, at the very least -- continuous automatic eye movement -- to constantly provide feedback so that what is seen is constantly refreshed or kept in view. Without the saccade the object in view would fade away. The kettle would disappear from view without saccades. So without saccade the kettle would be an empty senseperception. With the saccades the kettle would be a senseperception. Am I getting you right there? Seems to me a mantra could be an empty thought. Concentrated on over and over, focused on and attended to, that it just disappears.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 16, 2014 10:29:09 GMT -5
Regardless of what we mean by conditioning, the guilt that was referenced is just a control mechanism. Guilt is read into sin. Oh, yes, if what we mean by the fall is falling into self delusion, and what we mean by sin is 'missing the mark', guilt is just a manipulation. The function of control is a primary design criteria of an institution, and the institutions that perpetuate are the ones that are well designed.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 16, 2014 11:46:32 GMT -5
Deep sleep is oftentimes referred to as a state where there is no consciousness, no perception. Thus the claims that awareness is present during deep sleep offers a bit of a puzzle. How with no consciousness, no perception, can this claim be made? Memory must have been formed to be able to report on it during wakefulness. Therefore long term memory must have been created without the input of perception or consciousness. I bring this puzzle up because I was wondering how you would think of it, given that you have slightly different understandings of perception. Why distinguish one thought as empty and another not if they are not different? Understood, For an example, assume a condition you are staring at your kettle for long time, that means there is only thought in your awareness that's kettle, If there is no feedback to interact with you that 'you are staring long time' or 'we need to go to market now' or some other thought, you can't know how long you are staring at there, I am saying feedback is completely absent. Assume such a condition in your deep sleep, one particular thought repeated continuously without any feedback behind it, thought with has no content in it. Feed back is necessary for you to operate. Gopal: I'm curious why you think there must be thought if you are staring at what is called "a kettle?" I'm also curious why you think that there must be feedback. The body/mind is intelligent, and it does not need to think ABOUT what is seen. It also does not need feedback (if I correctly understand what you are calling "feedback) in order to operate. People who have learned to stop thinking at will can function in the world just like anyone else. The only difference is that their minds are silent, and no thoughts arise. The intellect is a tool, but the tool is rarely necessary for ordinary life. A sage understands the world (gnosis) directly, and functions quite well in the total absence of verbal linear thought.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Dec 16, 2014 12:04:39 GMT -5
Putting the mind to rest requires one or more realizations (depending upon how many questions there are). You can find the absolute answer to any question by looking inside, but no one can do that for you. The intensity of interest will determine the outcome. If the question is one of mild curiosity, then it is unlikely that any deeply satisfying answer will be found. If the interest is all-consuming, then answers will probably be forth coming. ... well, there's always the lottery ... Yes I like that...that's funny.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 16, 2014 12:04:49 GMT -5
Understood, For an example, assume a condition you are staring at your kettle for long time, that means there is only thought in your awareness that's kettle, If there is no feedback to interact with you that 'you are staring long time' or 'we need to go to market now' or some other thought, you can't know how long you are staring at there, I am saying feedback is completely absent. Assume such a condition in your deep sleep, one particular thought repeated continuously without any feedback behind it, thought with has no content in it. Feed back is necessary for you to operate. Gopal: I'm curious why you think there must be thought if you are staring at what is called "a kettle?" I'm also curious why you think that there must be feedback. The body/mind is intelligent, and it does not need to think ABOUT what is seen. It also does not need feedback (if I correctly understand what you are calling "feedback) in order to operate. People who have learned to stop thinking at will can function in the world just like anyone else. The only difference is that their minds are silent, and no thoughts arise. The intellect is a tool, but the tool is rarely necessary for ordinary life. A sage understands the world (gnosis) directly, and functions quite well in the total absence of verbal linear thought. Hey zd, yea, I've already been through this with gopal. I suggested cognition would be a better word than thought for the way he was using the word. He said the word used didn't matter (but it does, but I dropped the point). Cognition is basically anything the brain does. I pointed out to gopal that his use of the word thought is not what we normally mean by the word. But I think you are exactly correct (FAIAP).
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Dec 16, 2014 14:52:09 GMT -5
Thanks ZD. Very helpful. I cant help but to think of the concept of original sin and how after the fall from innocence (as the story goes) the progeny who followed thereafter were born with a sort of flaw or inclination toward episteme (fruit of the tree of knowledge). Perhaps there is some truth in the myth after all, and it is a sort of built in program? As I see it, when mind evolves in a species to the point where it is capable of self awareness, in a biological sense, it quite naturally begins to contemplate and conceptualize the self. Biological self awareness makes suffering possible, and simultaneously opens the door to the possibility of transcending that suffering in self realization. Most of humanity is currently caught between the two. In each child, the story of the eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is played out. The concept of a separate self becomes established between age 2 and 3, (the terrible two's) and the child is 'evicted from paradise', or we could say innocence is lost. It's not a program, just a natural consequence of the expression of the sophisticated mind. What do you think about this slightly different view: We are always self-aware, and mind never becomes self aware. Mind can however become more and more complex. After the age of 2-3, mind becomes complex enough to generate sustained thoughts about an independent self. It also becomes complex enough to create numerous fictional scenarios about the future, the past, and even about the present. And awareness keeps 'watching' those thoughts - they can get pretty intense and interesting. Those thoughts are our creation; the mistake is to believe that's all we are - this is when we get 'lost' in the dream and 'evicted from paradise.'
|
|
|
Post by runstill on Dec 16, 2014 17:46:48 GMT -5
As I see it, when mind evolves in a species to the point where it is capable of self awareness, in a biological sense, it quite naturally begins to contemplate and conceptualize the self. Biological self awareness makes suffering possible, and simultaneously opens the door to the possibility of transcending that suffering in self realization. Most of humanity is currently caught between the two. In each child, the story of the eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is played out. The concept of a separate self becomes established between age 2 and 3, (the terrible two's) and the child is 'evicted from paradise', or we could say innocence is lost. It's not a program, just a natural consequence of the expression of the sophisticated mind. What do you think about this slightly different view: We are always self-aware, and mind never becomes self aware. Mind can however become more and more complex. After the age of 2-3, mind becomes complex enough to generate sustained thoughts about an independent self. It also becomes complex enough to create numerous fictional scenarios about the future, the past, and even about the present. And awareness keeps 'watching' those thoughts - they can get pretty intense and interesting. Those thoughts are our creation; the mistake is to believe that's all we are - this is when we get 'lost' in the dream and 'evicted from paradise.' Actually that sounds pretty good....ever since Eve hood-winked Adam in the garden of Eden, its been hell...oh, I want that rib back...Satan's fan girl...
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Dec 16, 2014 18:28:01 GMT -5
What do you think about this slightly different view: We are always self-aware, and mind never becomes self aware. Mind can however become more and more complex. After the age of 2-3, mind becomes complex enough to generate sustained thoughts about an independent self. It also becomes complex enough to create numerous fictional scenarios about the future, the past, and even about the present. And awareness keeps 'watching' those thoughts - they can get pretty intense and interesting. Those thoughts are our creation; the mistake is to believe that's all we are - this is when we get 'lost' in the dream and 'evicted from paradise.' Actually that sounds pretty good.... ever since Eve hood-winked Adam in the garden of Eden, its been hell...oh, I want that rib back...Satan's fan girl... Yeah, if Adam had only said "be a good girl and go put that apple back!" Think what it could mean!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 16, 2014 19:08:09 GMT -5
Understood, For an example, assume a condition you are staring at your kettle for long time, that means there is only thought in your awareness that's kettle, If there is no feedback to interact with you that 'you are staring long time' or 'we need to go to market now' or some other thought, you can't know how long you are staring at there, I am saying feedback is completely absent. Assume such a condition in your deep sleep, one particular thought repeated continuously without any feedback behind it, thought with has no content in it. Feed back is necessary for you to operate. I can understand sense-perception as needing feedback. Like how seeing/vision requires saccades, at the very least -- continuous automatic eye movement -- to constantly provide feedback so that what is seen is constantly refreshed or kept in view. Without the saccade the object in view would fade away. The kettle would disappear from view without saccades. So without saccade the kettle would be an empty senseperception. With the saccades the kettle would be a senseperception. Am I getting you right there? Seems to me a mantra could be an empty thought. Concentrated on over and over, focused on and attended to, that it just disappears. From my perspective, perception of all types is a movement, and so it's true that without the shifting of the eye, the object being perceived fades away. (Which can be verified) But it's not because of the need for feedback. Stillness cannot be experienced.
|
|