|
Post by silver on Nov 28, 2014 2:34:43 GMT -5
So,... Looking for truth (to be an event, or for things to be a particular way) is going to be doomed to failure, because that's all stuff that's experienced, and that quote is saying truth is what's there before experience. So if you can't know it as such, aren't you just left with the being of it? the being of all of it? (trying to not get into ideas and just stick with what's happening) What you can know about it is what it is not - that's what I am mostly talking about here. What you can also know about it is how it affects experience - that's what most folks are interested in talking about. Which is fine, but it misses the point because non-duality is about what is real, what does not come and go, and experiences come and go and are therefore are false. And so it is a distraction. So, given what you said to earnest, what IS real?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 28, 2014 2:45:23 GMT -5
Recall some vivid experience from childhood. Is there any difference between the awareness of that event in the past and the current awareness of whatever is happening? Has anything changed in any way? Has it aged? Does awareness react in any way? Yes, there is a difference between the awareness past and present.. awareness present is expanded by virtue of the additional experience informing the state or ability to perceive of differing parameters.. Since it's not clear to me, are we agreed on the Wiki description of awareness? some correspondents use the word differently, and i want to understand your meaning to reply appropriately.. Probably, the two of you will never communicate using the word awareness. What he's saying is the sense of being, or nonconceptual sense of 'me', is unchanging. That sense of who you are is the same now as it was when you were 5. In order to see this, you must still your mind and look.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 28, 2014 11:26:40 GMT -5
Recall some vivid experience from childhood. Is there any difference between the awareness of that event in the past and the current awareness of whatever is happening? Has anything changed in any way? Has it aged? Does awareness react in any way? Yes, there is a difference between the awareness past and present.. awareness present is expanded by virtue of the additional experience informing the state or ability to perceive of differing parameters.. Since it's not clear to me, are we agreed on the Wiki description of awareness? some correspondents use the word differently, and i want to understand your meaning to reply appropriately.. There may be a difference in the CONTENT of what one was aware of as a child and what one is aware of now, or the INTELLECTUAL INTERPRETATION of it, but the actual awareness has not changed, expanded, or evolved in any way. When you were a child, you saw "what is;" as an adult, you see "what is." The seeing is the same.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 28, 2014 11:30:47 GMT -5
Awareness does not evolve. Would you say that consciousness evolves? I don't distinguish between awareness and consciousness, so from my POV both words are pointing to the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 28, 2014 11:46:04 GMT -5
Yes, there is a difference between the awareness past and present.. awareness present is expanded by virtue of the additional experience informing the state or ability to perceive of differing parameters.. Since it's not clear to me, are we agreed on the Wiki description of awareness? some correspondents use the word differently, and i want to understand your meaning to reply appropriately.. Probably, the two of you will never communicate using the word awareness. What he's saying is the sense of being, or nonconceptual sense of 'me', is unchanging. That sense of who you are is the same now as it was when you were 5. In order to see this, you must still your mind and look. I wasn't actually referring to a sense of being or a non-conceptual sense of me. I was referring to the simple awareness of seeing or hearing. I was saying that there is no difference between simple seeing, as a child, and simple seeing as an adult. The nature of awareness, itself, doesn't change over time.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Nov 28, 2014 11:58:21 GMT -5
Yes, there is a difference between the awareness past and present.. awareness present is expanded by virtue of the additional experience informing the state or ability to perceive of differing parameters.. Since it's not clear to me, are we agreed on the Wiki description of awareness? some correspondents use the word differently, and i want to understand your meaning to reply appropriately.. There may be a difference in the CONTENT of what one was aware of as a child and what one is aware of now, or the INTELLECTUAL INTERPRETATION of it, but the actual awareness has not changed, expanded, or evolved in any way. When you were a child, you saw "what is;" as an adult, you see "what is." The seeing is the same. As a child the awareness was not capable, did not have the capacity, to 'be aware of' such matters as discussed in ST, and.. consciousness, as the ability to distinguish recurring patterns and organize that information into referable understandings, that consciousness does evolve in proportion with the capacity of awareness to inform the experiencer of its relationship with existence.. But, let's presume that 'awareness' is the unchanging vehicle through the experiencer is informed of their existence, cool.. now, let's choose to use that awareness to its fullest potential.. be still, stop theorizing and attaching to ideas 'about' that awareness, let's discuss what is actually happening in the present instant of existence..
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 28, 2014 12:12:06 GMT -5
There may be a difference in the CONTENT of what one was aware of as a child and what one is aware of now, or the INTELLECTUAL INTERPRETATION of it, but the actual awareness has not changed, expanded, or evolved in any way. When you were a child, you saw "what is;" as an adult, you see "what is." The seeing is the same. As a child the awareness was not capable, did not have the capacity, to 'be aware of' such matters as discussed in ST, and.. consciousness, as the ability to distinguish recurring patterns and organize that information into referable understandings, that consciousness does evolve in proportion with the capacity of awareness to inform the experiencer of its relationship with existence.. But, let's presume that 'awareness' is the unchanging vehicle through the experiencer is informed of their existence, cool.. now, let's choose to use that awareness to its fullest potential.. be still, stop theorizing and attaching to ideas 'about' that awareness, let's discuss what is actually happening in the present instant of existence.. Reading words on a computer screen and typing letters on a keyboard. Noticing that as the screen is scanned, some words are repeated in the mind, and others are not. No thoughts at all occur with the typing. Just for fun, there is experimentation with reading and writing in total mental silence, as taught in speed-reading classes. The last sentence was written in total silence whereas this one was not. I find it much easier to look at the world in silence than to look at words in silence. It requires some extra concentration to remain internally silent when looking at words.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Nov 28, 2014 15:29:59 GMT -5
As a child the awareness was not capable, did not have the capacity, to 'be aware of' such matters as discussed in ST, and.. consciousness, as the ability to distinguish recurring patterns and organize that information into referable understandings, that consciousness does evolve in proportion with the capacity of awareness to inform the experiencer of its relationship with existence.. But, let's presume that 'awareness' is the unchanging vehicle through the experiencer is informed of their existence, cool.. now, let's choose to use that awareness to its fullest potential.. be still, stop theorizing and attaching to ideas 'about' that awareness, let's discuss what is actually happening in the present instant of existence.. Reading words on a computer screen and typing letters on a keyboard. Noticing that as the screen is scanned, some words are repeated in the mind, and others are not. No thoughts at all occur with the typing. Just for fun, there is experimentation with reading and writing in total mental silence, as taught in speed-reading classes. The last sentence was written in total silence whereas this one was not. I find it much easier to look at the world in silence than to look at words in silence. It requires some extra concentration to remain internally silent when looking at words. I had never noticed whether i do or don't read to myself (repeating the words mentally), it seems that it requires some effort to do so, is that your point?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 28, 2014 15:57:29 GMT -5
Reading words on a computer screen and typing letters on a keyboard. Noticing that as the screen is scanned, some words are repeated in the mind, and others are not. No thoughts at all occur with the typing. Just for fun, there is experimentation with reading and writing in total mental silence, as taught in speed-reading classes. The last sentence was written in total silence whereas this one was not. I find it much easier to look at the world in silence than to look at words in silence. It requires some extra concentration to remain internally silent when looking at words. I had never noticed whether i do or don't read to myself (repeating the words mentally), it seems that it requires some effort to do so, is that your point? That's interesting. Most people subvocalize what they read and also say the words mentally. Speed-reading teachers make students aware of this, and explain how to break those habits. The habit of subvocalization can be broken fairly quickly, but mentally speaking the words to oneself is a much harder habit to break. The goal of speed reading is to look, see, and understand the meaning of words instantly without being slowed down by the above two habits. A high caliber speed reader, such as John Kennedy was reported to be, can look at the center of a page of print and understand the entire page at a single glance. Meditators quickly discover that the untrained mind rambles around mentally talking and thinking about everything. Thoughts trigger other thoughts in a ceaseless flow, and in cases like Tolle the thinking becomes incessant, stressful, and often very negative. By shifting attention away from thoughts repeatedly, the mind can become quite silent, and long-time meditators learn that most thinking is totally unnecessary. The body/mind is incredibly intelligent, and it can perform most activities without any thoughts at all. I wasn't actually trying to make any kind of point in my post. I was simply reporting on what I noticed happening at the time you asked.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 28, 2014 21:32:15 GMT -5
What you can know about it is what it is not - that's what I am mostly talking about here. What you can also know about it is how it affects experience - that's what most folks are interested in talking about. Which is fine, but it misses the point because non-duality is about what is real, what does not come and go, and experiences come and go and are therefore are false. And so it is a distraction. So, given what you said to earnest, what IS real? Did you actually read the post you've quoted?
|
|
|
Post by silver on Nov 28, 2014 21:45:24 GMT -5
So, given what you said to earnest, what IS real? Did you actually read the post you've quoted? Yes of course. It was an honest question.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Nov 28, 2014 21:51:56 GMT -5
So,... Looking for truth (to be an event, or for things to be a particular way) is going to be doomed to failure, because that's all stuff that's experienced, and that quote is saying truth is what's there before experience. So if you can't know it as such, aren't you just left with the being of it? the being of all of it? (trying to not get into ideas and just stick with what's happening) You look for how you deceive yourself. Truth isn't a pot of gold under a rainbow. It's the undistorted expression absent that self deception.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 28, 2014 23:35:31 GMT -5
Probably, the two of you will never communicate using the word awareness. What he's saying is the sense of being, or nonconceptual sense of 'me', is unchanging. That sense of who you are is the same now as it was when you were 5. In order to see this, you must still your mind and look. I wasn't actually referring to a sense of being or a non-conceptual sense of me. I was referring to the simple awareness of seeing or hearing. I was saying that there is no difference between simple seeing, as a child, and simple seeing as an adult. The nature of awareness, itself, doesn't change over time. O...OK...IC.
|
|
|
Post by earnest on Nov 28, 2014 23:59:54 GMT -5
So,... Looking for truth (to be an event, or for things to be a particular way) is going to be doomed to failure, because that's all stuff that's experienced, and that quote is saying truth is what's there before experience. So if you can't know it as such, aren't you just left with the being of it? the being of all of it? (trying to not get into ideas and just stick with what's happening) You look for how you deceive yourself. Truth isn't a pot of gold under a rainbow. It's the undistorted expression absent that self deception. I find a lot of looking for gold going on, even though I see the pointlessness of it - but then in the next breath I'm back chasing rainbows...
|
|
|
Post by earnest on Nov 29, 2014 0:09:07 GMT -5
So,... Looking for truth (to be an event, or for things to be a particular way) is going to be doomed to failure, because that's all stuff that's experienced, and that quote is saying truth is what's there before experience. So if you can't know it as such, aren't you just left with the being of it? the being of all of it? (trying to not get into ideas and just stick with what's happening) What you can know about it is what it is not - that's what I am mostly talking about here. What you can also know about it is how it affects experience - that's what most folks are interested in talking about. Which is fine, but it misses the point because non-duality is about what is real, what does not come and go, and experiences come and go and are therefore are false. And so it is a distraction. Thanks reefs... I'm going to leave the spiritchool stuff alone and go clean the house
|
|