|
Post by zendancer on Jan 29, 2015 8:24:13 GMT -5
ZD referred both "the entire cosmos is a unified whole' and 'all separation is imaginary' as being part and parcel of the same realization. Unity and wholeness of the entire cosmos can be a direct experience, "all separation is imaginary," though, is not, but rather it's a conclusion/explanation. My issue is not with talking about separation on a discussion forum, but rather it's with ZD's alluding to 'separation is imaginary' as a realization. It's often been said here that realization involves the falling away of info/knowledge/belief, not the adding of it. I can see how 'the entire cosmos is a unified whole' could indeed be directly experienced as part and parcel of the absence of separation. But 'separation is imaginary' is not a direct experience, but rather a conclusion/explanation 'about' separation. And no, I'm not saying that "the whole idea and experience should go away." AS I said, separation is either experienced or it's not. If it is still experienced, labeling it as 'just imaginary' does not speak to what is being directly experienced, but rather what is believed to be true about the experience. And if it is no longer experienced, then it's simply absent . "just imaginary" is a story/explanation about that absence. 'Separation is imaginary' IS a realization. That realization is the falling away of the knowledge that separation is true. I don't see the problem. My thoughts are the same. The experience or realization of oneness, which is non-conceptual, is verbalized as either "oneness" or "non-separation." The knowledge of separation falls away as a result, and is replaced with the knowledge that separation is imaginary. I just wasn't in the mood for a lengthy analysis or explanation of this.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 29, 2015 10:13:17 GMT -5
'Separation is imaginary' IS a realization. That realization is the falling away of the knowledge that separation is true. I don't see the problem. I would say the knowledge doesn't fall away exactly (even if 'mind' is experienced as falling away), though our conditioning/understandings are changed. Practically, if someone asks you to separate an egg white from a yolk, you still have the knowledge of what that means. If someone says that the new born baby is now separate from it's mother, you still have the knowledge of what that means. So then the question (as I see it) is... in what way is the conditioning/understandings changed. It's no longer seen as true.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 29, 2015 10:46:57 GMT -5
'Separation is imaginary' IS a realization. That realization is the falling away of the knowledge that separation is true. I don't see the problem. My thoughts are the same. The experience or realization of oneness, which is non-conceptual, is verbalized as either "oneness" or "non-separation." The knowledge of separation falls away as a result, and is replaced with the knowledge that separation is imaginary. I just wasn't in the mood for a lengthy analysis or explanation of this.It's understandable. Some folks aren't interested in being art critics.
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Jan 29, 2015 11:21:43 GMT -5
ZD referred both "the entire cosmos is a unified whole' and 'all separation is imaginary' as being part and parcel of the same realization. Unity and wholeness of the entire cosmos can be a direct experience, "all separation is imaginary," though, is not, but rather it's a conclusion/explanation. My issue is not with talking about separation on a discussion forum, but rather it's with ZD's alluding to 'separation is imaginary' as a realization. It's often been said here that realization involves the falling away of info/knowledge/belief, not the adding of it. I can see how 'the entire cosmos is a unified whole' could indeed be directly experienced as part and parcel of the absence of separation. But 'separation is imaginary' is not a direct experience, but rather a conclusion/explanation 'about' separation. And no, I'm not saying that "the whole idea and experience should go away." AS I said, separation is either experienced or it's not. If it is still experienced, labeling it as 'just imaginary' does not speak to what is being directly experienced, but rather what is believed to be true about the experience. And if it is no longer experienced, then it's simply absent . "just imaginary" is a story/explanation about that absence. 'Separation is imaginary' IS a realization. That realization is the falling away of the knowledge that separation is true. I don't see the problem. "Separation is imaginary" is the taking on of knowledge 'about' the appearance of separation....much different than simply saying "there is no sense of being separate." As Laffy often says; An absence does not equal a presence. And you've explained more than once that a realization is the falling away of something known, an absence, not the presence or taking on of new knowledge. To say that 'separation is imaginary' is to tell a story about separation to try to explain away it's appearance. IN any given moment, separation either is appearing in experience, or it's not. If separation is appearing, It IS, and thus, in that moment where it's experienced, it could be said to 'be the case.' If it's not appearing/being experienced as being the case, then it's absent from experience, and in that moment, it could accurately be said, "there is no sense of being separate....no separation." to say anything further 'about' the absence or presence of separation is to take a step further into ideation.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 29, 2015 11:27:12 GMT -5
I would say the knowledge doesn't fall away exactly (even if 'mind' is experienced as falling away), though our conditioning/understandings are changed. Practically, if someone asks you to separate an egg white from a yolk, you still have the knowledge of what that means. If someone says that the new born baby is now separate from it's mother, you still have the knowledge of what that means. So then the question (as I see it) is... in what way is the conditioning/understandings changed. It's no longer seen as true. so given that it is seen, what is it now seen as in your conditioning/understandings?
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Jan 29, 2015 11:40:02 GMT -5
'Separation is imaginary' IS a realization. That realization is the falling away of the knowledge that separation is true. I don't see the problem. My thoughts are the same. The experience or realization of oneness, which is non-conceptual, is verbalized as either "oneness" or "non-separation." The knowledge of separation falls away as a result, and is replaced with the knowledge that separation is imaginary. I just wasn't in the mood for a lengthy analysis or explanation of this. So, knowledge falls away and then 'gets replaced' with new knowledge? From where I sit, when knowledge really does fall away, there is nothing but space/emptiness left in it's wake...nothing gets "replaced".....there is no need to fill that emptiness with new knowledge....the previously known idea simply gets seen through & falls away...the idea no longer has any 'pull' ...the entire question surrounding the 'truth' or 'falsity' of the previously held knowledge, falls away. When an old knowing falls away only to be 'replaced' by a new knowing, there's merely been an exchange of knowing. The cup has been emptied, only to be immediately filled up again. To really live in the present moment, directly experiencing at face value, means that the cup of 'knowing' about the truth or falsity of the happening/appearance, remains perpetually empty...it's as though the cup itself becomes a sort of "sieve" where it simply no longer has any ability to 'hold' onto knowledge. There is only THIS, and no longer any need to 'know' or 'pin down' the 'true' nature of it...it could be said that The 'isness' of this moment is as 'true' or 'actual' as it gets. Then again, the very ideas of 'true' or 'actual' with regards to the nature of 'this' have lost their hold.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2015 11:40:27 GMT -5
hi, What is the meaning of non-conceptually observed universe in the above paragraph? If ten people conceptually look at an object, they may imagine what they see in ten different ways. If they are looking at a tree, for example, they may think "tree," "200 board feet of lumber," "a beautiful thing," "an ugly thing," "a form of matter," "a life form," "an oak," etc., but if ten people are looking non-conceptually at what a tree IS, they will see the isness without engaging the intellect, and there is a way to communicate agreement upon what they see WITHOUT words. Physics professors teach that the observer determines what is observed, so at one time I used to wonder how the same isness is non-conceptually observable to different observers if the claim of physicists is true. Later, I realized that what the physicists are saying is NOT accurate in the way that they think it is, but at that earlier moment in time, my interest concerned the "stability" of the isness despite multiple viewpoints. Everyone looks up in the sky at night and sees "the moon," so what the moon IS, apart from any conception of it, is not being created independently by multiple observers. Ok, thanks, Got it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2015 11:49:52 GMT -5
when knowledge really does fall away, there is nothing but space/emptiness left in it's wake'nothing but space/emptiness left in it's wake' = new knowledge
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Jan 29, 2015 11:57:30 GMT -5
when knowledge really does fall away, there is nothing but space/emptiness left in it's wake'nothing but space/emptiness left in it's wake' = new knowledge Talking about it invokes conceptualization, yes, of course, but the falling away itself, and the resultant emptiness does not result in 'new knowledge' about what has fallen away...the idea that has fallen away/was seen through, simply ceases to invoke interest anymore.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 29, 2015 11:58:16 GMT -5
'Separation is imaginary' IS a realization. That realization is the falling away of the knowledge that separation is true. I don't see the problem. "Separation is imaginary" is the taking on of knowledge 'about' the appearance of separation....much different than simply saying "there is no sense of being separate." As Laffy often says; An absence does not equal a presence. And you've explained more than once that a realization is the falling away of something known, an absence, not the presence or taking on of new knowledge. To say that 'separation is imaginary' is to tell a story about separation to try to explain away it's appearance. IN any given moment, separation either is appearing in experience, or it's not. If separation is appearing, It IS, and thus, in that moment where it's experienced, it could be said to 'be the case.' If it's not appearing/being experienced as being the case, then it's absent from experience, and in that moment, it could accurately be said, "there is no sense of being separate....no separation." to say anything further 'about' the absence or presence of separation is to take a step further into ideation. Okay. Look at what is called "your hand," "your wrist," and "your arm" with a still mind (non-conceptually). Do you see separation? No. Is separation imaginary? Yes. Now look at what we call "a distinct object", perhaps a "table" or "chair," with a still mind. Do you see separation? No. Is separation imaginary? Yes. Separation cannot be seen; it can only be imagined. If this isn't clear, then the mind is still active. Most people find it easy to understand that hand-wrist-arm are not separately-existing things, but they have more difficulty with "distinct objects" because there appear to be obvious boundaries defining those things. When we look at the world with a still mind, we see "what is" like the lens of a camera--unimagined and undistinguished. We see what is more accurately called "a field of being" rather that thingness--a verb rather than a bunch of nouns. I think the Buddha used the term "dependent arising" to describe what's going on imaginatively when we look around and see the world as if it were composed of separate things. During a CC experience "what is" is still seen, but because the left brain has been rendered inactive, or the intellect bypassed, or whatever is happening biochemically, ordinary knowing via the intellect is absent. The person having such an experience does not even know who or what they are because identity has also disappeared. Tolle claims that 80% of his thinking disappeared following his revelatory experience, and that's probably why he stayed in a state of bliss for a long time afterwards. A CC experience reveals the unity underlying the appearance of separateness, realization results from that direct experience, and mind becomes subsequently informed about that. The same thing can happen through a direct realization sans any experience.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 29, 2015 12:08:24 GMT -5
'nothing but space/emptiness left in it's wake' = new knowledge Talking about it invokes conceptualization, yes, of course, but the falling away itself, and the resultant emptiness does not result in 'new knowledge' about what has fallen away...the idea that has fallen away/was seen through, simply ceases to invoke interest anymore. Well, that hasn't been my experience. Today, I understand the world, conceptually, in a far different way than when I was seeking answers to hundreds of existential questions, and I am still interested in the topics discussed on this forum. Maybe that's good evidence of what a loser I am. ha ha (pun intended)
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Jan 29, 2015 12:12:29 GMT -5
Okay. Look at what is called "your hand," "your wrist," and "your arm" with a still mind (non-conceptually). Do you see separation? No. Is separation imaginary? Yes.It's all a matter of perspective. To say that one perspective over another = imagination and one is not, is going a step too far imo. The hand is 'distinct' and therefore, could be said to be 'apart' from the arm...that can be seen, and thus, from a certain perspective, yes, 'separation' between hand and wrist could be said to be the case...but simultaneously, it can be seen that there is no actual line of demarcation. If you broke your baby finger and the dr. insisted on bandaging up your wrist, I suspect you'd take issue with it...? Your finger is not your wrist, and thus, one is not imagining if they were to say the finger is "separate" from your wrist. It's simply a matter of perspective. the mind is actually far more active when it ascertains the seeing of 'separation' to be 'just imagination' than it is when it adopts the perspective where separation can be seen. It's not the stillness of mind that results in the absence of seeing 'distinct objects' but rather the particular perspective/vantage point that looking is happening from. Stillness of mind can happen from all sorts of differing perspectives/angles/contexts. yes, a cc experience invokes a very particular perspective/vantage point from which that underlying unity can easily be seen. My point remains; Seeing the underlying unity of the totality of 'this' is one thing; Arriving at a conclusion (knowledge) that the appearance of separation is 'just imagination' is another.
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Jan 29, 2015 12:17:12 GMT -5
Talking about it invokes conceptualization, yes, of course, but the falling away itself, and the resultant emptiness does not result in 'new knowledge' about what has fallen away...the idea that has fallen away/was seen through, simply ceases to invoke interest anymore. Well, that hasn't been my experience. Today, I understand the world, conceptually, in a far different way than when I was seeking answers to hundreds of existential questions, and I am still interested in the topics discussed on this forum. Maybe that's good evidence of what a loser I am. ha ha (pun intended) I'm suggesting there is a point where freedom/Peace is no longer dependent upon any particular. 'conceptual understanding of the world'. But, Yes, Interest in talking about these things obviously is still active here too. What has fallen away though is the interest in arriving at/ascertaining hard, pat answers/conceptual understanding about the world. IN the case of separation vs. Oneness, the question of either/or collapses, and there is no longer any need to say that either one is the 'truth' as the idea of applying 'truth/falsity' with regards to THIS, just no longer resonates as being relevant. "The world" is as it is, in any given moment of experience....the need to grasp a firm understanding 'about' it, adds a layer upon 'simple being.'
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2015 13:03:19 GMT -5
Talking about it invokes conceptualization, yes, of course, but the falling away itself, and the resultant emptiness does not result in 'new knowledge' about what has fallen away...the idea that has fallen away/was seen through, simply ceases to invoke interest anymore. Well, that hasn't been my experience. Today, I understand the world, conceptually, in a far different way than when I was seeking answers to hundreds of existential questions, and I am still interested in the topics discussed on this forum. Maybe that's good evidence of what a loser I am. ha ha (pun intended) Presence Geek more like it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2015 13:18:39 GMT -5
'nothing but space/emptiness left in it's wake' = new knowledge Talking about it invokes conceptualization, yes, of course, but the falling away itself, and the resultant emptiness does not result in 'new knowledge' about what has fallen away...the idea that has fallen away/was seen through, simply ceases to invoke interest anymore. But then the interest in how-that-idea-fell-away-and-ceases-to-invoke-interest replaces it. I see a whole lot of agreement around how ideas and concepts and beliefs are seen through and naturally disappear due lack of interest. And I see a whole lot of agreement around how new understandings therefore happen. And what I see are continued attempts by those who really agree in this way nonetheless setting themselves apart from those they agree with. I suppose this could just be shrugged off as my rookie perspective not appreciating the nuances in the disagreement. And/or perhaps ego is still at play. Not a problem. Perhaps setting oneself apart is just part of wearing the meatsuit.
|
|