|
Post by enigma on Oct 26, 2018 11:57:10 GMT -5
<iframe style="position: absolute; width: 18.720000000000027px; height: 7.0400000000000205px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_25775770" scrolling="no" width="18.720000000000027" height="7.0400000000000205"></iframe> <iframe style="position: absolute; width: 18.72px; height: 7.04px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 881px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_90503508" scrolling="no" width="18.720000000000027" height="7.0400000000000205"></iframe> <iframe style="position: absolute; width: 18.72px; height: 7.04px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 288px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_48732947" scrolling="no" width="18.720000000000027" height="7.0400000000000205"></iframe> <iframe style="position: absolute; width: 18.72px; height: 7.04px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 881px; top: 288px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_98593432" scrolling="no" width="18.720000000000027" height="7.0400000000000205"></iframe> But prisons get experienced all the time. And it's important to see how they are self created. If he had fallen into dream, he would be lost indefinitely and he would find no way to get back or awake. No.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 26, 2018 11:59:43 GMT -5
FWIW, many Zen people consider the realization of oneness to be kensho. They define kensho as "the sudden seeing into one's true nature," and one's true nature is obviously undivided. There may be a semantic issue with the terminology because kensho is considered by some Zen Masters to be an event that ranges from a minor insight to a life-changing realization. Further complicating the matter is the experiential aspect. I think Paul Morgan-Somers does a pretty good job of keeping those issues separated because he downplays the non-locality and mystical stuff and primarily emphasizes the significance of what is realized. Nevertheless, he gives a good experiential sense of what it is like to live as a human being who knows that he is THIS. That further convinces me that it would be useful to avoid the labels, along with the confusion they bring. Well, SR is also a label, and labels are all we have for pointing to what's going on. Unlike people in the Advaita tradition, most ZM's don't like discussing anything that can be considered an attainment of any kind, so none of them have ever, to my knowledge, made any comprehensive attempt to delineate exactly what is meant by various terms. There is probably more discussion here about this stuff than anywhere else. Hakuin, a famous Japanese ZM, claimed that he had had something like 150 kenshos and 2 satoris, but it's unclear exactly what he was referring to. His story is one of progressively seeing more and more deeply into THIS over a period of several years. I've pointed out that one can have a realization of oneness both with and without SR. For me, kensho revealed the infinite and it became obvious that oneness is the case, but it took 13 more years before the illusion of selfhood collapsed. Some people, by contrast, seem to get both realizations at the same time. For Morgan-Somers, oneness became instantly obvious at the age of 15, and the character gradually disappeared over the next 18 months as a result of many other experiences and realizations. When Morgan-Somers talks about "the juiciness" of THIS, I think he captures some flavor of what I also point to. Whether this is applicable to an appearances-only realization of oneness I don't know because I never think about THIS in terms of appearances.
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Oct 26, 2018 12:19:28 GMT -5
yes, so? It's being created and destroyed in this moment, so that doesn't dismiss the fact that perception is being created every moment. Right. As I said, nothing is being created, just perceived. We're mincing words now. What happened to you? Are you all right?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 26, 2018 12:46:26 GMT -5
That's what you're doing when you try to understand how awareness can be aware of more than one experience at a time. Lose the entity and the problem goes away. You consider 'awareness can be aware' of more than one experience at a time? It's a strange way to say it, but yes.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 26, 2018 12:54:33 GMT -5
IF it is aware of multiple POPs, it obviously is aware of them. The existence of another POP, if in fact there is one, is proof that Awareness is aware of it. Okay you answered my question above. Here you are absolutely clearly saying that 'Awareness is aware'. Great! If you could answer the following questions please, that would also be great Is Awareness infinite or finite? Or don't you know? Does a point of perception have an actual boundary? What is meant to be conveyed by 'point of perception' is a sensory nexus for a bounded experience. I don't know what it would mean to suggest it does or doesn't have a boundary. In much the same way, Awareness is not bounded as experience is. I'm unclear as to what it means to say Awareness is infinite.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 26, 2018 12:58:02 GMT -5
What? Enigma is treating us like Idiots? What? Funnily enough, what Reefs said there didn't even slightly ruffle my feathers, I guess because I have no question at all of whether Enigma will speak to me as if I am a bumbling idiot or not Does that mean you know one way or the other, or that the question doesn't arise?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 26, 2018 13:01:37 GMT -5
Never heard of it. Why do we have two natures? Primordial nature refers to an absence of all quality i.e 'nothingness'. Our 'essential nature' is awareness being aware, intelligence, presence. When you speak of awareness being aware, I know that you are speaking of kensho/CC For the record, awareness being aware is Gopals characterization.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 26, 2018 13:03:56 GMT -5
You and Reefs see that as logical and reasonable. I do not. It's really as simple as that. I don't know about Reefs, he has his own way of expressing the problems of solipsism, but you have not yet expressed what is unreasonable about what I said. Hopefully my questions above about 'awareness is aware' will bring some clarity to this. Yes, I have, multiple times.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 26, 2018 13:05:59 GMT -5
From within the context of form, rocks are dead, inanimate objects. Don't mistake the rolling down hill for an act of volition. No. From within the mistaken context in which folks believe in actual separation, rocks can be said to be dead, inanimate objects. From within the context of talking about form in general, all form/expression has a quality of aliveness (though that's still not the best way to talk about it) Tolle: ''We have forgotten what rocks, plants, and animals still know. We have forgotten how to be -- to be still, to be ourselves, to be where life is: Here and Now.'' How can a rock be anything other than still? This is absurd.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 26, 2018 13:09:11 GMT -5
That's I am saying that you can't experience to the fullest in the dream, the current arrangement of our physical universe(all the limitations like "can't fly", "can't live in water", "can't see the future") are necessary for us to experience. Yes. Infinite possibility is the case, but we need apparent structures in order that there is experience. Otherwise there would just be unimaginable chaos. Everything would be in a constant state of total and utter unpredictability. Why is the experience of chaotic unpredictability suddenly not an experience?
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Oct 26, 2018 13:13:47 GMT -5
How can a rock be anything other than still? This is absurd.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 26, 2018 13:21:20 GMT -5
Okay you answered my question above. Here you are absolutely clearly saying that 'Awareness is aware'. Great! If you could answer the following questions please, that would also be great Is Awareness infinite or finite? Or don't you know? Does a point of perception have an actual boundary? What is meant to be conveyed by 'point of perception' is a sensory nexus for a bounded experience. I don't know what it would mean to suggest it does or doesn't have a boundary. In much the same way, Awareness is not bounded as experience is. I'm unclear as to what it means to say Awareness is infinite. Well, you specifically said that you would disagree with someone who said the totality could appear in their POP. So, we agree that a POP is finite. But, is this 'finiteness' actual or apparent? Is there an objective point at which your perceptual field begins and ends? If so, then 'finiteness' is actual *(and appearances are objective). If 'finiteness' is apparent, then it means that what appears in your perceptual field would HAVE to be 'intimately connected' to other appearances appearing beyond your POP. Simply, are appearances 'intimately connected'? Or is there an actual point at which they begin and end (which means that appearances are 'objective')? If your answer is the former, then perception goes beyond your POP. If you consider the latter possible, then that would be consistent with solipsism, but would be problematic in non-duality. Have you realized that the awareness that is aware through your POP, is not-finite? i. that there is no actual and objective and tangible point at which the awareness that is aware, begins and ends?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 26, 2018 13:22:09 GMT -5
Primordial nature refers to an absence of all quality i.e 'nothingness'. Our 'essential nature' is awareness being aware, intelligence, presence. When you speak of awareness being aware, I know that you are speaking of kensho/CC For the record, awareness being aware is Gopals characterization. Sure, but you are fine to use it I see, and so am I, even though it's not my 'natural' expression.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 26, 2018 13:25:42 GMT -5
No. From within the mistaken context in which folks believe in actual separation, rocks can be said to be dead, inanimate objects. From within the context of talking about form in general, all form/expression has a quality of aliveness (though that's still not the best way to talk about it) Tolle: ''We have forgotten what rocks, plants, and animals still know. We have forgotten how to be -- to be still, to be ourselves, to be where life is: Here and Now.'' How can a rock be anything other than still? This is absurd. The relevant word there was 'know'. But the 'still' word there wasn't referring to a physical stillness.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 26, 2018 13:30:57 GMT -5
Yes. Infinite possibility is the case, but we need apparent structures in order that there is experience. Otherwise there would just be unimaginable chaos. Everything would be in a constant state of total and utter unpredictability. Why is the experience of chaotic unpredictability suddenly not an experience? It's more than just 'chaotic unpredictability', it would be an absolute state of perpetual unpredictability and unexpectedness. I actually can't even imagine it, I can only imagine 'massive unpredictability', I can't imagine 'absolute unpredictability'. It would be like every potential manifesting all at the same time. Experience requires there to be a set of apparent structures that create probabilistic outcomes, rather than 'every outcome'. So you aren't going to turn into chair after you have finished reading this.
|
|