|
Post by laughter on Nov 7, 2018 7:43:00 GMT -5
Incorrect. Did I write that you wrote about the changes in conditioning? That was my interpretive translation of what you wrote. "Structure" is an abstraction from "conditioning". That's a dwad to belief-swap, and I agree that "information isn't lost". It's not that beliefs are forgotten or erased, they're seen for what they are. Debating the difference between knowledge and absence from that point is debating the ineffable -- but I understand you don't see it that way. If you don't want to allow for the possibility that mushin or other types of experience might lead to a gnosis with no foundation in belief, that's fine, but you are drawing conclusions about something you've never experienced based on abstractions. Conditioning is unique to each individual, but the core structures of experience are the same for each of us, and it is these core structures that I am guessing you haven't learned. This is a distinction, and as such, what you said was a giraffe. I do have reference for the 'states' you are talking about (I don't expect you to believe that), but the point I have to repeat, that you seem to be missing, is that these states can seem to contradict structure. A good example might be the state of 'detachment', in which it seems that there is no attachment. In structural terms though, there is still attachment. As I said, looking at structure isn't always useful by any means, and it's entirely possible that it just isn't relevant for some folks. In your case, you DO seem to have interest in understanding the content of your mind, but I believe you are currently misunderstanding that content. If you look at structure, 'seeing a belief for what it is', engenders another belief about beliefs (this will likely contradict the actual experience though). At this point, you're just repeating the same opinion without adding any new substance, and you have the meaning of a giraffe all wrong. The clearest example is a literal misquote, but an arguable conceptual interpretation of the relationship between "structure" and "conditioning" is far from that.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 7, 2018 7:48:12 GMT -5
He was emphatically clear a great many times that he doesn't consider it personalised. How could anyone miss that? How is a point of perception NOT personal? If the word 'personal' offends, then it can be easily swapped to a less offensive concept, but we have to find a concept to distinguish between the whole/holistic/impersonal and the finite/personal. I don't care about the word, it's just a convenient one for illustrative purposes. Enigma can say his point of perception isn't 'personalized', but by definition and virtue of what it is, it is 'personal'. If the word 'individual' is less offensive, then I'm fine to go with that. The reason point of perception was introduced to the ST lexicon was to depersonalise individual experience (which is just experience), so POP is definitively impersonal.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 7, 2018 7:50:26 GMT -5
Does it give you a feeling of satisfaction to write stuff like this and that? I like to get things straight if that's okay with you? And while we are at it, you just spoke to andy referencing ' but you are drawing conclusions about something you've never experienced based on abstractions'.
Well based upon your understanding of what there is only what you are means, then you are basing something you've never experienced or if you have that means andy has .. Does that give you a feeling of satisfaction to make things up in regards to what I actually mean and then call what a say a giraffe based upon that premise? It's not really clear from the content of what you wrote what your answer is, but from the tone of the writing I get the impression that it is satisfying. FWIW, I think both you and andy were ostracized over at the gab in a rather abusive fashion, and I think that's getting reflected in the dialog over here now. Yes gopal wrote what could easily be interpreted as an insult about your "understanding power", but you've returned that and then some at this point. No, I never made anything up about what you wrote. I simply expressed my perception of your self-contradiction. No, andy drawing conclusions about experiences that I opine he's likely never had doesn't mean I'm doing the same thing. You see, I'm not debating anyone based on describing "my realization is that there is only Self, only what you are", and just because I didn't debate you about your giraffes doesn't mean I've changed that opinion either.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 7, 2018 8:12:07 GMT -5
How is a point of perception NOT personal? If the word 'personal' offends, then it can be easily swapped to a less offensive concept, but we have to find a concept to distinguish between the whole/holistic/impersonal and the finite/personal. I don't care about the word, it's just a convenient one for illustrative purposes. Enigma can say his point of perception isn't 'personalized', but by definition and virtue of what it is, it is 'personal'. If the word 'individual' is less offensive, then I'm fine to go with that. The reason point of perception was introduced to the ST lexicon was to depersonalise individual experience (which is just experience), so POP is definitively impersonal. Well to me 'impersonal perception/creation' indicates a fundamental absence of finite perceivers/creators. A finite perceiver/creator would be personal, and these personal perceiver/creators each have a 'point of perception'. But as I said, if a different word works better to denote the contrast between what is fundamental and what is not, then I'm fine to go with that.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 7, 2018 8:12:47 GMT -5
Conditioning is unique to each individual, but the core structures of experience are the same for each of us, and it is these core structures that I am guessing you haven't learned. This is a distinction, and as such, what you said was a giraffe. I do have reference for the 'states' you are talking about (I don't expect you to believe that), but the point I have to repeat, that you seem to be missing, is that these states can seem to contradict structure. A good example might be the state of 'detachment', in which it seems that there is no attachment. In structural terms though, there is still attachment. As I said, looking at structure isn't always useful by any means, and it's entirely possible that it just isn't relevant for some folks. In your case, you DO seem to have interest in understanding the content of your mind, but I believe you are currently misunderstanding that content. If you look at structure, 'seeing a belief for what it is', engenders another belief about beliefs (this will likely contradict the actual experience though). At this point, you're just repeating the same opinion without adding any new substance, and you have the meaning of a giraffe all wrong. The clearest example is a literal misquote, but an arguable conceptual interpretation of the relationship between "structure" and "conditioning" is far from that. Then I will say no more on the subject for now.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 7, 2018 9:05:59 GMT -5
I like to get things straight if that's okay with you? And while we are at it, you just spoke to andy referencing ' but you are drawing conclusions about something you've never experienced based on abstractions'.
Well based upon your understanding of what there is only what you are means, then you are basing something you've never experienced or if you have that means andy has .. Does that give you a feeling of satisfaction to make things up in regards to what I actually mean and then call what a say a giraffe based upon that premise? It's not really clear from the content of what you wrote what your answer is, but from the tone of the writing I get the impression that it is satisfying. FWIW, I think both you and andy were ostracized over at the gab in a rather abusive fashion, and I think that's getting reflected in the dialog over here now. Yes gopal wrote what could easily be interpreted as an insult about your "understanding power", but you've returned that and then some at this point. No, I never made anything up about what you wrote. I simply expressed my perception of your self-contradiction. No, andy drawing conclusions about experiences that I opine he's likely never had doesn't mean I'm doing the same thing. You see, I'm not debating anyone based on describing "my realization is that there is only Self, only what you are", and just because I didn't debate you about your giraffes doesn't mean I've changed that opinion either. My tone towards those that constantly express their agenda and reflect denials and troll like behaviour is met by my expression that you and others pick up on . If peeps don't like it then they need to change their expression and converse without that agenda in toe . If peeps want to constantly deny saying what they have and try and turn it around on me, then they are acting the fool with me . I am not into panto nor am I into creating drama, I want to converse like normal folk about spiritual ideas . In regards to Gopal I asked him straightforward questions that related to what he said .. He never answered my questions, just like you never bothered to speak about what there is only what you are means to me in regards to individuality . What I say in regards to individuality isn't giraffe based . What is giraffe based is your assumptions made that do not reflect my understandings . This is part of the parcel of what getting things straight means in reply to your original question . You implied that everything is what you are means that everyone is a troll . You are incorrect . You can play panto with that fact if you want or create some kind of further drama ..
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 7, 2018 10:07:23 GMT -5
Just to be clear here and others are welcome to interact / express their opinion . From the context of my conversation regarding Gopal being a troll it is therefore assumed by laffy and Gopal because they are both joined at the hip on this one that by calling Gopal a troll means I am saying Laffy is troll . This is just ridiculous based upon the premise that there is only what you are . Gopal has expressed that my understanding power is poor so that must mean that Laffy's understanding power is poor, This means that the fool that rushes in without understanding is also ramana and the wisest of sages . This means that the selfish man is the selfless man, the unrealized peep is the realized peep . The abused is the abuser etc etc .. It's such a flawed premise that it's not really worth talking about, as E would say it's just too obvious .. The perceiver is the perceived but an orange tastes like an orange and not like honey .. We have individual qualities / vibrations and that stands to reason . It's foolish to say the wise man is a fool simply because there is a fool in expression, it would be equally said that the fool is being wise by being the fool lol . So you would have the foolish happy wise man that is unhappy with the treatment of black men while the black men are the white men who are equally happy, wise, foolish and unhappy .. What a mess . Bump ..
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 7, 2018 10:18:33 GMT -5
The reason point of perception was introduced to the ST lexicon was to depersonalise individual experience (which is just experience), so POP is definitively impersonal. Well to me 'impersonal perception/creation' indicates a fundamental absence of finite perceivers/creators. A finite perceiver/creator would be personal, and these personal perceiver/creators each have a 'point of perception'. But as I said, if a different word works better to denote the contrast between what is fundamental and what is not, then I'm fine to go with that. It's all symbolic, a POP, just to illustrate something, like abstract obscurity which doesn't have much to do with 'what it's like', for there is no POP as such; it's just thinking of something as relative to experienced or experiencing, and if you move to another place, that is the POP as well, since the whole of it is everywhere and a point mere reference to the greater expanse of experience - yet the infinitesimal with respect to the infinite establishes no locale.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 7, 2018 10:39:18 GMT -5
I'm not trying to adhere to any obscure definitions. I'm just saying realization is realization and experience is experience, and they are not the same. At one time I thought I understand your definition of a realization, but after reading your response to Z, I'm no longer sure. What is the difference between the snake/rope realization and the separation/oneness realization? Relative meaning versus absolute meaning realization? Inside/outside versus no inside/outside realization? Realization of how thoughts keep one separated from the truth of how ________________ is manifesting? Answers to Zen double-bind or logically contradictory koans that suddenly become obvious? I know that you consider kensho an experience rather than a realization, but for many people kensho is a direct seeing/apprehension of oneness/the infinite. Do you consider that kind of direct seeing a realization or an experience? I'm also curious about your take on SR. I've talked to at least 4 people who at one time had what I call a "hard-core sense of selfhood" (the little guy/gal behind the eyes who seemed to be directing whatever the body did), who, at a particular point in time, suddenly discovered that that inner sense of a "me" had vanished. Like this character, as soon as that happened, they all realized that personal selfhood had been an illusion. What do you consider that initial recognition of an absence to have been? Is that an experience or a realization from your POV? Those 4 people and this character only realized what was going on AFTER seeing that the "me" had vanished. For me, that was a second realization (following either an initial realization or an experience that the sense of "me" had vanished). I do not know how people with a vague or diffuse sense of selfhood, or no clear sense of self identity attain SR. Any ideas about that? What happened in your case? The word is obviously used differently in a spiritual context. I just realized my shoe is untied. That's the way realization is used in the snake/rope metaphor, and why it is a metaphor for a timeless realization beyond mind. I've spoken about it often and I believe I mean the same thing you do. (Don't know what I said to Z) If you need me to describe it further, I can.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2018 10:42:27 GMT -5
It's not really clear from the content of what you wrote what your answer is, but from the tone of the writing I get the impression that it is satisfying. FWIW, I think both you and andy were ostracized over at the gab in a rather abusive fashion, and I think that's getting reflected in the dialog over here now. Yes gopal wrote what could easily be interpreted as an insult about your "understanding power", but you've returned that and then some at this point. No, I never made anything up about what you wrote. I simply expressed my perception of your self-contradiction. No, andy drawing conclusions about experiences that I opine he's likely never had doesn't mean I'm doing the same thing. You see, I'm not debating anyone based on describing "my realization is that there is only Self, only what you are", and just because I didn't debate you about your giraffes doesn't mean I've changed that opinion either. My tone towards those that constantly express their agenda and reflect denials and troll like behaviour is met by my expression that you and others pick up on . If peeps don't like it then they need to change their expression and converse without that agenda in toe . If peeps want to constantly deny saying what they have and try and turn it around on me, then they are acting the fool with me . I am not into panto nor am I into creating drama, I want to converse like normal folk about spiritual ideas .
In regards to Gopal I asked him straightforward questions that related to what he said .. He never answered my questions, just like you never bothered to speak about what there is only what you are means to me in regards to individuality . What I say in regards to individuality isn't giraffe based . What is giraffe based is your assumptions made that do not reflect my understandings . This is part of the parcel of what getting things straight means in reply to your original question . You implied that everything is what you are means that everyone is a troll . You are incorrect . You can play panto with that fact if you want or create some kind of further drama .. tesshughes.com/featured/what-is-spiritual/2908/
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 7, 2018 11:21:50 GMT -5
How many kinds of realizations do we want to distinguish? Apparently there are: 1. Conceptual realizations (like the eureka moment in scientific work) which is actually an act of imagination or creation, but the solution to the problems are seen instantly 2. Experiential realizations (what was thought to be a snake is in reality a rope) 3. Transcendental realizations (separation is an illusion, selfhood is an illusion, time and space are illusions) 4. Koan realizations (what is mu? What is the sound of one hand clapping? What was your original face before your parents were born?) Like all realizations, answers to these kinds of questions are seen instantly and do not involve thought. How many others? I'm interested in paring it back down to one that would be of interest in spirituality. The eureka moment is the same form of realization as the seeing through illusions. Scientific insight is similar to spiritual insight in that the boundaries to progress are made up of the things we think we know. In other fields it may be called 'thinking outside the box', while in spirituality it's about seeing the box as illusion. In both cases, there is mental activity that follows the realization and results in a conceptual 'knowing', so "conceptual realization" isn't fundamentally different from "transcendental realization", but the latter sounds way more spiritual. "Experiential realization" is just the more common use of the term to denote noticing where you left your keys. It's of no consequence in a spiritual context. As for the sound of one hand clapping, I didn't know there was an answer to that. I always figured it was intended to momentarily stop mind by presenting a question that has no answer. So, #3 seems to be only one left standing. IMOSHO.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 7, 2018 11:35:29 GMT -5
It's not really clear from the content of what you wrote what your answer is, but from the tone of the writing I get the impression that it is satisfying. FWIW, I think both you and andy were ostracized over at the gab in a rather abusive fashion, and I think that's getting reflected in the dialog over here now. Yes gopal wrote what could easily be interpreted as an insult about your "understanding power", but you've returned that and then some at this point. No, I never made anything up about what you wrote. I simply expressed my perception of your self-contradiction. No, andy drawing conclusions about experiences that I opine he's likely never had doesn't mean I'm doing the same thing. You see, I'm not debating anyone based on describing "my realization is that there is only Self, only what you are", and just because I didn't debate you about your giraffes doesn't mean I've changed that opinion either. My tone towards those that constantly express their agenda and reflect denials and troll like behaviour is met by my expression that you and others pick up on . If peeps don't like it then they need to change their expression and converse without that agenda in toe . If peeps want to constantly deny saying what they have and try and turn it around on me, then they are acting the fool with me . I am not into panto nor am I into creating drama, I want to converse like normal folk about spiritual ideas . In regards to Gopal I asked him straightforward questions that related to what he said .. He never answered my questions, just like you never bothered to speak about what there is only what you are means to me in regards to individuality . What I say in regards to individuality isn't giraffe based . What is giraffe based is your assumptions made that do not reflect my understandings . This is part of the parcel of what getting things straight means in reply to your original question . You implied that everything is what you are means that everyone is a troll . You are incorrect . You can play panto with that fact if you want or create some kind of further drama .. We'll have to agree to disagree on which one of us is the source of the drama, and while I really don't have any interest in what you mean by "panto", you're definitely trying to troll with it. Best of luck with that!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 7, 2018 11:41:28 GMT -5
I would say you're responsible for everything that you are. If not you, the who? Individuality is so evident . Individual growth is so evident . Individual vibration is so evident, that is why such individuality reflects where a peep is at . Ramana the individual is not responsible for raping someone is he when ramana the individual didn't rape someone . This whole scenario leads to silliness and it carries no weight, take responsible for what you do and let other individuals get on with it . Ramana knew he was not fundamentally the individual, but he was the source and 'substance' of all individuals. I'm not saying you should feel guilty about it, but you are responsible for all of the most heinous atrocities of the world. To distance yourself from that is to say there is more than what you are.
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Nov 7, 2018 12:00:30 GMT -5
Such a wonderful writing, thanks. Hey! Look! It's the philosophy shredder!
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Nov 7, 2018 12:04:17 GMT -5
We three agree that appearance can never be conscious We three agree that appearing individual may have associated with other view point of 'I am' but we can't know. We three agree that knowing other individual real or figment has no real consequence in our life and that's reason Enigma was not willing to argue here because it has no real impact in our life and he has said it many times. If you spend you time to look through what we have been talking so far, you may have the chance of understanding what we are saying, but I can perfectly understand if you can't see this because I know why this happens this way and I would wholeheartedly accept the situation as it is. For me you did not understand, For you I did not understand(or haven't realized) but it's okay. It seems like Enigma and Figgles seems to be back away from this forum so I can't ask them to confirm what I am saying now. Well, I actually think the situation with Enigma is exactly the other way around but it doesn't really matter anymore. I see we are fully in agreement about our current situation. So let's talk about something that actually does have real consequences in our daily lives. I'm interested in what you call the story unfolding. The way you talked about this it seems to be very LOA based. Is that right? No I was not talking about LOA. I was talking about how realization influences the story why it has to change the story. Figgles,someNothing,Enigma argues with me that they would be in Peace no matter whatever story unfolds.
|
|