|
Post by someNOTHING! on Nov 11, 2018 17:44:12 GMT -5
Why doesn't E know that 'the same consciousness is looking through each pair of eyes'? Well, first off, are you conscious of having tried to construct a double-bind, or is that fact just coming to your attention as you read this sentence? Now, I'm progressing further into an unwillingness to discuss other folks understandings with you, but in this case I'm going to buck that trend, and that's because this particular point of contention is one that kicked off the great divide of the whole solipsist shebang to begin with, by my memory, the Christmas before last, in this very thread, and for which I bear most of the blame. My understanding of where E' is on this, is that he doesn't rezz with that pointer, and he disagrees with me that the not-knowing can come to an end. But after what he wrote here (that you, and figgles, pointedly ignored), I'm getting much closer to concluding that his and my pages are most definitely from the same book, so none of that disagreement is consequential, which is what I suspected all along, anyway. Yes, it's always about realizing and abiding as Source, and not about "it" making sense to mind, being relegated to some layer in a cake, or even being some "bigger" context. Always Here, always Now, so why not now?
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Nov 11, 2018 17:53:46 GMT -5
IMO, it's important to remember that the disagreements in the discussions can highlight very subtle nuances that each and every reader can/does discern in their own light. It's the power of the dialectic that is not always evident in the expository prose of books or texts. I, for one, enjoy reading the discussions you seem to have negative opinions of. I do appreciate the fact that you are tasked with managing flare-ups. That said, it seems you are worried about the food fights of yore taking over, but from the bit I've traced back, I don't see that. I saw intelligent convos taking place that whittled away at key distinctions in attempts to reveal what the mind seemingly resists seeing/surmising on is own. Either way, I have indeed noticed how certain people's attitudes and even ideas with respect to the pointers have evolved over the last 10 years, and a majority of that is due to the persistence of keeping "Truth talk in the dream state" alive and clear. So I wonder if there's a better way to handle the situation. For example, if an argument gets a bit "pathological" in your eyes, you could just ask the respondents in question to take it to PM, and anyone who wanted to "read on" could ask to be tagged in the PM. It might save you from the task and joyless enterprise of being judge and jury, as well as allow people to freely go where and expound on what most of humanity would not even dare to suggest in public life. Just a suggestion. You are right, and I've already mentioned this in an earlier message, there was an opportunity again to address the more finer points. So in that sense, it's not always a waste of time and resources. There's always some value somewhere to be found. I already made that suggestion a long time ago. No takers so far. That's why I highly value the willingness to agree to disagree. It's the most noble option, IMO. It allows everyone to leave the discussion amicably and move on to a different topic, or even to take up the discussion again at some time in the future without having bad memories associated with it. If there's no willingness to agree to disagree, then that's not possible. The warring factions will usually behave like estranged couples. Communication breaks down completely. There won't even be a discussion about other, unrelated topics anymore. And as the situation looks right now, we've got a bit of both of this. Which is already a sign of progress for this place. There are some who chose to leave the discussion amicably, and there are some who chose to focus on hurt feelings instead. But it is what it is right now. If you want to move on, then move on. I think you sometimes underestimate greater potential, but yeah, it can't be easy corralling when you feel the need to avoid a train wreck. I don't know where your last line is coming from or what it's talking about, so I'll just leave it.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Nov 11, 2018 18:04:06 GMT -5
No problem on the language front. I was curious about Dravidian languages and how much they require things being done by "subjects" as in English. All good. Feelings and thoughts happen via the conditioning of the mind/body. The conditioning of the mind/body changes with respect to the experiences/environment/story. All of these are simply changing aspects of the one movement. Suffering is an outcome of the attention to the movement happening to the "I", which is (however unconsciously) assumed to be separate from the one movement. The unconscious apparent reality of this "I thought" can be thought about as being like a virus, and its effect is much like what happens to the host as it progressively gets more widespread and needs more. The suffering can get compounded leaving the mind/body in a terrible state as it exhibits more and more of these negative patterns of behavior. Or, the mind/body could just walk through life in its narrowly defined reality (via the walls and boundaries of the conditioned state of separateness). The more conscious one becomes of this separateness being an illusion the less likely (not necessarily absolutely) one is to experience said negative "emotions" born of/in the story. I will get back later. Just had a moment to write...hope this makes sense and I left and came back several times. Posting without much editing... If your inner conditioning changes, then that's the change in story. I say story which unfolds surely changes to confirm the Peace. Change in inner condition or Change in outer both are one and the same. Those are the movement of the same story. Are you saying that Peace must be confirmed or proven as an ongoing peaceful life experience or that Peace can be realized regardless of how unpleasant?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 11, 2018 18:15:54 GMT -5
Real in my book means existing in its own right. Individual appearances don't exist in their own right. In that sense, they are not real (screen metaphor). However, whatever manifests in whatever form can ever only be an extension of Source. In that sense, whatever manifests in whatever form is as real as it gets (wave/ocean metaphor). Agreed. The way I conceptualize what's going on is that Source is a field of intelligent energy, and when that energy manifests as form, it's simply a condensed form of energy. Because all of the energy comprises a singular unified field, all seemingly separate energy forms are fundamentally one-with the ocean of energy that gives rise to those forms. This idea gets rid of matter altogether as something substantive, and substitutes the idea of energetic interactions of both compressed and dispersed energy within the same field. Because Source is infinite and unified, non-locality rules. This concept explains the "download" phenomena often associated with kensho as well as "miracles," OOBE's, and all other similar non-local events. Scientists are already learning that conscious thoughts can activate mechanical equipment, and psychological phenomena, such as "folie a deux," are probably also a result of interacting energy systems. IOW, we don't have to discard brains, shifts in brain function, nervous systems, moons, and the entire world of form if we accept that that world is a world of intelligent energy manifesting however it manifests. This concept would probably even satisfy Tenka because it doesn't treat the world strictly as appearances, but rather as compressed/condensed forms of only one intelligent incomprehensible energy. If the wave/ocean analogy is good enough for Kabir, it's good enough for me. "......Because someone has made up the word 'wave,' do I have to distinguish it from water? There is a Secret One inside us; the planets in all the galaxies pass through his hands like beads. That is a string of beads one should look at with luminous eyes." ________________________________________ ".....Kabir saw (the truth) for fifteen seconds, and it made him a servant for life." yeah....nice.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 11, 2018 18:44:29 GMT -5
Yea I was a high distinction student in Gender Studies - best grades of any subject - and I also read Foucault, and I used Foucault's Madness and Civilisation to formulate social theory in my mental health units, and Discipline and Punish for my understanding of power relations in society. I like Foucault. I read some Lacan in my own time, and actually put it to use in a Gender Studies unit called Sex, Violence and Transgression. I drew on Lacan's 'perversion' when I did a case study of the Papin sisters (who brutally murdered their employer). Lacan was kinda obsessed the incestuous homosexuality which he read into the case, though there was no evidence of that - but he was a Freudian, so go figure. My first Gender Studies lecturer, Jennifer Germon, was brilliant, and her course changed my world view big time. It made me understand social work, social systems, the social discourse, normalcy and social theory in a profound way - more than social work units taught me. I got it. She was no 'snowflake', that one. She was a universal force!
I'd never even heard of gender studies. This site IS informative. All I know about gender's impact on a person comes from my mother. She was, by quite a distance, the smartest person I've ever met. She was reading Homer, in ancient Greek, by age of nine. She could read Dante in medieval Italian.She was a virtuosa on the piano. My father forced her to quit medical school because he felt threatened. Though she never once complained about it. We, her sons, saw the unfairness clearly. I've become a rabid feminist. Oh! my favorite kind. In powerlifting we found a way to have gender equality while retaining sex segregation, so the meatheads have the solution.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 11, 2018 19:23:50 GMT -5
Yes, I know you don't see the disagreement as consequential (if you did, you would surely have to talk about it), but I'm not clear what the significance is of the page you linked. So maybe if I ask you this instead. The words, 'consciousness looking through each pair of eyes' were yours, right? I'm not misattributing them am I? Whereas E would likely say that he doesn't know if 'consciousness is looking through another pair of eyes. Why do you disagree on this point? What is the difference in your understandings that creates this disagreement? I think the understanding was originally ZD's, and it made sense to Laughter. Then link to him writing it when I would have read it before I wrote this: Every instant is an opportunity. Who we are rests irrevocably deep within and is splashed large and loud and colorfully all about us. Every moment is a chance to forget that. Every instant is an offer to know it. How could this ever end? What is this “losing it” they’re babbling on about? … ah, but the sweet peace of knowing dulls the point of awareness and the laughing thief reclining with his feet on my coffee table went unnoticed as he slipped back in. Every second is an invitation to maintain that awareness. Every moment is the gift of grace which begs our acceptance. Every instant is an opportunity. The truth that there is no I is balanced in the paradox by the truth that there is a you and in those precious instants when the windows on the soul are open to me all speculation ends even as I witness what is within by gazing steadily without. Every instant is an opportunity, even those instants when your eyes are closed to me. Every tick of the clock is the sound of a temple bell. Every noon whistle a caress of the ears, a reminder that the devil will have his due. Every cry of the cuckoo is an opportunity to smile at the devil and to see him evaporate in the parlor trick of his smoky vanishing act. Every minute is a chance to reclaim the stolen now from the thief. In every hour of every day the promise of victory by surrender is not only a promise, it is all that there is, ever will be and ever was. Every instant is an opportunity. Take my love thief, its all that you can ever steal from me. Every instant is an opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 11, 2018 19:27:02 GMT -5
TBH, the solopsistesque conversation has been flogged to a pulp - but it just won't die. As Devo put it: No one gets away Until they whip it I say whip it Whip it good I feel it pulling at me - I have no strength to resist nor endure it - It's inevitable doom! What me worry.
If it would have been a solely philosophical discussion, it would have been over a long time ago. Solipsism has been called a bankrupt philosophy for a reason. But there seems to be aspects of self-image/self-identity tied into the discussion for some, which means there's a lot at stake and so they keep it going. Which may also explain why some can easily agree to disagree and some just can't. Yes, possibly it continues to be beaten like a horse which is not dead because of the false self or the identity-substance implication. But if I explain the impermanence paradigm in which there is no 'same-things', no continuity, then there is nothing to call 'moon' except the symbol of continuous substance we formulate as knowledge. The 'just observe' approach shows 'the moon' (which itself is a symbol of common experience) 'magically appears' for a moment and disappears into the past. Kamma theory reasonably explains how consistency operates in a momentary universe - but people might think kamma means 'just deserts' when it refers to the process re-birth. It is an understanding which enables people to see that attending to this moment optimises all outcomes. However, it seems as most understand it as doing something good leads to receiving something good in the future. That understanding leads to attending to the past and future.
The reason people bang and explain their view repeatedly is they do not know, and they want to know, because without the known there is ultimately nothing one can cling to. Clinging to the known is hard to admit, so people generally call it 'fear of the unknown'.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 11, 2018 19:51:44 GMT -5
And the camouflage, isn't that, right? Not to be flip, and definitely not to play "gotcha'", but it seems to me you didn't relate it back and directly answer the original question. Perhaps you get a sense, from that, why E' goes to great lengths to disclaim that he makes any association with the word, "real". The way Seth uses the term camouflage in it's broadest sense is more or less the way we use the terms form or appearances. The more specific use of camouflage refers to reality systems (like this space-time-reality system we are all familiar with). Real in my book means existing in its own right. Individual appearances don't exist in their own right. In that sense, they are not real (screen metaphor). However, whatever manifests in whatever form can ever only be an extension of Source. In that sense, whatever manifests in whatever form is as real as it gets (wave/ocean metaphor). Right, so "appearances" don't have any reality that isn't a reflection of the consciousness of them. Source is real, and there's no separation between the individual and Source, and all appearances are sourced from .. well .. Source. So this is a notion of reality that's based on a oneness pointing, not a philosophy, and it doesn't deny the reality of the senses. There are multiple avenues for this to break down into a philosophy, including objectifying Source, or thinking of Source in terms of an interconnected set of parts. What's occurred to me during all these forum dialogs is that there's another way to approach the notion from the neti-neti seeker-mind, and it's similar: what is it that you can't deny? This is how I stumbled on "do you exist? are you experiencing? which is primary? are you a human being? is the Moon made of cream cheese?". Notice how Enigma never actually uses the wave/ocean metaphor. He almost exclusively goes with the screen metaphor. And to anyone who has been paying attention to his position in the kensho discussions, this won't come as a surprise as is his lack of interest in the term 'real'. If you want to understand E's position on reality you have to understand his notion of radical subjectivity. I've pressed him to the wall on this multiple times over the years, and it's clear to me that while he might not be a heavy user of the ocean/wave metaphor, I don't doubt he understands it. My opinion is that he just prefers neither/nor to both/and. I know I do, and it's because of how neti-neti figured into my path.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 11, 2018 20:10:18 GMT -5
Real in my book means existing in its own right. Individual appearances don't exist in their own right. In that sense, they are not real (screen metaphor). However, whatever manifests in whatever form can ever only be an extension of Source. In that sense, whatever manifests in whatever form is as real as it gets (wave/ocean metaphor). Agreed. The way I conceptualize what's going on is that Source is a field of intelligent energy, and when that energy manifests as form, it's simply a condensed form of energy. Because all of the energy comprises a singular unified field, all seemingly separate energy forms are fundamentally one-with the ocean of energy that gives rise to those forms. This idea gets rid of matter altogether as something substantive, and substitutes the idea of energetic interactions of both compressed and dispersed energy within the same field. Because Source is infinite and unified, non-locality rules. This concept explains the "download" phenomena often associated with kensho as well as "miracles," OOBE's, and all other similar non-local events. Scientists are already learning that conscious thoughts can activate mechanical equipment, and psychological phenomena, such as "folie a deux," are probably also a result of interacting energy systems. IOW, we don't have to discard brains, shifts in brain function, nervous systems, moons, and the entire world of form if we accept that that world is a world of intelligent energy manifesting however it manifests. This concept would probably even satisfy Tenka because it doesn't treat the world strictly as appearances, but rather as compressed/condensed forms of only one intelligent incomprehensible energy. If the wave/ocean analogy is good enough for Kabir, it's good enough for me. "......Because someone has made up the word 'wave,' do I have to distinguish it from water? There is a Secret One inside us; the planets in all the galaxies pass through his hands like beads. That is a string of beads one should look at with luminous eyes." ________________________________________ ".....Kabir saw (the truth) for fifteen seconds, and it made him a servant for life." But noone has discarded the Moon, they just don't think of the movements of energy as intrinsically independent of that pure awareness absent any and all content you've described as NS. Noone's discarded brains, they just want to point out that consciousness isn't caused by nor somehow otherwise emerges from the brain. Some of them might go to extremes in their derivative conceptual positions along these lines, but the bottom line is just that: consciousness, can't be reduced to material terms. This is all pointing to what Tolle wrote, about how every sound emerges from and eventually returns, to silence. Satchi' used to write most poetically and yet, simply, succinctly and effectively about changelessness, and I'm reminded of that now. The echoes from the walls of that canyon that is no longer a canyon, aren't wrong.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 11, 2018 20:16:12 GMT -5
Agreed. The way I conceptualize what's going on is that Source is a field of intelligent energy, and when that energy manifests as form, it's simply a condensed form of energy. Because all of the energy comprises a singular unified field, all seemingly separate energy forms are fundamentally one-with the ocean of energy that gives rise to those forms. This idea gets rid of matter altogether as something substantive, and substitutes the idea of energetic interactions of both compressed and dispersed energy within the same field. Because Source is infinite and unified, non-locality rules. This concept explains the "download" phenomena often associated with kensho as well as "miracles," OOBE's, and all other similar non-local events. Scientists are already learning that conscious thoughts can activate mechanical equipment, and psychological phenomena, such as "folie a deux," are probably also a result of interacting energy systems. IOW, we don't have to discard brains, shifts in brain function, nervous systems, moons, and the entire world of form if we accept that that world is a world of intelligent energy manifesting however it manifests. This concept would probably even satisfy Tenka because it doesn't treat the world strictly as appearances, but rather as compressed/condensed forms of only one intelligent incomprehensible energy. If the wave/ocean analogy is good enough for Kabir, it's good enough for me. "......Because someone has made up the word 'wave,' do I have to distinguish it from water? There is a Secret One inside us; the planets in all the galaxies pass through his hands like beads. That is a string of beads one should look at with luminous eyes." ________________________________________ ".....Kabir saw (the truth) for fifteen seconds, and it made him a servant for life." You clearly believes in outer world. Happy believing objective reality!Yes very obviously Tenia would be happy with you.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 11, 2018 20:21:39 GMT -5
You are right, and I've already mentioned this in an earlier message, there was an opportunity again to address the more finer points. So in that sense, it's not always a waste of time and resources. There's always some value somewhere to be found. I already made that suggestion a long time ago. No takers so far. That's why I highly value the willingness to agree to disagree. It's the most noble option, IMO. It allows everyone to leave the discussion amicably and move on to a different topic, or even to take up the discussion again at some time in the future without having bad memories associated with it. If there's no willingness to agree to disagree, then that's not possible. The warring factions will usually behave like estranged couples. Communication breaks down completely. There won't even be a discussion about other, unrelated topics anymore. And as the situation looks right now, we've got a bit of both of this. Which is already a sign of progress for this place. There are some who chose to leave the discussion amicably, and there are some who chose to focus on hurt feelings instead. But it is what it is right now. If you want to move on, then move on. I think you sometimes underestimate greater potential, but yeah, it can't be easy corralling when you feel the need to avoid a train wreck. I don't know where your last line is coming from or what it's talking about, so I'll just leave it. I read it more as generally directed, as in promoting agreement to disagree, than directed at you, specifically, but I could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 11, 2018 20:22:55 GMT -5
If it would have been a solely philosophical discussion, it would have been over a long time ago. Solipsism has been called a bankrupt philosophy for a reason. But there seems to be aspects of self-image/self-identity tied into the discussion for some, which means there's a lot at stake and so they keep it going. Which may also explain why some can easily agree to disagree and some just can't. Yes, possibly it continues to be beaten like a horse which is not dead because of the false self or the identity-substance implication. But if I explain the impermanence paradigm in which there is no 'same-things', no continuity, then there is nothing to call 'moon' except the symbol of continuous substance we formulate as knowledge. The 'just observe' approach shows 'the moon' (which itself is a symbol of common experience) 'magically appears' for a moment and disappears into the past. Kamma theory reasonably explains how consistency operates in a momentary universe - but people might think kamma means 'just deserts' when it refers to the process re-birth. It is an understanding which enables people to see that attending to this moment optimises all outcomes. However, it seems as most understand it as doing something good leads to receiving something good in the future. That understanding leads to attending to the past and future. The reason people bang and explain their view repeatedly is they do not know, and they want to know, because without the known there is ultimately nothing one can cling to. Clinging to the known is hard to admit, so people generally call it 'fear of the unknown'.
Yes, the apparent reality that we all commonly share and experience is recreating and dying in constant succession, such that nothing is ever, actually, formed. Yet at the deepest levels of reality....perhaps what you call kamma...which we all commonly share, there is agreement to create the appearance of consistency and stability, so that there can even be an experience.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 11, 2018 20:26:08 GMT -5
Only once? That's extremely funny! Some of us have had numerous major realizations and countless minor ones. Perhaps a few more realizations might alter your understanding. I desperately wished to have many such realization but it is not happening after words. I don't know why! So, what are you going to do about that?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 11, 2018 20:27:49 GMT -5
Frankly, my take is that the not-knowing in question is a seekers position, but I've had enough dialog with E' to be convinced he's not confused about anything, and have reduced our disagreement down to one very fine point that I find, essentially, inconclusive. But my experience as a seeker, is that the seeking didn't get interesting, and, in fact, wasn't even done consciously, until the illusion of the SVP was seen clearly for what it was. This isn't to say that not everyone who's never considered the not-knowing in question is still seeking, but all the Joe C. Trancer's who never sought, definitely never considered it, and the notion of the fallacy of any and all sorts of objective reality is one that only Trancer's and seekers object to. The reason for the objection is quite obvious to me. TBH, the solopsistesque conversation has been flogged to a pulp - but it just won't die. As Devo put it: No one gets away Until they whip it I say whip it Whip it good I feel it pulling at me - I have no strength to resist nor endure it - It's inevitable doom! What me worry.
It's just a point of focus. The real pull is the relationships involved.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Nov 11, 2018 20:28:08 GMT -5
The more I think about these things, the more I lean towards an extreme position: there is no world, there are no people. Nothing, nada. Only the Peace. That's it. Simplicity itself.
Forget even appearances. Nothing appears. Beautiful.
|
|