|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 21, 2018 18:10:33 GMT -5
Nobody's experience is relevant in a discussion about the nature of experience. Yours is. Nobody else's is. No, whatever else E is he's consistent. He doesn't consider his own experience in any way validating.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 21, 2018 18:12:15 GMT -5
He's seeing a transcendent 'true self' as the one having the volition, if I'm understanding correctly. Okay.So when you say, 'you can't look to experience to find transcendent Truth', is THAT a transcendent Truth or a relative truth? sdp offers andrew a high-5. '-).
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 21, 2018 19:05:35 GMT -5
I have no issue with talking about conditioning of the brain or body, and you don't have to talk to me differently. My point was the same as ZD's; You've equated the self with conditioning. Further, you've called that self actual based on the fact that conditioning really is happening. So through a bit of sleight of hand you've said the self is actual. By anyone else's standard of actual, the conditioned self is not actual, it's an illusion. So I commented on it. Don't worry so much about speaking to me in language I can understand and focus more on trying to understand what I'm saying. I've corrected my language in 3 different posts. I've never said the self that results from conditioning is an actual self, never. Essence-as-self is only potential in the sense an acorn is an oak tree in potential. If someone tries to put what I say in their own paradigm I can't help that. I have always called the cultural self a false sense of self, meaning, yes, illusory. Certainly in regard to the bolded, this has been my experience of what you've said.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 21, 2018 19:15:38 GMT -5
Yes, I understand and sort of agree. But, then I also sort of don't. I think the idea of 'authentic self' or 'true self' has merit. But if I go with that idea, I'm not sure I would say the authentic/true self grows or self-develops. I'm also okay with the idea that (individual) consciousness can expand (i.e 'takes more in'), then again, I would say the idea of 'individual consciousness' is also questionable. So for me, there's just lot of different ways to look at this and talk about this. The fact that consciousness can take in more of THIS than it normally does is the meaning of can grow (consciousness is altered in some manner to accomplish this). The "individuated consciousness" is merely potential, it isn't until it is, like an acorn is only an oak tree in potential. An acorn isn't an oak tree, until it is. Alright, the way I see it is a little different. I have to engage with the idea of individual consciousness here. But basically, I don't think the individual consciousness starts this life as potential or at level one. I would say the individual consciousness is already absorbing a lot from day one. However, I would say the conditioning and illusory self blocks the capacity for the individual consciousness to absorb more to a great extent. As conditioning and illusory self is released and transcended, the individual consciousness is able to absorb more, and I don't believe there is an upper limit to that (well, I guess 'omnipresence' would be the upper limit). So evolution continues even after the illusory self is seen through, but certainly there are key realizations which cause a significant leap in the capacity of the individual consciousness to absorb. Ironically, one of those realizations would be seeing through the idea of 'evolving individual consciousnesses', but that doesn't mean that I dismiss the idea as being false in every sense, or every context.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 21, 2018 20:33:18 GMT -5
Sure, it's about a transcendental Truth that is not born of the mind, as are contexts, 3-layer cakes, objectivity and other things which one can dream up and appear in Consciousness. But sure, there are contextual truths or facts; they're just not the focus of the discussion you replied to. No harm done. All good. That's why I provided the model for understanding contexts in full. The variables are innumerable. Well if so...okay... but in which case, I definitely don't have anything to say. The style and/or intent of the posting is geared toward pointing. Though the pointing may fail much more often than not, the intent is that the assumed recipient can potentially realize, if not for one second, and drop off some illusion or, if lucky, and whole damm bag of 'em. When that kind of thing happens, clarity arises and the dominance of the mind lessened as it is put in its place. It makes the dream a lighter one, less fear ridden.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 21, 2018 20:48:06 GMT -5
I was insincerely extrapolating on Andrew's insincere concern for SN's welfare. A:"Have you been out of sorts lately?...Are you spending time in a strongly religious culture at the moment perhaps?" I read it more as one being cheeky, but no, not really all that curious. In my message, I even used "wave" and "context", which he has been mentioning recently, so I thought it might be easy enough to catch on. But, I was wrong again. I guess Andrew tends to get sensitive to and guided by his illusions about me whenever we write.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 21, 2018 21:00:38 GMT -5
He's seeing a transcendent 'true self' as the one having the volition, if I'm understanding correctly. Okay.So when you say, 'you can't look to experience to find transcendent Truth', is THAT a transcendent Truth or a relative truth? Does the message 'you can't look to experience to find transcendent Truth' appear in your experience? This could be considered a rhetorical question, but I'm asking you/anyone to sincerely consider and/or realize the immediacy of transcendent Truth. Don't just gloss over the pointers as some exercise in logic or righteousness; penetrate. "Throw a rock in a raging river, and you'll hardly notice its effect. Throw one in a still pond, and that pond is changed forever..."
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 21, 2018 21:17:18 GMT -5
Have you been out of sorts lately? You spoke oddly to Reefs, and then this too sounds odd...? Are you spending time in a strongly religious culture at the moment perhaps? To be clear, I wasn't trying to say anything provocative, just that 'truth' isn't a misplaced concept even within the relative. In fact, it's the only place 'truths' can be found (Absolute Truth is beyond experience altogether). That's the point I was making, and why cult brainwashed SN was talking about context. I think everyone should seize opportunities to wash some of the crap out of their brains on occasion.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 21, 2018 21:32:17 GMT -5
I agree wit all dat, except I suggest that the two kinds of conditioning are really the same. I think you know I'm not much on body knowing and muscle memory and such. To me, you unconsciously became conditioned to ham duck in much the same way that we become unconsciously conditioned to believe we are SVP's, and seekers tend to continue to unconsciously believe they are SVP's even while consciously believing all the spiritual malarkey they are learning, just as you continued to unconsciously believe the ham was still there while consciously believing otherwise. Other than the body knowing thingy or embodiment issue in general I'll buy that explanation. As I've noted before, Zen folks (and I subscribe to their general approach even though I lost interest in their institutional rigidity) neither affirm nor deny physical existence because either stance would strike them as an intellectual position, and they're not interested in that sort of thing. They're much more interested in direct action and the manifestation of understanding sans words and ideas. This is why if someone expresses an intellectual position as a statement of truth to a Zen Master, s/he is likely to get conked on the head with the famous Zen stick. They wouldn't use the words "gnosis" or "episteme," but their approach shows that they favor what the word "gnosis" points to. Examples: Monk: What is the meaning of Buddhism? ZM: Have you finished eating breakfast? Monk: Yes. ZM: Then go clean your bowls. The ZM answered the monk's question clearly and unequivocally. Monk: Who are you, really? ZM: I am that which is asking the question. The ZM's instant response shows that from his POV there is only THIS, undivided into abstract states. Monk: What is the most important thing to know? (asked while it is raining) ZM: When it rains, if we don't open our umbrellas, we get wet. The ZM is pointing to the simple and concrete truth of THIS. The Buddha spent a lot of time pointing to this same sort of thing. He said that if you get shot with an arrow, it isn't important who made the arrow, or its composition, or anything else you might think about the arrow (real, unreal, objective, subjective, appearance only, three dimensionally solid, essence, etc); the important thing is to remove it. What we might call "the hard facts of physical reality" supersede any ideas that we might have about them. This is why I don't think it matters very much how we point to THIS. All that really matters is discovering that we ARE THIS and that separation is a cognitive illusion. After this kind of understanding has been attained, the mind is put to rest. If we then leave speculative/existential ideas behind, life becomes pretty simple, and we become people of direct action. After we do what has to be done in this moment, then we do whatever needs to be done next. Easy! I still remember realizing what all the Zen/Ch'an sayings were pointing to, and then further understanding why you had to be there at the moment they were said (rather than reading them hundreds of years later in a book) to potentially "get it". It seems that a lot of the more "confusing ones" were about having returned, but not so much about seeing, transcending self and other, or being source... prior to the return.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2018 1:07:24 GMT -5
Yours is. Nobody else's is. No, whatever else E is he's consistent. He doesn't consider his own experience in any way validating. Believe what you want to believe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2018 1:13:59 GMT -5
Okay.So when you say, 'you can't look to experience to find transcendent Truth', is THAT a transcendent Truth or a relative truth? Does the message 'you can't look to experience to find transcendent Truth' appear in your experience? This could be considered a rhetorical question, but I'm asking you/anyone to sincerely consider and/or realize the immediacy of transcendent Truth. Don't just gloss over the pointers as some exercise in logic or righteousness; penetrate. "Throw a rock in a raging river, and you'll hardly notice its effect. Throw one in a still pond, and that pond is changed forever..." Sincerely, what are you writing this to? Like, how many of these posts are being written with a person in mind, while at the same time proclaiming there is 'no person'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2018 1:17:09 GMT -5
Other than the body knowing thingy or embodiment issue in general I'll buy that explanation. As I've noted before, Zen folks (and I subscribe to their general approach even though I lost interest in their institutional rigidity) neither affirm nor deny physical existence because either stance would strike them as an intellectual position, and they're not interested in that sort of thing. They're much more interested in direct action and the manifestation of understanding sans words and ideas. This is why if someone expresses an intellectual position as a statement of truth to a Zen Master, s/he is likely to get conked on the head with the famous Zen stick. They wouldn't use the words "gnosis" or "episteme," but their approach shows that they favor what the word "gnosis" points to. Examples: Monk: What is the meaning of Buddhism? ZM: Have you finished eating breakfast? Monk: Yes. ZM: Then go clean your bowls. The ZM answered the monk's question clearly and unequivocally. Monk: Who are you, really? ZM: I am that which is asking the question. The ZM's instant response shows that from his POV there is only THIS, undivided into abstract states. Monk: What is the most important thing to know? (asked while it is raining) ZM: When it rains, if we don't open our umbrellas, we get wet. The ZM is pointing to the simple and concrete truth of THIS. The Buddha spent a lot of time pointing to this same sort of thing. He said that if you get shot with an arrow, it isn't important who made the arrow, or its composition, or anything else you might think about the arrow (real, unreal, objective, subjective, appearance only, three dimensionally solid, essence, etc); the important thing is to remove it. What we might call "the hard facts of physical reality" supersede any ideas that we might have about them. This is why I don't think it matters very much how we point to THIS. All that really matters is discovering that we ARE THIS and that separation is a cognitive illusion. After this kind of understanding has been attained, the mind is put to rest. If we then leave speculative/existential ideas behind, life becomes pretty simple, and we become people of direct action. After we do what has to be done in this moment, then we do whatever needs to be done next. Easy! I still remember realizing what all the Zen/Ch'an sayings were pointing to, and then further understanding why you had to be there at the moment they were said (rather than reading them hundreds of years later in a book) to potentially "get it". It seems that a lot of the more "confusing ones" were about having returned, but not so much about seeing, transcending self and other, or being source... prior to the return. Yeah. I believe it was Jed McKenna that said, those that return always bring something original back with them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2018 1:27:25 GMT -5
Well if so...okay... but in which case, I definitely don't have anything to say. The style and/or intent of the posting is geared toward pointing. Though the pointing may fail much more often than not, the intent is that the assumed recipient can potentially realize, if not for one second, and drop off some illusion or, if lucky, and whole damm bag of 'em. When that kind of thing happens, clarity arises and the dominance of the mind lessened as it is put in its place. It makes the dream a lighter one, less fear ridden. Forgive me for going backwards here, though again, this is what I'm on about. You've written here of an assumed recipient. This just doesn't stand up. If the 'assumed recipient' isn't yourself, then your pointers are doomed to fail.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2018 4:05:16 GMT -5
He's seeing a transcendent 'true self' as the one having the volition, if I'm understanding correctly. Okay.So when you say, 'you can't look to experience to find transcendent Truth', is THAT a transcendent Truth or a relative truth? It's a relative truth. There are no transcendent truths, because the word transcendent is a concept.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 22, 2018 4:36:00 GMT -5
Okay.So when you say, 'you can't look to experience to find transcendent Truth', is THAT a transcendent Truth or a relative truth? Does the message 'you can't look to experience to find transcendent Truth' appear in your experience? This could be considered a rhetorical question, but I'm asking you/anyone to sincerely consider and/or realize the immediacy of transcendent Truth. Don't just gloss over the pointers as some exercise in logic or righteousness; penetrate. "Throw a rock in a raging river, and you'll hardly notice its effect. Throw one in a still pond, and that pond is changed forever..." What it is, is that I am here to converse. I'm not here to be taught, let alone patronized. Learning happens just through participating here, and that's great, but I'm not here with the intent to learn, or grow, or become, or 'realize'. I come here for the craic, that's all. But in good spirit, I will answer your question. I grok what 'Truth' points to. I grok what 'Absolute Truth' points to (same 'thing'). I don't see anyone here TRYING to find 'Truth' in their experience or confirm 'Truth' in their experience, so when I se Enigma talking about that, I get interested in what what he is seeing and what he is thinking.
|
|