|
Post by laughter on Mar 29, 2021 0:35:29 GMT -5
the less talk and thoughts of allies and enemies the better! Sometimes you've surprised me in following through in distinguishing exactly what you've met - in existential terms. I've got no interest in disabusing you of the notion that you're misunderstood. Yes, as long as the seeker is seeking there is an opportunity. A potential realization to be had - I know you've taken issue with expressing things in terms of realization in the past, so, just to be clear, my intention isn't to speak for you, nor do I expect your agreement. I agree with this. We've dialogued for years. I find you very honest and open and genuine. Thanks for the kind word 'pilgrim. .. (but, I'll still savage you mercilessly in the political debates... ... as need be ...)
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 29, 2021 0:51:12 GMT -5
No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.
Albert Einstein Most Einstein quotes are fake, like this one, which has even morphed "thinking" to "consciousness". The closest match appears to be "A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move toward higher levels." My understanding of the "Natural State" is that it doesn't involve "solving a problem", and in terms of self-inquiry, the best that can be said, is that you are perfect.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 29, 2021 8:44:31 GMT -5
I agree. Most everybody here are nondualists. In a nutshell that means all things are equal, basically. That means, in their view, there are no hierarchies. For years I had a ongoing *battle* with ZD about the possibility of a higher state of consciousness. He always dismissed me. But, yes, there are different levels of consciousness. Anyone that sincerely tries, can verify in one day that there are times when they are more-conscious and times when they are less-conscious. That's a start, but only a start. But a journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. Consciousness is not like an off and on switch, it's more like a dimmer switch. ZD is very sincere when he says there is no personal self, no separate volitional person. It's difficult to argue with that, POV. No. That's not what "nondualists" .. "think". There are plenty of interesting hierarchies. None of them are ultimately relevant to self-inquiry, and there are several that are distractions from it. That doesn't mean that everything is equal, nor that every state of consciousness is the same, but no state - of anything - can define you. I was writing from the perspective of an ultimate standpoint. If "you" are perfect, then everybody is perfect and that makes everybody equal. Yes? No? ND = All Is One. Yes? No? If all is one there is no differentiation in an ultimate sense. Yes? No? Just briefly. As you already know, for me, Supreme Ordering Conscious Intelligence (SOCI, I 'made up' the term)) is the origin of everything. In various paradigms from history, from SOCI descends a Great Chain of Being. So the Whole of the manifest universe, which includes much that is manifest that our senses or consciousness can't perceive (physics is always expanding its boundary), is like a series of step-down transformers. So there are different levels of being, within the Whole. So man is a seed originating from a higher level. The path of man is to traverse back upwards, by germinating, and growing. This involves an increase of consciousness corresponding to the levels upward, one could say an evolution of consciousness. An oak tree is much more than an acorn, but the essence of an oak tree is already within (the genetic structure) of the acorn, the acorn a metaphor. So the higher always encompasses the lower, but the lower does not encompass the higher. (This is essentially the meaning of the term panentheism, versus pantheism). And this is why I am not a NDist, without qualification, without explanation. Because for most of us, the higher is discontinuous in a very real sense, IOW, we are not-one with it, the higher. Thus, many ~sages~ knew of the quantum nature of reality long before Max Planck discovered it in 1901 and it was further developed by Einstein in his 1905 photo-electric effect paper, and then Bohr and Heisenberg and others in the 1920's. Of course you know my primary source for this, explanation. (Gurdjieff started teaching publicly about 1912 in Russia. Could he have known about Max Planck and Einstein's exploration into the tiny? And incorporated it into his teaching? Possibly, but not likely. He already knew about the quantum nature of reality, from his own study and exploration and experience. What Ouspensky writes about in In Search of the Miraculous goes all the way back to 1915 [although not published until 1950. When Gurdjieff saw it after PD Ouspensky died, via Madame Ouspensky, he called it objective reporting]. It includes a quantum description of reality, Ouspensky uses, gotten from Gurdjieff, the very word discontinuous. There is nothing like the Gurdjieff teaching on the surface of the earth). So, on the level we are, we can know nothing about what's above us, except conceptually. To know in a gnostic way, we have to become the higher level (the acorn has to become the oak tree). That got longer than expected.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 29, 2021 8:47:29 GMT -5
No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.
Albert Einstein Most Einstein quotes are fake, like this one, which has even morphed "thinking" to "consciousness". My understanding of the "Natural State" is that it doesn't involve "solving a problem." Correct. It is more like a state of flow--simple beingness without attachment to ideas. It is an empty childlike state of mind in which whatever is happening in the present moment is the focus of attention.
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Mar 29, 2021 8:57:50 GMT -5
"If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him for he is an imposter." 😁
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 29, 2021 16:33:54 GMT -5
I agree. Most everybody here are nondualists. In a nutshell that means all things are equal, basically. That means, in their view, there are no hierarchies. For years I had a ongoing *battle* with ZD about the possibility of a higher state of consciousness. He always dismissed me. But, yes, there are different levels of consciousness. Anyone that sincerely tries, can verify in one day that there are times when they are more-conscious and times when they are less-conscious. That's a start, but only a start. But a journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. Consciousness is not like an off and on switch, it's more like a dimmer switch. ZD is very sincere when he says there is no personal self, no separate volitional person. It's difficult to argue with that, POV. No. That's not what "nondualists" .. "think". There are plenty of interesting hierarchies. None of them are ultimately relevant to self-inquiry, and there are several that are distractions from it. That doesn't mean that everything is equal, nor that every state of consciousness is the same, but no state - of anything - can define you. SDP: As Laffy points out, ND sages do NOT think that all things are equal, but they also do NOT think that things are unequal. What Laffy, Reefs, I, and others point out is that any statement one might make about any existential issue is subject to severe misinterpretation because that which is non-conceptual cannot be captured in concepts. This is why logic is useless for grasping what's being pointed to. In this regard, poetry is a far better pointer than prose. This is why Zen people developed a different way of dealing with existential questions and answers--a way that completely avoids the necessity of thinking. A classic Zen koan is to hold up some object, such as a Zen stick, and ask, "What is this?" If a student responds, "That's a stick," the teacher will say, "You're attached to form." If the student then says, "Okay, it's not a stick," the teacher will say, "Now you're attached to emptiness." No matter what the student says, all verbal answers will be rejected because they will all be based upon conventional thinking within the consensus paradigm. How can such a question be answered in such a way that the teacher will know that the student understands the existential truth? FWIW, about half of all Zen koans are not answered with words, and none of them can be resolved by thinking. The answers to the questions must be seen immediately, prior to thought. Also FWIW, there are a great many people who can attain a 100% intellectual understanding of ND without ever attaining realizations that are required for what we might call "deep understanding." In the batgap interview between Terry Stephens and Rick Archer Terry makes this point rather strongly. He studied under Sailor Bob and thought he understood ND, but his understanding was strictly intellectual, and after his awakening, he realized that. If you haven't watched that interview, you might find it interesting. Terry's story is pretty amazing.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Mar 29, 2021 16:51:15 GMT -5
No. That's not what "nondualists" .. "think". There are plenty of interesting hierarchies. None of them are ultimately relevant to self-inquiry, and there are several that are distractions from it. That doesn't mean that everything is equal, nor that every state of consciousness is the same, but no state - of anything - can define you. SDP: As Laffy points out, ND sages do NOT think that all things are equal, but they also do NOT think that things are unequal. What Laffy, Reefs, I, and others point out is that any statement one might make about any existential issue is subject to severe misinterpretation because that which is non-conceptual cannot be captured in concepts. This is why logic is useless for grasping what's being pointed to. In this regard, poetry is a far better pointer than prose. This is why Zen people developed a different way of dealing with existential questions and answers--a way that completely avoids the necessity of thinking. A classic Zen koan is to hold up some object, such as a Zen stick, and ask, "What is this?" If a student responds, "That's a stick," the teacher will say, "You're attached to form." If the student then says, "Okay, it's not a stick," the teacher will say, "Now you're attached to emptiness." No matter what the student says, all verbal answers will be rejected because they will all be based upon conventional thinking within the consensus paradigm. How can such a question be answered in such a way that the teacher will know that the student understands the existential truth? FWIW, about half of all Zen koans are not answered with words, and none of them can be resolved by thinking. The answers to the questions must be seen immediately, prior to thought. Also FWIW, there are a great many people who can attain a 100% intellectual understanding of ND without ever attaining realizations that are required for what we might call "deep understanding." In the batgap interview between Terry Stephens and Rick Archer Terry makes this point rather strongly. He studied under Sailor Bob and thought he understood ND, but his understanding was strictly intellectual, and after his awakening, he realized that. If you haven't watched that interview, you might find it interesting. Terry's story is pretty amazing. Maybe, take the stick from the teacher's hand and hit the teacher's hand with it. After having several realizations (as I understood you had), can you know that you won't have another one, or more? Could that turn everything you know now upside down? I'm honestly asking this.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 29, 2021 22:11:14 GMT -5
SDP: As Laffy points out, ND sages do NOT think that all things are equal, but they also do NOT think that things are unequal. What Laffy, Reefs, I, and others point out is that any statement one might make about any existential issue is subject to severe misinterpretation because that which is non-conceptual cannot be captured in concepts. This is why logic is useless for grasping what's being pointed to. In this regard, poetry is a far better pointer than prose. This is why Zen people developed a different way of dealing with existential questions and answers--a way that completely avoids the necessity of thinking. A classic Zen koan is to hold up some object, such as a Zen stick, and ask, "What is this?" If a student responds, "That's a stick," the teacher will say, "You're attached to form." If the student then says, "Okay, it's not a stick," the teacher will say, "Now you're attached to emptiness." No matter what the student says, all verbal answers will be rejected because they will all be based upon conventional thinking within the consensus paradigm. How can such a question be answered in such a way that the teacher will know that the student understands the existential truth? FWIW, about half of all Zen koans are not answered with words, and none of them can be resolved by thinking. The answers to the questions must be seen immediately, prior to thought. Also FWIW, there are a great many people who can attain a 100% intellectual understanding of ND without ever attaining realizations that are required for what we might call "deep understanding." In the batgap interview between Terry Stephens and Rick Archer Terry makes this point rather strongly. He studied under Sailor Bob and thought he understood ND, but his understanding was strictly intellectual, and after his awakening, he realized that. If you haven't watched that interview, you might find it interesting. Terry's story is pretty amazing. Maybe, take the stick from the teacher's hand and hit the teacher's hand with it. After having several realizations (as I understood you had), can you know that you won't have another one, or more? Could that turn everything you know now upside down? I'm honestly asking this. There's no end to what can be realized because THIS is infinite, but a realization reveals what is NOT conceptually true, and so far, after more than thirty-five years, no realization has ever occurred that invalidated a previous realization. That's why we say that the path of ND is a path of subtraction rather than addition. You don't gain more knowledge as much as you see through conditioning that made you think about reality based on misconceptions. For example, most humans think reality is composed of separate things and events, but it isn't. They also think that they are separate volitional entities looking at a world "out there," but they aren't. The observer and the observed are not two. On a positive note, although your answer to the stick koan is a bit crude, it's on the right track.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Mar 29, 2021 23:47:45 GMT -5
Maybe, take the stick from the teacher's hand and hit the teacher's hand with it. After having several realizations (as I understood you had), can you know that you won't have another one, or more? Could that turn everything you know now upside down? I'm honestly asking this. There's no end to what can be realized because THIS is infinite, but a realization reveals what is NOT conceptually true, and so far, after more than thirty-five years, no realization has ever occurred that invalidated a previous realization. That's why we say that the path of ND is a path of subtraction rather than addition. You don't gain more knowledge as much as you see through conditioning that made you think about reality based on misconceptions. For example, most humans think reality is composed of separate things and events, but it isn't. They also think that they are separate volitional entities looking at a world "out there," but they aren't. The observer and the observed are not two. On a positive note, although your answer to the stick koan is a bit crude, it's on the right track. Thanks! This agrees with what I think, more than I expected. I observed the same thing, that what I learn (know) new may clarify what I learned (knew) before, but never contradicts. There may have been more than one interpretation, and unwittingly I picked an incorrect one, I jumped to conclusions. Surely, we differ about reality, but conclusions seem to be similar. As (in my view) each one creates 100% of their reality, then in one's reality all three examples you mentioned are true. Yes, I was shooting for some shocking reply.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Apr 3, 2021 3:57:27 GMT -5
I agree. Most everybody here are nondualists. In a nutshell that means all things are equal, basically. That means, in their view, there are no hierarchies. For years I had a ongoing *battle* with ZD about the possibility of a higher state of consciousness. He always dismissed me. But, yes, there are different levels of consciousness. Anyone that sincerely tries, can verify in one day that there are times when they are more-conscious and times when they are less-conscious. That's a start, but only a start. But a journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. Consciousness is not like an off and on switch, it's more like a dimmer switch. ZD is very sincere when he says there is no personal self, no separate volitional person. It's difficult to argue with that, POV. No. That's not what "nondualists" .. "think". There are plenty of interesting hierarchies. None of them are ultimately relevant to self-inquiry, and there are several that are distractions from it. That doesn't mean that everything is equal, nor that every state of consciousness is the same, but no state - of anything - can define you. Well, not equal, but equal in what respect?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 3, 2021 4:08:21 GMT -5
No. That's not what "nondualists" .. "think". There are plenty of interesting hierarchies. None of them are ultimately relevant to self-inquiry, and there are several that are distractions from it. That doesn't mean that everything is equal, nor that every state of consciousness is the same, but no state - of anything - can define you. Well, not equal, but equal in what respect? That would depend on what we're comparing. The sense of being one can find in meditation can be described in different ways. One of which is that it's a subtle, yet powerful commonality, always there. It's "the same for everyone", but rather than "equal", I'd say rather, that it's transcendent of comparison.
|
|