|
Post by Reefs on Aug 8, 2017 1:49:52 GMT -5
Over the years, what most here seem to agree upon is that there is no separation, that oneness is the case and that the world as we know it is only an appearance in consciousness. So while everyone seems to agree that consciousness is all there is, there has been major disagreement on what that actually means in practical terms, especially in the way we relate to each other. What about those other people in our lives? Are they just empty appearances devoid of any substance and aliveness? How can we know? And what can we know about those others?
There have been basically two factions. Faction 1 has been asserting that we cannot know for certain if those other people that appear in our experience are as real as we are and capable of perceiving because we can never step into their shoes and see from their perspective. So this perspective, which I will call perspective 1, is basically a conclusion based knowing. Faction 2 has been asserting that it can indeed be know with certainty if those other people that appear in our experience are perceiving or not simply because everything that exists is alive and conscious, which can be seen and experienced directly. So this perspective, which I will call perspective 2, is based on direct knowing.
Now, this discussion has been raging for about a year on this forum and actually continued on the other forum but in both cases it ended in a trainwreck. After having finished the Seth material I think this problem can be solved easily. But before we can do that, we first have to lay some new conceptual groundwork. The old concepts we are used to like self and Self don't really get us very far. So I'll be going a bit into Seth's ontology in this thread and introduce some new concepts like inner ego and outer ego, outer senses and inner senses, framework 1 and framework 2, telepathy etc. The Seth material is actually mostly concerned with the CC perspective of reality. This forum, however, has been mostly dedicated to the SR perspective of reality. And so some we will probably be covering new territory. But in the end I am confident that it will all come together quite nicely as it did for me when I was working my way thru the Seth books.
Now, what I can say right away is that both Seth and Abraham would disagree with the basic premise of faction 1. According to our non-physical friends, it is absolutely possible to stand in another's shoes and peek thru their eyes and don their perspective. They actually do that all the time. I'll explain later how this all works. And what about perspective 2? Quite simply, it takes a CC to really understand what faction 2 is asserting. There's no way around this. As ZD used to say, SR and CC are both important realizations, but the CC folks have a deeper understanding of reality than the SR folks. It will become clear why that is later in this thread. So stay tuned. This topic of appearances and their nature will lead us into new territory that hasn't been covered on this forum so far.
I'll be posting some material in the next few days in order to lay the conceptual groundwork we need for this discussion, which will probably take a while but in the meantime you can jump in and comment anytime and anywhere as you see fit. I'll also continue to post some of the more basic stuff in the Seth quotes thread. So keep checking there from time to time as well.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Aug 8, 2017 4:13:07 GMT -5
1. According to our non-physical friends, it is absolutely possible to stand in another's shoes and peek thru their eyes and don their perspective. They actually do that all the time. Yes, I agree with this . What I see as problematic with this however in regards to the other forum conversation is the continual cross dressing of platforms . The point of reference made in the first instance relates to a waking world dude that believes they are potentially the only sole existence . So we have to base that sense of existence from the origin of that sense . In this case it is of the waking world as a physical peep . I am a developing trance healer / medium so I know all too well about other energies stepping into one's shoes and in your line of thought I would say that a non physical being would not entertain trying to perceive through a mannequin lol, what would the point be of that? Non physical entities require their mediums to be conscious beings that are able to function in this world . Has anyone seen a mannequin go into a trance state? I doubt it .
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 8, 2017 7:29:09 GMT -5
Thanks Reefs, I think this is needed. It seems the SR people place all the emphasis on unity. So it seems the real question is, then why the diversity? It seems Unity has gone through a lot of trouble to form this complex universe. For me, that's the question.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 8, 2017 8:35:04 GMT -5
Thanks Reefs, I think this is needed. It seems the SR people place all the emphasis on unity. So it seems the real question is, then why the diversity? It seems Unity has gone through a lot of trouble to form this complex universe. For me, that's the question. From my POV the emphasis is upon freedom from the dominance of mind--freedom from all ideas, including ideas of unity or diversity. Most people are strongly attached to their ideas about the world, and the path of non-duality is a path by which ideas are discovered to be ideas, only (the map rather than the territory). If we look at the world, we do not see unity, diversity, thingness, time, space, self, etc; we see "what is." "What is" is unbounded and alive. The problem for human beings is that they're so habituated to distinguishing and imagining, that they're stuck in a dualistic mode of mind. Every existential question is based upon a misconception. The most basic misconception is that we are separate observers "in here" looking at a universe "out there." When this illusion is penetrated, a new level of understanding occurs. We discover that what we are is "what is" looking at "what is." There are not two. Rather than ask a complex existential question, such as, "Why is there diversity?" we can make it much simpler and ask "Why is there light?" or "Why is there water?" If we penetrate the illusion behind these simple questions, the resolution of the diversity question will quickly follow.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 8, 2017 8:37:38 GMT -5
Jed wrote that solipsism was an auspicious mental position. But this is only the case if the "solipsist" is genuinely open and has sincerely suspended their conceptual certainty about their conclusions. There is a stark difference between not-knowing .. vs .. being certain that one can never know. This certainty can be either conscious in the forefront of one's mind, or -- in the most extreme case -- unconscious and even denied in the same breath as it's expressed. Solipsism is bullet-proof as a philosophy, and the smug self-satisfaction of a debate victory on the topic is an excellent sign that there's no sincerity involved in the purported not-knowing. Describing one's experience as "I treat figgymints 'as if' they were real" is a clear absurdity that comes about from the material effects of accepting that philosophy. Lucid dreamers make the point that the experience of the existence of others can't be trusted. The idea is that a dream person -- a figgymint -- can seem just as "real" in the night dream as your spouse in the "waking dream". This point is undeniable, and one doesn't even have to have much (or really, any) experience lucid dreaming to understand that it is a profound one. But this cuts both ways. Does the lucid dreamer realize that they're dreaming when they suddenly and instantaneously beam a pink elephant with Spock ears into the middle of their living room? The dream/waking dichotomy demonstrates that illusion is a "real" thingy, and can ultimately be discerned from the actual. It also places the seeker in the double-bind of having no experiential method of confronting that illusion ... is their current experience a lie or the truth? Does the figgymint lie when he or she says that they love you? When the illusion of the personal self has been penetrated, there's no longer any question about the pointer that the same consciousness looks through every pair of eyes. It doesn't matter that self-evidence can never apply to the "other", but this can't be explained, and this position has no intellectual defense. It can only be known, non-conceptually. Until then, that pointer will constantly rouse a particular form of the existential question. The result of approaching the existential queston with intellect is an endless circular debate. That debate will rage for as long as the unanswered question is given attention, regardless of whether or not the debate is externalized. This is a further double-bind for the seeker, as the question will persist as a magnate for their attention until it is addressed.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 8, 2017 9:21:35 GMT -5
Thanks Reefs, I think this is needed. It seems the SR people place all the emphasis on unity. So it seems the real question is, then why the diversity? It seems Unity has gone through a lot of trouble to form this complex universe. For me, that's the question. From my POV the emphasis is upon freedom from the dominance of mind--freedom from all ideas, including ideas of unity or diversity. Most people are strongly attached to their ideas about the world, and the path of non-duality is a path by which ideas are discovered to be ideas, only (the map rather than the territory). If we look at the world, we do not see unity, diversity, thingness, time, space, self, etc; we see "what is." "What is" is unbounded and alive. The problem for human beings is that they're so habituated to distinguishing and imagining, that they're stuck in a dualistic mode of mind. Every existential question is based upon a misconception. The most basic misconception is that we are separate observers "in here" looking at a universe "out there." When this illusion is penetrated, a new level of understanding occurs. We discover that what we are is "what is" looking at "what is." There are not two. Rather than ask a complex existential question, such as, "Why is there diversity?" we can make it much simpler and ask "Why is there light?" or "Why is there water?" If we penetrate the illusion behind these simple questions, the resolution of the diversity question will quickly follow. So you're telling Reefs this thread is a waste of time.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 8, 2017 9:26:37 GMT -5
Jed wrote that solipsism was an auspicious mental position. But this is only the case if the "solipsist" is genuinely open and has sincerely suspended their conceptual certainty about their conclusions. There is a stark difference between not-knowing .. vs .. being certain that one can never know. This certainty can be either conscious in the forefront of one's mind, or -- in the most extreme case -- unconscious and even denied in the same breath as it's expressed. Solipsism is bullet-proof as a philosophy, and the smug self-satisfaction of a debate victory on the topic is an excellent sign that there's no sincerity involved in the purported not-knowing. Describing one's experience as "I treat figgymints 'as if' they were real" is a clear absurdity that comes about from the material effects of accepting that philosophy. Lucid dreamers make the point that the experience of the existence of others can't be trusted. The idea is that a dream person -- a figgymint -- can seem just as "real" in the night dream as your spouse in the "waking dream". This point is undeniable, and one doesn't even have to have much (or really, any) experience lucid dreaming to understand that it is a profound one. But this cuts both ways. Does the lucid dreamer realize that they're dreaming when they suddenly and instantaneously beam a pink elephant with Spock ears into the middle of their living room? The dream/waking dichotomy demonstrates that illusion is a "real" thingy, and can ultimately be discerned from the actual. It also places the seeker in the double-bind of having no experiential method of confronting that illusion ... is their current experience a lie or the truth? Does the figgymint lie when he or she says that they love you? When the illusion of the personal self has been penetrated, there's no longer any question about the pointer that the same consciousness looks through every pair of eyes. It doesn't matter that self-evidence can never apply to the "other", but this can't be explained, and this position has no intellectual defense. It can only be known, non-conceptually. Until then, that pointer will constantly rouse a particular form of the existential question. The result of approaching the existential queston with intellect is an endless circular debate. That debate will rage for as long as the unanswered question is given attention, regardless of whether or not the debate is externalized. This is a further double-bind for the seeker, as the question will persist as a magnate for their attention until it is addressed. So you're telling Reefs this thread is a waste of time.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 8, 2017 10:06:43 GMT -5
1. According to our non-physical friends, it is absolutely possible to stand in another's shoes and peek thru their eyes and don their perspective. They actually do that all the time. Yes, I agree with this . What I see as problematic with this however in regards to the other forum conversation is the continual cross dressing of platforms . The point of reference made in the first instance relates to a waking world dude that believes they are potentially the only sole existence . So we have to base that sense of existence from the origin of that sense . In this case it is of the waking world as a physical peep . I am a developing trance healer / medium so I know all too well about other energies stepping into one's shoes and in your line of thought I would say that a non physical being would not entertain trying to perceive through a mannequin lol, what would the point be of that? Non physical entities require their mediums to be conscious beings that are able to function in this world . Has anyone seen a mannequin go into a trance state? I doubt it . There is one important point though. When you step into another's shoes, you keep your identity. With 'cross dressing' you mean changing context?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 8, 2017 10:12:20 GMT -5
Thanks Reefs, I think this is needed. It seems the SR people place all the emphasis on unity. So it seems the real question is, then why the diversity? It seems Unity has gone through a lot of trouble to form this complex universe. For me, that's the question. Yes, it's needed. And this topic is also related to Enigma's purification topic, i.e. the human situation. This is just the larger context so to speak.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 8, 2017 10:27:16 GMT -5
Thanks Reefs, I think this is needed. It seems the SR people place all the emphasis on unity. So it seems the real question is, then why the diversity? It seems Unity has gone through a lot of trouble to form this complex universe. For me, that's the question. Yes, it's needed. And this topic is also related to Enigma's purification topic, i.e. the human situation. This is just the larger context so to speak. "He who has ears to hear, let him hear".
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 8, 2017 10:43:33 GMT -5
Jed wrote that solipsism was an auspicious mental position. But this is only the case if the "solipsist" is genuinely open and has sincerely suspended their conceptual certainty about their conclusions. There is a stark difference between not-knowing .. vs .. being certain that one can never know. This certainty can be either conscious in the forefront of one's mind, or -- in the most extreme case -- unconscious and even denied in the same breath as it's expressed. Solipsism is bullet-proof as a philosophy, and the smug self-satisfaction of a debate victory on the topic is an excellent sign that there's no sincerity involved in the purported not-knowing. Describing one's experience as "I treat figgymints 'as if' they were real" is a clear absurdity that comes about from the material effects of accepting that philosophy. Lucid dreamers make the point that the experience of the existence of others can't be trusted. The idea is that a dream person -- a figgymint -- can seem just as "real" in the night dream as your spouse in the "waking dream". This point is undeniable, and one doesn't even have to have much (or really, any) experience lucid dreaming to understand that it is a profound one. But this cuts both ways. Does the lucid dreamer realize that they're dreaming when they suddenly and instantaneously beam a pink elephant with Spock ears into the middle of their living room? The dream/waking dichotomy demonstrates that illusion is a "real" thingy, and can ultimately be discerned from the actual. It also places the seeker in the double-bind of having no experiential method of confronting that illusion ... is their current experience a lie or the truth? Does the figgymint lie when he or she says that they love you? When the illusion of the personal self has been penetrated, there's no longer any question about the pointer that the same consciousness looks through every pair of eyes. It doesn't matter that self-evidence can never apply to the "other", but this can't be explained, and this position has no intellectual defense. It can only be known, non-conceptually. Until then, that pointer will constantly rouse a particular form of the existential question. The result of approaching the existential queston with intellect is an endless circular debate. That debate will rage for as long as the unanswered question is given attention, regardless of whether or not the debate is externalized. This is a further double-bind for the seeker, as the question will persist as a magnate for their attention until it is addressed. The solipsist's own everyday life experience will prove him wrong (as will all his intuitions and basic instincts and common sense, i.e. the larger part of his self/beingness). It has no basis in any reality. I am going to show later why that is.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 8, 2017 10:49:20 GMT -5
From my POV the emphasis is upon freedom from the dominance of mind--freedom from all ideas, including ideas of unity or diversity. Most people are strongly attached to their ideas about the world, and the path of non-duality is a path by which ideas are discovered to be ideas, only (the map rather than the territory). If we look at the world, we do not see unity, diversity, thingness, time, space, self, etc; we see "what is." "What is" is unbounded and alive. The problem for human beings is that they're so habituated to distinguishing and imagining, that they're stuck in a dualistic mode of mind. Every existential question is based upon a misconception. The most basic misconception is that we are separate observers "in here" looking at a universe "out there." When this illusion is penetrated, a new level of understanding occurs. We discover that what we are is "what is" looking at "what is." There are not two. Rather than ask a complex existential question, such as, "Why is there diversity?" we can make it much simpler and ask "Why is there light?" or "Why is there water?" If we penetrate the illusion behind these simple questions, the resolution of the diversity question will quickly follow. So you're telling Reefs this thread is a waste of time. We are going to walk off the beaten track here for a while. It will put everything in perspective. But eventually we will come full circle again.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 8, 2017 13:23:08 GMT -5
Jed wrote that solipsism was an auspicious mental position. But this is only the case if the "solipsist" is genuinely open and has sincerely suspended their conceptual certainty about their conclusions. There is a stark difference between not-knowing .. vs .. being certain that one can never know. This certainty can be either conscious in the forefront of one's mind, or -- in the most extreme case -- unconscious and even denied in the same breath as it's expressed. Solipsism is bullet-proof as a philosophy, and the smug self-satisfaction of a debate victory on the topic is an excellent sign that there's no sincerity involved in the purported not-knowing. Describing one's experience as "I treat figgymints 'as if' they were real" is a clear absurdity that comes about from the material effects of accepting that philosophy. Lucid dreamers make the point that the experience of the existence of others can't be trusted. The idea is that a dream person -- a figgymint -- can seem just as "real" in the night dream as your spouse in the "waking dream". This point is undeniable, and one doesn't even have to have much (or really, any) experience lucid dreaming to understand that it is a profound one. But this cuts both ways. Does the lucid dreamer realize that they're dreaming when they suddenly and instantaneously beam a pink elephant with Spock ears into the middle of their living room? The dream/waking dichotomy demonstrates that illusion is a "real" thingy, and can ultimately be discerned from the actual. It also places the seeker in the double-bind of having no experiential method of confronting that illusion ... is their current experience a lie or the truth? Does the figgymint lie when he or she says that they love you? When the illusion of the personal self has been penetrated, there's no longer any question about the pointer that the same consciousness looks through every pair of eyes. It doesn't matter that self-evidence can never apply to the "other", but this can't be explained, and this position has no intellectual defense. It can only be known, non-conceptually. Until then, that pointer will constantly rouse a particular form of the existential question. The result of approaching the existential queston with intellect is an endless circular debate. That debate will rage for as long as the unanswered question is given attention, regardless of whether or not the debate is externalized. This is a further double-bind for the seeker, as the question will persist as a magnate for their attention until it is addressed. The solipsist's own everyday life experience will prove him wrong (as will all his intuitions and basic instincts and common sense, i.e. the larger part of his self/beingness). It has no basis in any reality. I think that's why Jed recommends it. But he's recommending it for people who are sincerely seeking. People who are doing what Niz advised to do in terms of becoming familiar with the content of their minds. And I don't think that the author of the Jed books was all that concerned with his effect on the insincere. I am going to show later why that is.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 8, 2017 13:30:18 GMT -5
Jed wrote that solipsism was an auspicious mental position. But this is only the case if the "solipsist" is genuinely open and has sincerely suspended their conceptual certainty about their conclusions. There is a stark difference between not-knowing .. vs .. being certain that one can never know. This certainty can be either conscious in the forefront of one's mind, or -- in the most extreme case -- unconscious and even denied in the same breath as it's expressed. Solipsism is bullet-proof as a philosophy, and the smug self-satisfaction of a debate victory on the topic is an excellent sign that there's no sincerity involved in the purported not-knowing. Describing one's experience as "I treat figgymints 'as if' they were real" is a clear absurdity that comes about from the material effects of accepting that philosophy. Lucid dreamers make the point that the experience of the existence of others can't be trusted. The idea is that a dream person -- a figgymint -- can seem just as "real" in the night dream as your spouse in the "waking dream". This point is undeniable, and one doesn't even have to have much (or really, any) experience lucid dreaming to understand that it is a profound one. But this cuts both ways. Does the lucid dreamer realize that they're dreaming when they suddenly and instantaneously beam a pink elephant with Spock ears into the middle of their living room? The dream/waking dichotomy demonstrates that illusion is a "real" thingy, and can ultimately be discerned from the actual. It also places the seeker in the double-bind of having no experiential method of confronting that illusion ... is their current experience a lie or the truth? Does the figgymint lie when he or she says that they love you? When the illusion of the personal self has been penetrated, there's no longer any question about the pointer that the same consciousness looks through every pair of eyes. It doesn't matter that self-evidence can never apply to the "other", but this can't be explained, and this position has no intellectual defense. It can only be known, non-conceptually. Until then, that pointer will constantly rouse a particular form of the existential question. The result of approaching the existential queston with intellect is an endless circular debate. That debate will rage for as long as the unanswered question is given attention, regardless of whether or not the debate is externalized. This is a further double-bind for the seeker, as the question will persist as a magnate for their attention until it is addressed. So you're telling Reefs this thread is a waste of time. No, not at all. As always, I'm very open to Reefs' ideas and opinions, I'd just thought I'd share a few of my own.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 8, 2017 14:08:21 GMT -5
From my POV the emphasis is upon freedom from the dominance of mind--freedom from all ideas, including ideas of unity or diversity. Most people are strongly attached to their ideas about the world, and the path of non-duality is a path by which ideas are discovered to be ideas, only (the map rather than the territory). If we look at the world, we do not see unity, diversity, thingness, time, space, self, etc; we see "what is." "What is" is unbounded and alive. The problem for human beings is that they're so habituated to distinguishing and imagining, that they're stuck in a dualistic mode of mind. Every existential question is based upon a misconception. The most basic misconception is that we are separate observers "in here" looking at a universe "out there." When this illusion is penetrated, a new level of understanding occurs. We discover that what we are is "what is" looking at "what is." There are not two. Rather than ask a complex existential question, such as, "Why is there diversity?" we can make it much simpler and ask "Why is there light?" or "Why is there water?" If we penetrate the illusion behind these simple questions, the resolution of the diversity question will quickly follow. So you're telling Reefs this thread is a waste of time. Not at all. Each of us brings different things to the table.
|
|