|
Post by enigma on Oct 16, 2018 23:19:30 GMT -5
There ya go! Creation has already started to solve the marble problem using Tolle's lawn mower. It has something to do with the orbital inertia of the wheels engaging the lawn while mowing at near the speed of light and contracting in the direction of travel as he approaches his garden gnome. It'll take a while to work out the math. Unrelated, but kinda funny! Check out this recent headline: "Bristol man attacks son with chainsaw, loses leg when son runs him over with lawn mower" self deception and unconscious behavior can also lead to an absence
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2018 23:33:48 GMT -5
These things I know with absolute certainty: 1. You duck because you are convinced the rock coming toward your head is real regardless of what you write on this forum. 2. Given fifteen minutes and a pair of pliers I can demonstrate that no matter how immune you think you are from suffering, you're only kidding yourselves. It would only take one knuckle pop to prove it. 3. God and you cannot be objects in the field of perception. It's impossible. 4. The field of perception, time/space, is a construct. 5. Reef's right. There's nothing serious going on here. My sincere apologies if anyone is offended by this. Well, I never!! 1) Some of us duck because we know it will hurt. It's like Tenka's bus; it can't cause death but it may lead to death. 2) I think most of us have agreed that SR resolves existential suffering only. 3) In case this is a challenge to infinite potential, it IS possible for such an experience to occur. 4) That being the case, how can it be that a rock is 'real'? 5) Knuckle pops sound serious. Nice.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 16, 2018 23:35:01 GMT -5
You figgle she doesn't know that she is a conscious point of perception by virtue of consciously perceiving?? No I was asking about the appearance of the Fig human bodymind that seems to be alive, experiencing, perceiving. The body is an appearance, of course. That's true whether there's a POP or not.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 16, 2018 23:37:18 GMT -5
Are you asking what perceives appearances? The same 'thing' that creates them. Right, so that which is 'fundamental' to the appearing human then. Prior to, yes.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 16, 2018 23:45:03 GMT -5
I'd say skepticism eventually leads to solipsism. Yes, but it doesn't even go far enough. It is skeptical about the reality of 'others', but unquestionably accepts the truth of the reality of 'self' (as we discussed, the concept of 'others' only has meaning in relation to the concept of 'self'). Now of course, a spiritual solipsist wouldn't say that they accept the truth of the reality of 'self', instead they will use many other concepts that are more spiritually orientated, like 'I am'.Good point. That's what I see going on here. As I've been saying, from the perspective of self as well as from the perspective of Self you can say with certainty "I exist" or "I am" - so we shouldn't take those statements at face value and assume that when someone is referring to "I am" or 'existence' or 'isness' or 'being' s/he is automatically speaking from the perspective of Self. I mean, I used to get a LOT of stick for demonstrating caution of the 'I exist' thing, but spiritual solipsists demonstrate exactly why I'm cautious about it. If 'I exist' is taken as 'but I can't know if you exist', then an egocentric hole is being dug. Right, that's where we are back to arguing for separation actually being the case. And since the perspective is the one of self and not Self, the context mix doesn't even register, no matter how often you point that out. Which tells me that there is an actual lack of reference for the perspective of Self. That's why I gave up looking at it from the perspective of Self. When I look at it from the perspective of self now, I clearly see the logic at work there and it makes a lot of sense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2018 23:48:34 GMT -5
I know for certain that oneness is the case, that Self is infinite, there is no actual separation, that there is an essential and formless aliveness/consciousness to all things. I know for certain that there is a source of creation, I know for certain that perception=creation, hell I even know for certain that love is the energy that creates all things. And you know what? I might be wrong about all those things. None of them are proveable. But it makes no difference to me, I can't NOT know what I know. Spirituality is philosophy, not science. We may be able to use science to support certain claims, but ultimately, there is a boundary beyond which science cannot go. Some things have to be accepted as true, just because they seem undeniably true, not because they can be proved. Agreed. It's not the mind that knows the Infinite; it is the Infinite that knows the Infinite, and it can know Itself directly and non-conceptually. The intellect is somehow bypassed in kensho, and what we call "the intellect" can only conceptualize what was seen after the seeing. This is why Reefs calls it a realization rather than an experience--because the usual experiencer, the person, isn't there when it happens, so it's not an experience in any usual sense. Oneness is the only thingless thing that can apprehend oneness. As with all realizations, mind becomes informed by what is seen, and only then attempts to understand it conceptually. The Infinite, through a body/mind organism, clearly sees _____________, which is Itself, but it cannot know Itself conceptually without imaginatively dividing Itself into abstract artificial states, and that kind of knowing is not the same as direct knowing. Many Buddhists call the Infinite "the One Mind" or "Big Mind," and that concept seems to point to the same thing. In that sense, Big Mind is like the ocean, and human minds are like waves on the ocean. They have individual perspectives, but they're still one-with the ocean. There's no actual twoness. This concept would correspond to what I've often referred to as "the download phenomenon" associated with kensho that many mystics report (what Bucke called "an intellectual illumination impossible to describe"); it's as if a big computer on earth downlinked stuff or re-programmed stuff for a small computer on a distant spaceship via some sort of telecommunication. The connection is actually felt in some weird sense and it's like a flow of power. Many times people understand stuff after a kensho that they never previously understood or perhaps never even thought about. It's as if the neural circuits of the brain get reorganized in some new way. Needless to say, probably none of this type talk will appeal to anyone who only thinks in terms of appearances. I'm pretty sure you've spoken in the past about the importance of seeing the delineation between that which is an impermanent arising in contrast to that which abides as the unchanging back-drop to that. Isn't that essentially the same as delineating 'appearances' in contrast to that which they arise within?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 17, 2018 0:12:17 GMT -5
Of course, the experience (mystical or whatever) is never a problem. It's always what we conclude from it or how we interpret. This can happen with realization too. Mind isn't going to stay out of it, so we need to be careful. Exactly. & Even seeing what mind does with this stuff, and that it isn't going to stay out it, doesn't preclude mind from trying to sneak in the back door.
And that's really what happened with those who had a CC/Kensho experience involving 'the nature of Self' who then come away from that, certain they now know that appearing people and things are in fact, experiencing/perceiving.
The realizational component of 'nature of Self' cannot be captured with words or concepts, but mind crept in and assigned material knowledge/conceptual understanding to that which is actually beyond concept.
I think this is where you are projecting. Honestly, I have no idea why you guys still keep talking like this. You see, the way you categorically rule out a realization like kensho even being possible rather points to a rigid mental position. And the fact that you had to copy and paste from ZD kinda destroyed all your credibility on the subject. I suggest you take an honest look at what you are doing here. Like Enigma, you have no actual reference for what we are talking about. At least Enigma had the decency to admit that. But then you both go on and on about what kesho actually is and actually isn't. Seriously, if I don't have a clue what's been talked about, I'll take the STFU route or at least keep a low profile. But not you guys. I don't get that.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 17, 2018 0:12:56 GMT -5
Most of us on this forum have a reference for some of the terms that are commonly used here, but I suspect that all of us lack some references. I know exactly what is meant by OBE, NS, SR, CC, kensho, being in the zone, the natural state--SS, non-locality events, etc, but I have no reference at all for lucid dreaming or full awareness while in deep sleep. I have very little experience with kundalini other than kryia (spasmodic muscular contractions caused by meditation) and other relatively minor energy circulation experiences. I accept that there are psychic phenomena (such as lucid dreaming, awareness in deep sleep, major kundalini effects, etc)) that other people have experienced, but it would seem a bit strange to categorically deny things that I have no direct experience or knowledge of. Nobody's denying there is a kensho experience. Nobody ever has, and God willing, nobody ever will. A very simple statement is being made, and it's not being made casually or carelessly. It's not being made to anger anyone or hurt anyone. That statement is - Experience is illusion at a fundamental level and cannot say anything about anything beyond the experience of it. Anything that has a beginning and an end is an experience. I don't care what it's called and I don't have to experience it myself.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 17, 2018 0:46:39 GMT -5
Suffering is being subjectively experienced by something no matter how many illusions are involved. Suffering IS happening. Something that is not illusion is suffering. No, that is not the case. Guess we're at impasse. Ramana on this point: The quote doesn't speak to the point I'm making, which makes me think you don't know what that point is. I'm the dream King. I know it's all a dream. I know it's all 'unreal'. I've been challenged endlessly for insisting on both. What I'm saying is that suffering is being experienced. It doesn't matter if it's a dream or 'unreal' or a simulation created by lizard people. Suffering is being experienced. The question then is, by whom? If we conclude that which is experiencing suffering is an illusion, we have to ask ourselves if illusions actually experience, or if that which actually experiences must be that which actually exists. This is why I say God has fallen into his own dream. Suffering does happen. This is why the teachers teach. They know full well it does.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 17, 2018 0:49:55 GMT -5
Suffering is being subjectively experienced by something no matter how many illusions are involved. Suffering IS happening. Something that is not illusion is suffering. And more Ramana on suffering being mere appearance: To be sure, there is an end to suffering.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Oct 17, 2018 0:55:56 GMT -5
No, that is not the case. Guess we're at impasse. Ramana on this point: The quote doesn't speak to the point I'm making, which makes me think you don't know what that point is. I'm the dream King. I know it's all a dream. I know it's all 'unreal'. I've been challenged endlessly for insisting on both. What I'm saying is that suffering is being experienced. It doesn't matter if it's a dream or 'unreal' or a simulation created by lizard people. Suffering is being experienced. The question then is, by whom? If we conclude that which is experiencing suffering is an illusion, we have to ask ourselves if illusions actually experience, or if that which actually experiences must be that which actually exists. This is why I say God has fallen into his own dream. We must not be using the same definitions of suffering and unreal. Suffering is nothing less than the misconception that there is a "person" who is being persecuted, confined, and hurt -- in short, that there is a person who is suffering. Suffering happens because of ignorance; ignorance is the notion that such a person exists. When ignorance is removed, it turns out that not only is there not any such person, but that there never was any such person. That means suffering itself was simply a false idea, false even as to its own nature. Now sensations happen. But the interpretation of them as suffering is the interpretation of those sensations as occurring to a particular false idea -- the idea of an individual, trapped doer-experiencer. In short, suffering is the false idea that suffering happens and it happens to a person (the sufferer). Get rid of the ignorance, and that idea goes, and the suffering along with it. The teachers teaching is as unreal as the suffering.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Oct 17, 2018 0:56:24 GMT -5
And more Ramana on suffering being mere appearance: To be sure, there is an end to suffering. There is more than an end; there is the discovery that it never was.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 17, 2018 1:06:23 GMT -5
Good point. The way I've been looking at it, we purposely use mind to define the conditions which are not compatible with a defined outcome, then pat ourselves on the back for tricking God at his own game. Creation doesn't work that way. Science often encounters seemingly impossible phenomena. (i.e. quantum physics) and then creation goes to work to produce the science that explains it. Imagine science 'discovering' 4 equidistant points on a plane during a particle physics experiment, and after exhaustive research 'discovers' a quasi-dimensional Ralph Field Effect (or RFE, named after the brilliant scientist who discovered it) that finally explains the impossibility, which is no longer an impossibility. That's how creation works. It's just the waking dream version of your night time dream scenario. ALL things are possible. God always wins. But mathematics is distinct from science in that it expresses ideas that are unconstrained by physical appearances. Replace the marbles with idealized, dimensionless dots, and lolz' point is that it's not even something you can imagine. So your point about science here isn't a complete counterpoint to his thought experiment. The prisons that we create, inside which all things are not possible, is just one of those possibilities. Infinite potential is a wacky thing.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 17, 2018 1:06:31 GMT -5
To be sure, there is an end to suffering. There is more than an end; there is the discovery that it never was. Basic process is, acknowledge suffering is the truth in the real-lived experience; look into the primal cause of suffering; stop causing it.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 17, 2018 1:45:46 GMT -5
Bump . Perhaps E you could answer these sort of posts rather than spending time dancing around with trivial posts that are of no real substance excuse the pun). . I understand that you're going through a period of grief and mourning right now, but this has me wondering if we're back to the old standards of disrespect and ridicule from before Reefs took up the badge. I am making a point that E is spending more time picking up on conversations that I AM having with sifting and not even understanding why I am saying what I am saying rather than actually answering key questions that relate to his foundations . I have asked many times if he could just answer the questions as and when they are asked but it seems he would rather go dancing around not answered them . It's impossible to get any headway with him without him answering key foundational questions . I have spent more time asking him the same questions than getting on with the actual conversations about the topic at hand .
|
|