Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2018 3:53:25 GMT -5
I can imagine such as scenario easily, I just can't prove it But that's wrong. It is simply true that the diagonal is longer and the imagination cannot 'bend it into shape', all things being relative. There are no limitations on imagination and it doesn't care about being right or wrong, or being logical or reasonable. It just imagines stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Oct 17, 2018 4:09:52 GMT -5
But that's wrong. It is simply true that the diagonal is longer and the imagination cannot 'bend it into shape', all things being relative. There are no limitations on imagination and it doesn't care about being right or wrong, or being logical or reasonable. It just imagines stuff. Exactly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2018 4:13:38 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. Focus on the word 'experience' misses the point, and should be a different topic of conversation. Like a realization, its not the event which matters, it is the resulting "seeing".
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Oct 17, 2018 4:16:08 GMT -5
Knowing that the foundation is Consciousness/Being itself, does not therefore mean that all expression arising 'within' Being, are therefore conscious beings. That's the mistake you keep making. He said it, I'll let him deal with it. I'm pretty sure he didn't mean it in the way you are taking it. well I was just correcting the mistake you made. Those who consider that everything is conscious, do so, because they see Consciousness as foundational. Whether or not 'everything is conscious' is a mistake, depends on whether Consciousness has a quality of 'being conscious' i.e whether it 'knows' or not. If it does, then it has to be the case that everything is conscious. I saw below that that you consider 'creation=perception' to be an aspect of the realization you have had. Can you tell me exactly what 'creation=perception' means to you i.e what it was you specifically realized that tells you that 'creation=perception?' When someone say 'Creation=Perception', it means that when you perceive something that something is being created. This is possible if what's appearing only exist in appearance.
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Oct 17, 2018 4:17:39 GMT -5
The human body associated with Being, is an appearance indeed, but the association is direct, visceral, immediate. There's a difference between 'direct experience/knowing' vs. assumptive knowing. Perception gives rise to objects, although a facet of seeing 'no separation' can also be seen if one simply sincerely looks at what's happening.
So it IS an assumption that Fig is alive/experiencing/perceiving (because Fig is appearing)? Sorry, I'm also not clear if 'perception gives rise to objects' is a realization...? Figgles's body is appearing in Figgles's consciousness which is being looked by Figgles awareness. Consciousness is the screen here and Awareness is looker here.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 17, 2018 4:18:44 GMT -5
But that's wrong. It is simply true that the diagonal is longer and the imagination cannot 'bend it into shape', all things being relative. There are no limitations on imagination and it doesn't care about being right or wrong, or being logical or reasonable. It just imagines stuff. But you can't imagine the arrangement of dots, because they are relative, and relations entail constraint. This is different to imagining pink flying elephants. That is entirely possible. But the dots? Heh.
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Oct 17, 2018 4:24:26 GMT -5
Actually until I started talking to him, he hasn't seen that possibility, I have made to see that possibility he immediately admit with after few trials but I have presented the same possibility with Andrew,Tenka but they have vehemently opposed me. Before he started talking to me Enigma hasn't even thought about whether other people are real or not. You hooked a big fish! Thank you!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2018 4:50:47 GMT -5
yes! precisely how I see it. (lol...just what you needed hey? yet another rivet in our already con-joined hips ) "It's just mind's way of translating a loss of boundaries into an experiential format". really, really well stated.
That really is the takeaway, and I guess you could even call it a sort of 'realization' that specifically pertains to the transcendent/mystical experience. In seeing that mind is just doing what it does, We see through/past the experiential content to see the underlying non-conceptual Truth. (no boundaries/no limitation, which sounds conceptual, but it's not).
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. I agree. I had a realization once, and I could immediately tell that something had fallen away, but I couldn't put my finger on exactly what had disappeared, but it was a relief that it had. I then spent months after trying to understand what had happened, but I had the good sense of not drawing any conclusions about it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2018 5:16:37 GMT -5
Right, you can only imagine the idea of it, so it's a once-removed abstraction. Mathematical "proof" and physical "proof" are very different, because the mathematical proof represents an idealized absolute abstract truth that can only be contradicted by refuting the whole of the system used to express the contradiction. It starts, with "equals". Kind of unrelated to what you said, cuz my mind only goes off on whatever tangents its interested in Mind pretends to care about 'proof', but I don't think it really does. You believe what you want to believe, and nothing nobody says is gonna change that.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 17, 2018 5:30:43 GMT -5
well I think one of the problems with the looking that you have done, is that you do take the looking 'at face value'. There are subtleties to looking that I'm not sure you have considered. First, is that what we look for, we find. The second (and related), is that the looker and looked are not actually separate. So I don't question what you have seen, I just don't consider it to be as... 'Truthy' as you do. What I am suggesting, is precisely, looking 'without' an agenda to see anything specifically. It can be done. And indeed, the looker and looked are not actually separate, but that really should not have a bearing upon 'what' is seen if it's done with an absence of agenda and a sincere, genuine interest to see what actually is.
& fwiw, you know far more things for certain that I do.
You can't look without an intention. Otherwise it's just staring (nothing wrong with that). Because looker/looked are not actually separate, it means that even what is self-evidently seen, is still seen relatively, rather than absolutely. That's why spirituality is in the sphere of trust, not science. You can see that oneness is the case, accept it as true, experience it as undeniably true....but you still might be wrong. This is why all knowings collapse into the unknown.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 17, 2018 5:40:47 GMT -5
No, I mean that what appears in your portal is countable and measurable and finite in any given moment. Ideas like 'countable, measurable', even 'my' perception point (in contrast to some supposed other perception point) just don't arise in a present moment of 'perception is.' The idea that 'this' moment of perception is somehow finite in and of itself, absent the knowing of 'other points of perception doesn't register. Well, my dear 'ol pooch is sitting at my feet, and I tell you, while I may not know for certain that he is perceiving, the sense of connection I 'experience' with him,is one of the strongest relationships I have been gifted with. Here, all that is actually know is; perception is. It's a present, immediate, direct known of perception, happening in the present moment. That's the only way perception is known. Those ideas obviously don't arise on a moment by moment basis, but it doesn't change the countability/measurability issue of there being a singular POP (as opposed to infinite POP's 'intimately connecting'). You could perhaps argue that the infinite totality is appearing in just your POP but that's obviously not the case, because if it were you would be omnisciently aware of every distinction from your apparent past, present and future. You wouldn't know of change, or even perception. The reason you know OF perception, is because you experience change. It is ironically because yours is NOT the only POP, that you know that 'perception is' lol
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 17, 2018 5:43:35 GMT -5
It depends on whether I had an interest in pointing beyond conceptual ideas/beliefs, or if I had an interest in pointing beyond all perceptions, experiences, knowings. There are times when I might say that 'Truth' is what is 'known to be fundamental beyond mind', and there are times when I might say that 'Truth' is a pointer to 'the unknown'. They are two slightly different things. I would tend to use the word 'Being' to talk about what is 'know to be fundamental beyond mind', so in that context they would be equivalent. But, Do you have reference for actual, present moment, visceral 'Being'? Sure, though I know 'Being' viscerally AND infinitely. So for me, the question of whether 'Beingness' is present for 'others' cannot arise.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 17, 2018 5:45:44 GMT -5
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. I don't understand how your first and second sentences relate. If a body is appearing then it IS being perceived.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 17, 2018 5:51:50 GMT -5
Right, so that which is 'fundamental' to the appearing human then. Prior to, yes. It sounds like you consider points of perception to be prior to/fundamental to what appears. I consider this problematic because I don't consider 'finiteness' in any capacity, to be prior to/fundamental. I consider only 'what is whole' to be fundamental. So in my perspective, perception as a whole is fundamental, and therefore immeasurable/countless POP's would be appearing (though actually, the idea of a POP is misconceived from within this context.)
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 17, 2018 6:01:59 GMT -5
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. Yes, it's clear that when folks reference 'I am' or 'I exist' or 'being' that that aren't automatically speaking from the perspective of Self, the clue being that from the perspective of Self, one can't speak of 'others' in the same sentence as talking about 'I am' or 'I exist' or 'being'. In order for me to really understand spiritual solipsism, I HAVE to step into a perspective of there being an 'actual self' or an 'actual finite portal' or an 'actual individual POP', or an 'actual individual consciousness, because that's the only way that spiritual solipsism makes any sense. It's logical from within that perspective, but only to the extent that infinite Self is not known. Oneness and spiritual solipsism are incompatible.
|
|