|
Post by andrew on Oct 17, 2018 6:21:07 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. There's a couple of points I want to make here, but I don't really understand the bolded sentence. What kensho, or CC, or this 'intuitive realization' tells us is that existence has essential quality ('aliveness', 'intelligence', 'awareness'...pick a word, it doesn't matter). Once this kensho/CC/intuitive realization has happened, you cannot IGNORE it. You can't undo what you know. You can't NOT accept it to be true. And it is known beyond the conceptual objectifying rational mind. Now, you have said that you know that 'perception=creation'. This is equivalent to kensho/CC/intuitive realization. There's no way you could know this without kensho/CC/intuitive realization, and you can't deny what you know either. So if you want to say that kensho/CC/intuitive realization is maya, that you also have to say that your knowing that 'perception=creation' is maya. . What would be interesting is if you stated what you know to be the case, and let's see if it is kensho/CC/intuitive realization. Infinite possibilities is the case? That's probably kensho/CC/intuitive realization too. Oneness is the case? Probably kensho/CC/intuitive realization. Anything you state 'positively', will probably be kensho/CC/intuitive realization.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 17, 2018 6:22:43 GMT -5
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. Yes, basically agree.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 17, 2018 6:23:53 GMT -5
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. I'll ignore the personalization, because I know it doesn't bother you. But Fig doesn't believe that prior Consciousness has the quality of being conscious or that prior Awareness has the quality of looking.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 17, 2018 6:36:57 GMT -5
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. Now, you have said that you know that 'perception=creation'. This is equivalent to kensho/CC/intuitive realization. There's no way you could know this without kensho/CC/intuitive realization, and you can't deny what you know either. So if you want to say that kensho/CC/intuitive realization is maya, that you also have to say that your knowing that 'perception=creation' is maya. . This is on par with my thoughts regarding foundations . You can't have a real fish in an unreal pond as already said . It has to be one or the other, real or unreal, then from this position everything else is that, even the thought of that, by that.
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Oct 17, 2018 7:19:17 GMT -5
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. I'll ignore the personalization, because I know it doesn't bother you. But Fig doesn't believe that prior Consciousness has the quality of being conscious or that prior Awareness has the quality of looking. I don't know what's this prior quality of awareness Awareness is the looker or knower. It knows something=It perceives something.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 17, 2018 7:22:04 GMT -5
I'll ignore the personalization, because I know it doesn't bother you. But Fig doesn't believe that prior Consciousness has the quality of being conscious or that prior Awareness has the quality of looking. I don't know what's this prior quality of awareness Awareness is the looker or knower. It knows something=It perceives something. Fig doesn't believe that it knows/perceives/is aware.
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Oct 17, 2018 7:35:31 GMT -5
I don't know what's this prior quality of awareness Awareness is the looker or knower. It knows something=It perceives something. Fig doesn't believe that it knows/perceives/is aware. Oh okay, I will talk to her! I have to collapse her illusion then! Let me do that! Thanks for letting me know.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 17, 2018 9:03:36 GMT -5
"Experiencing" (present moment, actual, direct, immediately known, experience happening) is not a quality, not an appearance. The very fact that think direct knowing of that kind is up for question, is what E (as well as I) find baffling. The term "Consciousness" as in "It's all Consciousness" is a pointer. And I'm guessing then, E would also say that the 'knows' he referenced there, is as well. Neither of those terms are meant to be taken for the literal meaning that is generally used/accepted to speak of experiential content. You and Tenka both seem to have trouble when pointers get used. Experiencing is either a fundamental quality of God/Self, or it is a questionable appearance, or it would have to be absolute Truth. You consider experiencing to be absolute Truth? T here is no 'literal' meaning of 'consciousness', because it's an abstract concept...even scientists don't understand it well. There is a consensus understanding of consciousness i.e that consciousness is present in certain beings as a result of particular physical characteristics. The spiritual understanding is that this is not the case, instead...consciousness is fundamental to all life forms. It's the same 'consciousness', just a different understanding associated with it. Yes, that's a point I have been making early on as well, and that point has been turned on its head and then been used as a strawman to discredit the realization that everything is alive/conscious. The realization is not that everything is consciousness. The realization is that everything is alive and conscious, that's what is seen directly. Mind will then turn that into 'consciousness is all there is' in order to make sense of it, which is fine with me as long as it is clear that that is just an abstraction of the actual realization and not the actual realization itself. Now, since to Figgles it is inconceivable that one could actually see directly that everything is alive instead of the lifelessness of the objectified world (aka appearances) everyone is used to (aka from the perspective of self), what she heard was that the realization was that 'everything is consciousness' and then mind turned that into 'and therefore everything must be conscious' when in reality it is exactly the other way around. I never said those words. Enigma later picked up on that and that's what got him into trouble (giraffing). And it seems that giraffe is still alive and well, even though it has gone into hiding.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 17, 2018 9:16:25 GMT -5
Experiencing is either a fundamental quality of God/Self, or it is a questionable appearance, or it would have to be absolute Truth. You consider experiencing to be absolute Truth? T here is no 'literal' meaning of 'consciousness', because it's an abstract concept...even scientists don't understand it well. There is a consensus understanding of consciousness i.e that consciousness is present in certain beings as a result of particular physical characteristics. The spiritual understanding is that this is not the case, instead...consciousness is fundamental to all life forms. It's the same 'consciousness', just a different understanding associated with it. Yes, that's a point I have been making early on as well, and that point has been turned on its head and then been used as a strawman to discredit the realization that everything is alive/conscious. The realization is not that everything is consciousness. The realization is that everything is alive and conscious, that's what is seen directly. Mind will then turn that into 'consciousness is all there is' in order to make sense of it, which is fine with me as long as it is clear that that is just an abstraction of the actual realization and not the actual realization itself. Yes, eggsactly this is why I have asked the foundational questions relating what is consciousness, is it of any real substance . The whole appearance thing arising in consciousness is so misleading ..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 17, 2018 9:31:58 GMT -5
What I'm trying to say is you're personalizing the impersonal, and that's the source of the confusion. You're trying to figure out how an entity can do this. It's not an entity, and mind isn't going to understand it.But you agree with me that existence of other view point can't be known, Said that, how is it possible that you understood? You are also speculating,eh? while you are speculating, how do you know awareness is simultaneously look at more than one perception?I don't, but I don't have to figure out how it can. It's not a question that arises for me because I don't personalize the impersonal.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 17, 2018 9:35:30 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. Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 17, 2018 9:41:41 GMT -5
Then I don't understand why he directly rebutted the assertion, absent qualification. he could simply say the question is misconceived and leave it at that. But that's not what he's done. The assertion is that is's not known whether the other is actually perceiving/experiencing as he appears to be. His has directed refuted that. No. Compared side by side to the assertion he's arguing against, that just doesn't compare. And really, he was pretty clear about what he meant when he said that his CC/Kensho realization had him seeing that the totality is 'alive' and that alive of course, means that perception/experience is "a given". Seeing what is happening here, how pointers are being taken for literally, we likely should have been using the term 'cabbage' all along. Less propensity that way for mind to have it's way with the pointer. Direct, immediately experiencing/perceiving, as is known to be as I sit here right now, is not a concept. It's self evident. It is what's happening. The very fact that this realized 'aliveness' is being contrasted against another concrete experiential term in that way (deadened) is an indicator that a pointer has been licked. The most primary 'way' I experience thingness, is as a blanket totality, and that totality is indeed experienced as 'having the quality of life/vibrancy/intelligence' behind and to it, and yet, it's also deeply understood that those terms are mere shadows for the realization of singular nature/God that gives rise to all. That experience of 'alivness' is itself an appearance. It has to be, because it's part and parcel of experience. The realization though of one singular inhrent nature of all, is beyond experience and thus, not subject to words/terms/ideas/qualities/properties that pertain to experience. It's beyond mind's capture. Well, you have been told that the question of whether 'others are perceiving' is misconceived, but the fact that you still have the question shows that it hasn't been understood 'why' it is misconceived. Yes, I can believe that Reefs said that the totality is alive, and that perceiving/experiencing is a given, but that's not the same as him arguing that ''appearing people are actually experiencing'', because those very words are misconceived from within the context of having had the kensho realization/experience. Simply, he would argue for a formless and essential aliveness. Your description at the end comes across as if you are carrying a philosophical understanding around with you on a moment by moment basis. Like I said, I experience a formless and essential aliveness that it is present within all expressions. That's pretty simple, right? Now compare that with what you just told me. You started off by saying you do experience that, but then you went on to say that you experience shadows and singular natures and appearances. If you don't mean o convey that, can you describe your experience more simply? Is it dreamy? Is it empty? Is it Truthy? Is it appearancy? If you consider experiencing to be 'self-evident', does that mean you consider it to be Absolute Truth? Also note, that you contain the self-evident nature of experiencing to 'yourself'. I don't necessarily have a problem with you saying that experiencing is 'self-evident', but I don't contain experiencing to 'myself'. I know experiencing to be whole, just as I know consciousness, knowing, awareness to be whole. In future, if you mean to convey a 'zero quality', could you use the word 'cabbage'? It would be interesting to see! If you don't use it, for now, I will assume that you are conveying a quality. Right. That's the other giraffe. And I now understand why she necessarily has to phrase it that way (and thereby totally mangling my message). Because she has to make sense of it from the perspective of self. And that's the only way that it makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 17, 2018 9:46:23 GMT -5
Why would the bus lead to one's death and not a snowflake? How can there be a cause of death without a cause lol . It's not an illusion that a physical experience ends at physical death . Your foundation is based upon what .. You need to say what this world is, if not a dream, is the mind of real structure or is that illusory too ...Your just dancing from one thing to another with no foundation in place .. 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). . The world is an appearance in Consciousness, like a dream. The mind is a movement of thought.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 17, 2018 9:50:29 GMT -5
"Being" is beyond question. (That's what I am references) Are you really suggesting that that most basic knowing 'isness' should be questioned? Well, as a good start point, I'm DEFINITELY suggesting that because you don't know if this 'Beingness' applies to 'others', that you should be questioning it. Okay, now I get it. What you are saying is, given her specific method of realization (skepticism), if she would really follow thru and be true to her method/process, she wouldn't just stop there. She would have to go further. This doesn't mean that you suggest that it would be reasonable to doubt it per se, it just means that her specific method of realization would actually require her to doubt it, no matter how absurd it may seem otherwise. But she won't do it. Did I get this right? This would actually make sense since in the past she actually doubted it. When we were talking about absolute certainties and I asked her "Do you exist?" it took her almost 2 months until she came up with an answer. She didn't consider it as an absolute certainty or else she would have answered in the affirmative right away. Interesting developments.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2018 9:53:09 GMT -5
Is "Being" Truth as you see it? 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. Regarding "Being," is there any uncertainty of it?
|
|