|
Post by Reefs on Aug 26, 2017 6:51:15 GMT -5
Re 'types' of energy: there is energy and then there is pure energy. Do the outer self and inner self work with the same kind of energy? The outer self is an extension of the inner self. The division is arbitrary and doesn't actually exist. But we could say that the different parts deal with different stages of energy in the same way that the different parts represent different stages of consciousness.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 26, 2017 6:55:39 GMT -5
Another Bingo with a cherry on top!! (I mean with a bit of cheese on top) Reefs and tenka that's not the way I see it.... Bluey, I'm not really sure what your point of disagreement is.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Aug 26, 2017 6:59:44 GMT -5
Another Bingo with a cherry on top!! (I mean with a bit of cheese on top) Reefs and tenka that's not the way I see it. As a child I would see the back office. The inner moon and stars. The rulers of the inner regions, the sounds too to match the ripples from the stillness that make up the play out world. Just as the young school girl, now a woman learning to drive a car in Canada I go to see would as a child see a hand appear in her room with deities calling to her from a spiral hierarchy which would open up in her room, a spiral stair case to the heavens as she would describe as she was only fourteen at the time. As a school kid she would tell me she would be made still during lessons knowing this is it as her mind would become still and yet coming home just wiping her feet at the door she knew the sound could rearrange her reality from the the softness to pressing down of her feet and then not being able to mix in with others to share over her troubles and truth. Where at night she would see the inner stars, moon, shoot towards the right inwardly through a tunnel just as in Kabirs and nanaks works. Practitioners in meditation stuck hearing the sound of Om Talking of non duality, And then a block. Yet she knew this was not it. Like in the sea, All within the undercurrent with a sound/s before the stillness, the pre-reality yet sold over in the marketplace as the real deal, the last stage. The egg of creation in Kabirs works, why he would say go beyond the egg to the Yogis. Brahmand that contains all including many of the channellers and non duality teachers you see in the marketplace and on Batgap too. It's all mind, lower and pure mind and it has its own light, teaching and following. It all serves its part of the One Being One but you may find the sage with the least presentation is closer to pointing at That. Yet look at the marketplace. The ratings of different sages, the channelled message of different deities. Which words to use for the mystery that is which is beyond any words. Ramana in the west is worshipped, yet pretty much unknown in India. Hitler's mein kampf is known more and of course Osho. The ordinary cup would not sell well over there. The cup of Christ, it has to have its jewels and glamour to coax in the mind of the Indian. The illusion more engrained, established in the collective psyche. Same here in the West. Just gazing at her, tearing through the layers, the story, projections, bringing her to more stillness, away from much that has kept her, have now but all disappeared. Sitting next to her at a lake and saying the lake is a lake, the ducks playing upon it are ducks. Why she smiled when I was pointing it out to her. Nothing interfering, no Channelling, no ascended masters, no talk of non duality, no hand of God appearing. Just what is seeing what is. Just because a sage keeps a silence on creation it's because anything that has led up to it holds little weight against the pure stillness and silence that is. The real mystery, magic and science. Much falls away, fades away. No charge, pull for the opposites as the mind was so accustomed to, no channeling or seeking a golden age as the mind seeks. A completion in some future ascension, a new earth, a reaction to the past, the animal drive for an evolutionary change against That which doesn't evolve, is unborn, yet is everything and no-thing at the same time, a mystery that science will not come to unless the individual turns within and not without and doesn't stop off. An indigo child is taking on the burden in the story to give way to crystal and rainbow children. And they will channel who knows who. Set up shop and have their fans. Yet, never the pointing to stillness and silence beyond the scripts of the many me. Always pointing at you can be more. Rise like lions from your slumber. We are many they are few. Yet from the video shared over earlier of Joe Miller in his story, he wasn't educated. He loved his children. They were taken away from him as a young man as he was poor, which broke his heart loosened him out of the story on some level that kept him where he was at. Just that and him taking a walk, as he describes, just one day breathing a different way and the story was seen through. Many marriages came in and left but the peace, stillness and silence of Being never did. And that's grace. On his death bed he said thank you to each person present. A great sage a man of deep understanding. Never took on a title from the theosophical society, or Buddhist or Sufi sages who recognised him as a sage. He said I'm just a guy named Joe. Rumi on the other hand had everything a title, prestige, the Sultan at the time would shower his family with gifts and land. Yet he came to the same deep understanding as Joe did In the existence of your Love I have become non existent This nonexistence next to you Is better than all existence. So what are you not agreeing with blue exactly?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 26, 2017 20:52:48 GMT -5
Certainty is the requirement for illusion. There is no certainty or uncertainty in the notion that something cannot be known, and I say the world of appearances cannot be known for anything more than the appearances they are. Seriously? Are you sure?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 26, 2017 21:10:18 GMT -5
Certainty is the requirement for illusion. There is no certainty or uncertainty in the notion that something cannot be known, and I say the world of appearances cannot be known for anything more than the appearances they are. Seriously? Are you sure? Well, to be fair, if we reduce the issue down to one of not-knowing, this is one of those dialogs where each side has a valid case that it's the other that's resting their minds in conceptual certainty. Certainty is necessary for mistaking an illusion for other than illusion, but it isn't sufficient. Another necessity is confusion.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 26, 2017 21:14:16 GMT -5
Even the solipsist has to reconcile their mental position with the convincing nature of sensory experience, and align themselves with the way most peeps think: .. "I act as if appearances are real". That's exactly where the credibility gap is. Yes, of course we have to be careful with context. Maybe someone can eventually explain it some day. But until then, it's interesting to note that any thinker that arrives at that limit by thinking will state things in existentially conflated terms. Take Spence' for example: Where he invites mind to keep churning into a context mix is really obvious to me here, as is just the right pointer to decline the invitation. The appearance doesn't appear without awareness of the appearance, but "that which is aware" of the appearance isn't a "that" at all, and of course, never makes an appearence. Yes, the 'appearances in awareness' model has its drawbacks because it can't get more abstract than this. The ' appearances as extensions' model undercuts such TMT. Both models are valid, but one is more prone to TMT than the other. And so our solipsists clearly prefer one over the other. First time I've seen this idea expressed that way, but I intuit that the common conceptual pitfall of a people peep trying to grasp it with intellect is that of the "personal creator".
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 26, 2017 21:17:19 GMT -5
Certainty is the requirement for illusion. There is no certainty or uncertainty in the notion that something cannot be known, and I say the world of appearances cannot be known for anything more than the appearances they are. I have issues with the complex descriptions that Seth provides for how things works, and even greater issues with the conclusions derived thereon. There are no mechanics to creation, and here too we are likely to slip on one of those greasy spots. CC's are sometimes described as an experience with no experiencer. Now, that doesn't even come close to describing what it's like, and the minds that have described them haven't always been informed by SR. I'm not referring to Seth btw. I've already registered my specific objections to using Seth's ideas to resolve the "not-knowing" in question. But what a CC reveals to the "experiencer" isn't that the world of appearances are more than the appearances that they are, but instead, it is the ineffable revealed, in all it's stunning totality, to itself. CC's are timeless and the "experience" is quite literally of the absence of boundary. Now when I say I don't have this question of whether or not other peeps may or may not be points of perception similar to myself, I'm not referring to any appearance-based knowledge of form. What I am referring to is the absence of illusion with regard to the question (any question) of Consciousness. Your point about how the dream characters may or may not be real has a flip side. In a lucid dream, it can become very clear to the movement of mind that is your dream character that you're in the sleeping dream if what manifests is outlandish enough. So the metaphor cuts both ways: while the illusion can be convincing, there is a distinction between illusion and what we can point to by any myriad of terms, as not illusion. This question of the nature of other dream characters is "am I One, or am I one of Many?". The illusion seen for what it is illuminates the answer to the question. It's true that there is no experience that reveals that answer, and no knowledge that directly conveys it. Isn't that in fact where the lucid dream metaphor breaks down? Yes, there is no higher outer truer actual movement of form "outside of the dream", which is why the ineffable is ineffable. But the existential question isn't open ended. The dream metaphor is highly misleading. It's true that everything comes into being like the dream stuff does. But where the mistake is being made is by defining the dream stuff as we naturally define it from our physical camouflage waking world as it is seen with the physical camouflage senses. Faction 1 is totally unaware of that. The conclusions of faction 1 are all based on the physical root assumptions and also only make sense within the physical system. That's why they are seemingly bulletproof intellectually. A CC will clear that up by revealing the actual nature of any kind of stuff or thingness. The question is put to rest by direct seeing/knowing, not by an intellectually unassailable position.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 26, 2017 21:20:55 GMT -5
Seriously? Are you sure? Well, to be fair, if we reduce the issue down to one of not-knowing, this is one of those dialogs where each side has a valid case that it's the other that's resting their minds in conceptual certainty. Certainty is necessary for mistaking an illusion for other than illusion, but it isn't sufficient. Another necessity is confusion. When you hear folks state with great certainty that certainty is not the way, well...
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 26, 2017 21:24:17 GMT -5
That's exactly where the credibility gap is. Yes, the 'appearances in awareness' model has its drawbacks because it can't get more abstract than this. The ' appearances as extensions' model undercuts such TMT. Both models are valid, but one is more prone to TMT than the other. And so our solipsists clearly prefer one over the other. First time I've seen this idea expressed that way, but I intuit that the common conceptual pitfall of a people peep trying to grasp it with intellect is that of the "personal creator". Do you use 'personal' and 'individual' interchangeably?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 26, 2017 21:28:43 GMT -5
The Universe is alive and it's called the Universe because .. well .. like .. there's only one. I exist, I'm a human being -- as do and are you -- and the same consciousness looks out of every pair of eyes. But clearly, I'm not you and you're not me, and dude, the Moon sure as hell ain't made of cream cheese. None of that is intellectually defensible, and a peep's reaction to the fact of that indefensibility is where it becomes clear that those questions are coming from that place of an incomplete realization. To be fair, most of that paragraph is 1st/3rd mountain. It's like the duck/bunny or hag-matron/maiden optical duality: Excellent analogy! For as long as a peep is wandering around the base of 2nd mountain "You exist. You are a human being. The Moon's made of rocks" are all debatable points of mental confusion. On the pathless paths of those foothills, the rocks might have eyes, peeps might be robot-figgymints and existence itself not only can, but must, be questioned. Until then, it's doing them a favor to reassure them that yeah, peeps can be, once again, peeps. The human condition can't be ignored. And peeps with different levels of understanding find different solutions (or workarounds). Dude the longest one I could find is only like 8 feet long.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 26, 2017 21:36:24 GMT -5
Well, to be fair, if we reduce the issue down to one of not-knowing, this is one of those dialogs where each side has a valid case that it's the other that's resting their minds in conceptual certainty. Certainty is necessary for mistaking an illusion for other than illusion, but it isn't sufficient. Another necessity is confusion. When you hear folks state with great certainty that certainty is not the way, well... Well, what's at issue here is if it can ever be known whether or not other people are points of perception with the same sense of being as ourselves. After SR the mystery remains as the mystery in terms of language and knowledge of any kind or measure. This is a great source of confoundry for peeps who want to share what they've discovered. It's also a source of beauty, wonder, and profound awe. But the realization is a particular milestone, where the not-knowing of a seeker ends, and marks a threshold were it can be said that things really only start to get interesting.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 26, 2017 21:40:08 GMT -5
First time I've seen this idea expressed that way, but I intuit that the common conceptual pitfall of a people peep trying to grasp it with intellect is that of the "personal creator". Do you use 'personal' and 'individual' interchangeably? That depends on the specifics of the conversation and who's in it. If there's no confusion on the point of SR then I'm fine with making a distinction. But if you're interested in referring to Seth then that take on personality is one of the facets that still has my jury out on Jane's material.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 26, 2017 21:48:09 GMT -5
When you hear folks state with great certainty that certainty is not the way, well... Well, what's at issue here is if it can ever be known whether or not other people are points of perception with the same sense of being as ourselves. No, that wasn't the issue. It wasn't about relative terms, it was about absolute terms. The discussion morphed into that direction though (for obvious reasons).
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 26, 2017 21:55:33 GMT -5
Do you use 'personal' and 'individual' interchangeably? That depends on the specifics of the conversation and who's in it. If there's no confusion on the point of SR then I'm fine with making a distinction. But if you're interested in referring to Seth then that take on personality is one of the facets that still has my jury out on Jane's material. Seth doesn't make that distinctions. And it adds unnecessary confusion in place like this one. That's why I would suggest that personal should refer to the person only and individual to uniqueness.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 26, 2017 22:27:44 GMT -5
Certainty is the requirement for illusion. There is no certainty or uncertainty in the notion that something cannot be known, and I say the world of appearances cannot be known for anything more than the appearances they are. I have issues with the complex descriptions that Seth provides for how things works, and even greater issues with the conclusions derived thereon. There are no mechanics to creation, and here too we are likely to slip on one of those greasy spots. CC's are sometimes described as an experience with no experiencer. Now, that doesn't even come close to describing what it's like, and the minds that have described them haven't always been informed by SR. I'm not referring to Seth btw. I've already registered my specific objections to using Seth's ideas to resolve the "not-knowing" in question. But what a CC reveals to the "experiencer" isn't that the world of appearances are more than the appearances that they are, but instead, it is the ineffable revealed, in all it's stunning totality, to itself. CC's are timeless and the "experience" is quite literally of the absence of boundary. Now when I say I don't have this question of whether or not other peeps may or may not be points of perception similar to myself, I'm not referring to any appearance-based knowledge of form. What I am referring to is the absence of illusion with regard to the question (any question) of Consciousness. Your point about how the dream characters may or may not be real has a flip side. In a lucid dream, it can become very clear to the movement of mind that is your dream character that you're in the sleeping dream if what manifests is outlandish enough. So the metaphor cuts both ways: while the illusion can be convincing, there is a distinction between illusion and what we can point to by any myriad of terms, as not illusion. This question of the nature of other dream characters is "am I One, or am I one of Many?". The illusion seen for what it is illuminates the answer to the question. It's true that there is no experience that reveals that answer, and no knowledge that directly conveys it. Isn't that in fact where the lucid dream metaphor breaks down? Yes, there is no higher outer truer actual movement of form "outside of the dream", which is why the ineffable is ineffable. But the existential question isn't open ended. Certainty is the requirement for illusion. There is no certainty or uncertainty in the notion that something cannot be known, and I say the world of appearances cannot be known for anything more than the appearances they are. I have issues with the complex descriptions that Seth provides for how things works, and even greater issues with the conclusions derived thereon. There are no mechanics to creation, and here too we are likely to slip on one of those greasy spots. CC's are sometimes described as an experience with no experiencer. Now, that doesn't even come close to describing what it's like, and the minds that have described them haven't always been informed by SR. I'm not referring to Seth btw. I've already registered my specific objections to using Seth's ideas to resolve the "not-knowing" in question. But what a CC reveals to the "experiencer" isn't that the world of appearances are more than the appearances that they are, but instead, it is the ineffable revealed, in all it's stunning totality, to itself. CC's are timeless and the "experience" is quite literally of the absence of boundary. An experience nonetheless. Yeah, I was just taking the opportunity to register my own. What do you mean by question of Consciousness? So we know the nightly dream characters are not 'real'. That's what I don't understand. Why not?
|
|