|
Post by enigma on Aug 26, 2017 22:35:49 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? What part are you disagreeing with? All of it?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 26, 2017 22:48:11 GMT -5
Excellent analogy! 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. It's not always about how long it is, ya know.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 26, 2017 23:01:50 GMT -5
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. 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. Sure, I didn't know if you'd read mine, and yours strikes me as similar to mine. 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? From the outside looking in a CC sounds like an experience, and it can only be described in terms of a beginning middle and end that happened to a particular someone at a given time and place. But this is a dualistic trick of the way appearances appear. " As it's happening" it's "the" infinite directly apprehending "the" infinite. Since you know the dream characters aren't "real" then the metaphor suggests "reality", and the question about the nature of the appearance of other people is a question about that reality. It's a question as to the nature of ourselves. It's a question about Consciousness: "am I the only appearance 'in' Consciousness that is a point of perception?". Framing it in terms of whether or not the appearance has the same sense of being as ourselves is reducing it to a question of the mechanics of the way things appear. But just as there is no "truer outer actualer reality" wrapping the waking dream, there is no mechanistic explanation as to either your nature or the nature of other people that appear to you. The question isn't open ended because SR reveals what the answer is. I can tell you that the answer is "yes, these other peeps are points of perception", but that's the same answer that Joe Consensus Peep would give you. Rather, a more apt answer is the pointer: "the same Awareness looks out of every pair of eyes". I can no more tell you how I know this answer is true any more than I could talk a random peep on the street into self-realization: when I say I don't have that question, I'm not referring to knowing an appearance for more than that appearance is. I'm referring to an absence of any question as to Consciousness, and human nature is, indeed, Consciousness.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 26, 2017 23:02:42 GMT -5
Dude the longest one I could find is only like 8 feet long. It's not always about how long it is, ya know. Keep that thing away from me!
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 26, 2017 23:19:59 GMT -5
Seriously? Are you sure? What part are you disagreeing with? All of it? I was just pointing at the logical trap you've set yourself with your first statement.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 27, 2017 17:34:56 GMT -5
It's not always about how long it is, ya know. Keep that thing away from me!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 27, 2017 17:44:32 GMT -5
What part are you disagreeing with? All of it? I was just pointing at the logical trap you've set yourself with your first statement. Certainty is the requirement for illusion? In case our daffynitions are different, I say illusion is seeing something for what it's not. (looking at a rope and thinking it's a snake) If it's uncertain whether it's a rope or a snake, there is no illusion, just uncertainty as to what's being perceived due to the limitations of the perceiver. It's only when one is certain that it's a snake that an illusion has happened.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 27, 2017 21:55:05 GMT -5
I was just pointing at the logical trap you've set yourself with your first statement. Certainty is the requirement for illusion? In case our daffynitions are different, I say illusion is seeing something for what it's not. (looking at a rope and thinking it's a snake) If it's uncertain whether it's a rope or a snake, there is no illusion, just uncertainty as to what's being perceived due to the limitations of the perceiver. It's only when one is certain that it's a snake that an illusion has happened. I'm fine with your definitions. As long as you don't settle for one definite option, you can play that philosophical game. It's fine in theory. But fails in practice. As soon as you settle for one option, it's game over. And that's what our solipsists are doing (or are forced to do). They settle for one option, and always the same option as though they had only one option. They say they choose to assume that others are perceivers exactly as they are. I say, they have no choice but to relate to others as perceivers exactly as they are because the body/mind already makes that decision for them based on the data it is receiving via direct knowing. After the fact, however, mind declares its actually running the show and claims ownership of what happened. So only when our solipsists place themselves apart from their direct experience and try to look at it objectively (i.e. when mind starts playing with itself) do such issues even arise. They can't arise to someone who has realized Self. And the funny thing is, they don't arise to the Average Joe who is just living his life either. They only arise to seasoned seekers (or teachers). The issue I had with your first statement was the same issue we had with those who said that there are no absolute certainties (of which there were absolutely certain, ironically). Which forced them to do absurd things like denying that the question "Do you exist?" can be answered in the affirmative with absolute certainty. Even though it directly contradicts their direct knowing. You said: Certainty is the requirement for illusion. Following that logic, then anything you say with certainty (including your own statement) would fulfill your requirement for illusion. So if you are certain that there can't be any certainty then you are engaging in an illusion. If you are not certain, then you are just stating an opinion. In either case, it's all void of any truth by definition. That's the logical trap I was talking about. I understand what you mean though, that illusions are built on a false sense of certainty. What I don't agree with is that this implies that any kind of certainty is necessarily an illusion. That's why have I suggested to go back to direct knowing in this appearance debate, to what can be seen directly. But that requires a perspective that is prior to physical camouflage, before raw data has been repackaged into a 'linear time and 3D space with static/stable objects and cause and effect' format, which means this entire affair can't be reasoned out or even proven to anyone who just doesn't want to drop or is unable to drop the physical camouflage senses and reasoning and see beyond the physical camouflage (or any other camouflage). Our solipsists, however, want to reason it out, they insist on proof given in a format where it can't be proven, they want to feel the water but don't want to get wet. That's not going to happen. We had similar discussions in the past about separation and oneness. Oneness can't be proven to the intellect because the intellect is the result of the false idea of separation. Realizing oneness is the result of direct experience. The intellect is standing apart from direct experience. That's its function. It objectifies. For the same reason, it cannot be proven to the intellect that everything is alive, or intelligent and conscious and perceiving. There are absolute certainties. Not many, but they do exist. Seth calls them primary conditions. They apply across the board. There are also relative certainties. They are numerous. Seth calls them secondary conditions. They apply only to a certain context (or reality system, or within certain parameters). That we cannot know if others are perceiving or not is one of those secondary truths - it only applies to the intellect. So looking at the world with the intellect, it is true that separation is the case and that you cannot know anything about another with any kind of certainty. Which raises certain questions. Looking at the world from prior to the intellect, it is true that oneness is the case and not separation and that you and the other are one and the same in nature. Which doesn't raise certain questions to begin with. But the real issue in this debate seems to be a certain kind of intellectual dishonesty. This all should have been settled a year ago already. I've also seen what happened to Tenka over there on the other forum. And it left me wondering. There seems to be the attempt of some folks to save a specific belief system at all costs because they can't admit that they actually might be missing something in terms of basic understanding. I'm not saying that you are part of that movement. I'm not even sure about your actual position. It's all a bit nebulous. You seemed to clearly oppose Seth's assertion in the past that the nail is self-conscious and happy (which I find odd as well, but not totally off the mark) but you also talk a lot about oneness at the same time. So feel free to clarify your own take on all of this and how it fits together from your position.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 27, 2017 22:26:37 GMT -5
I don't understand your idea of self realisation and Seth and ND and how that all fits in. I've just listened to an A-H workshop where someone asked about non-duality and the A-H teaching and how it fits together. Unfortunately, the dude who asked didn't understand non-duality (he thinks it teaches predetermination) and so it wasn't a good conversation but it made me realize that unless you understand this points of consciousness stuff you won't understand the 'you're the creator of your own reality stuff' either. And so it's no surprise that those who have issues with self-help teachings also have an issue with the all is alive and conscious notion. But that's where the Seth model can be helpful and bridge that apparent gap between the non-duality model and the deliberate creators model because the Seth material is rooted in both models.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 27, 2017 23:18:27 GMT -5
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). Yes, you're right of course. Solipsism is a way of resolving three different notions: nonduality, self-evidence and the experience of human relationships. The current divide in this thread (taking into account the buzzing of busy bees from elsewhere), has been reduced to each side maintaining that the other is resting their minds on a conceptual conclusion. Now, one of the wonderful perks of simple human adulthood is amicably allowing other peeps the privilege of their own opinions, even when they paint you in an unflattering light. I'm certainly aware of how my opinions can be taken as unflattering, it just is what it is.
|
|
|
Post by runstill on Aug 28, 2017 1:29:31 GMT -5
The obliviousness of the 99.9% of the seven or so billion people out there to the obviousness of oneness, non-separation is puzzling, I feel like there is some way to wake them up but the sage's have been trying for a long time so one would think it would have happened by now. A favorite metaphor that was helpful is that of a movie being projected on to a movie screen, there is total and complete universe that happens on the screen , the screen of course is consciousness and there is no separation between the actors and the objects and even the apparent atmosphere. In our own direct perception its obvious that what is perceived is all within consciousness even our thoughts can only appear to consciousness or they wouldn't exist, sometimes I ask myself am I these thoughts or am I whats aware of the thoughts, I have a strong attachment to thoughts because they give me the sense of Me , that's why I still get an odd feeling when its seen that my me thoughts are not me.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 28, 2017 8:32:07 GMT -5
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). Yes, you're right of course. Solipsism is a way of resolving three different notions: nonduality, self-evidence and the experience of human relationships. The current divide in this thread (taking into account the buzzing of busy bees from elsewhere), has been reduced to each side maintaining that the other is resting their minds on a conceptual conclusion. Now, one of the wonderful perks of simple human adulthood is amicably allowing other peeps the privilege of their own opinions, even when they paint you in an unflattering light. I'm certainly aware of how my opinions can be taken as unflattering, it just is what it is.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 28, 2017 10:01:12 GMT -5
The obliviousness of the 99.9% of the seven or so billion people out there to the obviousness of oneness, non-separation is puzzling, I feel like there is some way to wake them up but the sage's have been trying for a long time so one would think it would have happened by now. A favorite metaphor that was helpful is that of a movie being projected on to a movie screen, there is total and complete universe that happens on the screen , the screen of course is consciousness and there is no separation between the actors and the objects and even the apparent atmosphere. In our own direct perception its obvious that what is perceived is all within consciousness even our thoughts can only appear to consciousness or they wouldn't exist, sometimes I ask myself am I these thoughts or am I whats aware of the thoughts, I have a strong attachment to thoughts because they give me the sense of Me , that's why I still get an odd feeling when its seen that my me thoughts are not me. The screen metaphor is a good one. But it shouldn't be taken literally. Another good metaphor is the wave/ocean metaphor. It's what I was pointing to earlier when I was talking about the 'appearances in awareness/consciousness' model vs. the 'appearances as extensions' model; i.e. different ways of realizing oneness. It's like both sides of a coin. Appearances are not what they seem to be and yet whatever is appearing, it can't get more real than that. Illusions are not truth and yet the truth is in the illusions.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 28, 2017 18:03:40 GMT -5
Yes, you're right of course. Solipsism is a way of resolving three different notions: nonduality, self-evidence and the experience of human relationships. The current divide in this thread (taking into account the buzzing of busy bees from elsewhere), has been reduced to each side maintaining that the other is resting their minds on a conceptual conclusion. Now, one of the wonderful perks of simple human adulthood is amicably allowing other peeps the privilege of their own opinions, even when they paint you in an unflattering light. I'm certainly aware of how my opinions can be taken as unflattering, it just is what it is.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 28, 2017 18:28:11 GMT -5
Certainty is the requirement for illusion? In case our daffynitions are different, I say illusion is seeing something for what it's not. (looking at a rope and thinking it's a snake) If it's uncertain whether it's a rope or a snake, there is no illusion, just uncertainty as to what's being perceived due to the limitations of the perceiver. It's only when one is certain that it's a snake that an illusion has happened. I'm fine with your definitions. As long as you don't settle for one definite option, you can play that philosophical game. It's fine in theory. But fails in practice. As soon as you settle for one option, it's game over. And that's what our solipsists are doing (or are forced to do). They settle for one option, and always the same option as though they had only one option. They say they choose to assume that others are perceivers exactly as they are. I say, they have no choice but to relate to others as perceivers exactly as they are because the body/mind already makes that decision for them based on the data it is receiving via direct knowing. After the fact, however, mind declares its actually running the show and claims ownership of what happened. So only when our solipsists place themselves apart from their direct experience and try to look at it objectively (i.e. when mind starts playing with itself) do such issues even arise. They can't arise to someone who has realized Self. And the funny thing is, they don't arise to the Average Joe who is just living his life either. They only arise to seasoned seekers (or teachers). The issue I had with your first statement was the same issue we had with those who said that there are no absolute certainties (of which there were absolutely certain, ironically). Which forced them to do absurd things like denying that the question "Do you exist?" can be answered in the affirmative with absolute certainty. Even though it directly contradicts their direct knowing. You said: Certainty is the requirement for illusion. Following that logic, then anything you say with certainty (including your own statement) would fulfill your requirement for illusion. So if you are certain that there can't be any certainty then you are engaging in an illusion. If you are not certain, then you are just stating an opinion. In either case, it's all void of any truth by definition. That's the logical trap I was talking about. I understand what you mean though, that illusions are built on a false sense of certainty. What I don't agree with is that this implies that any kind of certainty is necessarily an illusion. That's why have I suggested to go back to direct knowing in this appearance debate, to what can be seen directly. But that requires a perspective that is prior to physical camouflage, before raw data has been repackaged into a 'linear time and 3D space with static/stable objects and cause and effect' format, which means this entire affair can't be reasoned out or even proven to anyone who just doesn't want to drop or is unable to drop the physical camouflage senses and reasoning and see beyond the physical camouflage (or any other camouflage). Our solipsists, however, want to reason it out, they insist on proof given in a format where it can't be proven, they want to feel the water but don't want to get wet. That's not going to happen. Yes,that's what I mean. What I don't mean is that certainty defines the perception as an illusion. I'm just saying certainty is required, as you've gleaned. If one is certain that a rope is a rope, and upon examining it more closely, it turns out to be the case, there is no illusion involved. Regarding the issue of proof required, I see that Gopal operates that way when it comes to vetting the ideas of others, but most, including Gopal, are referring to their direct seeing. Yes, all appearances are the same in nature, which is to say they are all empty appearances in the same Consciousness. It does not, however, say they are all conscious. It's also obvious that Awareness/Consciousness experiences from the limited perspective of some (but probably not all) appearances. I know this because one of those perspectives is right here in this appearance. I do not, however, know if one of those perspectives is also there. I say probably not all only because experience requires engagement and engagement requires interest, and I'm imagining the experience of a rock buried a mile beneath the Earth is singularly uneventful. The problem seems to be that some would like to believe that realizing the fundamental nature of existence says something about how creation unfolds. It does not. This is why it's correct to be suspicious of any experience that seems to reveal a truth about what is prior to experience. Another absolute requirement is that, in order to understand Tenkaworld one must deeply engage him in debate. Gopal, Figs and myself at least have done so and have experienced the same futility of communication. You should try it yourself because it really is quite interesting, but no, he has not been unfairly persecuted.
|
|