|
Post by zendancer on Mar 19, 2019 18:30:41 GMT -5
The question that interested me was intellectual because intellectual understanding was all I knew about at that time--"What preceded the Big Bang if there was a Big Bang?" The resolution, or answer to that question, was not intellectual. I/It directly apprehended the Infinite. But you have seen that all there really is, is NOW, right? At that time (March 5, 1984) the Whole in the form of this body saw directly that what we call "reality" is unified, infinite, and aware, and that all possible universes appear within THAT. When THAT is apprehended, only THAT is present. There is no person involved in that seeing, and it's not known what it is that is seeing what is seen. THAT can be aware of It's infinity, but it cannot know itself as an object by a perceiving subject. This is because only oneness is present. Needless to say, it's very hard to talk about that kind of seeing because our language is dualistic. Nevertheless, it was self-evident that even if the universe we know totally disappeared, THAT would still be present. Seeing that truth informed mind, and answered the question that I had been pondering.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2019 18:35:16 GMT -5
But you have seen that all there really is, is NOW, right? At that time (March 5, 1984) the Whole in the form of this body saw directly that what we call "reality" is unified, infinite, and aware, and that all possible universes appear within THAT. When THAT is apprehended, only THAT is present. There is no person involved in that seeing, and it's not known what it is that is seeing what is seen. THAT can be aware of It's infinity, but it cannot know itself as an object by a perceiving subject. This is because only oneness is present. Needless to say, it's very hard to talk about that kind of seeing because our language is dualistic. Nevertheless, it was self-evident that even if the universe we know totally disappeared, THAT would still be present. Seeing that truth informed mind, and answered the question that I had been pondering. So...what is your answer to my question?
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Mar 19, 2019 21:13:19 GMT -5
And what have answers to koans got to do with anything. Answers to scientific questions. What? Are they better than answers from scientists because you meditate? And what are multiple realizations. About what? It all sounds very New Age to me. I can see that there's no real interest in what I'm describing, and that's perfectly okay. If it sounds New Age, it's only because of unfamiliarity with a pathway that has been around for thousands of years. Some of us apparently have had lots of curiosity about the nature of reality, and the methodology I've described is a simple way to resolve that kind of curiosity and acquire understanding. As E. says, realizations inform mind, so true understanding can only occur after non-conceptual insights have occurred. Scientists cannot answer existential questions; they can only speculate about ideas within the realm of the relative. What I'm pointing to only deals with the absolute. Seeing through the illusion of selfhood is a major realization, but there are many others. Nevertheless, I don't wish to bore anyone, so I'll continue this conversation with those who have more interest. No problemo. Sorry but you just don't get away with saying there is unfamiliarity with the path you know about it and I don't. That's your answer and my answer is that you are delusional. Will you give equal validity to my answer? The only realization that informs mind is that you are awake and that ego knows it. The world of relative knowledge is a wonderful thing and we can go on speculating about it endlessly. Being awake doesn't give you superpowers to resolve these questions. You need to drop the idea that there are major realizations. If you think that then your mind is playing games with you. To be fully awake is to be in the natural state. It is just that, to be completely natural, spontaneous and free of suffering and to have peace of mind. That is all you get. You don't get the answers to secret koans or insights into what preceded the Big bang. You know why? Because there is only consciousness and that is real knowledge, to know that you are That. It's profound enough for sure but it ain't phantasmagorical.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 19, 2019 21:58:28 GMT -5
At that time (March 5, 1984) the Whole in the form of this body saw directly that what we call "reality" is unified, infinite, and aware, and that all possible universes appear within THAT. When THAT is apprehended, only THAT is present. There is no person involved in that seeing, and it's not known what it is that is seeing what is seen. THAT can be aware of It's infinity, but it cannot know itself as an object by a perceiving subject. This is because only oneness is present. Needless to say, it's very hard to talk about that kind of seeing because our language is dualistic. Nevertheless, it was self-evident that even if the universe we know totally disappeared, THAT would still be present. Seeing that truth informed mind, and answered the question that I had been pondering. So...what is your answer to my question? I think I've said at least a hundred times on this forum that time and space are cognitive illusions. There is only "what is" and THAT is infinite, timeless, unified, and aware.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 19, 2019 22:13:44 GMT -5
I can see that there's no real interest in what I'm describing, and that's perfectly okay. If it sounds New Age, it's only because of unfamiliarity with a pathway that has been around for thousands of years. Some of us apparently have had lots of curiosity about the nature of reality, and the methodology I've described is a simple way to resolve that kind of curiosity and acquire understanding. As E. says, realizations inform mind, so true understanding can only occur after non-conceptual insights have occurred. Scientists cannot answer existential questions; they can only speculate about ideas within the realm of the relative. What I'm pointing to only deals with the absolute. Seeing through the illusion of selfhood is a major realization, but there are many others. Nevertheless, I don't wish to bore anyone, so I'll continue this conversation with those who have more interest. No problemo. Sorry but you just don't get away with saying there is unfamiliarity with the path you know about it and I don't. That's your answer and my answer is that you are delusional. Will you give equal validity to my answer? The only realization that informs mind is that you are awake and that ego knows it. The world of relative knowledge is a wonderful thing and we can go on speculating about it endlessly. Being awake doesn't give you superpowers to resolve these questions. You need to drop the idea that there are major realizations. If you think that then your mind is playing games with you. To be fully awake is to be in the natural state. It is just that, to be completely natural, spontaneous and free of suffering and to have peace of mind. That is all you get. You don't get the answers to secret koans or insights into what preceded the Big bang. You know why? Because there is only consciousness and that is real knowledge, to know that you are That. It's profound enough for sure but it ain't phantasmagorical. People often have a very limited idea of what can be realized, but that, too, is perfect. The natural state is indeed the goal, so we at least agree upon that. You've experienced nirvikalpa samadhi, and many people would say that you're delusional to claim that such a state is possible. Only people who have a reference for that state will understand what you're talking about. ITSW, there are other experiences and realizations that people will think are impossible unless they have a reference for them. That's just the nature of "what is." Best wishes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2019 22:20:32 GMT -5
So...what is your answer to my question? I think I've said at least a hundred times on this forum that time and space are cognitive illusions. There is only "what is" and THAT is infinite, timeless, unified, and aware. Okay. So how does that dovetail with a realization that leaves you with an answer to the question of how the universe began? Everything you say above indicates that you'd have to see that very question as misconceived...no?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 20, 2019 6:30:05 GMT -5
I think I've said at least a hundred times on this forum that time and space are cognitive illusions. There is only "what is" and THAT is infinite, timeless, unified, and aware. Okay. So how does that dovetail with a realization that leaves you with an answer to the question of how the universe began? Everything you say above indicates that you'd have to see that very question as misconceived...no? Going to catch a train so will respond later.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 20, 2019 7:24:41 GMT -5
I think I've said at least a hundred times on this forum that time and space are cognitive illusions. There is only "what is" and THAT is infinite, timeless, unified, and aware. Okay. So how does that dovetail with a realization that leaves you with an answer to the question of how the universe began? Everything you say above indicates that you'd have to see that very question as misconceived...no? One of the topics that interested me years ago was a question about consciousness and the inception of life. At the time, I'd come to understand that quantum mechanics suggests that no physical object can be described independent of the observation of it. So, this raised the question, if consciousness was required to bring tangible physical reality to the potentiality of quantum probability, what was there to observe the big bang? This wasn't something I thought up on my own, I'd read it in a book, and as far as I know, it's still a topic of metaphysical speculation. One that's controversial, but certainly well within the mainstream of the current scientific consensus. One of the ways that mind became informed as to the end of the seeking was the end of curiosity on this issue. While it's true that there's no intellectual resolution to the question, and it's true that the question is ultimately misconceived, there is also a deeper understanding behind that, one that can really only ever be expressed poetically. One clue to at least the possibility of that deeper understanding is that the misconception of the notion of creation can actually be reduced to an intellectual expression, if one first accepts the concept of eternity as a premise, in philosophical terms. And to be clear, I'm not questioning the "realization status" of anyone who disagrees, nor am I validating or trying to compare my understanding with anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 20, 2019 16:52:37 GMT -5
Okay. So how does that dovetail with a realization that leaves you with an answer to the question of how the universe began? Everything you say above indicates that you'd have to see that very question as misconceived...no? One of the topics that interested me years ago was a question about consciousness and the inception of life. At the time, I'd come to understand that quantum mechanics suggests that no physical object can be described independent of the observation of it. So, this raised the question, if consciousness was required to bring tangible physical reality to the potentiality of quantum probability, what was there to observe the big bang? This wasn't something I thought up on my own, I'd read it in a book, and as far as I know, it's still a topic of metaphysical speculation. One that's controversial, but certainly well within the mainstream of the current scientific consensus. One of the ways that mind became informed as to the end of the seeking was the end of curiosity on this issue. While it's true that there's no intellectual resolution to the question, and it's true that the question is ultimately misconceived, there is also a deeper understanding behind that, one that can really only ever be expressed poetically. One clue to at least the possibility of that deeper understanding is that the misconception of the notion of creation can actually be reduced to an intellectual expression, if one first accepts the concept of eternity as a premise, in philosophical terms. And to be clear, I'm not questioning the "realization status" of anyone who disagrees, nor am I validating or trying to compare my understanding with anyone else. John Wheeler, the it from bit physicist (teacher of Richard Feynman and Hugh Everett (the many worlds guy). Picture on page 45 of what he is describing in video. www.its.caltech.edu/~kip/PubScans/VI-50.pdf
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 20, 2019 18:42:04 GMT -5
One of the topics that interested me years ago was a question about consciousness and the inception of life. At the time, I'd come to understand that quantum mechanics suggests that no physical object can be described independent of the observation of it. So, this raised the question, if consciousness was required to bring tangible physical reality to the potentiality of quantum probability, what was there to observe the big bang? This wasn't something I thought up on my own, I'd read it in a book, and as far as I know, it's still a topic of metaphysical speculation. One that's controversial, but certainly well within the mainstream of the current scientific consensus. One of the ways that mind became informed as to the end of the seeking was the end of curiosity on this issue. While it's true that there's no intellectual resolution to the question, and it's true that the question is ultimately misconceived, there is also a deeper understanding behind that, one that can really only ever be expressed poetically. One clue to at least the possibility of that deeper understanding is that the misconception of the notion of creation can actually be reduced to an intellectual expression, if one first accepts the concept of eternity as a premise, in philosophical terms. And to be clear, I'm not questioning the "realization status" of anyone who disagrees, nor am I validating or trying to compare my understanding with anyone else. John Wheeler, the it from bit physicist (teacher of Richard Feynman and Hugh Everett (the many worlds guy). Picture on page 45 of what he is describing in video. www.its.caltech.edu/~kip/PubScans/VI-50.pdfRead the two sentences of what I wrote following what you bolded. Funny, I still debated the metaphysics for awhile after I lost interest in the underlying existential question -- even a few times with you, on this forum .. but now, I only do that if I think I can change someone's mind, and then only if their interest seems to me to be existential, rather than scientific.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 20, 2019 19:29:55 GMT -5
Read the two sentences of what I wrote following what you bolded. Funny, I still debated the metaphysics for awhile after I lost interest in the underlying existential question -- even a few times with you, on this forum .. but now, I only do that if I think I can change someone's mind, and then only if their interest seems to me to be existential, rather than scientific. Yes, I thought you might have run into Wheeler before...
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 20, 2019 19:52:33 GMT -5
I think I've said at least a hundred times on this forum that time and space are cognitive illusions. There is only "what is" and THAT is infinite, timeless, unified, and aware. Okay. So how does that dovetail with a realization that leaves you with an answer to the question of how the universe began? Everything you say above indicates that you'd have to see that very question as misconceived...no? I didn't say that I found an answer to the question of HOW the universe began. My question was somewhat different. I couldn't understand how something arose from nothing. When i saw that awareness/Reality/THAT was infinite, and that all possible universes must appear within THAT, it then became obvious that THAT is what was here before the Big Bang occurred if the Big Bang occurred in the way that many scientists imagine. Seeing the infinity of THAT put the mind to rest regarding that entire issue. From my POV the question that bothered me was not misconceived based upon my understanding at the time; it made perfect sense, but finding an answer to my question required seeing a deeper context than a physical reality. One could say that my question was based upon an incorrect assumption regarding the nature of reality, but it never struck me that way. I had a question, the reality that I had always known distintegrated, the underlying nature of reality was apprehended, and the answer to my question became obvious. I then knew that what we call "physical reality" or "the universe" does not arise from nothing; it arises from no-thing. It became obvious that if this universe totally disappeared, THAT would still be here, and all that is or ever will be is one-with THAT.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2019 1:43:50 GMT -5
I can see that there's no real interest in what I'm describing, and that's perfectly okay. If it sounds New Age, it's only because of unfamiliarity with a pathway that has been around for thousands of years. Some of us apparently have had lots of curiosity about the nature of reality, and the methodology I've described is a simple way to resolve that kind of curiosity and acquire understanding. As E. says, realizations inform mind, so true understanding can only occur after non-conceptual insights have occurred. Scientists cannot answer existential questions; they can only speculate about ideas within the realm of the relative. What I'm pointing to only deals with the absolute. Seeing through the illusion of selfhood is a major realization, but there are many others. Nevertheless, I don't wish to bore anyone, so I'll continue this conversation with those who have more interest. No problemo. Sorry but you just don't get away with saying there is unfamiliarity with the path you know about it and I don't. That's your answer and my answer is that you are delusional. Will you give equal validity to my answer? The only realization that informs mind is that you are awake and that ego knows it. The world of relative knowledge is a wonderful thing and we can go on speculating about it endlessly. Being awake doesn't give you superpowers to resolve these questions. You need to drop the idea that there are major realizations. If you think that then your mind is playing games with you. To be fully awake is to be in the natural state. It is just that, to be completely natural, spontaneous and free of suffering and to have peace of mind. That is all you get. You don't get the answers to secret koans or insights into what preceded the Big bang. You know why? Because there is only consciousness and that is real knowledge, to know that you are That. It's profound enough for sure but it ain't phantasmagorical. Time and space began with the big bang. The answer to the question of what preceded the big bang is "nothing," because there was no time before the big bang. ZD knows this. I think his point is that all his curiosities about the nature of reality were satisfied when he "saw his true face." I don't think he meant that he discovered a unified field theory that he could publish when he got God-smacked. Now I'm not self-realized. So I speak from a conceptual understanding of what you describe. But this peace of mind and no suffering claim has always bothered me. I mean folks make this claim all the time, but the tone of their posts exhibit agitation and anger. Many folks who make this claim come off as accusatory and disrespectful. There's a disconnect between what they say and how they say it. Now I sense spontaneity and peacefulness in ZD. He has quite a gentle manner about him which is why I listen when he speaks. I feel the bliss. A few other folk around here exhibit a sort of sweetness too that I can feel. You feel their love. Now I know that sounds New Agey and you seem to have a problem with New Agers. I confess, I'm a closet New Ager. Peace and love.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Mar 21, 2019 2:20:33 GMT -5
Sorry but you just don't get away with saying there is unfamiliarity with the path you know about it and I don't. That's your answer and my answer is that you are delusional. Will you give equal validity to my answer? The only realization that informs mind is that you are awake and that ego knows it. The world of relative knowledge is a wonderful thing and we can go on speculating about it endlessly. Being awake doesn't give you superpowers to resolve these questions. You need to drop the idea that there are major realizations. If you think that then your mind is playing games with you. To be fully awake is to be in the natural state. It is just that, to be completely natural, spontaneous and free of suffering and to have peace of mind. That is all you get. You don't get the answers to secret koans or insights into what preceded the Big bang. You know why? Because there is only consciousness and that is real knowledge, to know that you are That. It's profound enough for sure but it ain't phantasmagorical. Time and space began with the big bang. The answer to the question of what preceded the big bang is "nothing," because there was no time before the big bang. ZD knows this. I think his point is that all his curiosities about the nature of reality were satisfied when he "saw his true face." I don't think he meant that he discovered a unified field theory that he could publish when he got God-smacked. Now I'm not self-realized. So I speak from a conceptual understanding of what you describe. But this peace of mind and no suffering claim has always bothered me. I mean folks make this claim all the time, but the tone of their posts exhibit agitation and anger. Many folks who make this claim come off as accusatory and disrespectful. There's a disconnect between what they say and how they say it. Now I sense spontaneity and peacefulness in ZD. He has quite a gentle manner about him which is why I listen when he speaks. I feel the bliss. A few other folk around here exhibit a sort of sweetness too that I can feel. You feel their love. Now I know that sounds New Agey and you seem to have a problem with New Agers. I confess, I'm a closet New Ager. Peace and love. Then you should take a look at Nisargadatta Maharaj when he is ranting in a particularly forceful and animated way which was most of the time. But when I look at him all I see is Peace. When unconditional Peace is permanently established as your natural state, then even moments of irritability or anger cannot be overshadowed by that underlying peace. I'm aware that might sound like a contradiction but I have nothing to offer as an answer. Characteristics such as sweetness and other modes of behavior deemed to be spiritually correct can be very deceptive. Take a look at this video of Ramesh Balsekar. He speaks the truth. youtube.com/watch?v=7g_enYBWIkk
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 21, 2019 4:12:05 GMT -5
Time and space began with the big bang. The answer to the question of what preceded the big bang is "nothing," because there was no time before the big bang. ZD knows this. I think his point is that all his curiosities about the nature of reality were satisfied when he "saw his true face." I don't think he meant that he discovered a unified field theory that he could publish when he got God-smacked. Now I'm not self-realized. So I speak from a conceptual understanding of what you describe. But this peace of mind and no suffering claim has always bothered me. I mean folks make this claim all the time, but the tone of their posts exhibit agitation and anger. Many folks who make this claim come off as accusatory and disrespectful. There's a disconnect between what they say and how they say it. Now I sense spontaneity and peacefulness in ZD. He has quite a gentle manner about him which is why I listen when he speaks. I feel the bliss. A few other folk around here exhibit a sort of sweetness too that I can feel. You feel their love. Now I know that sounds New Agey and you seem to have a problem with New Agers. I confess, I'm a closet New Ager. Peace and love. Then you should take a look at Nisargadatta Maharaj when he is ranting in a particularly forceful and animated way which was most of the time. But when I look at him all I see is Peace. When unconditional Peace is permanently established as your natural state, then even moments of irritability or anger cannot be overshadowed by that underlying peace. I'm aware that might sound like a contradiction but I have nothing to offer as an answer. Characteristics such as sweetness and other modes of behavior deemed to be spiritually correct can be very deceptive. Take a look at this video of Ramesh Balsekar. He speaks the truth. youtube.com/watch?v=7g_enYBWIkk huh, I just mentioned this and hadn't seen your message. Forum hive mind bzzzzzzzz
|
|