Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2019 9:49:35 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_enYBWIkkThe setting in the vids is very different than this site, and this is a not a guru, student relationship. My sensei would tease and berate, but I felt his love. That isn't the case here. This is a one dimensional form of communication and there is no guru, student relationship here. If you respond to this, I'm unlikely to reply for a few days.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2019 12:13:06 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. This is interesting wording. Do you actually see 'the whole' to be 'in the form of the body'...and that that amalgamation (body infused with the whole) to be that which directly sees?
That sounds very much like: I am a body that is infused with God rather than God gives rise to the body.
Again, there seems to be a reversal of what gives rise to what. What is fundamental/abiding, vs. what is ephemeral/transient.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2019 12:17:06 GMT -5
[...] ITSW, there are other experiences [...] What does ITSW stand for?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2019 12:22:42 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? 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.Okay. To me this reads as: The physically appearing world is an ephemeral, transient arising of that which abides.
If so, I agree.
But really, this is not an actual answer to the question of: How does something arise from nothing. The 'how' hasn't been resolved. The question that got answered was: What was there before the arising of physical reality.
In seeing that you are that which abides, and that all else is an ephemeral empty arising within that, the 'how' question gets seen through, gets seen as misconceived.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2019 12:31:50 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. A side point... I saw a video interview of a physicist recently and he mentioned that they're not "sure" there was a big bang in this way. (Brian Cox on Joe Rogan) www.youtube.com/watch?v=VznnbFMPztM It's possible the "big bang" was not a zero-point but instead a very compressed state, and there was an expanded state before it. So maybe even our "material universe" had no beginning and instead existed "forever". ... it's all incomprehensible...
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 22, 2019 17:58:54 GMT -5
[...] ITSW, there are other experiences [...] What does ITSW stand for? In the same way
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 22, 2019 18:21:13 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. This is interesting wording. Do you actually see 'the whole' to be 'in the form of the body'...and that that amalgamation (body infused with the whole) to be that which directly sees?
That sounds very much like: I am a body that is infused with God rather than God gives rise to the body.
Again, there seems to be a reversal of what gives rise to what. What is fundamental/abiding, vs. what is ephemeral/transient.
What I apprehended was something that I think any Christian would have called "God," and it was obvious that everything in the universe is one-with THAT. Perhaps because I had always phrased my existential questions in terms of "reality" it didn't dawn on me until several days later that any religious person who had seen what I had seen would have concluded that they had encountered God. In my case I concluded that what had been seen is what Zen people call "one's true nature." All else seemed insignificant and inconsequential in comparison. Because I had lost my identity, and didn't know what was perceiving that singular vastness. I can only conclude, like Suzanne Segal, that THAT can become aware of Itself directly in some unknown way. Obviously, because there is only THAT, THAT is what sees whatever is seen, so when that kind of seeing happens through a human, the human is clearly an aspect of THAT and is the mechanism through which the seeing occurs. As reality began to disintegrate prior to that seeing, the words that appeared in my mind were, "Maybe reality isn't what we think it is." Those words caused the body to explode with laughter, and the laughter continued for the next five minutes until personal identity disappeared, and I could no longer remember my name.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 22, 2019 18:24:00 GMT -5
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.Okay. To me this reads as: The physically appearing world is an ephemeral, transient arising of that which abides.
If so, I agree.
Yeah, that's pretty close to the sense of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2019 18:39:15 GMT -5
This is interesting wording. Do you actually see 'the whole' to be 'in the form of the body'...and that that amalgamation (body infused with the whole) to be that which directly sees?
That sounds very much like: I am a body that is infused with God rather than God gives rise to the body.
Again, there seems to be a reversal of what gives rise to what. What is fundamental/abiding, vs. what is ephemeral/transient.
What I apprehended was something that I think any Christian would have called "God," and it was obvious that everything in the universe is one-with THAT. Perhaps because I had always phrased my existential questions in terms of "reality" it didn't dawn on me until several days later that any religious person who had seen what I had seen would have concluded that they had encountered God. In my case I concluded that what had been seen is what Zen people call "one's true nature." All else seemed insignificant and inconsequential in comparison. Because I had lost my identity, and didn't know what was perceiving that singular vastness. I can only conclude, like Suzanne Segal, that THAT can become aware of Itself directly in some unknown way. Obviously, because there is only THAT, THAT is what sees whatever is seen, so when that kind of seeing happens through a human, the human is clearly an aspect of THAT and is the mechanism through which the seeing occurs. As reality began to disintegrate prior to that seeing, the words that appeared in my mind were, "Maybe reality isn't what we think it is." Those words caused the body to explode with laughter, and the laughter continued for the next five minutes until personal identity disappeared, and I could no longer remember my name. I find it odd/interesting that reality disintegrated, the personal identity disappeared but the body as a mechanistic catalyst to seeing, (mechanism through which seeing occurs) did not get seen through.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 22, 2019 22:10:34 GMT -5
What I apprehended was something that I think any Christian would have called "God," and it was obvious that everything in the universe is one-with THAT. Perhaps because I had always phrased my existential questions in terms of "reality" it didn't dawn on me until several days later that any religious person who had seen what I had seen would have concluded that they had encountered God. In my case I concluded that what had been seen is what Zen people call "one's true nature." All else seemed insignificant and inconsequential in comparison. Because I had lost my identity, and didn't know what was perceiving that singular vastness. I can only conclude, like Suzanne Segal, that THAT can become aware of Itself directly in some unknown way. Obviously, because there is only THAT, THAT is what sees whatever is seen, so when that kind of seeing happens through a human, the human is clearly an aspect of THAT and is the mechanism through which the seeing occurs. As reality began to disintegrate prior to that seeing, the words that appeared in my mind were, "Maybe reality isn't what we think it is." Those words caused the body to explode with laughter, and the laughter continued for the next five minutes until personal identity disappeared, and I could no longer remember my name. I find it odd/interesting that reality disintegrated, the personal identity disappeared but the body as a mechanistic catalyst to seeing, (mechanism through which seeing occurs) did not get seen through.
It is odd because most people to whom this happens do not see through the illusion of selfhood. Most people come away from that event thinking that the event happened to a "me," and they go off searching for a way that the "me" can regain a state of oneness. This is why Zen distinguishes between kensho (seeing through the illusion of conventional reality) and satori (seeing through the illusion of selfhood). There may be one or two people who saw through both illusions at the same time, but usually there's a gap of several years between those two realizations. Many people attain kensho and never attain SR, and apparently many people attain SR but never attain kensho. As Byron Katie might say, "That's just the way of it." Satch is the only poster on this forum who claims to easily enter NS (a state of pure awareness without perception or thought), and I can think of four other posters who have claimed intimate familiarity with that state, but most posters have no idea what that state is. That, too, is just the way of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2019 22:33:16 GMT -5
I find it odd/interesting that reality disintegrated, the personal identity disappeared but the body as a mechanistic catalyst to seeing, (mechanism through which seeing occurs) did not get seen through.
It is odd because most people to whom this happens do not see through the illusion of selfhood. Most people come away from that event thinking that the event happened to a "me," and they go off searching for a way that the "me" can regain a state of oneness. This is why Zen distinguishes between kensho (seeing through the illusion of conventional reality) and satori (seeing through the illusion of selfhood). There may be one or two people who saw through both illusions at the same time, but usually there's a gap of several years between those two realizations. Many people attain kensho and never attain SR, and apparently many people attain SR but never attain kensho. As Byron Katie might say, "That's just the way of it." Satch is the only poster on this forum who claims to easily enter NS (a state of pure awareness without perception or thought), and I can think of four other posters who have claimed intimate familiarity with that state, but most posters have no idea what that state is. That, too, is just the way of it. You did not address my point.
It pertained to this bit:
ZD: "I can only conclude, like Suzanne Segal, that THAT can become aware of Itself directly in some unknown way. Obviously, because there is only THAT, THAT is what sees whatever is seen, so when that kind of seeing happens through a human, the human is clearly an aspect of THAT and is the mechanism through which the seeing occurs."
I find it odd you somehow have seen through the personal identity, no separation, all that, but you still apparently regard the body as the mechanism through which seeing occurs. The body is just an appearance...it's not a mechanistic cause to anything else happening within experience.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 22, 2019 23:36:25 GMT -5
It is odd because most people to whom this happens do not see through the illusion of selfhood. Most people come away from that event thinking that the event happened to a "me," and they go off searching for a way that the "me" can regain a state of oneness. This is why Zen distinguishes between kensho (seeing through the illusion of conventional reality) and satori (seeing through the illusion of selfhood). There may be one or two people who saw through both illusions at the same time, but usually there's a gap of several years between those two realizations. Many people attain kensho and never attain SR, and apparently many people attain SR but never attain kensho. As Byron Katie might say, "That's just the way of it." Satch is the only poster on this forum who claims to easily enter NS (a state of pure awareness without perception or thought), and I can think of four other posters who have claimed intimate familiarity with that state, but most posters have no idea what that state is. That, too, is just the way of it. You did not address my point.
It pertained to this bit:
ZD: "I can only conclude, like Suzanne Segal, that THAT can become aware of Itself directly in some unknown way. Obviously, because there is only THAT, THAT is what sees whatever is seen, so when that kind of seeing happens through a human, the human is clearly an aspect of THAT and is the mechanism through which the seeing occurs." I find it odd you somehow have seen through the personal identity, no separation, all that, but you still apparently regard the body as the mechanism through which seeing occurs. The body is just an appearance...it's not a mechanistic cause to anything else happening within experience.
Killing the Buddha works three ways. We smash our idols rather than putting peeps on pedestals. Maybe we look in the mirror .. and perhaps we smile. But, concentrating all of this attention on whether a given individual is ~ whateverized~ is just another way of not killing the Buddha. Speculating about realization status and proving by geometric logic what happened to the strawberry's is just the mind, doin' it's abstracty, linear thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2019 23:59:53 GMT -5
You did not address my point.
It pertained to this bit:
ZD: "I can only conclude, like Suzanne Segal, that THAT can become aware of Itself directly in some unknown way. Obviously, because there is only THAT, THAT is what sees whatever is seen, so when that kind of seeing happens through a human, the human is clearly an aspect of THAT and is the mechanism through which the seeing occurs." I find it odd you somehow have seen through the personal identity, no separation, all that, but you still apparently regard the body as the mechanism through which seeing occurs. The body is just an appearance...it's not a mechanistic cause to anything else happening within experience.
Killing the Buddha works three ways. We smash our idols rather than putting peeps on pedestals. Maybe we look in the mirror .. and perhaps we smile. But, concentrating all of this attention on whether a given individual is ~whateverized~ is just another way of not killing the Buddha. Speculating about realization status and proving by geometric logic what happened to the strawberry's is just the mind, doin' it's abstracty, linear thing. Who is doing that?
...just asking for clarification about how the body as a mechanistic cause idea survives the end of identification with the person.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Mar 23, 2019 0:23:35 GMT -5
Killing the Buddha works three ways. We smash our idols rather than putting peeps on pedestals. Maybe we look in the mirror .. and perhaps we smile. But, concentrating all of this attention on whether a given individual is ~whateverized~ is just another way of not killing the Buddha. Speculating about realization status and proving by geometric logic what happened to the strawberry's is just the mind, doin' it's abstracty, linear thing. Who is doing that?
...just asking for clarification about how the body as a mechanistic cause idea survives the end of identification with the person.
Of course the answer is that there is not an ending of identification with the body. It has merely become integrated and unified within the spaciousness of the unbounded as one, and where conflicting ideas about identity simply vanish from one's mind, never to return.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 23, 2019 0:34:39 GMT -5
You did not address my point.
It pertained to this bit:
ZD: "I can only conclude, like Suzanne Segal, that THAT can become aware of Itself directly in some unknown way. Obviously, because there is only THAT, THAT is what sees whatever is seen, so when that kind of seeing happens through a human, the human is clearly an aspect of THAT and is the mechanism through which the seeing occurs." I find it odd you somehow have seen through the personal identity, no separation, all that, but you still apparently regard the body as the mechanism through which seeing occurs. The body is just an appearance...it's not a mechanistic cause to anything else happening within experience.
Killing the Buddha works three ways. We smash our idols rather than putting peeps on pedestals. Maybe we look in the mirror .. and perhaps we smile. But, concentrating all of this attention on whether a given individual is ~ whateverized~ is just another way of not killing the Buddha. Speculating about realization status and proving by geometric logic what happened to the strawberry's is just the mind, doin' it's abstracty, linear thing. Ever heard of 'mirroring'?
|
|