|
Post by Reefs on Aug 26, 2019 20:55:35 GMT -5
This thread stays closed until further notice (see announcement for details). If you want to continue any current on topic discussion from this thread then you can do that in any other thread, but minus the food-fighting/psychoanalyzing, please.
R
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2019 11:37:59 GMT -5
You, and I think reefs, have had a bit of flak for this notion of aliveness, but I can't think of anything more appropriate. It certainly isn't an absence. it's vibrational and that's lively. For all the talk of Maya being a dream it certainly has much more of a vividness for me now. if consciousness itself is lively then so are the objects being perceived within consciousness. I think it’s useful to remind everyone that what we are pointing to can only be seen from prior to mind. Which means what we are pointing to has to be realized. There’s no way around it. It cannot be conceptualized. Which means aliveness doesn’t even come close to what we are pointing to. In that sense, trying to defend it by intellectual means is going to be as convincing as trying to attack or disprove it by intellectual means. That’s why we’ve regularly offered to agree to disagree on the matter. Because when peeps try to conceptualize the aliveness pointer anyway, what we usually get is either animism or even worse, anthropomorphism. And that's making a mockery out of it, be it knowingly or unknowingly. As for the counter-argument, I think if the assertion would have been “I honestly don’t know” then no one would have had an issue with that. Even if the assertion would have been “I cannot know” – I’d say, okay, fine. That's at least an honest statement from the perspective of the intellect. But the assertion “I cannot know and you can’t know either” – that’s where it gets problematic. Because it’s not even a logically sound argument. And there's a realization that will actually reveal the exact opposite. True not-knowing would be statement #1 (“I honestly don’t know”). Statement #2 (“I cannot know”) is already knowing something. And with statement #3 (“I cannot know and you can’t know either”) we are already far into TMT territory where the first part of the statement contradicts the second part. In short, the aliveness pointer can only be fully understood by those who have an actual reference for it. And those who do have that reference will use the word 'knowing' in a different way than those who don't have that reference. So here the distinction between gnosis and conceptual knowledge could be useful. But then again, in order to really understand this distinction, it would require an actual reference for an instance of gnosis. So we are basically back to square one again. Without any reference for what prior to mind means, this discussion won't be meaningful at all. Open-mindedness might help though. The argument has morphed considerably from where (in your own words) " this discussion started." And I found that specifically to be quite stunning at the time, as for years you'd talked about appearances in the same way that E and I are now talking about them; You are very clear there that people are appearances and that appearances are not 'real' (which to you means they do not exist in their own right...see convo below between you and Satchi). [/div]
You went from clearly designating all appearances (including appearing people) to be NOT real, NOT existent in their own right, to then insisting that you DID know appearing people to be real/existent in their own right.
Can you directly address this seeming divergence in message?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2019 13:55:12 GMT -5
Good. Laughter already confirmed that he understood. That leaves Enigma. As soon as I get his confirmation, I'll reopen the pettifoggery thread and you can give it another go if anyone is still interested in this. If that thread is designated as a 'food fighting thread,' I can honestly say I have no interest. I don't even recall anymore what the particular jist of the conversation was when it was all closed down.
Am kind of confused; You re-introduced my original 'not knowing' argument in this thread, in that particular post I responded to. That's why I responded to what you said in 'this thread.' Have I done something wrong?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 28, 2019 21:55:50 GMT -5
Good. Laughter already confirmed that he understood. That leaves Enigma. As soon as I get his confirmation, I'll reopen the pettifoggery thread and you can give it another go if anyone is still interested in this. If that thread is designated as a 'food fighting thread,' I can honestly say I have no interest. I don't even recall anymore what the particular jist of the conversation was when it was all closed down.
Am kind of confused; You re-introduced my original 'not knowing' argument in this thread, in that particular post I responded to. That's why I responded to what you said in 'this thread.' Have I done something wrong? Well, you could have just posted something like this: "Reefs, I think I'm still unclear about how you use the word 'appearances'. I still believe that, in the past, you used it the way Enigma and I use it now. Would you mind clarifying one more time? I can provide links if necessary. Thank you." See the difference? Anyway, I'll try to reply in the pettifoggery thread as soon as I hear from Enigma.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2019 11:21:33 GMT -5
If that thread is designated as a 'food fighting thread,' I can honestly say I have no interest. I don't even recall anymore what the particular jist of the conversation was when it was all closed down.
Am kind of confused; You re-introduced my original 'not knowing' argument in this thread, in that particular post I responded to. That's why I responded to what you said in 'this thread.' Have I done something wrong? Well, you could have just posted something like this: "Reefs, I think I'm still unclear about how you use the word 'appearances'. I still believe that, in the past, you used it the way Enigma and I use it now. Would you mind clarifying one more time? I can provide links if necessary. Thank you." See the difference? Anyway, I'll try to reply in the pettifoggery thread as soon as I hear from Enigma. Like this?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 19, 2019 9:19:01 GMT -5
All,
Update: I've reopened this thread. Laughter and Figgles already confirmed that they've understood my point about passive aggressive behavior. So far so good. I still haven't heard from Enigma yet. But it seems he has checked out permanently. And assuming that being the case, there's no point in keeping this thread locked any longer.
In case you want to continue where you've left off, try to keep the tag-teaming, psychoanalyzing and food-figthing in general at a bare minimum this time.
R
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 19, 2019 9:57:10 GMT -5
(paraphrasing): "Reefs, I think I'm still unclear about how you use the word 'appearances'. I still believe that, in the past, you used it the way Enigma and I use it now. Would you mind clarifying one more time? I can provide links if necessary. Thank you." I can use the word 'appearances' in two different ways: 1) the way A-H use the term, i.e. the realm of form in general (as an extension of Source) or 2) anything objectified, i.e the realm of the intellect/mind in general. Which means none of these definitions match your definition of 'appearances'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2019 11:31:56 GMT -5
(paraphrasing): "Reefs, I think I'm still unclear about how you use the word 'appearances'. I still believe that, in the past, you used it the way Enigma and I use it now. Would you mind clarifying one more time? I can provide links if necessary. Thank you." I can use the word 'appearances' in two different ways: 1) the way A-H use the term, i.e. the realm of form in general (as an extension of Source) or 2) anything objectified, i.e the realm of the intellect/mind in general. Which means none of these definitions match your definition of 'appearances'. Okay. For me the term 'appearances' = 'all perceivables.' (Which necessarily then includes all manner of experience....all ideas, thoughts, feelings, senses....literally anything that arises in perception. (mind).
Does that align with either of your definitions? Re: the bolded, do you necessarily equate 'the intellect' with 'mind in general'? As I see it, perception can happen absent intellectualizing about it, and/or objectifying that which is perceived.
I guess you could answer by telling me if you agree or disagree with what Niz says here:
"All perceivables are in mind only"
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 19, 2019 13:00:23 GMT -5
I can use the word 'appearances' in two different ways: 1) the way A-H use the term, i.e. the realm of form in general (as an extension of Source) or 2) anything objectified, i.e the realm of the intellect/mind in general. Which means none of these definitions match your definition of 'appearances'. Okay. For me the term 'appearances' = 'all perceivables.' (Which necessarily then includes all manner of experience....all ideas, thoughts, feelings, senses....literally anything that arises in perception. (mind).
Does that align with either of your definitions? Re: the bolded, do you necessarily equate 'the intellect' with 'mind in general'? As I see it, perception can happen absent intellectualizing about it, and/or objectifying that which is perceived.
I guess you could answer by telling me if you agree or disagree with what Niz says here: "All perceivables are in mind only" What does he mean by 'mind' there? And what is he suggesting has a mind? Perhaps a longer quote would help... I would say a 'mind' is in the realm of perceivables.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2019 13:23:08 GMT -5
Okay. For me the term 'appearances' = 'all perceivables.' (Which necessarily then includes all manner of experience....all ideas, thoughts, feelings, senses....literally anything that arises in perception. (mind).
Does that align with either of your definitions? Re: the bolded, do you necessarily equate 'the intellect' with 'mind in general'? As I see it, perception can happen absent intellectualizing about it, and/or objectifying that which is perceived.
I guess you could answer by telling me if you agree or disagree with what Niz says here: "All perceivables are in mind only" What does he mean by 'mind' there? And what is he suggesting has a mind? Perhaps a longer quote would help... I would say a 'mind' is in the realm of perceivables. I don't see him suggesting that any-thing HAS a mind.
Here's a longer quote that uses different wording, but says the same:
"You are not of the world, you are not even in the world. The world is not, you alone are. You create the world in your imagination like a dream. As you cannot separate the dream from yourself, so you cannot have an outer world independent of yourself. You are independent, not the world. Don't be afraid of a world you yourself have created." Niz
It's important to note, the "you" he references there, is not a personal you....is not a tangible who/what/thing that can be defined nor conceptualized.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 19, 2019 13:45:33 GMT -5
What does he mean by 'mind' there? And what is he suggesting has a mind? Perhaps a longer quote would help... I would say a 'mind' is in the realm of perceivables. I don't see him suggesting that any-thing HAS a mind.
Here's a longer quote that uses different wording, but says the same:
"You are not of the world, you are not even in the world. The world is not, you alone are. You create the world in your imagination like a dream. As you cannot separate the dream from yourself, so you cannot have an outer world independent of yourself. You are independent, not the world. Don't be afraid of a world you yourself have created." Niz
It's important to note, the "you" he references there, is not a personal you....is not a tangible who/what/thing that can be defined nor conceptualized. so when he says 'you create the world in your imagination', and there are 4 people in the room, do you think he is saying there are 4 different worlds/imaginations?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2019 14:09:43 GMT -5
This is why I spoke about qualities beyond mind previously .. When you hear about the dream world being realized and all that jazz it's a load of baloney .. If the natural state can be compared with what I call the realization itself then it is impossible to conclude this or that about it, especially in the name of Truthiness lol .. Yeah, to UG the natural state and SR are more or less synonymous. Also interesting, what he calls 'the separate experiencing structure' is what we here call 'the separate volitional person' (SVP). And what he calls 'nature' is what we call 'THAT'. And he explains the dilemma of the seeker quite well. When THAT is objectified via the intellect, you get things (objects) and experiences (knowledge). So knowledge, experiences, things, the intellect and the SVP go together. But nature/THAT is something 'living, vital' as UG says, the SVP, however, which is just a thought structure, is dead in comparison. And everything this thought structure touches is dead as well, because the process of objectifying THAT sucks the life out of everything, because immediacy is lost. That's why UG often says, "you see nothing!" or "you can't even experience something simple like that bench there..." Nature cannot be captured by thought, as UG says. Nature/THAT cannot be objectified. Which means the SVP can't touch THAT. That's why the SVP cannot experience the NOW and why the NOW cannot be an experience and why the natural state is necessarily a state of not knowing and not an experience, aka prior to mind/intellect (the process of objectifying). So the SVP world of things/objects/knowledge is indeed akin to a dream that lacks any real substance. In that sense, the dream metaphor has it's place. That's why I don't see it as a 'load of baloney' per se. It's basically Mckenna's first step, aka awakening. But awakening is not to be mistaken for SR or enlightenment, as McKenna pointed out - that's further down the road. So it's more like half-circle. Ramana said, that both the sage and the ignorant say 'I am the body'. But to get from the ignorant version of 'I am the body' to the sage version of 'I am the body' an intermediary step of 'I am not the body' might be necessary. Niz also tends to talk on these 3 levels.Seeing 'I am not the body,' is an integral facet of the sages "I am the body."
Seeing "I am not the body" = the end of identification with the body and all else.... The end of identification period.
It's that absence of identification (the seeing that thingness/all perceivables arises within that which I am, NOT the other way around) that makes the sages utterance of "I am the body," something completely and totally different than the seeker's.
The sages "I am the body" has at it helm, the realization that the world arises within/to that which I am, vs. I am an arising within the world.
One never goes back to "identification," to taking himself to be a perceivable thing that the world gives rise to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2019 14:18:37 GMT -5
I don't see him suggesting that any-thing HAS a mind.
Here's a longer quote that uses different wording, but says the same:
"You are not of the world, you are not even in the world. The world is not, you alone are. You create the world in your imagination like a dream. As you cannot separate the dream from yourself, so you cannot have an outer world independent of yourself. You are independent, not the world. Don't be afraid of a world you yourself have created." Niz
It's important to note, the "you" he references there, is not a personal you....is not a tangible who/what/thing that can be defined nor conceptualized. so when he says 'you create the world in your imagination', and there are 4 people in the room, do you think he is saying there are 4 different worlds/imaginations? I think the idea of different or multiples in that sense was the farthest thing from his mind when he said what he said there.
There's a reason I continually say the question of appearing people perceiving/experiencing or not, is ultimately misconceived.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2019 14:54:36 GMT -5
so when he says 'you create the world in your imagination', and there are 4 people in the room, do you think he is saying there are 4 different worlds/imaginations? I think the idea of different or multiples in that sense was the farthest thing from his mind when he said what he said there.
There's a reason I continually say the question of appearing people perceiving/experiencing or not, is ultimately misconceived. Here's a trick question: do you love this imaginary world, including the folks in it like Andrew, Satch, Tenka less or more than you love yourself?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2019 15:03:57 GMT -5
This is why I spoke about qualities beyond mind previously .. When you hear about the dream world being realized and all that jazz it's a load of baloney .. If the natural state can be compared with what I call the realization itself then it is impossible to conclude this or that about it, especially in the name of Truthiness lol .. Yeah, to UG the natural state and SR are more or less synonymous. Also interesting, what he calls 'the separate experiencing structure' is what we here call 'the separate volitional person' (SVP). And what he calls 'nature' is what we call 'THAT'. And he explains the dilemma of the seeker quite well. When THAT is objectified via the intellect, you get things (objects) and experiences (knowledge). So knowledge, experiences, things, the intellect and the SVP go together. But nature/THAT is something 'living, vital' as UG says, the SVP, however, which is just a thought structure, is dead in comparison. And everything this thought structure touches is dead as well, because the process of objectifying THAT sucks the life out of everything, because immediacy is lost. That's why UG often says, "you see nothing!" or "you can't even experience something simple like that bench there..." Nature cannot be captured by thought, as UG says. Nature/THAT cannot be objectified. Which means the SVP can't touch THAT. That's why the SVP cannot experience the NOW and why the NOW cannot be an experience and why the natural state is necessarily a state of not knowing and not an experience, aka prior to mind/intellect (the process of objectifying). So the SVP world of things/objects/knowledge is indeed akin to a dream that lacks any real substance. In that sense, the dream metaphor has it's place. That's why I don't see it as a 'load of baloney' per se. It's basically Mckenna's first step, aka awakening. But awakening is not to be mistaken for SR or enlightenment, as McKenna pointed out - that's further down the road. So it's more like half-circle. Ramana said, that both the sage and the ignorant say 'I am the body'. But to get from the ignorant version of 'I am the body' to the sage version of 'I am the body' an intermediary step of 'I am not the body' might be necessary. Niz also tends to talk on these 3 levels. Not sure if I'm reading this bit right.
Doesn't the presence of the SVP generally mean that the world of things/percievables has been taken to have real substance....independent existence in it's own right?..anything really, BUT akin to a dream...?
In what I call 'awakening to the dream,' the separate volitional person is part and parcel, the foundation really, of the entire world of thingness that gets seen through.
|
|