Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2019 15:07:39 GMT -5
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? Yes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2019 15:12:48 GMT -5
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? Yes. Deftly answered, touche'.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 19, 2019 15:16:50 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. well, another question then....given he says that the world is created in your imagination, is he saying that your imagination is prior to (or fundamental to) the world you are creating?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2019 17:33:54 GMT -5
Yes. Deftly answered, touche'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2019 17:47:44 GMT -5
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. well, another question then....given he says that the world is created in your imagination, is he saying that your imagination is prior to (or fundamental to) the world you are creating? The way he is using that term in that context, it defies such capture. He's pointing in a very pointy way there, as he's not talking about a person who imagines stuff. He's speaking of the larger context of 'creation'.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 19, 2019 18:24:12 GMT -5
well, another question then....given he says that the world is created in your imagination, is he saying that your imagination is prior to (or fundamental to) the world you are creating? The way he is using that term in that context, it defies such capture. He's pointing in a very pointy way there, as he's not talking about a person who imagines stuff. He's speaking of the larger context of 'creation'. It's a hard one to make sense of, because presumably, he's using the word 'you/your', in contrast to 'I/mine'. So it sounds like he's saying, 'you are imagining a world and I am imagining a world'. To me, it basically sounds like the LOA idea of 'both you and I are creating our own realities'.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 19, 2019 18:34:41 GMT -5
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.
Suspending what might be meant by "sage", it certainly seemed to me that the "I am not the body" notion was important at one point. But I'm not going to preclude the possibility that someone else can "get there" without ever having given it serious consideration.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 19, 2019 21:35:06 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" Yes, I know that's your definition. And it's a problematic one because with that definition the distinction between 'thingness' and 'suchness' gets lost. And with that distinction lost, you won't be able to tell the difference between solipsism and advaita anymore. It's close to my definition #1. The big difference though is that I, at the same time, consider everything an extension of Source and so the question about the nature of 'others' doesn't arise. Nowadays I do make a clear distinction due to some obvious misunderstandings in the solipsism debates. In the past, however, I didn't make a clear distinction between mind and intellect. That's why referring to old quotes can get confusing. You have to go by context in order to determine which is which. But the distinction is there nevertheless. I can agree with that quote. But that would imply a rather broad definition of the term 'mind', i.e. mind not synonymous with intellect.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 19, 2019 21:49:55 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. Okay just read the full quote. As I've pointed out in the Niz thread, generally speaking, Niz talks on 3 levels: 1) consensus trance level (objectified perception, the realm of thought and knowledge - aka the personal), 2) the SR level (non-objectified perception, prior to intellect/mind - aka the impersonal) and 3) NS level (no perception, prior to consciousness - aka beyond personal or impersonal, being or not being). So this quote clearly is a level 3 quote.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Oct 19, 2019 22:01:30 GMT -5
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...? So how do you reconcile that with having admitted that you enjoy things and relationships in your life. How could you do that without the presence of an SVP?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 19, 2019 22:13:31 GMT -5
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.
The point is that the sage doesn't make such distinctions. In fact, trying to uphold that distinction at all times would be akin to the ignorant version of "I am the body" again.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 19, 2019 23:00:18 GMT -5
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. The mistake I see you making is equating things to perceivables. That's why you can't make much sense of what I am saying. To make sense of what I and some others are saying (re: it's all alive) you have to understand what we mean by 'thingness' as opposed to 'suchness'. I'm not sure you actually do. Do you understand what UG means when he says "You see nothing! You don't even see this (pointing at a table)..."? If you don't understand this, none of what I am saying is ever going to making any sense to you. Anyway, I'll post some quote in the Alan Watts thread, he tends to perfectly illustrate my point. Let's see.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 20, 2019 9:35:24 GMT -5
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.
The point is that the sage doesn't make such distinctions. In fact, trying to uphold that distinction at all times would be akin to the ignorant version of "I am the body" again. Good point. In the Zen tradition Zen Masters continually zap every distinction that students come up with. If a monk says, "Life is just a dream" or "Nothing is real," a ZM would likely smack him with a Zen stick and say, "Is this a dream?" or "Do you feel this?" The ZM would do this because he/she is pointing the monk toward "non-abidance in mind" (intellect) where there's no attachment to fixed ideas. "Suchness" neither affirms nor denies the reality or unreality of things. The word "suchness" points to the simplicity and matter-of-factness of everyday life when the intellect ceases to be dominant. A non-abidance-in-mind (non-intellectual) way of life is pointed to in this classic exchange: Monk: What is the meaning of Zen (or life)? ZM: Have you finished eating breakfast? Monk: Yes. ZM: Then go clean your bowls. I often wonder if this is what Jesus was pointing to when he supposedly said, "Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the son of man has nowhere to lay his head." IOW, if there is non-abidance in mind, nothing is fixed; life is a flow of being. Perhaps in this quote he was pointing to SS, or what we call "the natural state."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2019 10:42:11 GMT -5
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.
Suspending what might be meant by "sage", it certainly seemed to me that the "I am not the body" notion was important at one point. But I'm not going to preclude the possibility that someone else can "get there" without ever having given it serious consideration. Realization though is different than mere 'consideration.' One does not get to the sages/third mountain, "I am the body," without seeing through/ending all identification with that which appears....all identification, period.
That's what "I am not the body" really is; the absence of/cessation of, identifying with anything ephemeral....anything conceptual, which means, the end of all identification.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2019 11:25:21 GMT -5
Yes, I know that's your definition. And it's a problematic one because with that definition the distinction between 'thingness' and 'suchness' gets lost. The term 'suchness' is a very pointy pointer, a mere attempt to try to capture the 'isness' of the entirety of THIS (which is more than just that which appears, that which arises in perception....it includes that which lies foundational, a sort of non-conceptual essence of the totality, which ultimately cannot be captured by quality/property or word). Thus, The term "suchness" is so very far from the term "appearance" or "thingness" that there is no danger at all in losing the distinction between the two in denoting 'appearance,' as 'all perceivables.' "Suchness" is a poetic pointer, whereas "all perceivables," is not. "Suchness" is a mere (and ultimately "futile" attempt) to capture that which defies capture.) To speak of the 'suchness' of THIS is not to speak of 'knowing something about perceivables.' This is where it really gets important to see the difference between that which is but a poetic pointer....and that which is a knowing. Perceivables are perceived. Appearances DO appear. Those are knowings, thus, I can say this or that appears, but the "suchness" of "This," is something entirely different. In short, poetic pointers should never be used to argue that something is known for certain 'about' a perceivable, such as a perceivable is itself, perceiving. THAT right there, is the context mix that should never have happened. "Suchness" has absolutely nothing to do with the knowing/not knowing that perceived people, rocks, socks, etc, are perceiving/experiencing. In seeing the entire realm of perceivables as empty of Truth, the question of the nature of 'others' also does not arise. As I keep saying, the question is ultimately misconceived. Stating that it is not known whether or not appearing people are experiencing/perceiving does not equal carting around a question. Once the emptiness of all perceivables has seen to be empty, such questions cease....much as seeing an oasis to be empty of water, means the cessation of going there to drink. The problem with the ' extension of Source,' definition is that it lends itself to the conceptualization that Source itself is a 'something/what/' that moves, changes, "extends" itself...that is 'has' property/quality that "becomes" matter. That matter is then conceptually 'infused with' those properties/qualities. In short, it gives the wrong idea...(not that any idea is correct, but some are less likely to trigger mind's propensity to conceptualize and use that to reach further erroneous conclusions.) Yes, it can get confusing and that's precisely why I've been asking about some of the stuff you've said in the past. So, with what you say above in mind, can you explain what you meant in the following past exchange: Yes, agreed.
|
|