|
Post by zendancer on Nov 1, 2019 14:05:10 GMT -5
As Reefs has pointed out, for anyone who has apprehended oneness/the Infinite directly, this question/issue would never even arise. That's why many of think that the intellect must be actively engaged in this line of thought. A ZM might ask a student the following questions: 1. (holding up a rock) "What is this?" 2. Does it exist? 3. Is it real or unreal? 4. How do you know? 5. Is it conscious or not? 6. How do you know? If the student understands, then s/he could answer these questions quite easily without saying a single word. A ZM could also ask: 1. Is the world only an appearance? Answer yes or no. 2. Is there only one perceiver in this room? Answer yes or no. If the student understands, s/he could answer the questions without saying yes or no. yes I am convinced the intellect is involved. I think half the debate has been about whether intellect is involved on 'their' side, or whether intellect is involved in what you described as 'apprehension of Oneness'. It was refreshing to see Gopal acknowledge the belief, and I agree the belief could not be present after Oneness has been apprehended. I think this is just my personality type, but if I was asked a koan by a zen master, I would very likely feel compelled to be a rebel and try and screw with the zen master (I would make sure to carry my own zen stick ). I think they probably are of genuine value to a certain type of sincere seeker though. Oh yes. Zen Masters love dharma combat, and they love to be challenged, but there has to be a certain amount of existential understanding to even enter the game, much less hold one's own.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 1, 2019 14:43:26 GMT -5
You did lol .. This is why you proclaimed to be awake to the dream while me and Andy were still sleeping and your Truth realisation out trumped what Andy and I had realised . .. I saw this from Gopal on Fig's forum, and found it both revealing and truthful from him. ''Those kinds of thoughts wouldn't even arise to me either. But when questioned, it has to be this way. When I look at my daughter's eyes, I forget the whole world in her innocence look, I wouldn't even think that whether she is real or not when I look at her, there is a kind of belief in my background that says to me that she may be real but I can't KNOW ultimately.'' He clearly acknowledges here that in the background of his mind, or experience, the solipsist belief is present. At least he is aware that it's there. Perhaps one should address the belief that there is a real innocent look to see through .. There is an actual belief present to begin with in order to make such a statement .. To then go on to say ‘butt I don't know for sure‘ is a suggestion after the initial belief already made .. It,s like saying I am looking through a real window but not sure if what I am seeing is real or not lol
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 2, 2019 2:24:40 GMT -5
You did lol .. This is why you proclaimed to be awake to the dream while me and Andy were still sleeping and your Truth realisation out trumped what Andy and I had realised . .. I saw this from Gopal on Fig's forum, and found it both revealing and truthful from him. ''Those kinds of thoughts wouldn't even arise to me either. But when questioned, it has to be this way. When I look at my daughter's eyes, I forget the whole world in her innocence look, I wouldn't even think that whether she is real or not when I look at her, there is a kind of belief in my background that says to me that she may be real but I can't KNOW ultimately.'' He clearly acknowledges here that in the background of his mind, or experience, the solipsist belief is present. At least he is aware that it's there. Yes, Gopal's position is rather honest, especially since he made no claims of being self-realized (as far as I am aware). What he says is truthful in the SVP context, i.e. from that perspective, when you think about it, in the final analysis, you cannot know for sure, but you can't help but act as if you are sure either, even though you should know better. That's the dilemma.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 2, 2019 2:29:42 GMT -5
yes it seems like one would know that the belief is there, but i'm pretty sure that the others that have that same belief, aren't aware that the belief is there. Perhaps something can be so familiar that it can also be overlooked. The real question is.. does the daughter know that the belief is there? As in, will the development of the child be affected by the faint perception of such a belief? At her age, experience of the world is direct, not via some intermediary as it is typical for adults. And as Gopal has been saying and demonstrating, he can't help but act as if everyone else is a perceiver in everyday life. Which means that belief is absolutely irrelevant in everyday life. It only becomes relevant when he logs on to these forums. And even here he can't help but take everyone else as a perceiver. So from my perspective, it's the ultimate mind game with no practical value whatsoever, except when you're sitting in your rocking chair leisurely philosophizing/reflecting about the world and Being, hehe.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 2, 2019 2:55:07 GMT -5
As Reefs has pointed out, for anyone who has apprehended oneness/the Infinite directly, this question/issue would never even arise. That's why many of us think that the intellect must be actively engaged in this line of thought. Exactly. The question about other perceivers is essentially a mind hook. It can't be resolved intellectually. And seeing someone obsessing over this question for years can only mean that the mind got hooked pretty badly. The problem with these mind hooks is that they misdirect attention. And as long as the focus is exclusively on resolving the issue, the mind will stay hooked. To unhook the mind, the focus has to shift to the root of the question, the questioner. There needs to be shift in context/perspective.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 2, 2019 2:59:02 GMT -5
As Reefs has pointed out, for anyone who has apprehended oneness/the Infinite directly, this question/issue would never even arise. That's why many of think that the intellect must be actively engaged in this line of thought. A ZM might ask a student the following questions: 1. (holding up a rock) "What is this?" 2. Does it exist? 3. Is it real or unreal? 4. How do you know? 5. Is it conscious or not? 6. How do you know? If the student understands, then s/he could answer these questions quite easily without saying a single word. A ZM could also ask: 1. Is the world only an appearance? Answer yes or no. 2. Is there only one perceiver in this room? Answer yes or no. If the student understands, s/he could answer the questions without saying yes or no. yes I am convinced the intellect is involved. I think half the debate has been about whether intellect is involved on 'their' side, or whether intellect is involved in what you described as 'apprehension of Oneness'. It was refreshing to see Gopal acknowledge the belief, and I agree the belief could not be present after Oneness has been apprehended. I think this is just my personality type, but if I was asked a koan by a zen master, I would very likely feel compelled to be a rebel and try and screw with the zen master (I would make sure to carry my own zen stick ). I think they probably are of genuine value to a certain type of sincere seeker though. Do you remember the old 'all ideas are empty' discussions? What if 'ideas' has just been replaced with 'perceivables'?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2019 5:14:14 GMT -5
The real question is.. does the daughter know that the belief is there? As in, will the development of the child be affected by the faint perception of such a belief? At her age, experience of the world is direct, not via some intermediary as it is typical for adults. And as Gopal has been saying and demonstrating, he can't help but act as if everyone else is a perceiver in everyday life. Which means that belief is absolutely irrelevant in everyday life. It only becomes relevant when he logs on to these forums. And even here he can't help but take everyone else as a perceiver. So from my perspective, it's the ultimate mind game with no practical value whatsoever, except when you're sitting in your rocking chair leisurely philosophizing/reflecting about the world and Being, hehe. You'd think so.. though the quote that Andrew brought back here seems to imply, that the belief is still forming in the background of his experience. Which to me, brings it into contact with his daughter's direct experience of the world. As in, if I were to think for a split second that a child wasn't an experiencer, the child would know to look at me knowingly.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 2, 2019 8:25:51 GMT -5
At her age, experience of the world is direct, not via some intermediary as it is typical for adults. And as Gopal has been saying and demonstrating, he can't help but act as if everyone else is a perceiver in everyday life. Which means that belief is absolutely irrelevant in everyday life. It only becomes relevant when he logs on to these forums. And even here he can't help but take everyone else as a perceiver. So from my perspective, it's the ultimate mind game with no practical value whatsoever, except when you're sitting in your rocking chair leisurely philosophizing/reflecting about the world and Being, hehe. You'd think so.. though the quote that Andrew brought back here seems to imply, that the belief is still forming in the background of his experience. Which to me, brings it into contact with his daughter's direct experience of the world. As in, if I were to think for a split second that a child wasn't an experiencer, the child would know to look at me knowingly. That would also imply that he's living in his head at all times.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 2, 2019 10:12:35 GMT -5
Precisely. It's not 'the SVP - peep' that wakes up. Rather, the SVP gets seen for what it really is, a mistake of mind. Awakening/SR is a seeing through, an absence, not a learning or addition of knowledge.
In awakening, baggage is shed and the SVP is about as heavy as it gets. In the dream world there is nothing that can see through illusions.
Everything that is of the dream holds no weight. The dream IS, that you believe there is someone that can see the dream for a dream .. This has been one of my main points .. We either stick to the program or all bets are off . It's mighty convenient to bend the rules for oneself when trying to speak of what is true .. If it was open ballgame then all experiential truths would hold weight and be open to debate .. When all is a dream, there is no debate, there are no experiential truths that will ever hold any weight no matter how grand or poetic they may sound . Not so. The dreamer is present in the dream.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 2, 2019 10:31:03 GMT -5
I watched a channeled interview with Lao Tzu last night, it wasn't very deep to be honest but one of the questions put to him was about what is real and what isn't real in regards to himself and the world. Am I real? Is the world real? compared to what he replied, something that isn't? .. Of course I am real, of course the world is real, it is as real as the other worlds and dimensions, for they are all equally as real as each other .. (roughly translated). This has been my exact line of thought regarding the dream notion for what is the comparison for life that is not like a dream or not as a dream.There was only a brief mention of illusion in a way of seeing self in a particular way .. www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPpmNrGJND4www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMKCFcSCy1YThe comparison is with the world of your imagination; a world of physical substance that moves through time and space and follows natural laws. The whole idea of experience being a dream is being used to counter those beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 2, 2019 10:58:57 GMT -5
In the past Enigma relentlessly stated that realizations only reveal what is NOT so. For people who have had a deep kensho experience, however, this definition is insufficient because a kensho that involves apprehending the Infinite can reveal much more than what is not so. First, it reveals that reality is NOT what one imagined. In this sense the realization fits E's definition precisely. Second, it reveals the inability of the intellect to comprehend the Infinite by revealing the limit of mind (if mind is defined as the intellect). Third, it reveals that love underlies everything. Fourth, it reveals that what we call "reality" is a unified whole, and that everything (every thing) is one-with THAT. Fifth, it completely eliminates the fear of death because (1) the SVP is seen as insignificant in relation to the vastness of the Infinite and the perfection of how the Infinite manifests and (2) because the conventional sense of birth and death are seen to be illusions. Sixth, it reveals that awareness is as fundamental an aspect of the Infinite as is love. Seventh, it reveals that even if the entire universe totally disappeared, the Infinite would still be here. Eighth, it reveals that the Infinite is all there is.IOW, a deep kensho can reveal BOTH what is NOT so as well as what IS so, and what IS so seems far more important to this character than what is NOT so. FWIW, judging by the Zen literature, kensho can result in SR in rare cases, but it is far more often the case that SR occurs afterwards as a separate realization. Interestingly, although I know that Advaitins have a term for CC experiences, the Advaita literature doesn't seem to contain many descriptions of those experiences. Perhaps other people have more knowledge of Advaita literature, and if this is not the case, I'd be interested in reading some accounts from that tradition. 2) Realization reveals that it's not so that mind can comprehend the source of mind. 3) Realization reveals that it's not so that which is prior to fear is fearful. 4) Realization reveals that separation is not so. 5) Realization reveals that birth and death are not so. 6) Realization reveals that one is not any object appearing in one's awareness, but rather awareness itself. 7) Realization reveals that beginnings and endings are ultimately not so. Time, space, physicality are ultimately not so. 8) Realization reveals that separation and boundaries are ultimately not so. None of this actually needs to be known. Freedom is entirely a process of unkowing.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 2, 2019 14:02:42 GMT -5
I saw this from Gopal on Fig's forum, and found it both revealing and truthful from him. ''Those kinds of thoughts wouldn't even arise to me either. But when questioned, it has to be this way. When I look at my daughter's eyes, I forget the whole world in her innocence look, I wouldn't even think that whether she is real or not when I look at her, there is a kind of belief in my background that says to me that she may be real but I can't KNOW ultimately.'' He clearly acknowledges here that in the background of his mind, or experience, the solipsist belief is present. At least he is aware that it's there. Yes, Gopal's position is rather honest, especially since he made no claims of being self-realized (as far as I am aware). What he says is truthful in the SVP context, i.e. from that perspective, when you think about it, in the final analysis, you cannot know for sure, but you can't help but act as if you are sure either, even though you should know better. That's the dilemma. Yes, though there's an oddity to the SVP context, in that even 'average Joe' knows that life is interconnected, so without perhaps verbalizing it, 'Average Joe' knows that there is a broader context than that of the SVP. While the solipsist belief would be both rational and truthful IF we take SVP context alone, we should never take the SVP context alone! Taking it alone paradoxically undermines the rationality and truthfulness of the position. And yes, I think it's perhaps because Gopal doesn't make claim to being self-realized that he is able to more easily see that the belief is present.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 2, 2019 14:11:42 GMT -5
yes I am convinced the intellect is involved. I think half the debate has been about whether intellect is involved on 'their' side, or whether intellect is involved in what you described as 'apprehension of Oneness'. It was refreshing to see Gopal acknowledge the belief, and I agree the belief could not be present after Oneness has been apprehended. I think this is just my personality type, but if I was asked a koan by a zen master, I would very likely feel compelled to be a rebel and try and screw with the zen master (I would make sure to carry my own zen stick ). I think they probably are of genuine value to a certain type of sincere seeker though. Do you remember the old 'all ideas are empty' discussions? What if 'ideas' has just been replaced with 'perceivables'? yes could be, though I said to satch recently that I don't necessarily have a problem with the concept of 'empty/emptiness' when talking about perceivables/world/appearances etc, but what I find contextually confused and misconceived is the 'empty of Truth' thing.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 2, 2019 14:14:45 GMT -5
In the dream world there is nothing that can see through illusions.
Everything that is of the dream holds no weight. The dream IS, that you believe there is someone that can see the dream for a dream .. This has been one of my main points .. We either stick to the program or all bets are off . It's mighty convenient to bend the rules for oneself when trying to speak of what is true .. If it was open ballgame then all experiential truths would hold weight and be open to debate .. When all is a dream, there is no debate, there are no experiential truths that will ever hold any weight no matter how grand or poetic they may sound . Not so. The dreamer is present in the dream. So if the dreamer is present in the dream, is 'seeing' also within the dream? I thought you took the position that seeing is prior to the dream.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 2, 2019 15:05:41 GMT -5
In the dream world there is nothing that can see through illusions.
Everything that is of the dream holds no weight. The dream IS, that you believe there is someone that can see the dream for a dream .. This has been one of my main points .. We either stick to the program or all bets are off . It's mighty convenient to bend the rules for oneself when trying to speak of what is true .. If it was open ballgame then all experiential truths would hold weight and be open to debate .. When all is a dream, there is no debate, there are no experiential truths that will ever hold any weight no matter how grand or poetic they may sound . Not so. The dreamer is present in the dream. Butt my point in making was that the dreamer cannot see through anything because the dreamer is part of the dream .. There is no real point of true perception had or attained that can see-through the dream, seeing it as a dream .. and seeing that there is a comparison of that . That being awareness itself as figs put it .. As said before there has to be a foundation that is true or real to begin with in order to make comparisons .. What we have here is not a foundation that is real or true, all we have is dreamy peeps thinking that they are seeing through the dream, when all we have is a dreamy peep thinking that .. Awareness itself doesn't know anything about the world that is either a dream or not .. So all you have is self of the mind that is either dreamy or not .. You can't have both dreamy and not dreamy in a dream foundation ..
|
|