|
Post by enigma on Nov 5, 2019 11:31:45 GMT -5
"There is though a realization that gives the absolute knowing that 'the world' has no separate, inherent, independent existence." She's saying the world appears in/as Consciousness itself. There's nothing wrong with referring to that as a dream appearing in Consciousness. There isn't the realization of that, there is the conclusion of that when self aware of the mind . Figs has changed her mind of late by agreeing with a video link that I posted that emphasised everything is real But I questioned why one earth would you make out the world is a dream full of dream characters and everything said of the dream is empty and absent of Truth .. It's a very strange example used to describe a real reality full of real peeps to then set up a foundation around it and by comparing the illusory nature of it with dream characters in the night dream .. Everything points to things not being as they seem to be and not holding any Truth or weight .. When you have a peep telling you that they are awake to the dream and myself and other are not, it leaves you scratching your head .. How can I be asleep when the world being a dream is just something that you have made up lol .. This is why I have spent a long time getting to the truth of this matter. The notion is something that actually holds no Truth or weight. There is no realization had that reflects the notion .. so how can one peep be asleep to that notion and one be awake .. Sounds silly to me and it sounds like one peep just wants to put themselves in a higher position than the other with there being no foundation at all other than one making stuff up about the world and the other .. I can speak about life and God and Self and self without using a dream analogy at all . There really is no need to set up a foundation about life using a dream metaphor at all . What one has to look at is who would hold onto that concept for as long as they have done and have spent an age trying to bolster the notion up with further ideas about non aware peeps that walk the earth .. There is no reason to do this .. You want to collapse everything into one neat box, so I suggest you drop the dream notion and the zombies . I'm going to assume that you understand what I'm saying at this point. That you don't like it is not my concern.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 5, 2019 11:38:34 GMT -5
I agree with the remainder of what you say here, but I sometimes see seekers seeking or confirming the experience of unification,(of that which was never in disunion), or objectifying Oneness (what we used to call a 'oneness blob') which is the direct effect of stumbling over the affirmative rather than realizing the negative. Yes of course, it's happening all the time. I think we just disagree whether it's happening in the instances of some of the things Reefs and ZD say when they're talking about stuff. Oh, I didn't mean to imply that.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Nov 5, 2019 11:47:14 GMT -5
You are assuming he was realized and fell out of it, whereas I assume he never was realized and was deluded into thinking he was after perhaps a powerful satori experience combined with an inclination to teach. I suspect that applies to most ND teachers, except Jeff made an honest admission. Agreed. He tells a story about a powerful experience he had, but experience is not realization. I still struggle to relate to this notion of entirely divorcing realisation from experience. I understand the method behind it in order to point away from 'mundane experience' as a means of discovering Truth. Yet I still tend to class both realisation and say, samadhi for example, as forms of transcendent experience. I can understand a reluctance to embrace that terminology, as it does sound a bit woo. Supra-mundane isn't much better. But for me, to entirely divorce realisation from experience tends to become even more problematic, and quite quickly.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Nov 5, 2019 11:49:13 GMT -5
Well what you are doing is collapsing what we are into one conceptual pointer . Awareness itself cannot do that. There requires the thought of oneself, there requires the mind, there requires perception, knowing/s and such likes. All your doing is exterminating all that is required to make that one conceptual pointer by passing them off as movements of awareness .. I don't see any benefits from passing off everything as a movement of awareness when the movement of awareness is what enabled you to collapse the concepts into a one neat box ..It's the dreamer thinking his outside the dream mentality and is counter productive .. The benefit is to demonstrate to you that Awareness is also present in the dream, and so it's not true that there is nothing present in the dream that can see beyond the dream. Yes, it's the substrate of the dream.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 5, 2019 11:53:07 GMT -5
It's true that we use concepts to break up oneness into pieces, some of which are witness or self and whatever else. Some of you are playing chess with the pieces, so I suggest collapsing it all back into one. 'One' is a pointer there, right? Could probably equally say, collapse back into 'nothing'. Or 'no-thing'. All are fine, and your point is valid. But to be fair, to say, 'I know I am and appearances are appearing to me but don't know if you are and if appearances are appearing to you', is a very big chess move (and I think it's breaking the rules of the game) Nobody should ever say that, but considering how many years this topic has been discussed, I'm sure a lot of poor phrasing has happened. I see 'I Am' as a recognition of transcendent existence and has nothing to do with whether an appearance involves a point of perception for experiencing the world.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 5, 2019 12:05:22 GMT -5
I don't know what it means for objects to 'look empty'. Empty of Truth just means nothing within the dream can reveal a Truth beyond the dream. 'emptiness' means that phenomena [that we experience] have no inherent nature by themselves. I still don't get it. Are you saying 'Truth' is prior to/beyond form? So you can't look to experience to realize 'Truth'?I'm talking about empty of Truth. I mean that nothing within the dream can reveal a transcendent truth;
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Nov 5, 2019 15:58:07 GMT -5
I've pulled this one over from figgy's forum because I'm disinclined to create another account for one post, or converse over two forums … I say there is exactly such thing, and in fact that’s kinda what I always felt the 'it's all alive' meme alluded to. Well that and that, what me might think of the 'Intelligence' aspect of Awareness, the 'organisational principle', encompasses ALL creation, at all levels. It's hard to put into words. Layer isn't quite right anyway, because really we can also talk in terms of how the dream arises 'within it', or is merely a movement of it, but all those phrases are where the pointers begin to fail in earnest.
But I'd be interested to see if enigma aligns with your position here …. that there is no such thing that could be reasonably adequately described as a field of aliveness that underpins and pervades the dream. Awareness/Intelligence/Aliveness are just different ways of talking about the same thingless thing. It only really gets interesting when we're looking at a corpse and trying to fathom how we categorise that in terms of this 'field of aliveness'.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Nov 5, 2019 16:48:38 GMT -5
We could also go on to talk about how phenomena, and moreover reality in its entirety, as a movement of this 'field of aliveness' are literally created by the process of perception in action. (As demonstrated by the double slit experiment).
So the non-local 'field' (super-position, or boundless potential) gives rise eventually to mundane reality itself (i.e. locality). Descending through finer to coarser states of being, in a sort of collapsing down or cascading fashion.
Which by the very nature of that process means both reality in its entirety, and phenomena are in a constant state of flux, of evolution, …. and that ultimately;
"Phenomena are merely imputed by terms and conceptuality in dependence upon bases of imputation. When an object is sought among its bases of imputation, nothing can be found to be the imputed object itself, thus phenomena are merely dependant arisen, merely imputed upon bases of imputation."
i.e. they are empty of inherent existence.
So this is the 'collapsing down to a greasy spot' analogy, the other way around.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 5, 2019 17:13:41 GMT -5
I've pulled this one over from figgy's forum because I'm disinclined to create another account for one post, or converse over two forums … I say there is exactly such thing, and in fact that’s kinda what I always felt the 'it's all alive' meme alluded to. Well that and that, what me might think of the 'Intelligence' aspect of Awareness, the 'organisational principle', encompasses ALL creation, at all levels. It's hard to put into words. Layer isn't quite right anyway, because really we can also talk in terms of how the dream arises 'within it', or is merely a movement of it, but all those phrases are where the pointers begin to fail in earnest.
But I'd be interested to see if enigma aligns with your position here …. that there is no such thing that could be reasonably adequately described as a field of aliveness that underpins and pervades the dream. Awareness/Intelligence/Aliveness are just different ways of talking about the same thingless thing. It only really gets interesting when we're looking at a corpse and trying to fathom how we categorise that in terms of this 'field of aliveness'. Yes. If the two conceptual 'layers' have nothing in common, they can't be collapsed. Let's not forget that what really matters here is collapsing the dualistic mind, the arguing over the correctness of our 'models' of existence only matters to the extent that they can be collapsed. So, a wave collapses back into the ocean because it's all water. If the wave has no commonalty with the ocean, we have an objective wave that cannot collapse into the ocean. So when Enigma said above that 'being aware' is present in the dream, and I asked him what is the connection between being aware and 'Awareness', I'm hoping he says...'' they're the same darn 'thing' ''
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 5, 2019 20:15:14 GMT -5
Awareness is present in the dream. It is the reason you are conscious and aware. So the idea that there is nothing present that can see beyond the dream is misconceived. what's the link/connection between the quality of being aware/conscious in the dream, and awareness beyond the dream? I'm sometimes criticized for mixing contexts in my usage of capitals when discussing Awareness and Consciousness. The reason it seems that way is that individuated awareness and consciousness is not other than Awareness and Consciousness, though sometimes we want to talk about them as a whole, and sometimes talk about them as they express in the individuation. Depending on the point I'm trying to make, they may be exactly the same. The awareness/consciousness you are experiencing now is the Awareness/Consciousness you seek. This is one reason I'm not big on practices designed to help you find it. It's by the grace of Awareness that you can even seek Awareness.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 5, 2019 20:23:09 GMT -5
Agreed. He tells a story about a powerful experience he had, but experience is not realization. I still struggle to relate to this notion of entirely divorcing realisation from experience. I understand the method behind it in order to point away from 'mundane experience' as a means of discovering Truth. Yet I still tend to class both realisation and say, samadhi for example, as forms of transcendent experience. I can understand a reluctance to embrace that terminology, as it does sound a bit woo. Supra-mundane isn't much better. But for me, to entirely divorce realisation from experience tends to become even more problematic, and quite quickly. I don't think I've entirely divorced them, more like a trial separation. I think spiritual experiences are a translation of spiritual truths into the language of experience. Mistakes can happen when mind tries to translate the translation into a conceptual knowing.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 5, 2019 20:24:17 GMT -5
The benefit is to demonstrate to you that Awareness is also present in the dream, and so it's not true that there is nothing present in the dream that can see beyond the dream. Yes, it's the substrate of the dream. Indeed.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Nov 5, 2019 20:38:36 GMT -5
Agreed. He tells a story about a powerful experience he had, but experience is not realization. I still struggle to relate to this notion of entirely divorcing realisation from experience. I understand the method behind it in order to point away from 'mundane experience' as a means of discovering Truth. Yet I still tend to class both realisation and say, samadhi for example, as forms of transcendent experience. I can understand a reluctance to embrace that terminology, as it does sound a bit woo. Supra-mundane isn't much better. But for me, to entirely divorce realisation from experience tends to become even more problematic, and quite quickly. You can't divorce them as it is the experiencer as individuated ego/self who proclaims "I am realized".
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Nov 5, 2019 20:46:15 GMT -5
'emptiness' means that phenomena [that we experience] have no inherent nature by themselves. I still don't get it. Are you saying 'Truth' is prior to/beyond form? So you can't look to experience to realize 'Truth'? I'm talking about empty of Truth. I mean that nothing within the dream can reveal a transcendent truth; A transcendent truth? That means there must be many transcendent truths. There is only one transcendent which is pure objectless awareness/samadhi. Transcending the mind is to completely still the mind and experience pure awareness, while transcendent truths are just concepts about reality which might seem "truthy", to borrow a word from figgles.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 5, 2019 20:51:09 GMT -5
I've pulled this one over from figgy's forum because I'm disinclined to create another account for one post, or converse over two forums … I say there is exactly such thing, and in fact that’s kinda what I always felt the 'it's all alive' meme alluded to. Well that and that, what me might think of the 'Intelligence' aspect of Awareness, the 'organisational principle', encompasses ALL creation, at all levels. It's hard to put into words. Layer isn't quite right anyway, because really we can also talk in terms of how the dream arises 'within it', or is merely a movement of it, but all those phrases are where the pointers begin to fail in earnest.
But I'd be interested to see if enigma aligns with your position here …. that there is no such thing that could be reasonably adequately described as a field of aliveness that underpins and pervades the dream. Awareness/Intelligence/Aliveness are just different ways of talking about the same thingless thing. It only really gets interesting when we're looking at a corpse and trying to fathom how we categorise that in terms of this 'field of aliveness'. Yes, or a rock or a piece of dog dodo. I think the most we can say is that form is a movement happening in Awareness, perhaps in the way that a thought is a movement happening in mind.That movement IS Awareness just as the thought IS mind. I don't know what aliveness means in the context of Awareness, but I do know what it means in the context of form, and rocks don't qualify. This is why I distinguish between appearances that operate as a point of perception and those that don't, and I claim that nothing within form and no transcendent realization will reveal which is which at any given time. It seems to be part of the unfolding of the dream itself, and is just as unpredictable as the rest of the dream.
|
|