|
Post by ouroboros on Nov 7, 2019 6:58:15 GMT -5
Ok thanks, yes there is genuine interest in what Enigma is saying, and in some respects I can relate to all of it. But we're approaching it differently, so to clarify, what I wrote was quite subtle and also intended to indicate we'd reached an impasse, rather than merely signify agreement as such. To be clear, there is no real room in my world for dog dodo as a point of perception. It's not something I'm open to. I'm not entirely convinced anyone is. That's okay. Argument is only possible for whether appearing another living being is a point of perception or not because that's what makes sense. That would certainly make more sense, as living being can at least be seen to have the mental apparatus we might usually associate with perception (brain etc). But obviously Enigma is saying something else as you can see here, when he unequivocally says ""There's no reason dog dodo cannot be a point of perception". You might want to take that up with him. It's an amusing notion, but not much more than holy dog dodo. Fwiw, I promise that I fully understand the point being made, but accept you might not want to take my word for that, as I do not signify full agreement with the conclusions. Yes, there is sincere interest. You are most welcome, and thanks to you too.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 7, 2019 7:37:38 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. Agreed. The point that some of us have made is that there's a difference between what is commonly called "an experience" in which there is self awareness and other "experiences," such as deep samadhi, where there is no self awareness yet things about reality are directly discovered. ITSW, we call a cosmic consciousness experience "an experience," but there is no separate experiencer present when that happens, and many things can be realized as a consequence of such "an experience." Some people apparently realize oneness as a result of a "pure" insight whereas other people apparently realize oneness as a result of a CC. People can understand, intellectually, that oneness is the case, but that kind of understanding is extremely weak. A realization that oneness is the case is far more embodied and more life changing. A realization of oneness via a CC can be even more powerful and can result in a radical change in the way one relates to the world. The reason that some of us have referred to powerful CC's as "events" rather than "experiences" is that they occur beyond the intellect and beyond any sense of separateness, and because they result in one or more powerful realizations that are life changing. Like you, it seems to me that what some of us call "transcendent" experiences that precipitate major realizations fall into another category than" non-transcendent" experiences.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 7, 2019 9:53:06 GMT -5
Again, the fact that you don't like it is not my concern. My spider sense tells me your here to stir trouble and not actually answer questions about your model . All you are doing is avoiding answering my question and telling me how I don't like your model .. Well I don't agree with it, that's a certain, I mean it makes no sense and you don't explain yourself .. Your theory about there being an experiencer and no witness leaves me thinking wtf you talking about .I don't understand your theory. Do you think there is an experiencer and then a witness of that experiencer?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 7, 2019 9:55:02 GMT -5
Is what you are present right here and now, or is it hidden from view again? What I am is here and now, it has never been hidden from view . It's the only view there is. what are you, according to your theory?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 7, 2019 10:11:17 GMT -5
I thought I was being extraordinarily clear that Awareness is what I am. You have been clear on that yes . What is not clear is the realization of that . Again all you do is answer one line of my post and leave out the juicy bits .. If you don't want to answer that's fine, but it doesn't make sense for you to interject with my post's to other's and then not reply to my questions in return .. If you don't want to answer my questions, please don't respond to my posts ..
Basically, I look for interesting comments or questions that I feel deserve an answer. I don't pay much attention to who it's addressed to, and I don't feel obliged to address everything in a post. Even though it often seems like it, it's not actually my job to answer your questions.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 7, 2019 10:50:37 GMT -5
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. Right, I agree that the awareness/consciousness that I experience now, is the same Awareness/Consciousness that is sought. And personally, I can shift attention in such way that I can experientially notice what seems to be personal awareness/consciousness, and I can experientially notice impersonal awareness/consciousness. AND, I would suggest that 'the personal' can be realized to ultimately be an illusion, and impersonal awareness/consciousness is therefore real/true/actual.
Agree? Basically, yes, though personal and impersonal are really just contextual categories used in discussion, and as such aren't subject to the classification of illusion or actual. We could say the SVP is illusion and Awareness is actual, though even that's not true ultimately. There are a lot of terms, such as Self, witness, spirit, even Awareness and Consciousness that are typically used as pointers and if encountered often enough can come to be thought of as actual. What needs to be separated is the utility of language from the actuality of Oneness in which there are no conceptual layers between formlessness and form.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 7, 2019 11:03:47 GMT -5
That's it! Anyone who is genuinely interested to see the truth like you would definitely agree with us! .. And there you go assuming that there's an us. Ultimately there is no us, as Oneness is the case. What is being assumed is that words on a screen correspond to actual points of perception, and it's a fair assumption. (I didn't care for the pic so much so I deleted it)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 7, 2019 11:14:37 GMT -5
I'm talking about empty of Truth. I mean that nothing within the dream can reveal a transcendent truth; So there are transcenndent truths to be revealed beyond the dream? Or there are no transcendent truths at all? if there are transcendent truths to be revealed, how do they differ from what I called 'realizing of Truth'? Can you tell me some? As has been said many times, the transcendent truths reveal what is not so.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 7, 2019 11:27:40 GMT -5
If you perceive qualities in what is essentially a pointer to nothingness, then I would suggest you are relating an experience (no doubt a spiritual experience) that is devoid of transcendent truth. Yes'Alive' has biological requirements defined within the context of form. A point of perception would be defined outside of form, as a part of the functioning of Consciousness itself. There's no reason dog dodo cannot be a point of perception, though perhaps the resulting experience wouldn't be sufficiently enticing, and it's likely that all intelligent creatures are POPs, but of course I'm just speculating about that.
Is this 'Consciousness' the same 'consciousness' i.e it's the context we just discussed? Or is this a different context of Consciousness? If different, what do you mean by it? Is this a 3 layer model here? Consciousness, POP, and dog dodo? Or are you saying that a POP is an appearance/form, just as the dog dodo is? It sounds like a 3 layer model i.e a POP is ''defined outside of form, as a part of the functioning of Consciousness itself'' It will be easier to ask you about a 'POP' if I know you are using it as part of a 2 layer model or 3 layer model, and once I know about your usage of Consciousness here. I mean to say a POP is included as part of creation. No layers or models involved. You can observe your own consciousness, point of perception and dodo without leaving your bathroom. (There's an example of an apparent context mix)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 7, 2019 11:30:07 GMT -5
.. And there you go assuming that there's an us. The 'Us' includes me,Enigma,Figgles. We three have been arguing that other person existence can not be known! She means to ask you how you know Enigma and Figgles 'exist'.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 7, 2019 11:41:18 GMT -5
I just appreciate the genuine interest when Enigma was writing to you. He has written this line And you replied "I concede that what you say is irrefutable."
Ok thanks, yes there is genuine interest in what Enigma is saying, and in some respects I can relate to all of it. But we're approaching it differently, so to clarify, what I wrote was quite subtle and also intended to indicate we'd reached an impasse, rather than merely signify agreement as such. To be clear, there is no real room in my world for dog dodo as a point of perception. It's not something I'm open to. I'm not entirely convinced anyone is. I'm not so sure I am either, but some here have said that rocks and such are conscious and aware, hencely 3 years of arguing.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 7, 2019 11:43:46 GMT -5
Ok thanks, yes there is genuine interest in what Enigma is saying, and in some respects I can relate to all of it. But we're approaching it differently, so to clarify, what I wrote was quite subtle and also intended to indicate we'd reached an impasse, rather than merely signify agreement as such. To be clear, there is no real room in my world for dog dodo as a point of perception. It's not something I'm open to. I'm not entirely convinced anyone is. That's okay. Argument is only possible for whether appearing another living being is a point of perception or not because that's what makes sense. But the point is, we can never know because actuality beyond the appearance can never be known. I can only assume other one is real no matter how convincing it is!
And I can see a kind of genuine interest in you while I am reading your post one after another. And I want to express my thanks for that.
I'll second that!
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 7, 2019 11:50:21 GMT -5
Right, I agree that the awareness/consciousness that I experience now, is the same Awareness/Consciousness that is sought. And personally, I can shift attention in such way that I can experientially notice what seems to be personal awareness/consciousness, and I can experientially notice impersonal awareness/consciousness. AND, I would suggest that 'the personal' can be realized to ultimately be an illusion, and impersonal awareness/consciousness is therefore real/true/actual.
Agree? Basically, yes, though personal and impersonal are really just contextual categories used in discussion, and as such aren't subject to the classification of illusion or actual. We could say the SVP is illusion and Awareness is actual, though even that's not true ultimately. There are a lot of terms, such as Self, witness, spirit, even Awareness and Consciousness that are typically used as pointers and if encountered often enough can come to be thought of as actual. What needs to be separated is the utility of language from the actuality of Oneness in which there are no conceptual layers between formlessness and form. Yes, though 'true' and 'ultimately' are also contextual categories. Everything we discuss here is a cotextual category, really, becayse we're always contrasting i.e measuring Okay, so if we go with the 'personal' awareness as illusion and 'impersonal' Awareness as actual. In this specific context, asking whether there are OTHER personal awarenesses would have to be misconceived, right? The question of whether there are other personal awarenesses could ONLY be asked from within the smaller (and false) context i.e the context of the 'personal'.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 7, 2019 11:53:18 GMT -5
.. And there you go assuming that there's an us. Ultimately there is no us, as Oneness is the case. What is being assumed is that words on a screen correspond to actual points of perception, and it's a fair assumption. (I didn't care for the pic so much so I deleted it) What's the context for this? If POP's are actual, and personal awareness is illusion, then what is Impersonal Awareness?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 7, 2019 11:58:14 GMT -5
So there are transcenndent truths to be revealed beyond the dream? Or there are no transcendent truths at all? if there are transcendent truths to be revealed, how do they differ from what I called 'realizing of Truth'? Can you tell me some? As has been said many times, the transcendent truths reveal what is not so. well, 'not so' is a category itself. It's still a contrasting measurement. So I decide that personal awareness is an illusion and impersonal awareness is true, because...well, it seems and feels true, and I can't deny how it feels and seems. How do you decide? And how do you decide what is 'not so', without considering the dream at all? ' I would say that these kinds of realizations or transcendent truths ARE part of the dream, because they're still categories/measurements. I save pointers for what could be 'beyond' the dream e.g 'the beyond', or 'Truth', or 'Silence'. They are beyond categories...they don't nullify or confirm anything.
|
|