|
Post by tenka on Nov 8, 2019 2:55:33 GMT -5
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. It's not quite right to interject on my post's to other's, disagree with my post and then ignore my reply .. In my eye's it's a smash and grab technique .. You tell me I don't understand your theory and then you say it's not your job to answer questions about it lol .. So perhaps like said, it might be best if you don't interject, if your not going to answer questions about your interjection .
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Nov 8, 2019 4:06:35 GMT -5
For anyone with a sincere interest in what ZD and I have been pointing to, just read this. That’s it. And remember, it’s a pointer. Don’t lick it! Ok, it's taken me a little while to 'circle' back to this one, but yes, … and as you say, those last two paragraphs are especially good. Even better watching him expressing the words, after simply reading the transcript. But I think anyone who can really relate to what he's describing, has had that direct experience, can be in little doubt that we're dealing with a transcendental experience and realisation all rolled into One.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 8, 2019 4:14:44 GMT -5
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'. I don't think personal awareness is illusion. You know that you are aware. The SVP is illusion. well, if 'the impersonal' is actual, then 'the personal' is illusion. These are the categories I thought you agreed with on the previous page. So in this context, 'impersonal' awareness is actual, and 'personal' awareness is illusion. It's still the same awareness, as we also agreed. So the 'you' that knows that 'you' are aware, would be the 'personal'. It's an illusionary 'you'. What I'm trying to establish is the context in which you would question if there are any other personal awarenesses. In the context in which Impersonal Awareness is actual/true, then the question would be misconceived. We can only ask the question from within a false context. Which is fine actually. There's a ton of other questions that are perfectly appropriate from within a false context. In fact, EVERY question we ask is from within a false context lol.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 8, 2019 4:15:48 GMT -5
What's the context for this? If POP's are actual, and personal awareness is illusion, then what is Impersonal Awareness? That in which the POP arises. Yes, but you said POP's are 'actual'. If POP's are actual, then what is impersonal Awareness? Super-actual? Actually Actual?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 8, 2019 4:20:15 GMT -5
as said above, I don't know what a POP is to you. Is it actual, like impersonal Awareness? Is it an appearance, like dog poop? But, I can't observe my 'POP'. I wouldn't know how to, or what it is. I can't feel it, see it, sense it. To me, a 'POP' is an abstract idea, it's not irrelevant as an abstract idea, but I wouldn't know how to observe it. What are you observing? Or...later thought.... is a 'POP' synonymous with 'personal awareness'?Maybe. It doesn't deserve to be mysterious. You perceive the world from a unique point of view. (presumably) That's already the point of perception. You don't need to find it like you find dog dodo. well, you conclude/deduce that you perceive the world from a point of view. It's not observable. You can't find it, sense it, feel it. What you can do is sense or feel 'the person' i.e you can sense and feel 'personal' awareness. You can analyze that felt sense and deduce that you have a point of view. It's 'figured out'. That's why I strongly question whether these 'POP's' are 'actual'. I would say they are an abstract story, that only makes sense from within the false context of 'the personal'. That's not to say that it is a terrible story, or irrelevant. After all, the story of 'the person' isn't a terrible or irrelevant story!
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 8, 2019 4:23:55 GMT -5
A convergence of sensory input. That's so abstract that it's hard to know how to even question it. How does it converge? What does it converge on? How is this sensory input being inputted? What's it being inputted into? The questions are endless. Please don't answer those questions, they are for illustrative purposes.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 8, 2019 4:25:47 GMT -5
For anyone with a sincere interest in what ZD and I have been pointing to, just read this. That’s it. And remember, it’s a pointer. Don’t lick it! Ok, it's taken me a little while to 'circle' back to this one, but yes, … and as you say, those last two paragraphs are especially good. Even better watching him expressing the words, after simply reading the transcript. But I think anyone who can really relate to what he's describing, has had that direct experience, can be in little doubt that we're dealing with a transcendental experience and realisation all rolled into One. Yes, for analytical purposes it could be useful to distinguish between the two, but practically speaking, I don't think they can be separated at all.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 8, 2019 5:32:06 GMT -5
'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. That's it! Anyone who is genuinely interested to see the truth like you would definitely agree with us! I can only assume other one is real no matter how convincing it is! Wow! We used to call that TMT. But apparently, assuming and speculating has become the new truthin’ now. It used to be about absolute knowing and absolute certainty. I can see why you would see it that way, but Enigma? What happened?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 8, 2019 8:31:32 GMT -5
For anyone with a sincere interest in what ZD and I have been pointing to, just read this. That’s it. And remember, it’s a pointer. Don’t lick it! Ok, it's taken me a little while to 'circle' back to this one, but yes, … and as you say, those last two paragraphs are especially good. Even better watching him expressing the words, after simply reading the transcript. But I think anyone who can really relate to what he's describing, has had that direct experience, can be in little doubt that we're dealing with a transcendental experience and realisation all rolled into One. There’s a saying that revolutions in the end always eat their own. And the 'anti-experience' movement definitely has reached that stage. What used to be a useful distinction unfortunately has become a dogma and therefore an obstacle to greater understanding. You see, the forum where I was posting before I came here was teeming with people who tried to reach higher states of consciousness, where cosmic consciousness experiences was the thing of the day, because they thought SR was the highest state of consciousness. Some even had numbering systems and were calibrating themselves and others accordingly on some imaginary scale on the path to SR level consciousness. Pretty wild stuff! And that’s where the anti-experience stance originally comes from. How we used to define experiences is actually pretty close to how UG defines the term. So this is not just an ST thing. What it basically comes down to is this: experiences belong to the realm of mind, but realizations are prior to mind. Which means experiences can be described in detail and even replayed and relived in the mind. You can’t do that with realizations. Mind can’t touch this. Which means, essentially, when we are talking about SR, you can only say what it is not instead of what it actually is. There’s no way of accurately describing it. So the best way to talk to seekers when they present you their complex theories is “No, that’ not it… and no, that’s not it either.” But that’s not going to make for very satisfying conversations. And no realization is happening in a vacuum. Usually they are accompanied by memorable experiences. Most actually recall the exact time and date and place of their realization(s). So the challenge here is to not mistake/mix the realization with the experience that's been described. That’s why we have pointers. And pointers are tricky business. They are not meant to be applied mindlessly. They have to be handled with care. Because once mind tries to make sense of it and conceptualizes it (aka licks the pointer), it just becomes another belief/mental position. Which means you basically need a new pointer. A pointer is supposed to throw a monkey-wrench into the monkey mind machine. But very often pointers become mind hooks. So pointing is a bit of a double-edged sword. Watts is exceptionally clear and definitely one of the most 'skilled' ones in the pointing business (as you put it). Seth and A-H are the more 'clumsy' ones, hehe. But they are all pointing to the same. Another very good account you can get from Suzanne Segal, here and here. She says: "This non-localized, infinite substance can be perceived not with the eyes or ears or nose, but by the substance itself, out of itself. When the substance of unity encounters itself, it knows itself through its own sense organ....the vastness was perceiving itself out of itself at every point in itself." That's an excellent choice of words and pretty close to how ZD and I have described it. Now, I'd admit that saying that rocks and socks are alive and conscious is a bit of the ultimate mind hook, but even Niz has stated explicitly that everything is alive and conscious, even rocks. In fact, this realization we are pointing to seems to show up in all major traditions: Christianity (Eckhart), Advaita (Niz, Tolle), Zen (Watts, Adya), Hinduism (Ramakrishna, Vivekananda), New Age (Seth, A-H) etc. So there's some food for thought for those who stubbornly deny the validity of such a realization based on some kind of 'counter-realization' that reveals the exact opposite. It's okay to break out of traditional frameworks (esp. vocabulary) and stand on your own, but to basically declare what all traditions thru-out the ages are pointing to as fraudulent and delusional does indeed raise some red flags. Ramakrishna used to talk about God with form and God without form. Niz said something similar, he said that "Love says, 'I am everything.' Wisdom says 'I am nothing.' Between the two my life flows." So there are two sides to this SR coin. And the two sides of this coin are equally valid. One side does not trump the other side. That's all I'm saying.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 8, 2019 8:58:31 GMT -5
For anyone with a sincere interest in what ZD and I have been pointing to, just read this. That’s it. And remember, it’s a pointer. Don’t lick it! Ok, it's taken me a little while to 'circle' back to this one, but yes, … and as you say, those last two paragraphs are especially good. Even better watching him expressing the words, after simply reading the transcript. But I think anyone who can really relate to what he's describing, has had that direct experience, can be in little doubt that we're dealing with a transcendental experience and realisation all rolled into One. Exactly, and that's a good way to state it. "It's an experience and a realization all rolled into one."
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 8, 2019 9:03:19 GMT -5
Ok, it's taken me a little while to 'circle' back to this one, but yes, … and as you say, those last two paragraphs are especially good. Even better watching him expressing the words, after simply reading the transcript. But I think anyone who can really relate to what he's describing, has had that direct experience, can be in little doubt that we're dealing with a transcendental experience and realisation all rolled into One. There’s a saying that revolutions in the end always eat their own. And the 'anti-experience' movement definitely has reached that stage. What used to be a useful distinction unfortunately has become a dogma and therefore an obstacle to greater understanding. You see, the forum where I was posting before I came here was teeming with people who tried to reach higher states of consciousness, where cosmic consciousness experiences was the thing of the day, because they thought SR was the highest state of consciousness. Some even had numbering systems and were calibrating themselves and others accordingly on some imaginary scale on the path to SR level consciousness. Pretty wild stuff! And that’s where the anti-experience stance originally comes from. How we used to define experiences is actually pretty close to how UG defines the term. So this is not just an ST thing. What it basically comes down to is this: experiences belong to the realm of mind, but realizations are prior to mind. Which means experiences can be described in detail and even replayed and relived in the mind. You can’t do that with realizations. Mind can’t touch this. Which means, essentially, when we are talking about SR, you can only say what it is not instead of what it actually is. There’s no way of accurately describing it. So the best way to talk to seekers when they present you their complex theories is “No, that’ not it… and no, that’s not it either.” But that’s not going to make for very satisfying conversations. And no realization is happening in a vacuum. Usually they are accompanied by memorable experiences. Most actually recall the exact time and date and place of their realization(s). So the challenge here is to not mistake/mix the realization with the experience that's been described. That’s why we have pointers. And pointers are tricky business. They are not meant to be applied mindlessly. They have to be handled with care. Because once mind tries to make sense of it and conceptualizes it (aka licks the pointer), it just becomes another belief/mental position. Which means you basically need a new pointer. A pointer is supposed to throw a monkey-wrench into the monkey mind machine. But very often pointers become mind hooks. So pointing is a bit of a double-edged sword. Watts is exceptionally clear and definitely one of the most 'skilled' ones in the pointing business (as you put it). Seth and A-H are the more 'clumsy' ones, hehe. But they are all pointing to the same. Another very good account you can get from Suzanne Segal, here and here. She says: "This non-localized, infinite substance can be perceived not with the eyes or ears or nose, but by the substance itself, out of itself. When the substance of unity encounters itself, it knows itself through its own sense organ....the vastness was perceiving itself out of itself at every point in itself." That's an excellent choice of words and pretty close to how ZD and I have described it. Now, I'd admit that saying that rocks and socks are alive and conscious is a bit of the ultimate mind hook, but even Niz has stated explicitly that everything is alive and conscious, even rocks. In fact, this realization we are pointing to seems to show up in all major traditions: Christianity (Eckhart), Advaita (Niz, Tolle), Zen (Watts, Adya), Hinduism (Ramakrishna, Vivekananda), New Age (Seth, A-H) etc. So there's some food for thought for those who stubbornly deny the validity of such a realization based on some kind of 'counter-realization' that reveals the exact opposite. It's okay to break out of traditional frameworks (esp. vocabulary) and stand on your own, but to basically declare what all traditions thru-out the ages are pointing to as fraudulent and delusional does indeed raise some red flags. Ramakrishna used to talk about God with form and God without form. Niz said something similar, he said that "Love says, 'I am everything.' Wisdom says 'I am nothing.' Between the two my life flows." So there are two sides to this SR coin. And the two sides of this coin are equally valid. One side does not trump the other side. That's all I'm saying. Yes.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Nov 8, 2019 9:42:43 GMT -5
what are you, according to your theory? I don't have a theory, but I know that I am presently conscious and aware . This is the whole reason I say there is 'only what you are' and leave it at that . You, the masters and most folks speculate 'what they are' as being this or that and then add layers to that speculation . I believe that my realization, i.e. the absence of self and the mind resulted in my understandings of the self and the mind and one's nature so to speak .. I'm curious... how can you know anything about your realization? If your realization is "the absence of self and the mind," how could it result in understandings of the self and the mind "so to speak"? For example, what is the status of the statement "there is only what you are"? Is that statement from when the the mind and self is present or from when the mind and self were absent?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 8, 2019 10:09:19 GMT -5
I don't have a theory, but I know that I am presently conscious and aware . This is the whole reason I say there is 'only what you are' and leave it at that . You, the masters and most folks speculate 'what they are' as being this or that and then add layers to that speculation . I believe that my realization, i.e. the absence of self and the mind resulted in my understandings of the self and the mind and one's nature so to speak .. I'm curious... how can you know anything about your realization? If your realization is "the absence of self and the mind," how could it result in understandings of the self and the mind "so to speak"? For example, what is the status of the statement "there is only what you are"? Is that statement from when the the mind and self is present or from when the mind and self were absent? Because there needs contrast .. There needs comparison .. I mentioned a year or two ago about a visitation I had from bernadette robert's and out of curiosity I looked her up as I had never heard of her before and I was drawn to a specific quote about self (and I thought bingo, with cherries on top) for she also emphasised that in order to know self, you have to realize no self .. Perhaps it doesn't make sense to some how this actually works but there is something to there being an absence of something to know of that something .. My understanding of there is only what you are is also understood from this same perspective .. for when everything is absent, the world, the universe, the mind, the self there is still what you are present .. This is the classic scenario of there being everything and nothing .. that is what you are .. Peeps can obviously associate what that is to many things and that goes without saying, but whatever 'that is' that one associates with what you are being, fundamentally or prior to thought or self or mind or the world cannot possibly be it because it is not revealed as being that .. Perhaps what could be more politically correct is that 'what we are is all that is' .. because there is only what you are .. Again this 'conclusion' may not make sense because everything has to disappear in order to know of it's appearance .. This is why I started a thread called the nature of appearances ... Now depending on what has been absent, one can conclude what is present .. If self has only been consciously known then this is why you get peeps starting to pick out the aspects that they think is not what they are, they peel back the layers and practice this and that in order to get to the heart of themselves .. When everything is absent, then there you are, but you have always been there or here prior to the nit picking and the peeling back of the layers .. Now when there is everything present that appears, one can renounce everything as being dreamy or illusory or one can say it's all real so to speak .. Neither model is realized, but what one makes of it will reveal something about what is understood about what you are from both sides of the veil .. And it's one thing to understand and say and it's another to do and live by ..
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Nov 8, 2019 10:17:42 GMT -5
I'm curious... how can you know anything about your realization? If your realization is "the absence of self and the mind," how could it result in understandings of the self and the mind "so to speak"? For example, what is the status of the statement "there is only what you are"? Is that statement from when the the mind and self is present or from when the mind and self were absent? Because there needs contrast .. There needs comparison .. I mentioned a year or two ago about a visitation I had from bernadette robert's and out of curiosity I looked her up as I had never heard of her before and I was drawn to a specific quote about self (and I thought bingo, with cherries on top) for she also emphasised that in order to know self, you have to realize no self .. Perhaps it doesn't make sense to some how this actually works but there is something to there being an absence of something to know of that something .. My understanding of there is only what you are is also understood from this same perspective .. for when everything is absent, the world, the universe, the mind, the self there is still what you are present .. This is the classic scenario of there being everything and nothing .. that is what you are .. Peeps can obviously associate what that is to many things and that goes without saying, but whatever 'that is' that one associates with what you are being, fundamentally or prior to thought or self or mind or the world cannot possibly be it because it is not revealed as being that .. Perhaps what could be more politically correct is that 'what we are is all that is' .. because there is only what you are .. Again this 'conclusion' may not make sense because everything has to disappear in order to know of it's appearance .. This is why I started a thread called the nature of appearances ... Now depending on what has been absent, one can conclude what is present .. If self has only been consciously known then this is why you get peeps starting to pick out the aspects that they think is not what they are, they peel back the layers and practice this and that in order to get to the heart of themselves .. When everything is absent, then there you are, but you have always been there or here prior to the nit picking and the peeling back of the layers .. Now when there is everything present that appears, one can renounce everything as being dreamy or illusory or one can say it's all real so to speak .. Neither model is realized, but what one makes of it will reveal something about what is understood about what you are from both sides of the veil .. And it's one thing to understand and say and it's another to do and live by .. But if mind and self are absent, when they become present again, how did they know they were absent -- and thus the "contrast" with their presence? Wouldn't mind have had to have been there to know its own absence?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2019 10:35:00 GMT -5
I have a little time to express my opinion being that the wife took the tennis court keys to work and now I can't practice my serve like I planned. Anyways, being a student of Advaita ( and a Zen practioner, the Soto variey) my understanding of the former is rudimentary; however it seems that even I can detect some misconceived ideas on this forum. Whenever one states that feelings aren't real because they "come and go." This denotes an incomplete understanding of Advaita Vedanta. Feelings like bliss and happiness seem to come and go because they are obscured by the mind and its prevarications. We are bliss but the mind deforms this. In my understanding this is part of the mechanism that perpetuates the sense of separation. In other words because we can temporarily tap into that bliss that we are whenever we fullfill a desire, as mind rests, we are misled to seek it in "external" objects. So from the mind's perpective happiness comes and goes, but the mind's diminution of happiness as something ephemeral is misleading. Happiness is what we are. It's sort of like Republicans saying government is inherently bad, when their success at corrupting said government are what make it bad.
|
|