|
Post by enigma on Nov 9, 2019 12:55:08 GMT -5
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? When you initially wake up from a nights sleep you know that you have not been doing a day's work in the office lol .. You therefore know that you have been asleep the very moment you are awake .. Returning to self awareness of the mind and the world is not really any different so to speak in a roundabout way .. There is either self awareness at all times or there isn't . My experience of this returning into self awareness was very subtle and very smooth, but you know the exact moment there was awareness of self compared to not .. This moment of self recognition is of the mind .. The moment one starts to think, I have just realized what I am, one is no longer of the realization itself.
This is something I have failed miserable to do in getting peeps to understand this aspect previously ..
This is also why I ask other's if what they say is supposedly made known to 'them' in the realization itself or simply concluded post realization .. I don't care if it's jesus or ramana or the pope lol, for if they were to perhaps say that they realized they are this or that, I would question that based upon the absence of that in the realization itself.. I have no problemo working with certain contextual words and references likened to Love and Awareness, but its futile to build a Truthful stance upon such references and then poo poo other people's references .. It's foundation that has no solid foundation .. Of course. Mind must be still for realization to occur. Everyone who has had a genuine realization already knows this. In realization, something is seen, timelessly, and it is known that it is of importance, but nothing else is known as it has not been conceptualized. If mind tries to move on it too quickly, the realization will be lost. It must return gently, pulling at the threads of understanding and weaving an idea out of what begins as a view from the transcendent.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 9, 2019 13:21:15 GMT -5
When you initially wake up from a nights sleep you know that you have not been doing a day's work in the office lol .. You therefore know that you have been asleep the very moment you are awake .. Ok, but what is this knowledge based on? Either the mind was there the whole time -- so that it knows its waking presence by "contrast" with its sleeping presence .Or the mind uses logic to infer its own absence from the fact of a lack of a memory of being at the office coupled with being in bed, etc. ("I'm in bed and I don't remember going to the office, therefore I must conclude that I slept, logically speaking.") Which is that you mean? Or do you mean something else? Yes, the latter. In fact, mind is sometimes already working the problem before the eyes are opened, closed eyes providing the first clue. Also, you may have had the experience of waking up in a strange place, and for a moment, not knowing where you are, since mind has been absent for a period of time, and has other expectations upon awakening. Having said that, it seems that 'something' is present as we can easily be awoken by sensory input. Also, many of us can awaken at a specific time of our choosing, and since I don't believe mind has a clock handy that keeps time accurately virtually to the second, it seems 'something else' is present.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 9, 2019 13:57:27 GMT -5
The waking and sleeping metaphor was the best I could come up with at the time butt it is riddled with holes .. All I can say is that self is of the mind because what you are is aware of that of the mind .. Beyond the mind there is no awareness of self butt what you are is still present . Are you following at this point because this is the stark difference that is needed to understand what I am saying .. I won't stretch as far as there is awareness of what you are beyond cos that is still mindful of you knowing what awareness is .. All I can do really is ask you to look at everything that is mindful in reflection of what you are including every possible point of self reflection had and knowing had and such likes and try and imagine it no longer is .. Now the moment you are aware of self again there is a knowing of that and there is a mind reality to experience . This is obviously a notable difference compared to being aware of self and this reality .. I have perhaps what appears to be an unusual understanding of the mind based upon the absence of self realised .. Perhaps this doesn't make things any clearer, if it doesn't, then I am willing to give it another go but if there isn't a similar foundation of what self and mind is as I see it then it might be a difficult task Well, I could say I see what you're getting at, but again, it seems like all these statements are themselves mind statements. As above, whether we use sleeping/waking metaphor or not, we are still faced with the question of who is aware of "absence of self realised." Is it mind or not-mind? The same questions I pose above remain. So the question is then on what basis do you distinguish, say, "you are all that is" from the statement "life is a dream"? Aren't they both mind statements? Why would the first be "realization" but the second be merely a conclusion?Actually, they're the same realization. All there is, is Consciousness (whatever) and the person is obviously appearing in/as that Consciousness. Hencely, a dream.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 9, 2019 14:02:08 GMT -5
The experiencer just means whatever is experiencing. Seems to me there's just one, that's all. Remove the experiencer and there is just experiencing. Then there is just one. If there is an experiencer experiencing the experience then there are two. The I which is the sense of self is bound up with and is not different to the experience. The observer is the observed. Both aspects are impermanent. Sure, but first things first. I'm trying to corral all the various transcendent experiencers together first, then I'll tackle collapsing the rest. (I won't really. Never get that far.)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 9, 2019 14:04:07 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. There is a time for bolt cutters in the life of every man! Yes, Republicans are bad teehee.
I was thinking along the lines of a friend/practice partner with a key, but bolt cutters work too.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Nov 9, 2019 14:08:52 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. .... 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. Yes, no doubt those statements in particular do have the potential to become quite potent mind hooks. And so if I'm honest, in the final analysis, it's probably something I personally would refrain from saying, if for no other reason than that. But the thing is that a lot of the stuff we talk about when taken to the extreme can end up sounding a little absurd on the face of it. We saw it in my conversation with enigma recently where he ends up talking about dodo as potentially a POP, and I end up talking about holy cr@p. (At least there's a precedent in common vernacular for mine). But I do think we have to be prepared to take it to the extremes, and as you allude to, have a feeling that much of the prejudice that arises when we do so, comes through attachment to the way we use the conventional paradigms as a vantage point when we talk about and consider them. Which of course by and large is a necessity. Yet often when we begin to delve deeply into even those conventional paradigms even they start to lose coherence. You've previously mentioned much of the discord comes through mixing contexts, which again is no doubt true. But ideally I prefer my contexts to transition reasonably smoothly into each other. That’s the real challenge here, and so far it's eluding me. It may not be possible. And certainly not if there is no direct reference for the context in which a pointer is used, and/or people aren't coming empty. The truth is I have mixed feelings about the underlined, and have found those phrases highlight the limits of my own insight and understanding. It's challenging in that way, which I quite enjoy. But I'll take this opportunity to talk a bit about that. With regard to the reservations I share about those particular phrases, obviously it has to do with the way they are constructed, and the implications of that. Because when talking about a rock as being conscious (small c), rather than an expression of Consciousness, it means we're effectively talking about it being consciously aware, or self-aware. And for me, traditionally at least, that context is synonymous with sentience, an attribute I would normally reserve for 'bio-chemical organisms'. (As an aside the level of complexity needed for a given organism to possess the attribute of sentience was a matter of contention on the Suffering thread, with me taking the stance it's applicable across the board, to varying degrees). But we're talking about rocks here anyway. In Buddhism they talk about Buddha Nature, the potential for a being to become liberated (albeit not a concept the Buddha himself taught). But the point is I think it's fair to assume no-one on either side of the argument would talk about rocks as having the potential to become liberated. Other than from the rock-face I suppose. Additionally, despite the very compelling arguments about ultimately not knowing, (which to a degree I can relate to), I've been forthright in stating that I don't see a rock as qualifying as a nexus of perception. On the basis I would also reserve that the for more complex and intricate, the more elegant expressions of Consciousness, namely the bio-chemical organism which 'possess' Buddha Nature. So I just want to highlight again that I'm effectively talking about reservations that arise through how I relate the statement 'rocks are conscious' to the conventional paradigms. Those paradigms that I might normally associate with conscious awareness, like sentience and POP's. I've left aliveness, but clearly another area where even the conventional paradigm vantage point doesn't stand up to a deal of scrutiny btw.
...
Because here's the thing. This is a particularly subtle and encompassing issue. One that imo incorporates both realisation and transcendental Experience as prerequisite. And the subsequent expression of this Experience involves going right to the heart of where the immovable object meets the unstoppable force and attempting to push the boundaries of communication. In many respects due to all this, the signs we employ become especially tenuous, and in doing so, we open ourselves up. A leap of faith it required, (as it happens on both sides of the communication). In a sense, by even taking it on we expose and make ourselves vulnerable, which is one of the reasons I appreciated the comment at the time. This actually goes for stuff both the current warring factions talk about. But the point is that in talking about this juncture of the nature of reality, we are way past convention anyway. Things break down and the normal rules don't really apply, (much as they say about QM). At least to an extent because obviously any communication has to be structured in order for it to be relatable, and so the trick is finding a balance. And of course this is all extremely susceptible to pointer licking, and then defence is very difficult. Could take years, hehe. What's interesting is that I'm confident saying that all those on the other side of the discussion can relate to the notion of rocks as an expression of Consciousness. Or Awareness as I prefer. For me, even undifferentiated Awareness or Aware/Space is only ever really an abbreviated form of 'the Awareness that is Aware of itself' but I accept that might be contentious. I don't think it's so contentious to say 'all' is no other than Awareness expressing as form. If so then ultimately both self-Awareness and Self-awareness are merely Awareness-awareing, and that's in keeping with your Segal quote. I think we've all ruled out Self-awareness in relation to rocks, so the question becomes, if form is the path Awareness-awareing takes, at what degree of complexity does self-awareness occur. Or, to what if any degree could conscious awareness be said to be present at the level of 'rockness', because that's what we're essentially talking about. At least I am. Science indicates that certainly individual cells can be said to act intelligently, and demonstrate self-preservation. But what about their constituent parts. Even atoms are sometimes described as acting Intelligently, can be envisaged as self-organising, and in nature there is a principle known as self-similarity, which basically means it's turtles all the way down. Anyway, at a certain stage we do have to revisit the question as to what degree of complexity some of these states of being can be said to arise. Those lines were never really drawn anyway. And perhaps a good way to do this is to begin to consider them in their most abstract form. Do atoms qualify as even rudimentarily sentient/perceptive on account of merely their attractive/repulsive forces, and self-organising principle. Hey, I just noticed I'm straying dangerously close to making a case for doggy dodo as being a POP. Btw, it should be noted that sapience (the ability to think and reason) is not a requirement of those things, just in case that's what anyone's envisaging when there's talk about rocks being conscious. But I'm gonna put all this aside for now, firstly coz I've rambled enough, and secondly because rather than abstraction, the real issue here is the legitimacy of the direct apprehension of the 'aliveness' inherent within all creation at all levels. Ultimately it's a holistic consideration. Again that is to say we are talking about the process of Awareness awareing, and the path that takes. In this form I am consciously aware, and make no mistake, my being in form takes a universe. Absolutely, I'm all about the balance and without it very little tends to stand up to a deal of scrutiny. It's like having one short leg. Inevitably you just go around in circles.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 9, 2019 14:10:12 GMT -5
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? Yes, mind is present in any spiritual experience, even if it is the experience of no mind being present. On this basis alone one cannot say it is an experience of transcendent truth. Realization may well be involved, but affirmative conclusions cannot be derived from the experience as realization is only negating. If realization transcends mind, it neither affirm/negates. If affirming/negating is happening, then there's interpretation happening. e.g 'oneness is the case' is an affirmative interpretation. 'There is no separation' is a negating interpretation. 'It's all Alive!' is affirmative. 'There are no things!' is negating. All valid, and all necessary. 'This' is both a fullness and an emptiness, a 'somethingness/presence' and a void.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 9, 2019 14:11:04 GMT -5
The experiencer just means whatever is experiencing. Seems to me there's just one, that's all. ... and the witness just means whatever is witnessing .. So there is one experiencer or one witness .. I have been trying to understand why you brushed aside the witness and kept the experiencer close to your heart . To me they are the same, so it makes no sense to embrace one and renounce the other . It makes no sense to me at all .. Can you explain why you embrace the experiencer and brush aside the witness .. Apparently, I cannot explain it to you. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 9, 2019 14:17:52 GMT -5
I don't either, but it doesn't stop you from labeling everything I say as such. That's the point I've been trying to make to you in the face of witnesses and observers and spirits and Selfs.Butt you have implied that what you are is awareness and everything of the mind {roughly translated} is a movement of awareness .. I wanted to know about your realisation to that effect .. You are building a layer cake when you declared you are trying to simplify .. You are narrowing things down in one way but you are creating a conceptual mess in another .. The mentioning of Self or self or spirit has it's place as does arms and legs and apples and pears, none of which is not what we are .. Speaking along the lines as what we are is awareness and the self or the apple is a movement of awareness doesn't, simplify at all .. When you stand and then wave your arms around you don't become Tenka standing still, and also Tenka waving his arms around. You're always just Tenka. Likewise, Awareness in motion is still just Awareness. There is just Awareness. There is just what you are. How much simpler can it be?
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Nov 9, 2019 14:39:28 GMT -5
You have 5 senses. They all converge at a single point of attention that results in a unique experience. This also is obvious and requires no analysis. WHAT has 5 senses? The human physiological body? How do they 'converge'? What do they move away from, to 'converge' to? What is this 'point' of attention made of? Is it physical? Honestly dude, this is a horrendous theory. A 'point of view' or 'point of attention' is a story. A theory. It has even less actuality than the human body.At some point I think Gopal convinced you that a 'viewpoint' has far more basis, or even foundation, than it does. You've NEVER liked 3 layer cakes, but giving (false) actuality to a 'viewpoint' definitely requires a 3 layer cake. No non-dual teacher worth their salt talks about viewpoints coz it's not relevant. In Buddhism they talk in terms of six senses (or sense speheres), the usual five plus mind, and really 'the human physiological body' is that convergance. Hence they talk about it in terms of an aggregation. It's pretty abstract.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Nov 9, 2019 14:43:12 GMT -5
When you initially wake up from a nights sleep you know that you have not been doing a day's work in the office lol .. You therefore know that you have been asleep the very moment you are awake .. Returning to self awareness of the mind and the world is not really any different so to speak in a roundabout way .. There is either self awareness at all times or there isn't . My experience of this returning into self awareness was very subtle and very smooth, but you know the exact moment there was awareness of self compared to not .. This moment of self recognition is of the mind .. The moment one starts to think, I have just realized what I am, one is no longer of the realization itself.
This is something I have failed miserable to do in getting peeps to understand this aspect previously ..
This is also why I ask other's if what they say is supposedly made known to 'them' in the realization itself or simply concluded post realization .. I don't care if it's jesus or ramana or the pope lol, for if they were to perhaps say that they realized they are this or that, I would question that based upon the absence of that in the realization itself.. I have no problemo working with certain contextual words and references likened to Love and Awareness, but its futile to build a Truthful stance upon such references and then poo poo other people's references .. It's foundation that has no solid foundation .. Of course. Mind must be still for realization to occur. Everyone who has had a genuine realization already knows this. In realization, something is seen, timelessly, and it is known that it is of importance, but nothing else is known as it has not been conceptualized. If mind tries to move on it too quickly, the realization will be lost. It must return gently, pulling at the threads of understanding and weaving an idea out of what begins as a view from the transcendent. Yes, a nice smooth transition.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 9, 2019 14:54:45 GMT -5
Well when you were knocked out, was what you are still present? Because beyond mind there is still what you are that is . For arguments sake lets relate to what we are as pure electricity and what we are that is of the mind is electricity that is experiencing life and the mind-body in various ways .. When you was knocked out was electricity present? I am not asking you if you were aware of experiencing electricity in some shape or form . If you don't remember this means that something is in place of the mind .. Beyond memory is beyond mind . What Self realisation reflects in my eyes is that there is only electricity present, there is no experiencer or witness of that electricity . There are no reflections, there are no Truthy revelations happening, no-one is taking notes per se . No dream world comparisons being presented . This is why I have asked sifting to envisage everything mindful being absent . Well, assuming I was knocked out, I would say the conscious experiencing mind was absent and so I had to logically deduce that I was knocked out. Did you logically deduce that your conscious experiencing mind was absent in the same way? Or do you have a memory or sense of that time period in which the event was happening? If so, that would indicate the mind was present but not in any kind of meaningful or conventional way. So what was still present for you when the conscious experiencing mind was absent? What I have been emphasising is that the electricity was still present being what you are in my case .. When you were not conscious of an experience was the electricity of what you are still present? If you don't remember then it was still mindful .. You see if we speak about mind stuff we can simply forget being aware of stuff but the difference I am suggesting is there was no lapse of memory in this way because there was what you are being what you are and of the mind this isn't so .. How many peeps have been punched on the nose and been out for the count then speak about Self realisation
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 9, 2019 14:59:23 GMT -5
Yes, mind is present in any spiritual experience, even if it is the experience of no mind being present. On this basis alone one cannot say it is an experience of transcendent truth. Realization may well be involved, but affirmative conclusions cannot be derived from the experience as realization is only negating. If realization transcends mind, it neither affirm/negates. If affirming/negating is happening, then there's interpretation happening. e.g 'oneness is the case' is an affirmative interpretation. 'There is no separation' is a negating interpretation. 'It's all Alive!' is affirmative. 'There are no things!' is negating. All valid, and all necessary. 'This' is both a fullness and an emptiness, a 'somethingness/presence' and a void. Zackley .. this is why even the sages speculate ... Perhaps some mindful realisations are dressed up as something more than .. From what I experienced there are many fine lines between one state and another and beyond states .. .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 9, 2019 15:04:29 GMT -5
Everything that is said about the absence will be mindful and pure speculation, but somethings come to the fore that seem to fit more appropriately depending on what information and reasoning becomes you .. So if everything that is said about the absence is mindful, then doesn't that extend even to the term -- "the absence"? Wouldn't even that idea be mindful? .. Yes it's all mindful but like said some things are more appropriate than other's as mindful pointers .. This is why post realisation one doesn't speak about Self in a way where scratching one's bum would be suffice enough to say ..
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 9, 2019 15:09:43 GMT -5
I have asked you to envisage everything that is mindful being absent, all you are doing is trying to find a who and a 'you' still .. .. How else can you understand my point in making unless you actually transcend mind ? You can envisage what's currently mindful for you can't you .. Entertain that absence just as a pointer in order to understand what I am saying .. What you have been doing is looking for something mindful when I have asked you to do the opposite .
|
|