|
Post by laughter on Aug 29, 2019 19:39:42 GMT -5
Well, even the most noisy-minded people-peep can get a fleeting glimpse of mushin. If the price is right. True enough. Not sure about price comment though. If they see the tree as it's falling then the potential price to pay for not snapping out of their heads is serious injury or worse.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Aug 29, 2019 20:57:58 GMT -5
I think dinosaurs once roamed the earth, but if they're just an appearance in consciousness occurring now and never physically existed, would it make a difference in how one lives life? If so, in what way? No, it would make no difference whatsoever. The only thing that matters is to be free from the bondage of action.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 29, 2019 21:17:51 GMT -5
I didn't see an explanation for why the pettifoggery thread was closed, but I can guess why. It had become rather circular, tedious, and argumentative... Correct. See my recent announcement in the board business section for details. I speculate that Reefs was concerned that there was an Appearance that E and figgs were tag-teaming a certain someone and it was getting a little nastier day by day, and maybe if not nipped maybe someone or sometwo were going to get banned, or maybe even somethree. But the Reality is the certain someone wasn't too upset and wasn't going to go ballistic (wasn't going ballistic). But if I'm right, Reefs made a good decision. (Reefs made a good decision even if I'm not right). Bingo! Nailed it. Not a lot of talking happening. I tell you why I think it could be..personally, I don't quite know where I stand in regard to conversation. I read the announcement and think the psychology point was very fair, but I just didn't see a whole lot wrong with the conversation in the big thread. Perhaps it's just me, but it all seemed quite tame. Not trying to step on toes here, just saying that if I'm second guessing my conversation, perhaps others are. This doesn't belong in this thread, but not sure where to put it. Fig, I saw the invite to your forum , but it's not a real option for me, cheers though. I think I quite like moderation, but am a bit confused about the situ here right now. I agree. And I wouldn’t have intervened at this point if Laughter hadn’t forced my hand again (similar to the Tenka/Enigma incident). And Figgles actually started a new thread advertising her forum again, she even bumped her thread. Which is typically what spammers do. So it makes it look a bit like she’s trying to sell damaged goods here. Not sure if that’s her intention. So this might be something to ponder for Laughter and Figgles: If you push too hard, you might not actually get what you are hoping for, but the exact opposite. So, take it easy. ETA: I think what some people are still confused about is that my moderation style is a break with previous moderation styles in the sense that I don't let passive aggressiveness fly below the radar anymore. As mentioned in a previous announcement, to me passive aggressiveness is equal to open abusiveness in terms of toxicity. Just a recent example that Laughter kept pushing: We all know that the phrase "That's Andylogic TM again!" essentially means 'you have a mind that is muddled, disjointed, incoherent and irrational' Now, what Laughter wanted me to do is take Satch to task over his statement to Sharon where he explicitly stated "you have a mind that is muddled, disjointed, incoherent and irrational" but let Enigma's Andylogic comments get a pass. But why should I punish one member and let the other member off the hook when both statements intent to convey the exact same meaning, with the only difference that one is expressed openly and the other covertly? That doesn't seem fair. They are equal in terms of nastiness. That's why they will be treated equally. So, keep that in mind from now on. @ Enigma, Figgles, Laughter: Please confirm that you fully understand this and I'll reopen the pettifoggery thread. (send me a PM or reply on the forum)
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Aug 29, 2019 23:13:46 GMT -5
I was still following Pettifoggery, but stopped contributing to it since it lost sensibility.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 29, 2019 23:35:27 GMT -5
I can explain the bolded quite easily. The suggestion is that if one understands 'the relative'/'the universe' to be an 'energy manifestation', then one is 'lost in mind'. I can explain why they think that, but II think that would be part of the circular debates, so I'll leave it. (I don't disagree that the conversation was circular and argumentative, though I wasn't finding it tedious). I understand that that was one of the arguments, but if the issue doesn't even arise, then what? What if there doesn't need to be an attachment to any kind of explanation or interpretation? This is what non-abidance points to. I think dinosaurs once roamed the earth, but if they're just an appearance in consciousness occurring now and never physically existed, would it make a difference in how one lives life? If so, in what way? From personal experience, questioning the nature of existence in philosophical terms led to an understanding as to the limits of intellect. This understanding got deeper over time. It was a conclusion that would recur, in different situations and contexts, and even long ago, when I was still deep in the trance, it would lead to a letting go that felt at the time like fatalism: the fatalism of an atheist. Stumbling onto meditation would have probably have gone very differently if I hadn't considered questions like "if matter doesn't objectively exist, then what was there to observe the aftermath of the big bang before life evolved?". Those questions, the existential questions, they're all really the same question, they're all a form of self-inquiry. This isn't to say that most people who pursue those questions philisophically will eventually pursue them non-conceptually. But I see ample evidence in the culture at large that some do.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Aug 30, 2019 1:14:01 GMT -5
Because if you think dinosaurs walked the earth (and if you think there was an earth), then you also think there is time and space in some way. This would indicate that you are lost in mind. They would say that if you have seen through the illusion of time-space then you shouldn't think they walked the earth. I'm just presenting their argument to be clear. I understand their argument, but clearly don't see it the same way. An initial CC experience in 1984 made it obvious to me that time and space are cognitive illusions, and that what we call "reality" is infinite and unified. Time and space were simply recognized as cognitive grids overlying the unified substrate. From my POV this realization related to how such things as time, space, and thingness are conventionally distinguished, but the issue of appearances never arose. IOW, the seeing of unity/oneness did not mean that dinosaurs never existed; it simply meant that dinosaurs and humans are both aspects of the same infinite field of being. When I had my CC I had no thought about if time was real or not or whether the self personhood was real either, this has been my main issue if i can call it that in regards to 'realizations' and 'conclusions' The preverbal rabbit hole goes as deep as you like, for there could potentially be another realization that gives one reason to think that the CC wasn't real either, it is the dream within a dream analogy .. When is what we are clear about all things in such a way where we intellectually know. I have had a few good convo's with andy about 'time' of late and there is no disputing one moment and then another moment even if we use Bashar's method of workings .. I think peeps use the second hand 'ticking' as our time reference when it's not so much about that .. This movement is just a self measure of moments .. I suppose it always boils down to what is real at the end of the day because life in a way is governed by everything being real or not, even the appearance of aging is related to the appearance of it that is either real or not. This has a knock on effect that reflects in time being real or not. From what I gather peeps are either perceiving things in two ways but are only abiding by the laws of one regardless.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 30, 2019 3:47:00 GMT -5
Because if you think dinosaurs walked the earth (and if you think there was an earth), then you also think there is time and space in some way. This would indicate that you are lost in mind. They would say that if you have seen through the illusion of time-space then you shouldn't think they walked the earth. I'm just presenting their argument to be clear. I understand their argument, but clearly don't see it the same way. An initial CC experience in 1984 made it obvious to me that time and space are cognitive illusions, and that what we call "reality" is infinite and unified. Time and space were simply recognized as cognitive grids overlying the unified substrate. From my POV this realization related to how such things as time, space, and thingness are conventionally distinguished, but the issue of appearances never arose. IOW, the seeing of unity/oneness did not mean that dinosaurs never existed; it simply meant that dinosaurs and humans are both aspects of the same infinite field of being. well yes, that's closer to my view. The conventional view of time is that it is linear and fundamental to reality. I don't think anyone here has that convention view. Certainly I don't consider it to be fundamental, I think everything is created, including time and cause/effect, and in this sense it is 'appearance', but there's still a congruence and coherence to this 'appearance'. As such, the wind blows and then I become aware of, and feel, the wind. That's both time and cause/effect. Or, I have a thought and then I have an emotional response to that thought. That's both time and cause/effect. So I also have no problem with the idea of an 'evolving world' or 'unfolding universe'. However, to complicate the issue a bit, both science and spirituality suggest time (and cause/effect) is also non-linear, and there could be dimensions in which 'past' and 'future' are happening now. I have no problem with this idea (though it's a little hard to wrap my head around it), and it still differs from Fig's view in the sense that it does acknowledge that it's happening (or exists) outside of, or beyond, my perception of it.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 30, 2019 3:48:48 GMT -5
I didn't see an explanation for why the pettifoggery thread was closed, but I can guess why. It had become rather circular, tedious, and argumentative... Correct. See my recent announcement in the board business section for details. I speculate that Reefs was concerned that there was an Appearance that E and figgs were tag-teaming a certain someone and it was getting a little nastier day by day, and maybe if not nipped maybe someone or sometwo were going to get banned, or maybe even somethree. But the Reality is the certain someone wasn't too upset and wasn't going to go ballistic (wasn't going ballistic). But if I'm right, Reefs made a good decision. (Reefs made a good decision even if I'm not right). Bingo! Nailed it. Not a lot of talking happening. I tell you why I think it could be..personally, I don't quite know where I stand in regard to conversation. I read the announcement and think the psychology point was very fair, but I just didn't see a whole lot wrong with the conversation in the big thread. Perhaps it's just me, but it all seemed quite tame. Not trying to step on toes here, just saying that if I'm second guessing my conversation, perhaps others are. This doesn't belong in this thread, but not sure where to put it. Fig, I saw the invite to your forum , but it's not a real option for me, cheers though. I think I quite like moderation, but am a bit confused about the situ here right now. I agree. And I wouldn’t have intervened at this point if Laughter hadn’t forced my hand again (similar to the Tenka/Enigma incident). And Figgles actually started a new thread advertising her forum again, she even bumped her thread. Which is typically what spammers do. So it makes it look a bit like she’s trying to sell damaged goods here. Not sure if that’s her intention. So this might be something to ponder for Laughter and Figgles: If you push too hard, you might not actually get what you are hoping for, but the exact opposite. So, take it easy. ETA: I think what some people are still confused about is that my moderation style is a break with previous moderation styles in the sense that I don't let passive aggressiveness fly below the radar anymore. As mentioned in a previous announcement, to me passive aggressiveness is equal to open abusiveness in terms of toxicity. Just a recent example that Laughter kept pushing: We all know that the phrase "That's Andylogic TM again!" essentially means 'you have a mind that is muddled, disjointed, incoherent and irrational' Now, what Laughter wanted me to do is take Satch to task over his statement to Sharon where he explicitly stated "you have a mind that is muddled, disjointed, incoherent and irrational" but let Enigma's Andylogic comments get a pass. But why should I punish one member and let the other member off the hook when both statements intent to convey the exact same meaning, with the only difference that one is expressed openly and the other covertly? That doesn't seem fair. They are equal in terms of nastiness. That's why they will be treated equally. So, keep that in mind from now on. @ Enigma, Figgles, Laughter: Please confirm that you fully understand this and I'll reopen the pettifoggery thread. (send me a PM or reply on the forum) okay, thanks for clarifying further, I can see that what you were seeing is crossing the line of appropriateness.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 30, 2019 3:52:42 GMT -5
I understand their argument, but clearly don't see it the same way. An initial CC experience in 1984 made it obvious to me that time and space are cognitive illusions, and that what we call "reality" is infinite and unified. Time and space were simply recognized as cognitive grids overlying the unified substrate. From my POV this realization related to how such things as time, space, and thingness are conventionally distinguished, but the issue of appearances never arose. IOW, the seeing of unity/oneness did not mean that dinosaurs never existed; it simply meant that dinosaurs and humans are both aspects of the same infinite field of being. When I had my CC I had no thought about if time was real or not or whether the self personhood was real either, this has been my main issue if i can call it that in regards to 'realizations' and 'conclusions' The preverbal rabbit hole goes as deep as you like, for there could potentially be another realization that gives one reason to think that the CC wasn't real either, it is the dream within a dream analogy .. When is what we are clear about all things in such a way where we intellectually know. I have had a few good convo's with andy about 'time' of late and there is no disputing one moment and then another moment even if we use Bashar's method of workings ..
I think peeps use the second hand 'ticking' as our time reference when it's not so much about that .. This movement is just a self measure of moments ..I suppose it always boils down to what is real at the end of the day because life in a way is governed by everything being real or not, even the appearance of aging is related to the appearance of it that is either real or not. This has a knock on effect that reflects in time being real or not. From what I gather peeps are either perceiving things in two ways but are only abiding by the laws of one regardless. Yes
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Aug 30, 2019 3:57:33 GMT -5
I understand that that was one of the arguments, but if the issue doesn't even arise, then what? What if there doesn't need to be an attachment to any kind of explanation or interpretation? This is what non-abidance points to. I think dinosaurs once roamed the earth, but if they're just an appearance in consciousness occurring now and never physically existed, would it make a difference in how one lives life? If so, in what way? From personal experience, questioning the nature of existence in philosophical terms led to an understanding as to the limits of intellect. This understanding got deeper over time. It was a conclusion that would recur, in different situations and contexts, and even long ago, when I was still deep in the trance, it would lead to a letting go that felt at the time like fatalism: the fatalism of an atheist. Stumbling onto meditation would have probably have gone very differently if I hadn't considered questions like "if matter doesn't objectively exist, then what was there to observe the aftermath of the big bang before life evolved?". Those questions, the existential questions, they're all really the same question, they're all a form of self-inquiry. This isn't to say that most people who pursue those questions philisophically will eventually pursue them non-conceptually. But I see ample evidence in the culture at large that some do. Funny how understanding works like that, ay. Somehow disconnected from true prepositions.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 30, 2019 5:25:59 GMT -5
From personal experience, questioning the nature of existence in philosophical terms led to an understanding as to the limits of intellect. This understanding got deeper over time. It was a conclusion that would recur, in different situations and contexts, and even long ago, when I was still deep in the trance, it would lead to a letting go that felt at the time like fatalism: the fatalism of an atheist. Stumbling onto meditation would have probably have gone very differently if I hadn't considered questions like "if matter doesn't objectively exist, then what was there to observe the aftermath of the big bang before life evolved?". Those questions, the existential questions, they're all really the same question, they're all a form of self-inquiry. This isn't to say that most people who pursue those questions philisophically will eventually pursue them non-conceptually. But I see ample evidence in the culture at large that some do. Funny how understanding works like that, ay. Somehow disconnected from true prepositions. But, entirely .. connected. To Sharon I might say "connected to the Earth". To ZD I might say "connected to the body". To you I'd say, connected via all those subtle perceptions you found in the meditation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2019 6:52:02 GMT -5
True enough. Not sure about price comment though. If they see the tree as it's falling then the potential price to pay for not snapping out of their heads is serious injury or worse. Got it. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 1, 2019 10:41:18 GMT -5
The film The Truman Show gives us an example of the difference between appearance and reality, as described in the OP. Everything, almost all objects, appear the same to everyone in Truman's life and town. However, everyone, except Truman, knows the reality behind appearance. A car is a car, a boat is a boat, rain is rain, people are people. But THE bridge is not a bridge, it is in fact a barrier. The sea is not a sea, it is in fact a barrier. All things are things, but beyond that they are props in the Truman Show. Wife is a prop, friends are props, they are other than how they simply appear. Appearance, though in a sense actual, disguises the reality behind appearance. How do we apply this to our situation? Objects is space and time give a sense of continuity and appearance of reality, and to such an extent that it is difficult to deny their consistency. But this is not the illusion, the mistake. To fail to understand the psychology of maya is the mistake, and it is a mistake to deny what simply is. To take the bait of the former is to be trapped very like Truman, who lived in a world of actual things, and was deceived, but eventually began to suspect the difference between objects, and the reality behind. Suspicion ended when he bumped into the edge of the sea, and walked up the stairs and through the door to the reality behind appearance. The film ends there, as it should. Why? The Tao that is put into words, or otherwise described, ceases to be the Tao. And that door is ~one mind-body wide~.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 1, 2019 12:25:49 GMT -5
I understand that that was one of the arguments, but if the issue doesn't even arise, then what? What if there doesn't need to be an attachment to any kind of explanation or interpretation? This is what non-abidance points to. I think dinosaurs once roamed the earth, but if they're just an appearance in consciousness occurring now and never physically existed, would it make a difference in how one lives life? If so, in what way? Because if you think dinosaurs walked the earth (and if you think there was an earth), then you also think there is time and space in some way. This would indicate that you are lost in mind. They would say that if you have seen through the illusion of time-space then you shouldn't think they walked the earth. I'm just presenting their argument to be clear. I understand the claim, but don't agree. Seeing through the illusion of time and space has nothing to do with whether dinosaurs ever roamed the earth. What I saw was that what we call "reality" is non-local/unified, and that time and space are cognitive grids projected by the intellect. It is seen that time and space are ideas, and if ideas are left behind, then what remains is "what is." "What is" is intellectually incomprehensible, so all that one can do it point to it. The claim, "If one has seen through the illusion of time-space, then one shouldn't think anything in the past ever happened," is similar to the claim that if one has seen through the illusion of separateness, then one should also have seen through the illusion of selfhood. Ignoring the idea of "should" (a major error in thought if ever there was one), most people who have CC experiences do not simultaneously see through the illusion of selfhood. In fact, that's the major problem that people have to deal with afterwards--the idea that the experience happened to a "someone." Those people who have had big CC experiences know that they apprehended the Infinite, and when the sense of selfhood returns, they go off searching for a way for the "me" to regain the sense of unity that was experienced--not realizing that there was never a "me" involved in the CC. Spiritual literature suggests that most people who apprehend the Infinite spend many subsequent years of contemplation before they finally realize that who they thought they were never had any existence except in imagination generated by self-referential thinking.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 1, 2019 13:58:05 GMT -5
Because if you think dinosaurs walked the earth (and if you think there was an earth), then you also think there is time and space in some way. This would indicate that you are lost in mind. They would say that if you have seen through the illusion of time-space then you shouldn't think they walked the earth. I'm just presenting their argument to be clear. I understand the claim, but don't agree. Seeing through the illusion of time and space has nothing to do with whether dinosaurs ever roamed the earth. What I saw was that what we call "reality" is non-local/unified, and that time and space are cognitive grids projected by the intellect. It is seen that time and space are ideas, and if ideas are left behind, then what remains is "what is." "What is" is intellectually incomprehensible, so all that one can do it point to it. The claim, "If one has seen through the illusion of time-space, then one shouldn't think anything in the past ever happened," is similar to the claim that if one has seen through the illusion of separateness, then one should also have seen through the illusion of selfhood. Ignoring the idea of "should" (a major error in thought if ever there was one), most people who have CC experiences do not simultaneously see through the illusion of selfhood. In fact, that's the major problem that people have to deal with afterwards--the idea that the experience happened to a "someone." Those people who have had big CC experiences know that they apprehended the Infinite, and when the sense of selfhood returns, they go off searching for a way for the "me" to regain the sense of unity that was experienced--not realizing that there was never a "me" involved in the CC. Spiritual literature suggests that most people who apprehend the Infinite spend many subsequent years of contemplation before they finally realize that who they thought they were never had any existence except in imagination generated by self-referential thinking. yes I understand what you are saying. I think the dinosaur example is probably not the best one to discuss (as there are people out there that think there were no dinosaurs). So, I'll change the example if I may. Take the experience of 'experiencing rain', which is a very day to day experience, In my view, I become aware of the rain. The rain began to fall from the sky prior to my awareness of it, and then I felt it. So there is both cause/effect and time involved with the statement 'becoming aware of'. Whereas in their view there is no 'becoming aware of'. Instead, 'the awareness of' = 'the creation of'. So the instant they feel rain, they created rain (though I don't know how they did it). But they do not believe there was rain falling from the sky. Now, I don't wholly write off their view, I could perhaps find a context in which I agree. But basically I think their view is a context mix. I believe that when we speak of something 'worldly related' then that relates to the universe...or all that is...as a whole. So to say that all things are inter-relating and inter-connecting is a bit inadequate from a non-dual point of view, it's also not wrong. In my view, the sky, the rain and the body are connecting and relating. Whereas in their view, there's no rain unless they directly feel it, or see it, or hear it.
|
|