|
Post by enigma on Sept 3, 2019 8:55:41 GMT -5
They don't see through the illusion of selfhood because the CC is an experience and not a realization, but an actual realization of the true nature and self and Oneness will reveal that there could never be an objective past. "cognitive grids" ,as you say. So, in this context, one may wonder why you say you believe dino's existed in the past. Is the past part of a 'cognitive grid' or is it 'real'? You can say the question never arises, but your statement of belief means that the question has arisen and been answered, in contradiction to your own realization of the true nature of time and space. Quite peculiar, you think you are right. I think I'm right. Everybody is right in their own eyes. How can that be? Can everybody be right? You are trying to point something out here. What are the chances your realization is THE correct one? What is it that you find peculiar about that?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 3, 2019 9:04:38 GMT -5
But how do you know that? How can you be aware of what is happening before you are aware of what is happening? Good question. In one way...if I start from the assumption that I can only know what I am presently knowing, then, it's true that I don't know if the rain or mountain preceded the knowing of them. But there's two big problems with this for me. The first is that in order to speak of a 'present knowings', I have to arbitrarily carve out specific moments of knowing. Now while it's true that I am doing that, in actuality, these 'specific moments' don't exist. Instead, experience...the story of life... is an 'unfolding'. So 'present knowings' are a (necessary) illusion (and I don't think we should be 'actualizing' them) Secondly, there's also an intuitive knowing that what I experience right now (or what I am aware of right now) is intimately connected to every other experience, appearance, expression. For me, no experience is independent, no experience is alone. I can't divorce it from any other experience, I can't even find an actual point at which one experience begins and ends. And I deeply trust that intuitive knowing. So for me, it boils down to the fact that I value the intuitive knowing higher than the seeming 'knowingness' of 'present knowings'. As I said, logically, for me..the idea of 'present knowings' is a necessary illusion, but flawed. In addition, if the mountain only appears when I see it, then I create the mountain. This is a personal creation. While I don't ignore the apparent role of personal creation, I also intuitively know (and can't ignore) that creation is bigger than any one personal creation. In one sense, reality is a shared creation, in another sense, it's impersonal. Creation is never just about 'I', as a creator/perceiver. So the answer, for you, is 'intuition'. I have nothing to say about that.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 3, 2019 9:07:59 GMT -5
The way I see it, what's happening here...and in general, is that folks prioritize or value, differing senses or qualities of knowing. It's also akin to arm chair quarterbacking. They're telling how to play the game not being in it, having withdrawn. It's interesting to hear their views and bravado about life's horrors.I'm thinking of the folks in the bahamas who just endured 48 hours of a category five "imaginary" hurricane, an unprecedented event, but it's not real, nothing to worry about. It's a dream. Just wondering if any of the folks posting here are from those islands. When life smacks you upside the head, do views change? I believe they do. In fact, it's a central truth. Why folks commit and devote themselves to find themselves. The territory remains.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 3, 2019 10:22:13 GMT -5
Well I agree that when one feels the rain, one simply feels the rain, and I think that's true whether one is spiritually oriented or not. But the question of whether the raindrop has a history (i.e it fell from the sky), or whether it is created in the instant it is felt, is arguably a relevant spiritual question. I'll give you an example that perhaps you can relate to. If you go on a hiking trip to the mountain, is there a mountain that you become aware of (as it hoves into view)? Or is the mountain created by you, as you see it? Yes, that's the question, clearly stated. ZD: It would be dismissive to say 'that question never arises for me' when it has just arisen for you. The existential questions that interested me were always quite specific, but that particular question never arose prior to Andrew asking it. Upon reading his question, the answer was obvious and non-verbal, and anyone wanting to discover the answer is free to contemplate it for him/herself. That question, like most existential questions, is a kind of tar baby, and if cognition cranks up in an effort to find the answer, the likelihood is that one will get stuck in the mind and overlook the obvious.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 3, 2019 10:31:58 GMT -5
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.They don't see through the illusion of selfhood because the CC is an experience and not a realization. I think we agreed long ago to disagree about CC's, the effects they have, and the realizations that often result from them.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 3, 2019 20:31:28 GMT -5
Yes, that's the question, clearly stated. ZD: It would be dismissive to say 'that question never arises for me' when it has just arisen for you. The existential questions that interested me were always quite specific, but that particular question never arose prior to Andrew asking it. Upon reading his question, the answer was obvious and non-verbal, and anyone wanting to discover the answer is free to contemplate it for him/herself. That question, like most existential questions, is a kind of tar baby, and if cognition cranks up in an effort to find the answer, the likelihood is that one will get stuck in the mind and overlook the obvious. But the answer can easily be verbalized. Creation and perception are the same. Perhaps that's a pointer to a realization. Where the tar babies may come to play is in applying that to everything in the world without exception.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 4, 2019 8:21:42 GMT -5
The existential questions that interested me were always quite specific, but that particular question never arose prior to Andrew asking it. Upon reading his question, the answer was obvious and non-verbal, and anyone wanting to discover the answer is free to contemplate it for him/herself. That question, like most existential questions, is a kind of tar baby, and if cognition cranks up in an effort to find the answer, the likelihood is that one will get stuck in the mind and overlook the obvious. But the answer can easily be verbalized. Creation and perception are the same. Perhaps that's a pointer to a realization. Where the tar babies may come to play is in applying that to everything in the world without exception. What I'm pointing to is non-conceptual, so an explanation such as "creation and perception are the same" would never suffice. If a Zen student gave that answer, s/he would be told to go meditate some more. Not good or bad; just a different approach with a different focus. If the intellect becomes quiescent, a "before-thinking" answer becomes more likely to appear.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 4, 2019 10:26:06 GMT -5
But the answer can easily be verbalized. Creation and perception are the same. Perhaps that's a pointer to a realization. Where the tar babies may come to play is in applying that to everything in the world without exception. What I'm pointing to is non-conceptual, so an explanation such as "creation and perception are the same" would never suffice. If a Zen student gave that answer, s/he would be told to go meditate some e.g Not good or bad; just a different approach with a different focus. If the intellect becomes quiescent, a "before-thinking" answer becomes more likely to appear. I think what he's sort of saying is that accepting that dinosaurs existed is a philosophical acceptance i.e it doesn't come from Zen. So he's just exploring the philosophy behind your acceptance that dinosaurs existed. Or if the dinosaur question is problematic, then switch it to the hurricane that hit the Bahamas i.e if you accept that happened, then Zen cannot explain why you accept that. Ultimately the question (and argument) is about what in 'reality' can be accepted to be unequivocally true. Yes, I can find a way to doubt the 'reality' of there having been a hurricane, and I can find a way to doubt the 'reality' of sensations and feelings if I want to. There is perhaps useful meditative value to noticing the difference between what is known directly in terms of feeling/sensation, and everything else that is known, but for me the value is limited to that context. We shouldn't go from that context, to then saying 'I can only know for certain what I am directly experiencing, and I can't know anything beyond that'. I see that leap as oddly objectifying the experience that is happening. Ultimately, it's all 'mind', it's all 'maya'. Or as Sifting might say, 'it's all still the same category'. The hurricane is as 'real' (or 'illusionary') as the feeling I feel about it when I read the news on the internet
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Sept 4, 2019 10:33:10 GMT -5
What I'm pointing to is non-conceptual, so an explanation such as "creation and perception are the same" would never suffice. Is it actually possible to point to something which is non conceptual? I don't think so.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 4, 2019 11:25:43 GMT -5
What I'm pointing to is non-conceptual, so an explanation such as "creation and perception are the same" would never suffice. Is it actually possible to point to something which is non conceptual? I don't think so. Sure. If someone were to ask, "What is a tree?," one could silently point; no words would be necessary. The world prior to distinction is both non-dual and non-conceptual. There's obviously a difference between the concept "tree" (a noun) and what a tree is (a verb), and Zen people are primarily interested in the latter. IOW, there's a difference between how THAT (in this case a tree) can be distinguished conceptually, and what THAT IS. Between a map and the territory, Zen people focus on the territory.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 4, 2019 11:33:47 GMT -5
What I'm pointing to is non-conceptual, so an explanation such as "creation and perception are the same" would never suffice. If a Zen student gave that answer, s/he would be told to go meditate some e.g Not good or bad; just a different approach with a different focus. If the intellect becomes quiescent, a "before-thinking" answer becomes more likely to appear. I think what he's sort of saying is that accepting that dinosaurs existed is a philosophical acceptance i.e it doesn't come from Zen. So he's just exploring the philosophy behind your acceptance that dinosaurs existed. Or if the dinosaur question is problematic, then switch it to the hurricane that hit the Bahamas i.e if you accept that happened, then Zen cannot explain why you accept that. Ultimately the question (and argument) is about what in 'reality' can be accepted to be unequivocally true. Yes, I can find a way to doubt the 'reality' of there having been a hurricane, and I can find a way to doubt the 'reality' of sensations and feelings if I want to. There is perhaps useful meditative value to noticing the difference between what is known directly in terms of feeling/sensation, and everything else that is known, but for me the value is limited to that context. We shouldn't go from that context, to then saying 'I can only know for certain what I am directly experiencing, and I can't know anything beyond that'. I see that leap as oddly objectifying the experience that is happening. Ultimately, it's all 'mind', it's all 'maya'. Or as Sifting might say, 'it's all still the same category'. The hurricane is as 'real' (or 'illusionary') as the feeling I feel about it when I read the news on the internet I understand, but there's no philosophy necessary for seeing and interacting with THIS. When the mind becomes sufficiently quiescent, philosophy, explanations, and all other ideas get left behind. As Rumi wrote, "There's a field out beyond all ideas. I'll meet you there."
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Sept 4, 2019 11:55:26 GMT -5
Is it actually possible to point to something which is non conceptual? I don't think so. Sure. If someone were to ask, "What is a tree?," one could silently point; no words would be necessary. The world prior to distinction is both non-dual and non-conceptual. There's obviously a difference between the concept "tree" (a noun) and what a tree is (a verb), and Zen people are primarily interested in the latter. IOW, there's a difference between how THAT (in this case a tree) can be distinguished conceptually, and what THAT IS. Between a map and the territory, Zen people focus on the territory. A tree isn't non conceptual. You don't need a pointer to be able to perceive a tree. Usually a spiritual pointer is pointing towards non-dual awareness which is non conceptual. You can't point directly to awareness so you have to point to a practice such as you are familiar with in order to access it.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 4, 2019 12:17:08 GMT -5
Sure. If someone were to ask, "What is a tree?," one could silently point; no words would be necessary. The world prior to distinction is both non-dual and non-conceptual. There's obviously a difference between the concept "tree" (a noun) and what a tree is (a verb), and Zen people are primarily interested in the latter. IOW, there's a difference between how THAT (in this case a tree) can be distinguished conceptually, and what THAT IS. Between a map and the territory, Zen people focus on the territory. A tree isn't non conceptual. You don't need a pointer to be able to perceive a tree. Usually a spiritual pointer is pointing towards non-dual awareness which is non conceptual. You can't point directly to awareness so you have to point to a practice such as you are familiar with in order to access it. Because the image/idea/symbol is so powerful most humans cannot distinguish between the concept of a tree and what a tree is, but we'll drop it.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 4, 2019 12:22:47 GMT -5
I think what he's sort of saying is that accepting that dinosaurs existed is a philosophical acceptance i.e it doesn't come from Zen. So he's just exploring the philosophy behind your acceptance that dinosaurs existed. Or if the dinosaur question is problematic, then switch it to the hurricane that hit the Bahamas i.e if you accept that happened, then Zen cannot explain why you accept that. Ultimately the question (and argument) is about what in 'reality' can be accepted to be unequivocally true. Yes, I can find a way to doubt the 'reality' of there having been a hurricane, and I can find a way to doubt the 'reality' of sensations and feelings if I want to. There is perhaps useful meditative value to noticing the difference between what is known directly in terms of feeling/sensation, and everything else that is known, but for me the value is limited to that context. We shouldn't go from that context, to then saying 'I can only know for certain what I am directly experiencing, and I can't know anything beyond that'. I see that leap as oddly objectifying the experience that is happening. Ultimately, it's all 'mind', it's all 'maya'. Or as Sifting might say, 'it's all still the same category'. The hurricane is as 'real' (or 'illusionary') as the feeling I feel about it when I read the news on the internet I understand, but there's no philosophy necessary for seeing and interacting with THIS. When the mind becomes sufficiently quiescent, philosophy, explanations, and all other ideas get left behind. As Rumi wrote, "There's a field out beyond all ideas. I'll meet you there." Yes, agree....I find that to be inarguable, verging on undiscussable (which is fine). I also see why it doesn't quite address what E/Fig etc are asking you, but that's none of my business really, so I'll butt out.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Sept 4, 2019 12:29:46 GMT -5
A tree isn't non conceptual. You don't need a pointer to be able to perceive a tree. Usually a spiritual pointer is pointing towards non-dual awareness which is non conceptual. You can't point directly to awareness so you have to point to a practice such as you are familiar with in order to access it. Because the image/idea/symbol is so powerful most humans cannot distinguish between the concept of a tree and what a tree is, but we'll drop it. In my book a tree is just a tree. But by all means drop it, but speak for yourself. You don't dictate to me when or if I drop it okay?
|
|