|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 4, 2019 15:17:16 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. satch is just wrong. A tree is non conceptual. This is easy to see, Were there trees before people? Yes, of course. (Trees came first to make oxygen for people). No people no concepts. I don't know what satch is saying here.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 4, 2019 15:29:01 GMT -5
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. E/Fig are trying to defend the indefensible. (zd is not trying to defend the indefensible). .....Animals live in the present, they have two brains (reptilian brain/brain stem-spinal column; mammalian brain/limbic system), very little cortex. If Wholeness wanted us to only live in the present, we wouldn't have a cerebral cortex. Mankind has three brains. zd is just expressing good, reasonable, humanness. (E) Is not "the territory remains" an expression of time? www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/human-biology/neuron-nervous-system/v/overview-of-the-functions-of-the-cerebral-cortexwww.khanacademy.org/science/health-and-medicine/executive-systems-of-the-brain/emotion-lesson/v/emotions-limbic-system
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 4, 2019 20:20:24 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 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. I have zero interest in zen or koans. The realization can be verbalized just as you have verbalized (conceptualized) many of the answers you talk about getting through what I take to be the same process of realization.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 4, 2019 20:29:43 GMT -5
What I'm pointing to is non-conceptual, so an explanation such as "creation and perception are the same" would never suffice. 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 It's not about what can be doubted. It's about an unequivical knowing that it cannot be known, or that the knowing is based on a misconception, as in the case of the dino's.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Sept 4, 2019 21:07:38 GMT -5
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. satch is just wrong. A tree is non conceptual. This is easy to see, Were there trees before people? Yes, of course. (Trees came first to make oxygen for people). No people no concepts. I don't know what satch is saying here. That's why, like you, I don't identify myself as a nondualist. When you look at a tree without naming it or thinking about it, it is what it is, an object that is perceived. Where is the concept or non concept?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 4, 2019 22:16:36 GMT -5
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. satch is just wrong. A tree is non conceptual. This is easy to see, Were there trees before people? Yes, of course. (Trees came first to make oxygen for people). No people no concepts. I don't know what satch is saying here. I'm not sure what he's saying either. Obviously, there is the perception of a tree, and there is the conception of it. I'm sure that's obvious to him too. What I'm struggling a bit with is trying to imagine it NOT being obvious. (to most humans)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 4, 2019 22:20:53 GMT -5
Not that I know of. It's just saying experience continues.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Sept 4, 2019 22:28:04 GMT -5
satch is just wrong. A tree is non conceptual. This is easy to see, Were there trees before people? Yes, of course. (Trees came first to make oxygen for people). No people no concepts. I don't know what satch is saying here. I'm not sure what he's saying either. Obviously, there is the perception of a tree, and there is the conception of it. I'm sure that's obvious to him too. What I'm struggling a bit with is trying to imagine it NOT being obvious. (to most humans) A tree is not non conceptual. If you ask what is a tree then you will get a conceptual answer. An object cannot be non conceptual because for something to be a concept, it is considered as an object which is a duality. You cannot have non conceptual duality.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Sept 5, 2019 1:48:06 GMT -5
satch is just wrong. A tree is non conceptual. This is easy to see, Were there trees before people? Yes, of course. (Trees came first to make oxygen for people). No people no concepts. I don't know what satch is saying here. That's why, like you, I don't identify myself as a nondualist. When you look at a tree without naming it or thinking about it, it is what it is, an object that is perceived. Where is the concept or non concept? The thing is here, we could drop all names and labels to certain degrees but what would we be left with in todays society. Andy and I went to great lengths to discuss the differences regarding one appearance and another, the physical peep and the cartoon peep and even pizza and beer, the sun and the rain .. When we drop the conceptual labels we still find that there are differences in what appears, the sun is hot, beer tastes one way, lemons taste another .. Peeps can boil it all down to being consciousness with no actual qualities and say whatever they like about what isn't conceptual about it lol, but they still drink beer instead petrol and they sunbathe in the sun and not the rain .. They do so because there are fundamental qualities to appearances that allow us to experience them as we do .. If you can't get pissed on baby oil and you can't get sun burn when there's rain and cloud then that should give someone something to think about .. You don't get apples growing from a car's bumper and yet the apple tree isn't a tree?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 5, 2019 3:06:42 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 It's not about what can be doubted. It's about an unequivical knowing that it cannot be known, or that the knowing is based on a misconception, as in the case of the dino's. Yes, and I'm really okay with the 'knowing of dinos' to be a misconception, but only to the extent that all experience is a misconception. The idea that what I am experiencing right now is NOT a misconception, but the dinos are a misconception, is very problematic (with the exception perhaps of doing a meditative practice). It's ALL mind/maya. The rain that I apparently feel right is 'the relative', just as the rain I apparently felt 'yesterday' is 'the relative'. The relative universe of maya is still the intimately connecting unfolding universe. In the universe of maya, I become aware of the rain. In the universe of maya, the rain still falls from the sky.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 5, 2019 4:47:41 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 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. I have zero interest in zen or koans. The realization can be verbalized just as you have verbalized (conceptualized) many of the answers you talk about getting through what I take to be the same process of realization. "I have zero interest in Zen or koans." Okay, then substitute the words "a focus upon the actual" for Zen and "existential questions" for koans. same same Some realizations and answers to existential questions, when verbalized, lose their power, so the answer to some existential questions, such as the one Andrew asked, are best communicated and understood non-verbally. That won't be satisfying to the mind.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 5, 2019 4:51:27 GMT -5
I'm not sure what he's saying either. Obviously, there is the perception of a tree, and there is the conception of it. I'm sure that's obvious to him too. What I'm struggling a bit with is trying to imagine it NOT being obvious. (to most humans) A tree is not non conceptual. If you ask what is a tree then you will get a conceptual answer. An object cannot be non conceptual because for something to be a concept, it is considered as an object which is a duality. You cannot have non conceptual duality. Sorry. If you ask someone interested in the actual what a tree is, you will NOT get a conceptual answer. The idea of a tree is dual; what a tree IS is non-dual. There is a difference even if its not realized.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Sept 5, 2019 5:29:38 GMT -5
A tree is not non conceptual. If you ask what is a tree then you will get a conceptual answer. An object cannot be non conceptual because for something to be a concept, it is considered as an object which is a duality. You cannot have non conceptual duality. Sorry. If you ask someone interested in the actual what a tree is, you will NOT get a conceptual answer. The idea of a tree is dual; what a tree IS is non-dual. There is a difference even if its not realized. Okay, give me your non conceptual answer.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 5, 2019 7:48:34 GMT -5
Sorry. If you ask someone interested in the actual what a tree is, you will NOT get a conceptual answer. The idea of a tree is dual; what a tree IS is non-dual. There is a difference even if its not realized. Okay, give me your non conceptual answer. *silently points at what is commonly distinguished as "tree" with index finger of right hand*
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Sept 5, 2019 7:53:50 GMT -5
Okay, give me your non conceptual answer. *silently points at what is commonly distinguished as "tree" with index finger of right hand* Sorry it's not clear where you're pointing. Are you pointing at the big oak tree by the fence or are you pointing at the tall pine tree in the distance. Keep it non conceptual. 😀
|
|