|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 15, 2019 12:36:40 GMT -5
Creation and perception are not the same. The fact that they always coincide doesn't not mean creation and perception are the same. You asked me the meaning of levels. You say levels do not exist. What Gopal is pointing to is the existence of levels. Levels indicate time and space. There is a parallel here to the workings of the unconscious. We perceive. These perceptions enter the brain where they encounter preconditionings. This require time, and space. Eventually (indicating a process involving time and space) out pop thoughts and feelings and actions. The unconscious is where the sausage gets made.That's analogy. Take this to All That Is. Yes, all events, all action, takes place with the Whole. The Unmanifest, manifests. But the Unmanifest is not some Omnipotent Magician snapping its finger making creation perception. That is merely your predilection to believe, but you make it out of thin air. I rather choose to consider the simple explanation, All That Is has unfolded over 13.75 billion years. And some of the process is hidden, like unconscious brain processing. This is where levels enter. But with the Cosmos, it isn't unconscious. There is meaning and purpose and deliberation. But I cannot dissuade you from the Omnipotent Magician belief. In the individuation, which is a line of division and separation from the Whole, perception is creation. But I can't get you from here, to there (from the particular, enigma, to the Whole). Most "NDist" make this same mistake. I don't understand the last paragraph, but the notion that creation and perception are the same comes from the realization that there is no objective world to perceive (no intermediate cake level) and no time in which such a process can occur. Obviously, this is the larger context of Consciousness, which donald trumps the smaller context of objects, brains, world. Because there is a larger context doesn't negate the smaller context. That's the whole point. That's the mistake NDist make. The fact that you don't recognize this is why you don't understand the last paragraph. An analogy for this is simple. Take the larger context As the smaller context. This actually what you (E) are doing anyway. That is, E exists as the smaller context, but considers that he exists as the larger context. Thus you think you cannot step out of the context you live through, because there is no larger context than the Whole. But as you do live in the smaller context, but don't know it, your position is essentially solipsistic-like. I have written about this many times. How is creation perception in the smaller context? E is the whole. Take E to be the whole. What you see is what you are. What's the structure? Picture living in a hall of mirrors. Everything you see is merely a reflection, of E. But this is subjectivity, because it's the smaller context, not the larger. Another way you can look at it. There is a boundary to E (because E is not the whole in the smaller context). And so there is an actual outside world, because E is the smaller context, and so E lives within a ~something~. E eats food, breathes air, basks in the sun. It is a *~Real~* world, not a DREAM world. it functions like a real world, because it is a real world. People, live, get sick, get old, have mortal accidents, some are subject to terrorism, everybody eventually dies. However, psychologically, we see the world as we are, not as it is. That is, everything that enters us is colored by our own psychology. Example. 40% of the US like and support P Trump. 40% of the US dislike P Trump and want him kicked out of office. Do these live in two different worlds? No, we all live in the same exterior world, we all have the same facts. So how do the 40% and the 40% have such different views? Individual psychology. From conditioning and world view, people align together. Anybody who takes the smaller context to be the larger context, lives in illusion. Anybody who takes the smaller context to be the larger context, lives in a conceptual construct, lives according to a conceptual construct. Can people get a taste of outside the small self-(context)? Yes, of course. But ego is very crafty. Ego can make one believe ego has disappeared, or even has never existed in the first place. For most of the 7 billion, there is a *line* between the individuation and the exterior world. So the Whole is not operating in the individuation. Influence is mediated by the little self. Most everybody is looking out for their own interests. But this is distorted by ego, a warped psychology is looking out for its own selfish interests. But this explains the messiness of the world, hunger, suffering, murder, terrorism, etc.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 15, 2019 12:39:51 GMT -5
That's not what I'm doing. Agreed. You're simply saying that most people define thought in a particular way that is different than the way Tenka defines it. That's okay; it just means that communication about that subject will be limited in what can be conveyed or agreed upon. No problem. Yes. I'm just offering tenka a way to future simplify communication with others. (Plus a lot more).
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 15, 2019 14:59:22 GMT -5
You are quite welcome to refuse anything I say - but you are bringing forth the end game and you are ignorant of the primary foundation of mind . You talk about speed typing butt forget to realise that a peep needs to have self a referential thought in order to know what they are in reflection of the keyboard and in reflection of what is written . You are putting the cart before the horse by speaking solely upon the end game scenario where the peep speed types without thinking per se . When you do this you only portray half the story . You need the first part . I think you have understood nothing of what I've said. ditto, you still have the cart before the horse .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 15, 2019 15:33:41 GMT -5
While it's probably usual when someone looks at the e on a keyboard, they recognize it as an e, it's not necessary. You still don't understand autopilot and unconscious processing. Jack Kerouac could type 120 words per minute, and this on an ordinary mechanical typewriter. So he could not possibly type that fast and mentally recognize every letter. And he wrote via stream of consciousness, he virtually invented it. He got tired of changing sheets of paper and famously typed one version of On The Road on a scroll he made by taping sheets of paper together. So when he typed when or time or escape or the, fingers just went to the keyboard and letters appeared on the page. He didn't think e. Test yourself. Or better, just think back to just now reading this. When there was an e in a word did you think e? No, you didn't. Unconscious processing took place. Nobody's talking about having to mentally think. Unconscious mental activity is unconscious, so you aren't going to consciously see yourself thinking it. I think it's you who still doesn't understand unconscious processing. Not only does the pilgrim not understand the unconscious processing he doesn't understand that while not thinking when speed typing there is already a foundation in place of a self referential thought .. That is why one can speed type knowing what all letters represent while not thinking lol . As I have always stated, one has to get the foundation straight to begin with .. Not thinking while walking to the fridge already has a self referential foundation of what a fridge is in place . . This is common sense more than anything else . This is why the pilgrim has the cart before the horse .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 15, 2019 15:44:26 GMT -5
In actual fact there has to be conscious processing while not thinking . There isn't anything unconscious in the realm of not thinking when one identifies the fridge as a fridge . The fact that one doesn't have to say out loud that this is a fridge and this is a beer doesn't constitute unconscious processing . We are only comparing not thinking out loud with the unconscious and that is an incorrect assumption and comparison to make .
Not thinking or chattering doesn't equate to the unconscious .
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 15, 2019 15:55:21 GMT -5
Nobody's talking about having to mentally think. Unconscious mental activity is unconscious, so you aren't going to consciously see yourself thinking it. I think it's you who still doesn't understand unconscious processing. Not only does the pilgrim not understand the unconscious processing he doesn't understand that while not thinking when speed typing there is already a foundation in place of a self referential thought .. That is why one can speed type knowing what all letters represent while not thinking lol . As I have always stated, one has to get the foundation straight to begin with .. Not thinking while walking to the fridge already has a self referential foundation of what a fridge is in place . . This is common sense more than anything else . This is why the pilgrim has the cart before the horse . I have already written about all this.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 16, 2020 7:22:58 GMT -5
But, you was definitely there wasn't you? Maybe ya'll are talking about something else.. but my understanding is that a realization is not a "state" whatsoever, and though we can talk about the event after the fact, just like any other experience, to think of a realization as an event/experience/state is the wrong avenue to go down. Its more like a veil is lifted, and then you can see better. That's certainly the way that many, if not most of us, regard the matter.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 16, 2020 13:34:42 GMT -5
Tenka has already stated he came to his conclusion after the fact because mind and the sense of existence were absent during the 'experience'. Somebody registered that experience of pure awareness, and it wasn't pure awareness. And this comes from someone who tells me that consciousness is typing? Yes. I'll even accept 'Awareness is typing', but the designation 'pure Awareness' implies we're not talking about Awareness expressing as a human. Pure Awareness knows nothing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2020 17:38:16 GMT -5
And this comes from someone who tells me that consciousness is typing? Yes. I'll even accept 'Awareness is typing', but the designation 'pure Awareness' implies we're not talking about Awareness expressing as a human. Pure Awareness knows nothing.I kind of agree that Pure Awareness doesn't know that it is Pure Awareness, because firstly there isn't anything that it isn't and secondly, when called Pure Awareness it's a 'conceptualisation'. Though when you say it knows nothing, do you mean that it doesn't know any knowledge without the movement or recognition of mind, or that it doesn't know that it is?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 16, 2020 23:36:32 GMT -5
tenka probably prefers i use those words, rather than 'event', and I am happy to oblige. My own view is that the concept of 'realization' gets argued about too much. Tenka has one view, you another, Enigma another, Satch another.....and personally, I don't care. If T wants to call that 'realization'....fine. If E wants 'seeing through illusions' to be realization....fine. Satch wants direct experience to be realization....fine. If you want 'seeing what IS' to be counted as a realization....fine. I have some kind of reference for all those, so just don't have great interest in which one is the RIGHT one. Everyone's spirituality is unique (look at Tolle and UG!). At most I would say we can agree on certain generalizations about the nature of spiritual evolution. There are certain ideas that we can agree on, as long as we don't get too specific (though it's fun and interesting to talk about specifics.) 'Peace' is a good example. We all know it's a good thing and relates to spiritual evolution. But we can debate for a year as to whether it is a presence or absence I know Tenka has had a ton of spiritual insights, experiences and 'realizations' before this 'event'. I used to talk a lot to him before it happened. So conversationally, I've witnessed a change in his expression, understanding and focus of interest, though that somewhat ineffable quality of 'tenkaness personality' is the same. In a good way. FWIW I generally accept E's definition of a realization as equivalent to an insight or sudden seeing of what is NOT true. Our only disagreement concerns what Reefs and I consider CC experiences. We think those experiences might better be conceived as events because from the standpoint of the human having such an experience they do not involve time and there is no personal selfhood involved in them. When they are occurring, it is not known to whom they are occurring. In this sense, they are unity consciousness events. Those kinds of events usually result in major realizations that are only cognized intellectually after the events have ended (after selfhood returns). A human having such an event realizes that reality is unified, aware, infinite, incomprehensible to the intellect, etc. S/he knows that reality is NOT what was previously imagined (that what was imagined was an illusion), so I think that meets E's definition of a realization.Satch apparently has had only one realization that he considers SR. I assume that it, too, would fit E's definition because it apparently revealed to Satch that he was not a limited being, but was Source, or Self--the undivided and infinite field of awareness in which, or by which, everything is experienced. He can correct me if this interpretation is erroneous. I would say that he was previously under the illusion of being a separate limited entity and his realization revealed that that was not true. If someone wanted to call that "a direct experience" then that's the kind of experience Reefs and I refer to as a CC and it could either be considered a direct experience or an event. In either case, it makes one understand that the nature of reality is different than what was previously imagined. In Tenka's case I do not know what he is referring to when he talks about being "beyond mind." Was he unconscious? Was he conscious but all appearances, thoughts, and selfhood disappeared? Did he enter some kind of state that had duration in time? Would he agree with the Niz quote that JLY posted? Perhaps he can explain more in a future post. And actually, I've suggested that those 'events' may be experiential expressions of realizations not yet realized directly. The only difference being that the nature of experience lends itself to potential erroneous conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 16, 2020 23:48:45 GMT -5
What do you call a state that isn't a mind state? E's paradigm is too simple to cover everyone's POV. When there is disagreement we can say we are right and everybody else is wrong, or we can look for a way to accommodate other views, basically other contexts for experience and realizations. Virtually nobody likes Ken Wilber here, or Aurobindo, as these have a complex view of What Is. More specifically, these essentially discuss hierarchy of levels of being. IOW, there are stages of the ~movement~ of consciousness, and concerning each stage there are states of consciousness within the stage. The distinction is that states of consciousness can come and go, but there is a kind of stability (my word, sdp) within a certain stage. That is, once one has reached a certain stage of consciousness one does not 'fall back' from it, but one can experience different states of consciousness within a certain stage. For me such a "paradigm" is necessary to explain different views and different experiences in life, why there is such a broad range of people on the planet. This doesn't negate ND. But nobody likes to discuss this, so I don't push it, just bring it up from time to time. The link is the beginning of a simple explanation of the complex view of Wilber. www.kenwilber.com/Writings/PDF/G-states%20and%20stages.pdf I have no interest in accommodating points of view. Points of view are complexities formed with the help of mind, while the truth always appears in the form of such a radical simplicity that it's difficult to invent things to say about it, and little point in doing so. Mostly, I talk about what it is not. There's lots to say about that.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 16, 2020 23:55:59 GMT -5
And actually, I've suggested that those 'events' may be experiential expressions of realizations not yet realized directly. The only difference being that the nature of experience lends itself to potential erroneous conclusions. A realization not yet realized. 😀 How do you determine that you've come to an erroneous conclusion about an experience? Do these words just spontaneously appear in your mind and you immediately type them like stream of consciousness writing or do you think about what you're going to say for a while and then carefully craft the words and sentences before you post? I'm just curious.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 17, 2020 0:07:58 GMT -5
It seems to me that an insight and a CC experience are the same. I doubt whether enigma would agree that his insight/realization includes personal selfhood, whereas your CC does not.I knew that I was source/unbounded awareness decades before Realization. Then what was realized? Or, was your earlier knowing intellectual and the final SR direct? Or was the final 'realization' an experience?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 17, 2020 10:26:27 GMT -5
FWIW I generally accept E's definition of a realization as equivalent to an insight or sudden seeing of what is NOT true. Our only disagreement concerns what Reefs and I consider CC experiences. We think those experiences might better be conceived as events because from the standpoint of the human having such an experience they do not involve time and there is no personal selfhood involved in them. When they are occurring, it is not known to whom they are occurring. In this sense, they are unity consciousness events. Those kinds of events usually result in major realizations that are only cognized intellectually after the events have ended (after selfhood returns). A human having such an event realizes that reality is unified, aware, infinite, incomprehensible to the intellect, etc. S/he knows that reality is NOT what was previously imagined (that what was imagined was an illusion), so I think that meets E's definition of a realization.Satch apparently has had only one realization that he considers SR. I assume that it, too, would fit E's definition because it apparently revealed to Satch that he was not a limited being, but was Source, or Self--the undivided and infinite field of awareness in which, or by which, everything is experienced. He can correct me if this interpretation is erroneous. I would say that he was previously under the illusion of being a separate limited entity and his realization revealed that that was not true. If someone wanted to call that "a direct experience" then that's the kind of experience Reefs and I refer to as a CC and it could either be considered a direct experience or an event. In either case, it makes one understand that the nature of reality is different than what was previously imagined. In Tenka's case I do not know what he is referring to when he talks about being "beyond mind." Was he unconscious? Was he conscious but all appearances, thoughts, and selfhood disappeared? Did he enter some kind of state that had duration in time? Would he agree with the Niz quote that JLY posted? Perhaps he can explain more in a future post. And actually, I've suggested that those 'events' may be experiential expressions of realizations not yet realized directly. The only difference being that the nature of experience lends itself to potential erroneous conclusions. I don't understand what "an experiential expression of a realization not yet realized" means. Can you clarify this statement further? I should probably back up and say that during a CC THIS knows (gnosis) its own infinity, unity, vastness, intellectual incomprehensibility, etc, directly, but it cannot be conceptualized by a separate observer/experiencer until after the intellect begins to function normally again in a dualistic way. During a CC it's as if the circuitry of the intellect (which imagines reality divided into parts) gets bypassed for a period of time, and everything that happens, or is seen, is direct and unmediated by reflective thought. A common statement made by people following a CC is, "All meaning disappeared for a while." What they mean is that the intellectual overlay of meaning disappeared." IOW, there is absolute meaning and relative meaning, and relative meaning is dualistic. After a CC, probably the most common statement people make is, "Reality is NOT what I thought it was," and this seems to fit your basic definition of what a realization is. I assume that someone could have that same realization without a CC, but most of the people I've met who've had that particular realization have had it as a result of a CC.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 17, 2020 11:03:15 GMT -5
But, you was definitely there wasn't you? Maybe ya'll are talking about something else.. but my understanding is that a realization is not a "state" whatsoever, and though we can talk about the event after the fact, just like any other experience, to think of a realization as an event/experience/state is the wrong avenue to go down. Its more like a veil is lifted, and then you can see better. Eggzacly.
|
|