|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 11, 2023 8:37:39 GMT -5
I'm only recognizing what presently is, here, now, in sdp. Nope. I'm not allowed to say I'm not enlightened? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 11, 2023 8:53:31 GMT -5
There is no duality except in imagination. What we are is non-dual and has always been non-dual.  I chanced on this book, it came from Gainesville, Fl, very nice used bookstore, Book Gallery West. A month ago my grandson broke his leg and I went down to help with him in High Springs. I read this yesterday in Taco Bell, and the thought came, ZD needs to see this.  I knew you'd like that. The next chapter is about and reincarnation and karma. But what we operate from now The Twelfth Tai Situpa calls relative. You have admitted previously you don't live continuously in ND, because your last question was, How can I live continuously in This? Then you arrived at, it doesn't matter. Correct me if this is incorrect. The TTS specifically says: " we are not imagining". So it seems to me to deny what is actually in operation right now, is imaginary. I could make this long but that's my basic point. I'm not questioning your SR or CC or anything, I'm just asking, what are you operating-from right now? I know when I am operating from ND (what I call simultaneity), most time I'm not there. When I'm not there I don't even know I'm not there, that's what Gurdjieff called sleep. So I don't imagine something that presently isn't. I gnosis when there is simultaneity. I know there is a deeperness to simultaneity also, because I remember being-there (know, because I'm not-there-now). See the distinction? The distinction is what TTTS calls relative and ultimate (the second sentence). This is not correct, and it is not what I've stated at any time that I can remember. Yes, my last question was "How is it possible to stay in a unity-conscious state of mind (absent selfhood) permanently?" The realization that occurred as a result of contemplating this question was that there had NEVER been a "me" that went into and out of a unity-conscious state of mind. I saw that all there had ever been was a state of unity, so there's no way to fall out of it. The common illusion is that there's a "me" who sometimes disappears when there is a state of unity consciousness and then reappears. When the sense of being a SVP collapses, it becomes obvious that there's only THIS unfolding however it unfolds, so there's no "me" doing anything. The sense of "me" is a product of reflection, and if there is no thought of a separate "me," there is no "me," period. Furthermore, I would never say that the realization being pointed to doesn't matter. That realization results in a felt sense of freedom, and an end to the spiritual search for understanding, so it matters a great deal. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jul 11, 2023 9:03:59 GMT -5
I'm not allowed to say I'm not enlightened? . What? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 11, 2023 9:44:55 GMT -5
I'm not allowed to say I'm not enlightened? Anyone can say whatever they want within the guidelines of the forum, but here's an experiment to try: While driving down the road, shift attention away from any thoughts about a "me" to what the body is actually doing. Notice how the hands sequentially tighten and loosen on the steering wheel, how the body shifts around, how the eyes are automatically drawn to certain things within the visual field, how the body actively and intelligently responds to whatever is happening, etc (not even mentioning the trillion of things that the body is doing just to stay alive). When there's no thought of a "me," me-ness doesn't exist. Selfhood only seems to exist when there is reflection about the idea of a separate entity at the center of whatever is happening and directing what will happen. If there are no thoughts at all, the sense of self-referentiality vanishes like the phantom that it is. G., like many ND sages, told seekers that it's possible to return to essence by doing various things that will eradicate the sense of separateness. The only way for that to happen is for a human to stop incessantly thinking, "I hope, I fear, I expect, I think, I want, I need, I have, etc." This kind of thinking automagically vanishes as soon as the illusion of a SVP is penetrated. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jul 11, 2023 10:01:08 GMT -5
I'm not allowed to say I'm not enlightened? I’d like to know how you came to that conclusion. Who said you couldn’t say that? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 11, 2023 11:32:03 GMT -5
I'm not allowed to say I'm not enlightened? Anyone can say whatever they want within the guidelines of the forum, but here's an experiment to try: While driving down the road, shift attention away from any thoughts about a "me" to what the body is actually doing. Notice how the hands sequentially tighten and loosen on the steering wheel, how the body shifts around, how the eyes are automatically drawn to certain things within the visual field, how the body actively and intelligently responds to whatever is happening, etc (not even mentioning the trillion of things that the body is doing just to stay alive). When there's no thought of a "me," me-ness doesn't exist. Selfhood only seems to exist when there is reflection about the idea of a separate entity at the center of whatever is happening and directing what will happen. If there are no thoughts at all, the sense of self-referentiality vanishes like the phantom that it is. G., like many ND sages, told seekers that it's possible to return to essence by doing various things that will eradicate the sense of separateness. The only way for that to happen is for a human to stop incessantly thinking, "I hope, I fear, I expect, I think, I want, I need, I have, etc." This kind of thinking automagically vanishes as soon as the illusion of a SVP is penetrated. Yes, I understand. Why does the self come-back? Where do these thoughts come from in the first place? The self exists as connections between neurons in the neural structure. That's the meaning of autopilot. But of course you know all this. Your ~memory~ of Robert still exists, the memories which constituted Robert. I've only ever suggested that one live through attention and/or awareness, which is what you suggest, above. We go off the rails when you tell me I can't do what you did for the 15 years. Yes, I agree, there is no sdp when doing what you suggest. If that were not so I could not have survived my despair. We agree on many things. We just have a different ~grid~ of understanding of what's occurring. sdp will not stop acknowledging what is presently the case (to do otherwise is what imagination is). sdp had a particularly nasty psychology (I've written about that pretty extensively). I wear the mask more lightly these days. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 11, 2023 11:46:17 GMT -5
I'm not allowed to say I'm not enlightened? I’d like to know how you came to that conclusion. Who said you couldn’t say that? Then what did your "Nope." refer to? The Twelfth Tai Situpa is just walking us through how things are. For me, to deny how things are is what's imaginary. And he describes the ~movement~ (not his word) from the relative to the ultimate. Yes, all humans have buddha nature. Am I expressing buddha nature, now? No. Why is this not so is the question. I don't buy there is no path to ~It~. Ever hear of the Noble Eightfold Path? Buddha's first dilemma was, nobody is going to get this, why try? But he decided to speak and interact. The teaching unfolded. By the Nobel Eightfold Path was he just blowing smoke? I don't think so. You can believe whatever you want to. I just keep expressing my view. My view is that all of this is contingent on energy, quality and quantities of energy. Buddha Nature is a certain quality of energy. But then we get into thingness and suchness, and discussion ends. I talk path, ND says there is no path. We have no overlap. Period. ZD says and has said years ago, there is no relative. sdp looks around, that's obviously not the case. "I'm only recognizing what presently, is, now, in sdp", is what you responded to. What presently is, here, now, is sdp not-enlightened. You said: "Nope." I don't see a problem in understanding the back & forth. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jul 11, 2023 12:16:20 GMT -5
There is no duality except in imagination. What we are is non-dual and has always been non-dual. SDP your argument for duality reminds me of a sock puppet insisting on its own personal independent existence apart from the Hand that it really is. The same argument applies to the Hand, to the man, ... On the other hand (!), the Hand without the sock-puppet has a different identity. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 11, 2023 12:34:26 GMT -5
I’d like to know how you came to that conclusion. Who said you couldn’t say that? Then what did your "Nope." refer to? The Twelfth Tai Situpa is just walking us through how things are. For me, to deny how things are is what's imaginary. And he describes the ~movement~ (not his word) from the relative to the ultimate. Yes, all humans have buddha nature. Am I expressing buddha nature, now? No. Why is this not so is the question. I don't buy there is no path to ~It~. Ever hear of the Noble Eightfold Path? Buddha's first dilemma was, nobody is going to get this, why try? But he decided to speak and interact. The teaching unfolded. By the Nobel Eightfold Path was he just blowing smoke? I don't think so. You can believe whatever you want to. I just keep expressing my view. My view is that all of this is contingent on energy, quality and quantities of energy. Buddha Nature is a certain quality of energy. But then we get into thingness and suchness, and discussion ends. I talk path, ND says there is no path. We have no overlap. Period. ZD says and has said years ago, there is no relative. sdp looks around, that's obviously not the case. "I'm only recognizing what presently, is, now, in sdp", is what you responded to. What presently is, here, now, is sdp not-enlightened. You said: "Nope." I don't see a problem in understanding the back & forth. What's being pointed to is the fact that you ARE expressing Buddha nature every moment no matter what is done. Whatever the body/mind organism with the screen name "SDP" is doing is what THIS is doing. THIS plays every role, looks out of every set of eyes, thinks every thought, and, eventually, realizes how it has misidentified Itself as a separate volitional entity inhabiting a human form. If one looks around, one does NOT see anything relative; one only sees "what is," and "what is" is beyond ideation. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jul 11, 2023 12:34:58 GMT -5
Thinking and/or acting some times as something (i.e. a physical participant), and other times as something else, is the definition of duality. It is like the corpuscule-wave duality.
I guess some people use different meanings for "duality".
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 11, 2023 13:23:43 GMT -5
Thinking and/or acting some times as something (i.e. a physical participant), and other times as something else, is the definition of duality. It is like the corpuscule-wave duality. I guess some people use different meanings for "duality". Well, no, ZD (and others here) just say this can't be understood unless and until there is Self-Realization (not the best term), or as ZD would rather say, This-Realization. It would be better to say: No-Self Realization. While here, to ZD. As far as I know, Bernadette Roberts is still listed on ST's as a very high teacher, a 3 or a 4 I think it was. This despite she always maintained she was not a nondualist (I can supply quotes), basically for the same reasons as sdp, which I gave up trying to explain, here. I've read her extensively, especially her first 3 books. I learned about her 3rd book, What Is self? through Joseph Chilton Pearce who also held her in high regard. A fourth book which was privately published is now available publicly. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jul 11, 2023 13:51:01 GMT -5
I’d like to know how you came to that conclusion. Who said you couldn’t say that? Then what did your "Nope." refer to? The Twelfth Tai Situpa is just walking us through how things are. For me, to deny how things are is what's imaginary. And he describes the ~movement~ (not his word) from the relative to the ultimate. Yes, all humans have buddha nature. Am I expressing buddha nature, now? No. Why is this not so is the question. I don't buy there is no path to ~It~. Ever hear of the Noble Eightfold Path? Buddha's first dilemma was, nobody is going to get this, why try? But he decided to speak and interact. The teaching unfolded. By the Nobel Eightfold Path was he just blowing smoke? I don't think so. You can believe whatever you want to. I just keep expressing my view. My view is that all of this is contingent on energy, quality and quantities of energy. Buddha Nature is a certain quality of energy. But then we get into thingness and suchness, and discussion ends. I talk path, ND says there is no path. We have no overlap. Period. ZD says and has said years ago, there is no relative. sdp looks around, that's obviously not the case. "I'm only recognizing what presently, is, now, in sdp", is what you responded to. What presently is, here, now, is sdp not-enlightened. You said: "Nope." I don't see a problem in understanding the back & forth. . The “nope” was directed towards your mistaken identification with all that falls apart at the grave. If by your reference to yourself as unenlightened you mean that you haven’t yet recognized the Eternal within yourself then that is another story. If you really believe that then that is a good starting point. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 11, 2023 14:42:43 GMT -5
Thinking and/or acting some times as something (i.e. a physical participant), and other times as something else, is the definition of duality. It is like the corpuscule-wave duality. I guess some people use different meanings for "duality". Well, no, ZD (and others here) just say this can't be understood unless and until there is Self-Realization (not the best term), or as ZD would rather say, This-Realization. It would be better to say: No-Self Realization. While here, to ZD. As far as I know, Bernadette Roberts is still listed on ST's as a very high teacher, a 3 or a 4 I think it was. This despite she always maintained she was not a nondualist (I can supply quotes), basically for the same reasons as sdp, which I gave up trying to explain, here. I've read her extensively, especially her first 3 books. I learned about her 3rd book, What Is self? through Joseph Chilton Pearce who also held her in high regard. A fourth book which was privately published is now available publicly. The ratings on this site are by Shawn Nevins. 35 years ago I also rated BR highly, but after seeing some videos of BR and reading some things she reportedly said many years after her first two books, I found the level of her clarity in doubt. Unfortunately, these days I don't have sufficient interest in her outlook or pointers to go re-read any of her writings. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 11, 2023 15:08:09 GMT -5
Well, no, ZD (and others here) just say this can't be understood unless and until there is Self-Realization (not the best term), or as ZD would rather say, This-Realization. It would be better to say: No-Self Realization. While here, to ZD. As far as I know, Bernadette Roberts is still listed on ST's as a very high teacher, a 3 or a 4 I think it was. This despite she always maintained she was not a nondualist (I can supply quotes), basically for the same reasons as sdp, which I gave up trying to explain, here. I've read her extensively, especially her first 3 books. I learned about her 3rd book, What Is self? through Joseph Chilton Pearce who also held her in high regard. A fourth book which was privately published is now available publicly. The ratings on this site are by Shawn Nevins. 35 years ago I also rated BR highly, but after seeing some videos of BR and reading some things she reportedly said many years after her first two books, I found the level of her clarity in doubt. Unfortunately, these days I don't have sufficient interest in her outlook or pointers to go re-read any of her writings. BR never denied anything she wrote in her first two books. She later said there would probably never have been a record if she had not journaled the process while no-she was in the midst of it. IOW, she didn't maintain a memory of what had happened. She's the greatest "Christian" theologian, ever. "Christian" in quotes because she was not in any sense a fundamentalist Christian in the sense she-had-been as a (former) Catholic nun. Her What Is Self? (her 3rd book) is basically a study in the nature of what man is. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 11, 2023 15:32:33 GMT -5
Then what did your "Nope." refer to? The Twelfth Tai Situpa is just walking us through how things are. For me, to deny how things are is what's imaginary. And he describes the ~movement~ (not his word) from the relative to the ultimate. Yes, all humans have buddha nature. Am I expressing buddha nature, now? No. Why is this not so is the question. I don't buy there is no path to ~It~. Ever hear of the Noble Eightfold Path? Buddha's first dilemma was, nobody is going to get this, why try? But he decided to speak and interact. The teaching unfolded. By the Nobel Eightfold Path was he just blowing smoke? I don't think so. You can believe whatever you want to. I just keep expressing my view. My view is that all of this is contingent on energy, quality and quantities of energy. Buddha Nature is a certain quality of energy. But then we get into thingness and suchness, and discussion ends. I talk path, ND says there is no path. We have no overlap. Period. ZD says and has said years ago, there is no relative. sdp looks around, that's obviously not the case. "I'm only recognizing what presently, is, now, in sdp", is what you responded to. What presently is, here, now, is sdp not-enlightened. You said: "Nope." I don't see a problem in understanding the back & forth. . The “nope” was directed towards your mistaken identification with all that falls apart at the grave. If by your reference to yourself as unenlightened you mean that you haven’t yet recognized the Eternal within yourself then that is another story. If you really believe that then that is a good starting point. For at least the 100th time, I have known for over 47 years that thinking, feeling doesn't survive the grave. I understand that like I understand the sun comes up every morning (because of Earth rotation). The Tibetan Buddhist Bardo is a very good explanation and description of what occurs at death. But I'm a nuts & bolts guy, a pragmatist. Non-identification (a Gurdjieff practice) is the withdrawal of the energy supporting the neural structure of the cultural self, the self most people think they are, but are not. I don't share about practices or experiences, but I write from experience and theory, that means I generally write generally. I *don't do* realizations, I live from understanding. So there is no mistaken identification concerning what dies when the body dies, I am quite relieved of that. I know nothing of real importance can be put into words, or many words. At 71, I plan to live long and prosper another 35 years in good health. Do I bend over backwards so as not to say what isn't so? Yes. I don't do realization, but when I live through attention and/or awareness, THAT's what I Am, unequivocally. And, you (all) keep trying to understand sdp from the ND "perspective". I'll keep saying that's not possible. But I can't help that you do. |
|
I knew you'd like that. The next chapter is about and reincarnation and karma.