Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2013 10:28:02 GMT -5
This is still a fresh question in my head. It's just that I feel a little more experiential understanding of the foundation of the question. The conclusion of whether option 1 is the case or option 2 is the case, is still up in the air, for me. Is the conclusion one arrives at with this something that is believed or something that is realized (maybe I'm misusing that term?)? IOW, I can imagine a unity experience being just that: an experience, a temporary state. Who's to say 'abiding nondual awareness' is anything other than just a temporal experience? Couldn't this be something that just comes and goes with death. Ultimately, certainty of either seems to be based on belief to me. More importantly, why does this matter? That's probably the more fruitful question. Probably my ego just trying to prove something again. Maybe poke little holes in what I see as belief bubbles held by nonbeliefbubblebelaboringbuddhas. Actually it doesn't really matter. This is the same conclusion I always arrive at. ohwell Max, So I gave you the theory, the set of ideas and 2nd-hand knowledge that I've encountered along the way that applies to your question. I also mixed it in with a bit of my personal story and included some of my interpretations of what it all meant to me at different points in what the mind sees as a progression. The details of that story as it relates to your question are scattered about over what I've written on the forum over the past year+. If you'd like I can summarize them and center them on your question. No worries if you don't have any interest -- if you don't respond or even if you decline I won't take it in any particular way. ... best of luck with this btw. Thanks laughter. I feel I have dishonored your previous attempts by not fully investigating them. As you know, the theory that consciousness is all around and this is what jostles photons or whatever, doesn't really sit well. As I understand it, Quantum Mechanics is not something my elementary understanding of mathematics can translate, and simple words don't do justice. Perhaps I'm giving in to the gods of math on this one, and will need to continue with math studies should this type of question persist. So yes, I'd love a summary if you can stomach my lack of interest in tons of scientific/mathematical investigation. Thanks again for your time and effort. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 1, 2013 20:48:17 GMT -5
Oneness is a direct experience. When it occurs, "you" are not there. The experience makes it obvious that reality is a seamless unity and that the universe is centered at every point. That which sees is the only thing that sees because it is the only thing here. Obviously what's being pointed to is not a thing because it has no boundaries, but we can use the word "thing" to point to that thingless thing. The body retains the memory of the experience, and there is never any doubt about the unity that was experienced. It is not held as a belief in the mind because it is a direct experience, and is directly known through the body. Does it matter? Well, it eliminates the usual fear of death because it is seen that the unified field of all being is never born and never dies; it is infinite, and all life forms are simply momentary manifestations of that infiniteness. Humans do not worry about their condition before birth, and one glimpse of the infinite takes away all worry about their condition after death. It is not so much that the infinite is seen as it is an experience of being one-with the infinite or being lost in the infinite because all boundaries are absent during the experience. This kind of experience (without an experiencer) is somewhat different than realizations in which various assumptions/ideas/beliefs are seen to be false. Seeing through the illusion of selfhood, for example, is a realization rather than an experience. When it is seen that selfhood is a fictitious idea, only, what then remains? The body/mind, universe, and awareness. Life continues, but there is no longer the idea or belief that there is a separate person at the center of what's happening. The idea that there is a separate person is one I don't see. The belief that there is a separate person is one I do not see either, and am willing to accept as an unconscious belief. I certainly see the 'effects' of the belief in play. If someone calls my name, I respond. I sign checks with my name. When percieving criticism in my direction I sometimes respond in a defensive mode. I do not worry about my condition before birth because it is so moot it never even rises to the level of recognition. I feel the same way about death. I wonder about people I love after I die, but as for me, my job will be easy. I understand being without boundaries in one sense -- the experience right now -- but, in theory, it makes little sense to me. I can not comment on death because it is a boundary that is only imagined. One reason this question keeps coming up is because I don't see how any living being can comment on what happens after death without some special cosmic knowledge download.I don't either, as death is dream stuff and this is the realm of infinite potential, and it simply hasn't happened yet. It's a bit like declaring what will happen in my nightly dream tonight. I have no idea. |
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jun 2, 2013 2:47:27 GMT -5
Hi tzujani,
No suggestion that we are bound to accept this or that. Resonance with the Niz idea has no more validity than resonance with any other idea, the idea about what is for instance. What the character may resonate with or not will vary as characters vary.
amit
|
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 2, 2013 8:40:52 GMT -5
Greetings.. Hi tzujani, No suggestion that we are bound to accept this or that. Resonance with the Niz idea has no more validity than resonance with any other idea, the idea about what is for instance. What the character may resonate with or not will vary as characters vary. amit Understood.. there is the foundation of experience, and our perception of it, or resonance with it, so.. like throwing darts at the dartboard, we are more likely to 'hit the target/see what is' if we are actually aiming at it.. which is well-described as 'not throwing darts at anything other than the target', and.. as direct experience reveals, let go of beliefs, even let go of knowings, so that the 'target' can be observed.. Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jun 3, 2013 2:05:06 GMT -5
Hi tzujanli
The character that observes the target is a weird fish. No two may see it in the same way. I'll copy here something from elsewhere as a comment on this.
"There is an interesting take on the nature of character linked with the nondual perspective that separate persons are an illusion. All character is said to be constructed by the mind for defensive purposes. Character is defined as whatever we think about ourselves, who or what we think we are or believe.
When we are first told, presumably at an early age, that we are this or that unacceptable expression, discomfort is felt because of that rejection. Following such events the idea that we are a separate unacceptable person takes root in the mind. As we know from our experience the mind worries about such discomfort and tries to come up with a way of limiting it. The idea is that, throughout our lives, the mind constructs and adjusts an image of ourselves that we hold up to the world. The mind varies this image depending on who we are dealing with. The maintenance of this facade requires a lot of mind energy. Some minds are better at it that others.
In some characters there is awareness of this facade, in others they believe the facade to really be themselves and are unaware that their character is a defensive construction. In the former the character is defended to the hilt, in the latter opportunities to drop it are sought because it is such a hassle to maintain it all the time. If we are lucky enough to have just one such relationship of unconditional openness we are fortunate indeed. It is not normally with our parents.
For a mind that is aware of the facade it has constructed, the idea of nonduality would resonate as the ultimate defense because there is only Oneness doing all by and to itself (nothing to do with me mate:) but would also reflect the actuality of whats going on in the body/mind.
So when, from a nondual perspective, the separate character is said to have dropped away, this could be the sort of awareness referred to."
amit
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2013 7:50:27 GMT -5
Hi Maxprophet, Reading your initial post I am reminded of the explanation given by Niz. He talks about memory surviving what's regarded as our death here. If there are desires contained therein connected with life, they incarnate again. The implications of that for the question you pose is that we each have a different starting point reflecting the variations in the memory we bring with us which affects how we see and interact with the world. So Niz is saying that memory survives death? Not especially believing in reincarnation, if I nonetheless try to rationalize this, I might say that the memes that obsessed one during their life continue on despite the death of the body, being recirculated and digested by the society as a whole, so that any living being could 'resonate' with those same memes at any time. But on first read, memory-surviving-death sounds like memories are not a result of the plasticity of neurons, and exist outside of the body. I'm having trouble digesting it. This makes sense to me. But the initial question is more about the nature and boundaries of Awareness. On the one hand it is claimed that Awareness is something on which all else appears, including individual body-minds. There is just one, and multiple individuated 'manifestations.' On the other hand, awareness is seen as just a function of a living being. Living beings share the same type of of awareness but it is fundamentally separate. I'm not seeing how this question is answerable. Perhaps with a unity experience it will be seen through or dissolve or be seen as misconceived. For me, I believe the question is just a representation of doubt. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 3, 2013 9:13:48 GMT -5
Hi Maxprophet, Reading your initial post I am reminded of the explanation given by Niz. He talks about memory surviving what's regarded as our death here. If there are desires contained therein connected with life, they incarnate again. The implications of that for the question you pose is that we each have a different starting point reflecting the variations in the memory we bring with us which affects how we see and interact with the world. So Niz is saying that memory survives death? Not especially believing in reincarnation, if I nonetheless try to rationalize this, I might say that the memes that obsessed one during their life continue on despite the death of the body, being recirculated and digested by the society as a whole, so that any living being could 'resonate' with those same memes at any time. But on first read, memory-surviving-death sounds like memories are not a result of the plasticity of neurons, and exist outside of the body. I'm having trouble digesting it. This makes sense to me. But the initial question is more about the nature and boundaries of Awareness. On the one hand it is claimed that Awareness is something on which all else appears, including individual body-minds. There is just one, and multiple individuated 'manifestations.' On the other hand, awareness is seen as just a function of a living being. Living beings share the same type of of awareness but it is fundamentally separate. I'm not seeing how this question is answerable. Perhaps with a unity experience it will be seen through or dissolve or be seen as misconceived. For me, I believe the question is just a representation of doubt. So everything is reduced to neurons? Memory being stored on a "server" outside the body is no more far-fetched than having psychic intuitions or remote viewing (information passing beyond the locality of the body). The reductionist endeavor of reducing A to B doesn't work at a purely phenomenological (qualia) level. Memory is what it is within the realm of experience. We relate to it and experience it directly. Where memories are stored is ultimately a Mystery. We can only burden the mind with conceptual assumptions on the matter. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2013 9:29:17 GMT -5
So Niz is saying that memory survives death? Not especially believing in reincarnation, if I nonetheless try to rationalize this, I might say that the memes that obsessed one during their life continue on despite the death of the body, being recirculated and digested by the society as a whole, so that any living being could 'resonate' with those same memes at any time. But on first read, memory-surviving-death sounds like memories are not a result of the plasticity of neurons, and exist outside of the body. I'm having trouble digesting it. This makes sense to me. But the initial question is more about the nature and boundaries of Awareness. On the one hand it is claimed that Awareness is something on which all else appears, including individual body-minds. There is just one, and multiple individuated 'manifestations.' On the other hand, awareness is seen as just a function of a living being. Living beings share the same type of of awareness but it is fundamentally separate. I'm not seeing how this question is answerable. Perhaps with a unity experience it will be seen through or dissolve or be seen as misconceived. For me, I believe the question is just a representation of doubt. So everything is reduced to neurons? Not sure about 'everything.' Agreed. I'm a total novice on cognitive neuroscience, more so than with nondualism, at this point. Didn't Dr. Penrose stimulate the recollection of memory by zapping various areas of the brain? prefrontal cortex and hippocampus blah blah. I'm not willing to say it's a Mystery yet. There're tons of folks working on it. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 3, 2013 10:07:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 3, 2013 22:41:47 GMT -5
Hi Maxprophet, Reading your initial post I am reminded of the explanation given by Niz. He talks about memory surviving what's regarded as our death here. If there are desires contained therein connected with life, they incarnate again. The implications of that for the question you pose is that we each have a different starting point reflecting the variations in the memory we bring with us which affects how we see and interact with the world. So Niz is saying that memory survives death? Not especially believing in reincarnation, if I nonetheless try to rationalize this, I might say that the memes that obsessed one during their life continue on despite the death of the body, being recirculated and digested by the society as a whole, so that any living being could 'resonate' with those same memes at any time. But on first read, memory-surviving-death sounds like memories are not a result of the plasticity of neurons, and exist outside of the body. I'm having trouble digesting it. I'm not a Niz expert but to say that desire survives death is not the same as saying memory survives death. Desire is a feeling that is given shape and satisfaction in the stories we write about what conditions would satisfy that desire, but this is already one step removed from desire itself. I can see one responding to a desire by becoming a tyrant, and another responding to the same desire by becoming a rock star. The memories relating to that desire will be very different. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 4, 2013 0:07:17 GMT -5
So Niz is saying that memory survives death? Not especially believing in reincarnation, if I nonetheless try to rationalize this, I might say that the memes that obsessed one during their life continue on despite the death of the body, being recirculated and digested by the society as a whole, so that any living being could 'resonate' with those same memes at any time. But on first read, memory-surviving-death sounds like memories are not a result of the plasticity of neurons, and exist outside of the body. I'm having trouble digesting it. This makes sense to me. But the initial question is more about the nature and boundaries of Awareness. On the one hand it is claimed that Awareness is something on which all else appears, including individual body-minds. There is just one, and multiple individuated 'manifestations.' On the other hand, awareness is seen as just a function of a living being. Living beings share the same type of of awareness but it is fundamentally separate. I'm not seeing how this question is answerable. Perhaps with a unity experience it will be seen through or dissolve or be seen as misconceived. For me, I believe the question is just a representation of doubt. So everything is reduced to neurons? Memory being stored on a "server" outside the body is no more far-fetched than having psychic intuitions or remote viewing (information passing beyond the locality of the body). The reductionist endeavor of reducing A to B doesn't work at a purely phenomenological (qualia) level. Memory is what it is within the realm of experience. We relate to it and experience it directly. Where memories are stored is ultimately a Mystery. We can only burden the mind with conceptual assumptions on the matter. Dear Dude/Dudette, If we could see memory as a mere vantage point and not something that is similar to stored data on a physical HDD then it's not a far stretch to see how memory indeed 'survives' death. In the same sense that thoughts don't have owners and are accessible by just anyone/anything that is able to tune into it, memory also has no owner and is accessible by just anyone/anything that is able to tune into it. If we put it into a LOA framework then we can see how retrieving certain memories or not being able to remember works. edit: that would also explain how one can talk to dead pharaohs and do time travel. Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize |
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jun 4, 2013 1:15:11 GMT -5
Hi maxprophet,
Do you know of some stuff about mind being regarded as separate from the brain using it as a monitor of the condition of the organism and its external environment?
Anyway whether that is so or not we can reflect on how it actually feels in our own bodies. For me it feels like mind monitors how the body is feeling in interaction with the external environment and tries to solve any discomfort that may arise. First it looks into the brains memory files to see if the problem has been encountered before and applies that, otherwise gathers data externally in the hope of finding a solution. For example in the area of personal relationships, it tries out various things by adjusting the way I relate to my wife for instance (none of which work, only joking darling) and continues to monitor the effect and adjust. If mind asks itself what its function is, that's what it comes up with in my case, how about you:)
Awareness seems to be always present but feels like it has two states, focused or unfocused as in the following:-
"In the 60's we used the term "Goofing out" at least we did here in Wales. You'd be driving along and would become suddenly aware that you were 20 miles up the road with no memory or awareness of those intervening miles or your existence during them. Yet the car had covered the distance with presumably you turning the wheel this way or that, braking occasionally and reaching for the spliff. Is awareness therefore never absent and not dependent on whether you are present or not? It seems like it is in which case there is no such thing as the absence of awareness"
What do you think?
amit
|
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jun 4, 2013 1:28:19 GMT -5
Hi maxprophet,
PS: From a nondual perspective, mind does not seem like it is part of the illusion of difference but rather that which creates the manifestation by its adjustments to what appears. In this sense the illusion of difference is Mind, like a projector able to constantly change the nature of the movie being projected. Each that appears would have this going on, interacting, often competitively, with all around it. A rock would be mind rocking.
amit
|
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jun 4, 2013 1:32:16 GMT -5
Hi enigma,
If I remember correctly, Niz refers to desires being contained in memory along with coping mechanisms to achieve them.
amit
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2013 11:29:59 GMT -5
|
|
