Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2012 7:41:49 GMT -5
I think I'm understanding some of the positions a little better now, thanks all.
It seems like one approach is to say that experience, appearances happening, what is, has to register somewhere. Everything changes but for that to be recognized there must be something (that is no-thing) that does not change. So then there are pointers like nonconceptual awareness, etc. This seems like a very common approach in the nondual world. The claim that some are aware during deep sleep (all the time) is an example -- there is awareness without experience.
And then there's another approach that says that all there is is experience. One of the qualities of experience may be the recognition of patterns. It is that pattern-recognition which is the basis for time, space, etc. Those conceptualizations of pattern recognition and experience is the foundation of duality.
Folks from the second approach are challenging folks from the first approach. They're saying that taking a position prior to experience is a bit haughty and deceptive.
Methinks that there is a point at which these two perspectives touch. Basically, it's all conceptualisation. The point is not to get bound up in that part and live fully.
edit: corrections welcome!
|
|
|
|
Post by question on May 24, 2012 8:14:26 GMT -5
Methinks that there is a point at which these two perspectives touch. Basically, it's all conceptualisation. What exactly is the conceptualization in the second approach? Remember, we're talking about direct experience. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2012 8:22:29 GMT -5
Methinks that there is a point at which these two perspectives touch. Basically, it's all conceptualisation. What exactly is the conceptualization in the second approach? Remember, we're talking about direct experience. For example, the qualia of patterning recognizing what might be pattern named 'time.' The direct experience of that pattern is not conceptualization, but the building of the concept of time and all the other concepts related to time. That's what i was thinking anyhoo. Are you saying that the experience of labeling and 'conceptualizing' is also qualia, direct experience? So, in fact, the concept of duality is completely imagined. There is nothing other than experience, and that includes the experience of imagining there is something other than experience? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 24, 2012 8:33:39 GMT -5
I think I'm understanding some of the positions a little better now, thanks all. It seems like one approach is to say that experience, appearances happening, what is, has to register somewhere. Everything changes but for that to be recognized there must be something (that is no-thing) that does not change. So then there are pointers like nonconceptual awareness, etc. This seems like a very common approach in the nondual world. The claim that some are aware during deep sleep (all the time) is an example -- there is awareness without experience. And then there's another approach that says that all there is is experience. One of the qualities of experience may be the recognition of patterns. It is that pattern-recognition which is the basis for time, space, etc. Those conceptualizations of pattern recognition and experience is the foundation of duality. Folks from the second approach are challenging folks from the first approach. They're saying that taking a position prior to experience is a bit haughty and deceptive. Methinks that there is a point at which these two perspectives touch. Basically, it's all conceptualisation. The point is not to get bound up in that part and live fully. edit: corrections welcome! Ironically, Im not very clear what you are saying here maxz. However, yes, I think taking a position prior to experiencing is deceptive because taking that position happens as part OF experiencing. I think maybe I am confused because I would not say there is a foundation of duality. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2012 8:53:10 GMT -5
I think I'm understanding some of the positions a little better now, thanks all. It seems like one approach is to say that experience, appearances happening, what is, has to register somewhere. Everything changes but for that to be recognized there must be something (that is no-thing) that does not change. So then there are pointers like nonconceptual awareness, etc. This seems like a very common approach in the nondual world. The claim that some are aware during deep sleep (all the time) is an example -- there is awareness without experience. And then there's another approach that says that all there is is experience. One of the qualities of experience may be the recognition of patterns. It is that pattern-recognition which is the basis for time, space, etc. Those conceptualizations of pattern recognition and experience is the foundation of duality. Folks from the second approach are challenging folks from the first approach. They're saying that taking a position prior to experience is a bit haughty and deceptive. Methinks that there is a point at which these two perspectives touch. Basically, it's all conceptualisation. The point is not to get bound up in that part and live fully. edit: corrections welcome! Ironically, Im not very clear what you are saying here maxz.  -- clarity is not my forté. Yea, I tripped up question there too. duality is just another concept that is experienced. Makes sense in the everything is experience approach. I don't see the positionless-position-prior-(but out of time)-to-experience as much different than other positions that I don't understand or have first hand knowledge or experience with. For example, folks that believe in God or pick-your-supernatural-thingy. What's the big deal? What's wrong with some folks saying that all experience is dualistic? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 24, 2012 9:21:03 GMT -5
Ironically, Im not very clear what you are saying here maxz. -- clarity is not my forté. Yea, I tripped up question there too. duality is just another concept that is experienced. Makes sense in the everything is experience approach. I don't see the positionless-position-prior-(but out of time)-to-experience as much different than other positions that I don't understand or have first hand knowledge or experience with. For example, folks that believe in God or pick-your-supernatural-thingy. What's the big deal? What's wrong with some folks saying that all experience is dualistic? Because if existence is singular, and all is one, and there is no separation....then experience cannot be dualistic. I have no issue with the idea of distinctions and difference, but I do take issue with the idea of opposites. Furthermore, if we think that experiencing is dualistic then we bind ourselves to negativity. We have a joyful day and think..'.here comes a miserable day'. Its extraordinarily limiting. With regard to the positioning thing, there are several aspects. The first is that in locating ourselves as some prior thing, we have to first conceptualize a prior thing in our minds and then think we are that. When we do this we are actually deeply abiding in mind. I may be wrong but I think this is basically what Question meant when he said he saw the difference between what E is pointing to and what ZD is pointing to. Im not gonna pretend I agree with all ZD says, but ZD does point very directly to non-abidance. E does not...E is pointing more to 'being conscious'. Its 2 different things. The other thing about this positioning thing is that there is quite a lot of dishonesty in it. All those who position themselves in this way point very clearly away from separation and delusion, and yet there is separation and delusion in the position. As a prior observer, life is experienced separately and from a distance (Porto illustrated that well yesterday). The delusion is in not understanding that the positioning is happening as part of the experiencing, and not understanding that positioning ourselves in that way requires identification with an abstract idea. I do acknowledge that I experience the illusion of duality, that I do experience a degree of separation, that I am somewhat deluded and possibly a bit mad. However, I get to experience good states/feelings pretty consistently because I am very immersed, and ironically I would say I experience less separation and less delusion than those who position themselves as prior observers. I dont consider my madness to be as mad as the madness of the reifiers. |
|
|
|
Post by figgy on May 24, 2012 9:48:42 GMT -5
I understand why that would make you a bit sad. It doesn't make me sad. I don't think Byron Katie 'thinks' her way out of feeling, its more the case that 'the work' is who/what she is. She is the work in action. Grief is currently part of the human experience, but because grief is about loss (and therefore about attachment to form), its not a given. Many people would say that love and loss go hand in hand, but I would say that loss is more about 'need' than it is about love, though just because we grieve doesn't mean that we DONT love those we are grieving for obviously. If you agree that immersion is the way forward, then it means getting off the riverbank and back in the river. Resonating like crazy with the series of posts you've made here.  Regarding the standing on the riverbank dealy; You've got it nailed. I think many get stuck here because it often represents their first recognition that they are able to stand apart from their own suffering and it's such a relief from that suffering that there is great fear that if they move into the actual river, they'll get swept away, back into pain. But, (and as you've so eloquently pointed out) what they don't realize is that the only place from which we CAN really accept is when immersed fully IN the flow of the river. To stand on the riverbank and say "I accept that bit in the river" is inaccurate and impossible. If I'm not fully IN that experience, I am essentially avoiding it. The very fact that I feel the need to stand on the bank to observe demonstrates a certain amount of resistance to it. Also, I very much agree that the idea that we MUST grieve and feel despair when someone dies is based upon attachment to form. In my experience, when someone we love dies, our realization of our love for them is intensified and magnified and if we can attune our focus towards this love rather than towards the sense of loss (which is more often than not based upon a projection into a future where we envision our loved one no longer being a part of our lives), that love paves the way for acceptance. I've found that Through the process of accepting that someone we love is no longer available to us in physical form, something that we may have previously thought we'd be unable to accept, we enter into a state of grace, where the universe more than meets our attenuation towards acceptance half way. Following my brother's death, (and still to this day) I'd be walking, silently and joyfully communing with him as all sorts of 'magical' things would take place; birds would swoop by and touch my cheek with their wing and other animals would appear and come unnaturally close, I'd hear my brother's voice describing a memento I'd find a few paces up on my path, and sure enough, there it would be. It really is as though through opening our heart to acceptance, we enter into a more fluid reality, where the laws we generally consider to be immutable are somewhat suspended. To make peace with something as monumental as the death of someone we love is to invite grace, harmony and flow. If we can find ourselves accepting and even embracing death, there's really nothing else that could send us back into unconsciousness, (which is really what suffering is all about). Funny, because I now almost look forward to the odd little niggle of emotional discord because I really do see it as an opportunity to accept...an invitation to go deeper into love. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 24, 2012 11:57:37 GMT -5
What you are doing is..... It is a nonsense. Why even to say it? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 24, 2012 12:00:22 GMT -5
It never occurred to me to create two types of joy. You have talked about joy and non-conceptual joy, and joy and non-dual joy, and joy and joy without the idea of joy. How many types is that? Ways of trying to point to joy without the ideas ABOUT joy. It doesn't mean there are different types of joy. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 24, 2012 12:12:52 GMT -5
I understand why that would make you a bit sad. It doesn't make me sad. I don't think Byron Katie 'thinks' her way out of feeling, its more the case that 'the work' is who/what she is. She is the work in action. Grief is currently part of the human experience, but because grief is about loss (and therefore about attachment to form), its not a given. Many people would say that love and loss go hand in hand, but I would say that loss is more about 'need' than it is about love, though just because we grieve doesn't mean that we DONT love those we are grieving for obviously. If you agree that immersion is the way forward, then it means getting off the riverbank and back in the river. Resonating like crazy with the series of posts you've made here. Regarding the standing on the riverbank dealy; You've got it nailed. I think many get stuck here because it often represents their first recognition that they are able to stand apart from their own suffering and it's such a relief from that suffering that there is great fear that if they move into the actual river, they'll get swept away, back into pain. But, (and as you've so eloquently pointed out) what they don't realize is that the only place from which we CAN really accept is when immersed fully IN the flow of the river. To stand on the riverbank and say "I accept that bit in the river" is inaccurate and impossible. If I'm not fully IN that experience, I am essentially avoiding it. The very fact that I feel the need to stand on the bank to observe demonstrates a certain amount of resistance to it. Also, I very much agree that the idea that we MUST grieve and feel despair when someone dies is based upon attachment to form. In my experience, when someone we love dies, our realization of our love for them is intensified and magnified and if we can attune our focus towards this love rather than towards the sense of loss (which is more often than not based upon a projection into a future where we envision our loved one no longer being a part of our lives), that love paves the way for acceptance. I've found that Through the process of accepting that someone we love is no longer available to us in physical form, something that we may have previously thought we'd be unable to accept, we enter into a state of grace, where the universe more than meets our attenuation towards acceptance half way. Following my brother's death, (and still to this day) I'd be walking, silently and joyfully communing with him as all sorts of 'magical' things would take place; birds would swoop by and touch my cheek with their wing and other animals would appear and come unnaturally close, I'd hear my brother's voice describing a memento I'd find a few paces up on my path, and sure enough, there it would be. It really is as though through opening our heart to acceptance, we enter into a more fluid reality, where the laws we generally consider to be immutable are somewhat suspended. To make peace with something as monumental as the death of someone we love is to invite grace, harmony and flow. If we can find ourselves accepting and even embracing death, there's really nothing else that could send us back into unconsciousness, (which is really what suffering is all about). Funny, because I now almost look forward to the odd little niggle of emotional discord because I really do see it as an opportunity to accept...an invitation to go deeper into love. That's really cool, I understand what you mean when you talk about communing with your brother in those ways, and I very much resonate with the idea of a 'fluid reality'. As you suggested, the old 'linear' laws do not apply to your experience any more, and I very much agree that acceptance is the key to this. I also agree with your first and second paragraphs. Getting out of the river is the first step, and is a relief if the mental suffering has been intense, but at some point, its time to get back in. In my case, I was somewhat...shoved back in! |
|
|
|
Post by figgy on May 24, 2012 12:29:31 GMT -5
That's really cool, I understand what you mean when you talk about communing with your brother in those ways, and I very much resonate with the idea of a 'fluid reality'. As you suggested, the old 'linear' laws do not apply to your experience any more, and I very much agree that acceptance is the key to this. I also agree with your first and second paragraphs. Getting out of the river is the first step, and is a relief if the mental suffering has been intense, but at some point, its time to get back in. In my case, I was somewhat...shoved back in! Mmmmm...now there's a topic that is worthy of really getting into; what is behind the impetus that moves us from a staid position on the riverbank, back into the flow of the river itself? I've referred to this re-engagement with the totality of being in the past as 'coming full circle' and it was generally NOT received well as it was percieved that I was saying something akin to: We return back to believing in the conceptual self. But nevertheless, a 'coming back to one' (albeit with clarity this time) is kind of how it seems to me; It seems if If we're suffering and are to become free from it, we generally first discover that we are able to stand apart from it in a place of insulation, but then there usually comes a point where either we no longer NEED the sense of insulation or as you say, we are pushed off that 'safe' ledge, back into the fray...(which may or may not actually be perceived as a 'fray' at that point. ) In short, Would love to hear all about you getting shoved back in! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 24, 2012 12:43:02 GMT -5
You have talked about joy and non-conceptual joy, and joy and non-dual joy, and joy and joy without the idea of joy. How many types is that? Ways of trying to point to joy without the ideas ABOUT joy. It doesn't mean there are different types of joy. I don't understand what you are talking about with all this 'ideas about joy' business. Joy is not a complicated thing. It seems to me that if you are trying to point to joy without the ideas about joy then you must be thinking that there is some kind of problem with joy. I don't see any problem at all with joy. Its just....joy. But then I don't think joy is tethered to some kind of negative state/emotion. If we are fluctuating between joy and misery then that would imply to me that there are some attachment/resistance issues....but joy itself is not a problem and is not somehow bound to misery. |
|
|
|
Post by living on May 24, 2012 12:50:58 GMT -5
That's really cool, I understand what you mean when you talk about communing with your brother in those ways, and I very much resonate with the idea of a 'fluid reality'. As you suggested, the old 'linear' laws do not apply to your experience any more, and I very much agree that acceptance is the key to this. I also agree with your first and second paragraphs. Getting out of the river is the first step, and is a relief if the mental suffering has been intense, but at some point, its time to get back in. In my case, I was somewhat...shoved back in! Mmmmm...now there's a topic that is worthy of really getting into; what is behind the impetus that moves us from a staid position on the riverbank, back into the flow of the river itself? I've referred to this re-engagement with the totality of being in the past as 'coming full circle' and it was generally NOT received well as it was percieved that I was saying something akin to: We return back to believing in the conceptual self. But nevertheless, a 'coming back to one' (albeit with clarity this time) is kind of how it seems to me; It seems if If we're suffering and are to become free from it, we generally first discover that we are able to stand apart from it in a place of insulation, but then there usually comes a point where either we no longer NEED the sense of insulation or as you say, we are pushed off that 'safe' ledge, back into the fray...(which may or may not actually be perceived as a 'fray' at that point. ) In short, Would love to hear all about you getting shoved back in! ;D figs, I feel this is a wonderful pointer to vulnerability as our primary exposure to the strength of what we are. Eventually we are willing enough to trust that the universe is a loving provider. I had the opportunity to experience this in a hospice situation with a loved one as the primary care giver. Fully engaged for 3 months. Sadness quickly became unconditional love, which then embraced a rock steady clarity. And then, in one ongoing moment, immense, unencumbered beauty speaking of the unspeakable, without words. As you mentioned earlier, there is no pain in a moment like this. Only love. Thank you for your presence here. |
|
|
|
Post by question on May 24, 2012 12:58:11 GMT -5
What exactly is the conceptualization in the second approach? Remember, we're talking about direct experience. For example, the qualia of patterning recognizing what might be pattern named 'time.' The direct experience of that pattern is not conceptualization, but the building of the concept of time and all the other concepts related to time. That's what i was thinking anyhoo. Are you saying that the experience of labeling and 'conceptualizing' is also qualia, direct experience? So, in fact, the concept of duality is completely imagined. There is nothing other than experience, and that includes the experience of imagining there is something other than experience? Yes, there isn't anything other than direct experience. Direct experience, now, presence, are all synonyms for the same thing. Duality, time, space, etc... you have to bring them to direct experience and see if they hold up. This is an empirical investigation. The authority of any empirical investigation is reality, which in our context is direct, alive and non-conceptual experience. When you have questions or ideas about reality then you have to bring them to reality to see whether these ideas are true or not. When you have ideas about reality that are structured so that no empirical investigation is possible then you're validating ideas by referring to other ideas, which means that your thinking is circular. |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on May 24, 2012 13:06:19 GMT -5
Thank you for your presence here. Seconded. Also appreciating your website. Reading what you have to say about Spiritual Ego just now... Welcome aboard. Peter |
|
-- clarity is not my forté.
