Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2014 11:34:26 GMT -5
In an experiential sense. I never experience the millions of perceptions that make up the concept of a body as a unified experience. In one moment I might experience a feeling, in the next a sound, in the next a sight. It's thought that fills in all the missing perceptions and imagines a body. I thought we were talking about awareness of the body. Why are you talking about millions of perceptions and unified experience? You are aware of your body. Arms, legs, head, that sort of thing. In this moment, are you aware of all your body parts at once? Of course not. If you are experiencing your head(sensation) then you are not experiencing your feet(sensation). You never actually experience a 'body', just sensations. That was the whole point of sdp's koan. 'What are you not experiencing the non-absence of'? You are not experiencing a body, even though you believe you are a body. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 21, 2014 12:00:52 GMT -5
The simplest explanation for coordinated experience between others is that there is an external world. It's simpler to assume there is a red light out there stopping traffic one way to allow the traffic moving the other way to pass without accident, than to assume there is some unified mind that it's all happening. It's easier to assume that laughter is really out there in the real world typing on a computer connected to the internet, and likewise, empty, enigma, rupa and everybody else. Our representations are quite accurate concerning what's out there. sdp The simplest explanation for water appearing on the horizon in the desert is that there is water there, but it may not be the correct one. Then someone walking across the horizon in the desert would be walking on face value water...  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 21, 2014 12:05:44 GMT -5
Don't ask me pal. Those were your words about sensory perception as undifferentiated from thought in mind: Backpedal a bit faster perhaps. btw, the only straw man in this conversation so far was yours: Where, exactly, did I write anything of the sort?  Dude, this speaks for itself. It's tempting to replace the idea of a shared objective physical reality with this: ... but "unified mind" in which subjective physicality appears is just another theory, another framework, another story about your experience. And it's bullsh!t. There is no theory, no explanation, no model, that reconciles the commonality of our experience. Not one that doesn't resort to mysticism and speculation anyway. You're embarrassing yourself. You used that "lazy turn of phrase" at least 5 times in the dialog: === (** yaaaaawwwwwwnnnn **) Dude, collect your thoughts and get them straight. First admit that you're daydreaming about a flawed model. Within that context, the idea of mind as movement can be interesting and useful, but not if you take the model so seriously that you forget that it's just a play of ideas. When you don't differentiate between the senses and what's derived from them then it makes sense to start speaking in terms of information. In order to keep "It's all mind" (no capital 'M', mind you) from devolving into a speewitchual thumb-sucking fest it's important to keep things rational, and that means that what we're either saying "it's all information" or we're drawing pictures of angels, demons and unicorns and might even entertain the self-delusion that we're some sort of creator or savior. No, it's not a straw man, because I didn't put those words about "it's all one Mind" in your mouth, you wrote them. You want to model the commonality of experience. That's fine. I say it can't be done without resorting to mythology, or, at the very least, speculation. This debate perfectly illustrates my frustration with mystical, unitive ideas of some absolute singular mind. It's not all one I tell ya! Nonduality is a profound pointer and when a writer has an experiential reference for the failure of ideas to capture the meaning of it, then what they write is free of self-referential theoretical structures and can lead one to a sublime state of mind. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 21, 2014 12:09:59 GMT -5
Dude, this speaks for itself. It's tempting to replace the idea of a shared objective physical reality with this: ... but "unified mind" in which subjective physicality appears is just another theory, another framework, another story about your experience. And it's bullsh!t. There is no theory, no explanation, no model, that reconciles the commonality of our experience. Not one that doesn't resort to mysticism and speculation anyway. The simplest explanation for coordinated experience between others is that there is an external world. It's simpler to assume there is a red light out there stopping traffic one way to allow the traffic moving the other way to pass without accident, than to assume there is some unified mind that it's all happening. It's easier to assume that laughter is really out there in the real world typing on a computer connected to the internet, and likewise, empty, enigma, rupa and everybody else. Our representations are quite accurate concerning what's out there. sdp Yup. A prime example of how simpler isn't always betterer. Concensus reality is useful, for a certainty, but there are as many eye witness accounts of an event as there are pairs of eyes, and the concerted, collective, rational effort to codify the nature of the external, objective physical world was already done long ago and resulted in the contradiction of the assumption of it. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 21, 2014 12:18:50 GMT -5
Sensory perceptions being not significantly different types of appearances than any other kind of thought is not a supposition for me though. Very simply, sensory "perceptions" are distinguishable from "perceptions" that aren't sensory "perceptions", and the latter are derivative of both the former and the latter, while the former, aren't. You make the distinction for the purpose of blurring the lines between what's distinguished with a theory designed for the purpose of that blurring. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 21, 2014 12:22:11 GMT -5
The simplest explanation for coordinated experience between others is that there is an external world. It's simpler to assume there is a red light out there stopping traffic one way to allow the traffic moving the other way to pass without accident, than to assume there is some unified mind that it's all happening. It's easier to assume that laughter is really out there in the real world typing on a computer connected to the internet, and likewise, empty, enigma, rupa and everybody else. Our representations are quite accurate concerning what's out there. sdp Haha...the fly in that soup, is that upon actual investigation, everything that you perceive as going on 'out there', is really only going on 'in here' so to speak...and yet, oddly, we can directly mutually experience the appearances that only appear in our mind with others...which means that whats happening 'in here' is also happening 'out there'...and ALL OF IT, all appearances, appear the same way in each of us, as what we call a 'thought'. So pick your poison if you will, but 'in here' and 'out there' both happen the same way...in your mind. That there is no distinction between "out there" and "in here" doesn't have an explanation. Replacing objectivity with subjectivity ("it's all mind"), is just a belief swap, and it doesn't get rid of the problem of objectivity, it just turns it inside out. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 21, 2014 12:25:54 GMT -5
Appearances seems betterer to me than "it's all thought" as the latter strikes me as an item on the agenda to objectify the pointer of nonduality as "Mind". That said, appearances appear, which means that they appear to ... *something* ... so it's all in a context that's after the subject-object split. That's fine. We can collapse that split by making the object a movement of the subject. Then appearances appear in/as that in which they appear. The entanglement seems to confuse some folks and they get like cats swatting a hopelessly knotted length of twine, taking the reference to subject as something that they can get their claws into and rip apart. The mistake seems to be in thinking that appearances can offer anything but inferences about that subject rather than direct, describable and reasonable insight. |
|
|
|
Post by teetown on May 21, 2014 12:38:35 GMT -5
Dude, this speaks for itself. It's tempting to replace the idea of a shared objective physical reality with this: ... but "unified mind" in which subjective physicality appears is just another theory, another framework, another story about your experience. And it's bullsh!t. There is no theory, no explanation, no model, that reconciles the commonality of our experience. Not one that doesn't resort to mysticism and speculation anyway. The simplest explanation for coordinated experience between others is that there is an external world. It's simpler to assume there is a red light out there stopping traffic one way to allow the traffic moving the other way to pass without accident, than to assume there is some unified mind that it's all happening. It's easier to assume that laughter is really out there in the real world typing on a computer connected to the internet, and likewise, empty, enigma, rupa and everybody else. Our representations are quite accurate concerning what's out there. sdp Perhaps there's no need to take a position on it one way or another? Most of the teachers who suggest there's no justification for an "out there" still seem to function pretty well "as if" there was an "out there." Why is that? Are they just contradicting themselves? That's a koan for ya. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 21, 2014 12:40:39 GMT -5
This debate perfectly illustrates my frustration with mystical, unitive ideas of some absolute singular mind. It's not all one I tell ya! It IS all one, but 'unity' and 'Mind' are bad evil words.  ... c'mon now! deceptive, self-deceptive and benighted aren't necessarily " evil"! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 21, 2014 12:46:22 GMT -5
This is no longer a clue as the cat is out of the bag, but I earlier thought of this story which points to the answer, but didn't note it and happened to remember it again only last night. It's the story of the tenth man. Wu Wei Wu actually wrote a book with the title. Now, we can't imagine, when reading the story, that such a thing could happen, we would never make the same mistake, but it points to "that which is missing, isn't missed, when it is missing". Once there were ten men making a long wilderness trip. They came to a mighty rushing river that they had to cross. They decided to count their numbers on the other side to make sure everybody made it. When they had crossed, one man counted. He came up with only nine men. They were pretty worried that somebody didn't make it across, so another man counted. He also came up with nine. A third man counted and he too came up with only nine. Each man in turn counted and each man likewise came up with only nine. Where was the tenth man? sdp  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 21, 2014 12:55:57 GMT -5
In mustering the whole body and mind and seeing forms,
in mustering the whole body and mind and hearing sounds,
they are intimately perceived; but it is not like the reflection
in a mirror, nor like the moon in water, When one side
is realized, the other side is dark. (pg 31) If you see a mouse scurry across your kitchen floor one night it's a mistake not to think that it took all of creation to contrive the harried and startled *squeak!* that you hear. That sound is inseparable from all of time all of space, and any and all of the objects, past present and future that appear to you. It sure seems like the squeak isn't Beethoven's 9th, and it sure seems like the next State of the Union speech has no relation to the squeak, and that the squeak can be ignored and neglected and dismissed in terms of what the President will have to say. The operative word here is "seems". |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 21, 2014 12:57:50 GMT -5
This is no longer a clue as the cat is out of the bag, but I earlier thought of this story which points to the answer, but didn't note it and happened to remember it again only last night. It's the story of the tenth man. Wu Wei Wu actually wrote a book with the title. Now, we can't imagine, when reading the story, that such a thing could happen, we would never make the same mistake, but it points to "that which is missing, isn't missed, when it is missing". Once there were ten men making a long wilderness trip. They came to a mighty rushing river that they had to cross. They decided to count their numbers on the other side to make sure everybody made it. When they had crossed, one man counted. He came up with only nine men. They were pretty worried that somebody didn't make it across, so another man counted. He also came up with nine. A third man counted and he too came up with only nine. Each man in turn counted and each man likewise came up with only nine. Where was the tenth man? sdp the counter duh Not enough room on the ride! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2014 13:14:06 GMT -5
Not enough room on the ride!  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 21, 2014 13:16:52 GMT -5
This is actually very 'mind blowing' and is the basis for the film The Matrix. I saw this as a teenager It came out in '99 or are you referring to some different version that was copied maybe?? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 21, 2014 13:17:42 GMT -5
Not enough room on the ride!  |
|
