|
|
Post by Portto on Nov 18, 2009 9:20:49 GMT -5
I don't know about Souley, but the above post was very useful for me.
Thanks, ZD!
|
|
|
|
Post by lightmystic on Nov 18, 2009 11:09:35 GMT -5
ZD, much respect for breaking that down so clearly. I've been having trouble finding the time and patience for long posts lately, so it's very nice to have you do them.  (You might notice the average post length since I've been here has gotten much shorter on average). Anyway, just to add to what you said: As you say, the distinctions between things are just generated by the mind and have no inherent validity. In reality, everything extends to infinity. And not only that, but the mind itself, the thing itself which divides everything else is just as much that infinity as everything else. So even the idea of separation itself is not separate from anything else. Which is totally amazing if you ask me. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 18, 2009 11:40:41 GMT -5
Agreed. The whole blooming thing is amazing. I often look at what the body is doing (say, picking up a glass of water) and am struck by the strangeness of it all. I think it was Osho who once said that until one experiences strangeness, one hasn't even caught a glimpse of the truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by question on Nov 18, 2009 13:35:25 GMT -5
Imagine that the entire universe is an undifferentiated colorless solid piece of steel--an infinity of steel stretching in all directions without end. What could be said or thought about it? Nothing, because there would be no way to differentiate or distinguish any aspect of it from any of the rest of it. It would be undifferentiable and unimaginable. Now, imagine that you are part of that infinity of steel. You and the steel are one, and you and the steel are alive. This is analogous to our actual situation. Who we are is a unified but unimaginable field of being. In order to imagine that anything exists separately we have to imagine that we are separate from ourselves. We have to artificially divide ourselves into an observer and the observed. We have to make ourselves false to ourself by ignoring our true unity and focusing upon images, ideas, and symbols projected on the screen of our minds. I think I get this oneness thing. I mean, it's kinda obvious, and I don't know a single serious scientist who would think that the cosmos isn't a oneness. Even in the multiverse theory, the multiple universes are still one with the cosmos. It's like the cosmos is one unified field and all the differences that we see is this oneness playing with itself and in that play taking on all kinds of forms. In Gilles Deleuze's philosophy I discovered the interesting idea of the unified field taking on forms like a surface can make forms by folding itself upon itself: So let's say there is a simple fabric surface which is even, that would be like a vacuum. One tiny fold within it is like the higher energy state of maybe what we would call a physical particle. A slightly different fold, or maybe two folds, is an even higher energy state of a more complex particle. A bazillion different folds, vibrating and interacting with each other, could be some kind of a lifeform. When there is the appearance of a moving particle, it's not the particle that moves and it's not the underlying surface that moves, it's the fold of this surface that moves - the surface moves through itself in the form of a fold. The fold and the surface are one, there's no way of telling when the fold starts or ends. The surface is not a thing, it allows what we perceive as thingness, it allows matter, awareness, feelings, gravity etc. Obviously it's all a very crude analogy, but that's kind of how I visualize it. But what I really really don't understand is, why in nonduality consciousness, awareness, alive-ness are seen as being primary. I cognize consciousness as one cosmic activity of many. Sort of like a complex fold in the cosmic fabric. But I don't see how consciousness is supposed to be pimary, unless what you call consciosness isn't what I and contemporary science calls consciousness. I mean, only because I can't cognize anything without first being conscious doesn't mean that without consciousness there can't be anything. Do you and I use the word consciousness in different ways? Is it possible that what you call consciousness has nothing to do with consciousness in its historic, philosophical and scientific use? I'm cool with saying that Being is primary, but I always feel a "But...!" coming up in me when someone says that consciousness is primary. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 18, 2009 15:53:59 GMT -5
Question: I think you directed your post to me, but I'm not sure. First of all, I don;t remember writing that consciousness is primary, but I may have done so somewhere in an effort to point to some aspect of the truth. Several teachers like to say, "Consciousness is all there is," because they're pointing to the truth in a particular way (Ramesh Balsekar and Wayne Liquorman come to mind), but I only use that approach in a fairly limited way (to indicate that consciousness has not aged with the body--that the awareness of past events is the same as the awareness of present events, and that who we are is THAT which is aware). When I am simply looking around and not thinking, I am not even aware of awareness. I simply see "what is," and there is only seeingness. I don't even think about the seeing. When I am not thinking, everything is profoundly empty (or full, depending upon what words we want to use to point to it with).
Second, I don't know what "consciousness" is, in any strict intellectual sense, nor do I know what "being" is. From the standpoint of oneness, nothing can be intellectually known in any sense. Asking for a definition of consciousness is like asking, "What is a tree?" We know what the word is pointing to, but if we try to nail down the definition, the whole thing sort of dissolves. Are leaves necessary? How big must it be not to be considered a sapling or bush? Etc. Concepts are useful for many activities, but the boundaries are not real, so we can't push on them too hard or they start evaporating.
Third, and this may be the key factor in this discussion, I have very little interest in what I call "big abstractions" because I don't know what we're talking about, and I don't want to spend very much time thinking about it. "Socialism," "capitalism," "world peace," "consciousness", "time," "energy," "matter", etc. used to be important to me, but now I prefer to not-know. You could say that I am becoming profoundly stupid, and I would not take offense. I enjoy my present stupidity more than my past intellectualism. I enjoy my present not-knowing more than my past knowing. I'm not making fun of knowing because I enjoy reading about science and many other things, but my deeper interest lies in directly experiencing what cannot be intellectually known. I'm like those heavy-gravity animals in the science fiction story that run off toward the rainbow waterfalls of heavy metals leaping, somersaulting, rolling around, and exulting in a paradise beyond words and ideas. Do you grok this? As Rumi wrote (translated by Stephen Mitchell in "The Enlightened Heart"),
Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing,
there is a field. I'll meet you there.
When the soul lies down in that grass,
the world is too full to talk about.
Ideas, language, even the phrase 'each other'
doesn't make any sense.
Or this:
For years I pulled my own existence out of emptiness.
Then one swoop, one swing of the arm,
that work is over.
Free of who I was, free of presence, free of
dangerous fear, hope,
free of mountainous wanting.
The here-and-now mountain is a tiny piece of a piece
of straw
blown off into emptiness.
These words I'm saying so much begin to lose meaning:
Existence, emptiness, mountain, straw:
Words and what they try to say swept
out the window, down the slant of the roof.
It's hard to improve upon Rumi! Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by question on Nov 18, 2009 18:56:05 GMT -5
Zendancer, I apologize if I put words in your mouth. Yes, I've heard so many nonduality teachers say that consciousness always comes first, like nothing exists without consciousness and even inanimate objects in some way are part of a cosmic consciousness. Then I wondered how that can be, it's totally counterintuitive and contrary to contemporary science. So I figured that maybe this confusion is simply because words are used differently. Or that maybe they simply use it as an analogy or as a pointer. My intuition was always that even if there is consciousness, it's just one process of many and there's nothing special about it. And I honestly don't even know what consciousness is. One moment consciousness is supposed to be there and in another it's not there. But even when it's supposedly there, I don't see consciousness as such, only seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling etc in all their variations. And then I'm trying to find this consciousness, and I feel like that all I achieve by this, is simply isolate a weird idea that has no relation to reality at all. Ok enough for now, it's time to not know. |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Nov 18, 2009 19:09:04 GMT -5
We are a unified suchness that is always whole and complete. What is your experience, ZD: does oneness/suchness change? |
|
|
|
Post by dramos on Nov 18, 2009 19:44:37 GMT -5
ZD, much respect for breaking that down so clearly. I've been having trouble finding the time and patience for long posts lately, so it's very nice to have you do them. (You might notice the average post length since I've been here has gotten much shorter on average). Anyway, just to add to what you said: As you say, the distinctions between things are just generated by the mind and have no inherent validity. In reality, everything extends to infinity. And not only that, but the mind itself, the thing itself which divides everything else is just as much that infinity as everything else. So even the idea of separation itself is not separate from anything else. Which is totally amazing if you ask me. It is bewildering, this realization hit me a few days ago. Then I read ZD and LM's posting..... whoa .... good explanation guys. I was going to start a thread with "bewilderment" but wouldn't even know where to begin........... Just wanted to add this, it's one thing to "know" or "understand" but then to experience IT... |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 18, 2009 23:55:21 GMT -5
Porto: Does oneness change? Yes, tonight I changed clothes before taking my wife to dinner.
That probably isn't what you meant, but it illustrates the immediacy and simplicity of where I'm coming from.
Question: The reason various masters refer to inanimate objects as part of cosmic consciousness is because they see that there is no separation within "what is." They have a direct experience that Reality is unified and alive. If I am conscious, then everything is part of that field of consciousness. If oneness is alive, then all things are part of that aliveness. This is why some spiritual masters have said things like, "Every grain of sand is endlessly preaching the dharma." Sometimes they say those sorts of things to shock students into realization, but what they are saying is literally true. Alan Watts once wrote that if aliens landed on earth six billion years ago, they might have concluded that earth was a lifeless hunk of rock, but if they came back today, they would say, "Oh, we were wrong; this was a peopling rock."
Dramos: Yes, your last line captured the essence. Understanding becomes trivial in comparison to direct experience. One is cerebral, distant, and dead; the other is embodied, intimate, and alive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Nov 19, 2009 7:16:49 GMT -5
Porto: Does oneness change? Yes, tonight I changed clothes before taking my wife to dinner. That probably isn't what you meant, but it illustrates the immediacy and simplicity of where I'm coming from. I like that. Some teachers insist that oneness doesn't change. I guess they are trying to point to something. But what is "oneness" and what is "change"? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 19, 2009 9:15:50 GMT -5
Porto: Oneness is just our ordinary everyday life. This is how Reality manifests. Most spiritual seekers are searching for something special, and this causes them to overlook what is here and now.
This morning the Absolute is typing these words and periodically keeping an eye on the Baltic Dry Index on CNBC to see how that will affect the dry bulk shipping companies. Isn't that incredible? One click of a mouse and the Absolute might increase its ownership of a fleet of massive capesize ocean-going vessels carrying iron ore to China. In a few minutes the Absolute (It never knows for sure until it happens) may drive to a nearby store and buy two cartons of cokes for the office. LOL. What's the Absolute doing where you are?
|
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Nov 19, 2009 9:58:21 GMT -5
Porto: Oneness is just our ordinary everyday life. This is how Reality manifests. Most spiritual seekers are searching for something special, and this causes them to overlook what is here and now. Indeed, many times I get the impression that those who are not preoccupied with awakening are more awake than those struggling to find oneness. Or maybe they just have more peace. Creating assignments, grading papers, writing reports, talking for hours, writing for hours. Amazing stuff, coming from nowhere and going nowhere. |
|
|
|
Post by lightmystic on Nov 19, 2009 11:09:03 GMT -5
Consciousness extends out through Creation. There is no "end point" of Consciousness. The mind Creates end points for ideas and such, and so there can be the appearance of a separate world in which to interact in, but even those thoughts that divide ARE it. They appear within the same Awareness. When we identify with a individual, then we assume that our Consciousness is localized, and that closes us off to see anything that could not be experienced by a localized "person". When the realization is that we are not individualized, then our Consciousness is seen as the non-localized thing that it really is. And it extends outward to infinity. And there is no point in between any perception or conception that our Awareness does not permeate. Again, the mind may not grasp all of it, but it is all within our Awareness anyway. Eventually, the realization is that there is nothing separate, and nothing other than Consciousness. That means, in other words, that there is nothing separate than, or different from, the process of perceiving. All "objects" perceived, along with all "subjects" perceiving are actually just that same continuous, unbroken process of perception. And the very thing which makes them appear distinct - the mind (thoughts) - ARE that exact same process of perception. Do you see what I'm saying? If not, what is unclear? Imagine that the entire universe is an undifferentiated colorless solid piece of steel--an infinity of steel stretching in all directions without end. What could be said or thought about it? Nothing, because there would be no way to differentiate or distinguish any aspect of it from any of the rest of it. It would be undifferentiable and unimaginable. Now, imagine that you are part of that infinity of steel. You and the steel are one, and you and the steel are alive. This is analogous to our actual situation. Who we are is a unified but unimaginable field of being. In order to imagine that anything exists separately we have to imagine that we are separate from ourselves. We have to artificially divide ourselves into an observer and the observed. We have to make ourselves false to ourself by ignoring our true unity and focusing upon images, ideas, and symbols projected on the screen of our minds. I think I get this oneness thing. I mean, it's kinda obvious, and I don't know a single serious scientist who would think that the cosmos isn't a oneness. Even in the multiverse theory, the multiple universes are still one with the cosmos. It's like the cosmos is one unified field and all the differences that we see is this oneness playing with itself and in that play taking on all kinds of forms. In Gilles Deleuze's philosophy I discovered the interesting idea of the unified field taking on forms like a surface can make forms by folding itself upon itself: So let's say there is a simple fabric surface which is even, that would be like a vacuum. One tiny fold within it is like the higher energy state of maybe what we would call a physical particle. A slightly different fold, or maybe two folds, is an even higher energy state of a more complex particle. A bazillion different folds, vibrating and interacting with each other, could be some kind of a lifeform. When there is the appearance of a moving particle, it's not the particle that moves and it's not the underlying surface that moves, it's the fold of this surface that moves - the surface moves through itself in the form of a fold. The fold and the surface are one, there's no way of telling when the fold starts or ends. The surface is not a thing, it allows what we perceive as thingness, it allows matter, awareness, feelings, gravity etc. Obviously it's all a very crude analogy, but that's kind of how I visualize it. But what I really really don't understand is, why in nonduality consciousness, awareness, alive-ness are seen as being primary. I cognize consciousness as one cosmic activity of many. Sort of like a complex fold in the cosmic fabric. But I don't see how consciousness is supposed to be pimary, unless what you call consciosness isn't what I and contemporary science calls consciousness. I mean, only because I can't cognize anything without first being conscious doesn't mean that without consciousness there can't be anything. Do you and I use the word consciousness in different ways? Is it possible that what you call consciousness has nothing to do with consciousness in its historic, philosophical and scientific use? I'm cool with saying that Being is primary, but I always feel a "But...!" coming up in me when someone says that consciousness is primary. |
|
|
|
Post by lightmystic on Nov 19, 2009 11:15:21 GMT -5
Hehe, good stuff. Well, I think (and, at least, found for myself) that there is a great value to seeking as long as one is not feeling fundamentally fulfilled. No reason to resign oneself to feeling squished. But when the squish-ed-ness (new word) goes away, then there is nothing to do but be less squished. There is nothing to seek anymore. That doesn't mean that everything doesn't continue to progress, it just means that the progression continues in conjunction with the fundamental fulfillment of doneness. And the progression is just part of the everything that you are. Now, one may ask, if one is no longer squished, does that make one more squishy or less squishy? And that is a question I will have to leave to the philosophers. Porto: Oneness is just our ordinary everyday life. This is how Reality manifests. Most spiritual seekers are searching for something special, and this causes them to overlook what is here and now. Indeed, many times I get the impression that those who are not preoccupied with awakening are more awake than those struggling to find oneness. Or maybe they just have more peace. Creating assignments, grading papers, writing reports, talking for hours, writing for hours. Amazing stuff, coming from nowhere and going nowhere. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 19, 2009 11:28:56 GMT -5
Porto: Yes, spiritual seekers are existentially sick. It's a serious disease (dis ease), but the good news is that if they're lucky, they'll find the necessary medicine and get well. My wife once went on a Zen retreat with me, and she later commented that it was like being in a hospital ward.
Living in a good dream is undoubtedly more comfortable and far more peaceful than the discontent, frustration, or yearning that a seeker suffers from. However, I have never met anyone who has awaked who would want to go back to their prior dreamstate.
I was totally dissatisfied with what I was told about reality by my parents, teachers, church leaders, professors, and peers. I intuitively knew that "something was rotten in Denmark," and I was willing to give up everything to find the answers to my questions about life and reality. Today, despite the fact that my life is very ordinary, I wouldn't trade a billion dollars for what I discovered. I am always full of joy and gratitude for the gift of knowing who I am. I didn't deserve such a gift, but for some mysterious reason it appeared in this life. I look around and see the same world that other people see, but my understanding of it is radically different, and that makes all the difference. They think that they are human beings whereas I know that who I am is beyond imagination. They think that they were born and will eventually die. I know that I was here before the first human appeared and will be here after the last human has disappeared. They think that they live in a rational comprehensible universe whereas I live in a mystery. They think that God is "out there" somewhere whereas I live in the Presence of God at all times. What I found after searching for the truth is worth more than anything the world has to offer. That's why I encourage other people to search for it. Cheers.
|
|
(You might notice the average post length since I've been here has gotten much shorter on average).