Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2016 1:56:47 GMT -5
Depends on what you mean by problem. I follow the logic but I don't buy the premise, and it also isn't really applicable to the text that it was in response to. This 2nd point about applicability being a narrow legalistic one, but important in this instance because of how it changes the meaning of that text and radically so. I don't think you're sensitive to how what you wrote did that and I'll be glad to explain exactly what I mean by it but only if you express interest. I didn't respond to it that way, this much is true, I took it seriously. My interest was in the idea that the ugliness of what lolz portrayed was in the eye of the beholder. I'm not and haven't yet neglected the factor of subjectivity, but my interest has been on the possible objective consensus on this point. I'm pretty sure that lolz would agree that what he was portraying was ugly, and all you have to do to make the leap to calling lolz ugly from there is to put yourself in the shoes of the one so portrayed by what lolz wrote. But in order to hang with me in that dialog you'd really have to read this latest version of the portrayal, as it's definitely ratcheted up a few notches from the one's you say you've read previously. Now you see, I don't see a problem in any of this, all the way around the table, and I think I already made that clear in terms of what I wrote to lolz directly. In fact, he did say it looked ugly to him too, though that was while he was claiming to be mirroring or non-zen sticking or something. I don't buy the mirroring and so I don't differentiate between the words and the attitude of the speaker of them. Mostly, there's too much history to say those words aren't an expression of his evolving attitude. It's worth considering that it was satire. The tone of it revealed that it wasn't his usual expression. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2016 3:49:16 GMT -5
By experience I was referencing something that happens in the time/space framework. Samadhi is an experience. The person goes into Samadhi and then comes out of Samadhi. While it can seem like there is 'no person' in Samadhi, the mind state of Samadhi belongs to the personal self. It is a mind state absent thought, but not absent perceptions which are, personal. If it "seems" like there is no person in samadhi, that's because there is no person in samadhi, because that's how it seems. If something seems to be a certain way that's because it is, otherwise why have the thought that it "seems" to be this way or that way at all. If something didn't seem to be a certain way then you wouldn't think it. But now, as a person who is not in samadhi at this moment, you say that it seems like you weren't there. At the time of being in samadhi (which is actually outside of time because it is free of thoughts and thoughts only happen in time) it would not have been possible to have the thought that you weren't there because samadhi is without thoughts. But now that you once more identify yourself as a person, you look back to what appeared to be an absence of you as a person. But you are saying that it "seemed" like there was no person because you identify yourself as a person. For you, the person is what is real. The idea of no person contradicts the reality of what you take yourself to be which is a person, therefore you are forced to come to the conclusion that it only seemed like there was no person. But what was aware of the absence of a person? It couldn't be you as a person because if you as a person were absent, there would no person to know of your own absence. So that means there must be something else which knows both the presence and absence of the person. The trouble starts because you mistakenly think you are the person who knows this. The answer that resolves this apparent paradox is that in reality there is no separation or difference between the person and the awareness from which it is projected. It is all one thing, or not two (Advaita). Making the mistake of seeing person, world and consciousness as separate is what is called ignorance. So when you say that there appears to be no person in samadhi, you are separating yourself from what you are which exists whether there is a person or not. And because you are already complete you are not changed or diminished by the presence or absence of the person. This can never be understood by the mind and writing about it and discussing it conceptually will make no difference. You can continue to discuss this topic in this forum for a million lifetimes and you will not be one inch closer to finding out what you are as long as you think you are a separate and limited person. The only way to be free of this illusion is to destroy the mind. That doesn't mean that thoughts don't arise again, rendering you incapable of tying your shoelaces or checking for traffic on the road before crossing. It means that once mind has dissolved into the Self you will never again feel that you are the mind or identify with it as a person. Yet the personal will continue to appear but there is no one who owns it. But telling someone that everything is Brahman (Consciousness), meaning there is no separation or difference between consciousness, mind and world, is of no use because you first have to see consciousness as separate from thought and perception in order to see that they are actually the same. Yes, it seems strange. When you kill the mind then what remains is just awareness. To become more and more established in that awareness is to loosen the bonds of attachment to objects. The separation will still be apparent until realization when the unmanifest and manifest realities collapses into one reality resulting in the realization that there is only one Self without a second. No differences. No separation. Yes, apparent differences and apparent separation of mountains and rivers and trees, but right here, right now, as one flow of life it is all Brahman and Brahman is in all things. It can only be realized directly, without mind, by jumping into the abyss and surrendering totally. |
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 26, 2016 4:45:39 GMT -5
Doesn't conscious discernment and rationale require some amount of effort? In fact, the rational function of mind will obscure what you're not conscious of. In the converse, yes, of course peeps express conditioned responses reflexively (so that they don't feel like an effort), and in some cases rational examination of that conditioning can be enlightening. Interesting statement. If "conscious discernment" isn't "always rational", does that mean that " conscious discernment" can be irrational? And what would rational "discernment" be like, for example? If there is such a thing? IOW, your statement, expressed in common-sense language, rhyms with... bores hit. Go figure... |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Aug 26, 2016 4:48:26 GMT -5
By experience I was referencing something that happens in the time/space framework. Samadhi is an experience. The person goes into Samadhi and then comes out of Samadhi. While it can seem like there is 'no person' in Samadhi, the mind state of Samadhi belongs to the personal self. It is a mind state absent thought, but not absent perceptions which are, personal. If something didn't seem to be a certain way then you wouldn't think it. But now, as a person who is not in samadhi at this moment, you say that it seems like you weren't there. At the time of being in samadhi (which is actually outside of time because it is free of thoughts and thoughts only happen in time) it would not have been possible to have the thought that you weren't there because samadhi is without thoughts. But now that you once more identify yourself as a person, you look back to what appeared to be an absence of you as a person. But you are saying that it "seemed" like there was no person because you identify yourself as a person. For you, the person is what is real. The idea of no person contradicts the reality of what you take yourself to be which is a person, therefore you are forced to come to the conclusion that it only seemed like there was no person. But what was aware of the absence of a person? It couldn't be you as a person because if you as a person were absent, there would no person to know of your own absence. So that means there must be something else which knows both the presence and absence of the person. The trouble starts because you mistakenly think you are the person who knows this. The answer that resolves this apparent paradox is that in reality there is no separation or difference between the person and the awareness from which it is projected. It is all one thing, or not two (Advaita). Making the mistake of seeing person, world and consciousness as separate is what is called ignorance. So when you say that there appears to be no person in samadhi, you are separating yourself from what you are which exists whether there is a person or not. And because you are already complete you are not changed or diminished by the presence or absence of the person. This can never be understood by the mind and writing about it and discussing it conceptually will make no difference. You can continue to discuss this topic in this forum for a million lifetimes and you will not be one inch closer to finding out what you are as long as you think you are a separate and limited person. The only way to be free of this illusion is to destroy the mind. That doesn't mean that thoughts don't arise again, rendering you incapable of tying your shoelaces or checking for traffic on the road before crossing. It means that once mind has dissolved into the Self you will never again feel that you are the mind or identify with it as a person. Yet the personal will continue to appear but there is no one who owns it. But telling someone that everything is Brahman (Consciousness), meaning there is no separation or difference between consciousness, mind and world, is of no use because you first have to see consciousness as separate from thought and perception in order to see that they are actually the same. Yes, it seems strange. When you kill the mind then what remains is just awareness. To become more and more established in that awareness is to loosen the bonds of attachment to objects. The separation will still be apparent until realization when the unmanifest and manifest realities collapses into one reality resulting in the realization that there is only one Self without a second. No differences. No separation. Yes, apparent differences and apparent separation of mountains and rivers and trees, but right here, right now, as one flow of life it is all Brahman and Brahman is in all things. It can only be realized directly, without mind, by jumping into the abyss and surrendering totally. If it seems like consciousness is a person in waking life, that doesn't mean consciousness is actually a person. It just seems that way. The logic is faulty.
I say Samadhi is a personal experience because you can reflect upon its occurrence in the framework within which all experiences take place (time and space). One day I went into samadhi and didn't have a thought for 6 hours. I was still apparently perceiving things through the same body and instrument I perceive with now. I wasn't using the mind to differentiate and life had a very groovy oneness feel to it, an aliveness that wasn't mind generated. Nevertheless, if there is still human perception, there is room for personal experience. Memories still register in Samadhi. Otherwise it would just be a dumbed up state like a trance of hypnotic spell, or of course, a delusion.
Awareness transcends the experiential framework entirely (including a oneness experience or no mind or deep sleep). None of this implies you are actually a separate person.
|
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 26, 2016 5:34:21 GMT -5
If it "seems" like there is no person in samadhi, that's because there is no person in samadhi, because that's how it seems. If something seems to be a certain way that's because it is, otherwise why have the thought that it "seems" to be this way or that way at all. If something didn't seem to be a certain way then you wouldn't think it. But now, as a person who is not in samadhi at this moment, you say that it seems like you weren't there. At the time of being in samadhi (which is actually outside of time because it is free of thoughts and thoughts only happen in time) it would not have been possible to have the thought that you weren't there because samadhi is without thoughts. But now that you once more identify yourself as a person, you look back to what appeared to be an absence of you as a person. But you are saying that it "seemed" like there was no person because you identify yourself as a person. For you, the person is what is real. The idea of no person contradicts the reality of what you take yourself to be which is a person, therefore you are forced to come to the conclusion that it only seemed like there was no person. But what was aware of the absence of a person? It couldn't be you as a person because if you as a person were absent, there would no person to know of your own absence. So that means there must be something else which knows both the presence and absence of the person. The trouble starts because you mistakenly think you are the person who knows this. The answer that resolves this apparent paradox is that in reality there is no separation or difference between the person and the awareness from which it is projected. It is all one thing, or not two (Advaita). Making the mistake of seeing person, world and consciousness as separate is what is called ignorance. So when you say that there appears to be no person in samadhi, you are separating yourself from what you are which exists whether there is a person or not. And because you are already complete you are not changed or diminished by the presence or absence of the person. This can never be understood by the mind and writing about it and discussing it conceptually will make no difference. You can continue to discuss this topic in this forum for a million lifetimes and you will not be one inch closer to finding out what you are as long as you think you are a separate and limited person. The only way to be free of this illusion is to destroy the mind. That doesn't mean that thoughts don't arise again, rendering you incapable of tying your shoelaces or checking for traffic on the road before crossing. It means that once mind has dissolved into the Self you will never again feel that you are the mind or identify with it as a person. Yet the personal will continue to appear but there is no one who owns it. But telling someone that everything is Brahman (Consciousness), meaning there is no separation or difference between consciousness, mind and world, is of no use because you first have to see consciousness as separate from thought and perception in order to see that they are actually the same. Yes, it seems strange. When you kill the mind then what remains is just awareness. To become more and more established in that awareness is to loosen the bonds of attachment to objects. The separation will still be apparent until realization when the unmanifest and manifest realities collapses into one reality resulting in the realization that there is only one Self without a second. No differences. No separation. Yes, apparent differences and apparent separation of mountains and rivers and trees, but right here, right now, as one flow of life it is all Brahman and Brahman is in all things. It can only be realized directly, without mind, by jumping into the abyss and surrendering totally. If it seems like consciousness is a person in waking life, that doesn't mean consciousness is actually a person. It just seems that way. The logic is faulty.
I say Samadhi is a personal experience because you can reflect upon its occurrence in the framework within which all experiences take place (time and space). One day I went into samadhi and didn't have a thought for 6 hours. I was still apparently perceiving things through the same body and instrument I perceive with now. I wasn't using the mind to differentiate and life had a very groovy oneness feel to it, an aliveness that wasn't mind generated. Nevertheless, if there is still human perception, there is room for personal experience. Memories still register in Samadhi. Otherwise it would just be a dumbed up state like a trance of hypnotic spell, or of course, a delusion.
Awareness transcends the experiential framework entirely (including a oneness experience or no mind or deep sleep). None of this implies you are actually a separate person.
If "samadhi" is not permanent, it's not ananda. That been said, Pre.... ...go figure... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2016 5:36:49 GMT -5
If it seems like consciousness is a person in waking life, that doesn't mean consciousness is actually a person. It just seems that way. The logic is faulty. Logic is for mathematicians and philosophers, not spiritual seekers. Which are you? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2016 5:59:36 GMT -5
By experience I was referencing something that happens in the time/space framework. Samadhi is an experience. The person goes into Samadhi and then comes out of Samadhi. While it can seem like there is 'no person' in Samadhi, the mind state of Samadhi belongs to the personal self. It is a mind state absent thought, but not absent perceptions which are, personal. If it "seems" like there is no person in samadhi, that's because there is no person in samadhi, because that's how it seems. If something seems to be a certain way that's because it is, otherwise why have the thought that it "seems" to be this way or that way at all. If something didn't seem to be a certain way then you wouldn't think it. But now, as a person who is not in samadhi at this moment, you say that it seems like you weren't there. At the time of being in samadhi (which is actually outside of time because it is free of thoughts and thoughts only happen in time) it would not have been possible to have the thought that you weren't there because samadhi is without thoughts. But now that you once more identify yourself as a person, you look back to what appeared to be an absence of you as a person. But you are saying that it "seemed" like there was no person because you identify yourself as a person. For you, the person is what is real. The idea of no person contradicts the reality of what you take yourself to be which is a person, therefore you are forced to come to the conclusion that it only seemed like there was no person. But what was aware of the absence of a person? It couldn't be you as a person because if you as a person were absent, there would no person to know of your own absence. So that means there must be something else which knows both the presence and absence of the person. The trouble starts because you mistakenly think you are the person who knows this. The answer that resolves this apparent paradox is that in reality there is no separation or difference between the person and the awareness from which it is projected. It is all one thing, or not two (Advaita). Making the mistake of seeing person, world and consciousness as separate is what is called ignorance. So when you say that there appears to be no person in samadhi, you are separating yourself from what you are which exists whether there is a person or not. And because you are already complete you are not changed or diminished by the presence or absence of the person. This can never be understood by the mind and writing about it and discussing it conceptually will make no difference. You can continue to discuss this topic in this forum for a million lifetimes and you will not be one inch closer to finding out what you are as long as you think you are a separate and limited person. The only way to be free of this illusion is to destroy the mind. That doesn't mean that thoughts don't arise again, rendering you incapable of tying your shoelaces or checking for traffic on the road before crossing. It means that once mind has dissolved into the Self you will never again feel that you are the mind or identify with it as a person. Yet the personal will continue to appear but there is no one who owns it. But telling someone that everything is Brahman (Consciousness), meaning there is no separation or difference between consciousness, mind and world, is of no use because you first have to see consciousness as separate from thought and perception in order to see that they are actually the same. Yes, it seems strange. When you kill the mind then what remains is just awareness. To become more and more established in that awareness is to loosen the bonds of attachment to objects. The separation will still be apparent until realization when the unmanifest and manifest realities collapses into one reality resulting in the realization that there is only one Self without a second. No differences. No separation. Yes, apparent differences and apparent separation of mountains and rivers and trees, but right here, right now, as one flow of life it is all Brahman and Brahman is in all things. It can only be realized directly, without mind, by jumping into the abyss and surrendering totally.Look, I know that you're not going to answer this though I'll write it anyway. I wondered what you did following the writing of this sentence.. ..because for me, personally, it was just instructive. IOW it was written by a man that is still feeling his way through the language of this, and who has a need to make summary's like, the one above, at least every few weeks. |
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 26, 2016 6:02:24 GMT -5
If it "seems" like there is no person in samadhi, that's because there is no person in samadhi, because that's how it seems. If something seems to be a certain way that's because it is, otherwise why have the thought that it "seems" to be this way or that way at all. If something didn't seem to be a certain way then you wouldn't think it. But now, as a person who is not in samadhi at this moment, you say that it seems like you weren't there. At the time of being in samadhi (which is actually outside of time because it is free of thoughts and thoughts only happen in time) it would not have been possible to have the thought that you weren't there because samadhi is without thoughts. But now that you once more identify yourself as a person, you look back to what appeared to be an absence of you as a person. But you are saying that it "seemed" like there was no person because you identify yourself as a person. For you, the person is what is real. The idea of no person contradicts the reality of what you take yourself to be which is a person, therefore you are forced to come to the conclusion that it only seemed like there was no person. But what was aware of the absence of a person? It couldn't be you as a person because if you as a person were absent, there would no person to know of your own absence. So that means there must be something else which knows both the presence and absence of the person. The trouble starts because you mistakenly think you are the person who knows this. The answer that resolves this apparent paradox is that in reality there is no separation or difference between the person and the awareness from which it is projected. It is all one thing, or not two (Advaita). Making the mistake of seeing person, world and consciousness as separate is what is called ignorance. So when you say that there appears to be no person in samadhi, you are separating yourself from what you are which exists whether there is a person or not. And because you are already complete you are not changed or diminished by the presence or absence of the person. This can never be understood by the mind and writing about it and discussing it conceptually will make no difference. You can continue to discuss this topic in this forum for a million lifetimes and you will not be one inch closer to finding out what you are as long as you think you are a separate and limited person. The only way to be free of this illusion is to destroy the mind. That doesn't mean that thoughts don't arise again, rendering you incapable of tying your shoelaces or checking for traffic on the road before crossing. It means that once mind has dissolved into the Self you will never again feel that you are the mind or identify with it as a person. Yet the personal will continue to appear but there is no one who owns it. But telling someone that everything is Brahman (Consciousness), meaning there is no separation or difference between consciousness, mind and world, is of no use because you first have to see consciousness as separate from thought and perception in order to see that they are actually the same. Yes, it seems strange. When you kill the mind then what remains is just awareness. To become more and more established in that awareness is to loosen the bonds of attachment to objects. The separation will still be apparent until realization when the unmanifest and manifest realities collapses into one reality resulting in the realization that there is only one Self without a second. No differences. No separation. Yes, apparent differences and apparent separation of mountains and rivers and trees, but right here, right now, as one flow of life it is all Brahman and Brahman is in all things. It can only be realized directly, without mind, by jumping into the abyss and surrendering totally.Look, I know that you're not going to answer this though I'll write it anyway. I wondered what you did following the writing of this sentence.. ..because for me, personally, it was just instructive. IOW it was written by a man that is still feeling his way through the language of this, and who has a need to make summary's like, the one above, at least every few weeks. Someone's gotta do the dirty work, Bakk. "All is vain..." (Friedrich Nietzsche) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2016 6:18:29 GMT -5
Look, I know that you're not going to answer this though I'll write it anyway. I wondered what you did following the writing of this sentence.. ..because for me, personally, it was just instructive. IOW it was written by a man that is still feeling his way through the language of this, and who has a need to make summary's like, the one above, at least every few weeks. Someone's gotta do the dirty work, Bakk. "All is vain..." (Friedrich Nietzsche) All, is more likely to be love's evolution. Misquoting Nietzsche qualifies as devolution. |
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 26, 2016 6:25:16 GMT -5
Someone's gotta do the dirty work, Bakk. "All is vain..." (Friedrich Nietzsche) All, is more likely to be love's evolution. Misquoting Nietzsche qualifies as devolution. If you want to correct me, please quote it right instead of .... That would be somethin'.... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2016 6:28:46 GMT -5
All, is more likely to be love's evolution. Misquoting Nietzsche qualifies as devolution. If you want to correct me, please quote it right instead of .... That would be somethin'.... There is no correct quote of it, that's what a misquote is. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Aug 26, 2016 7:06:30 GMT -5
Doesn't conscious discernment and rationale require some amount of effort? Are you serial?  Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Aug 26, 2016 7:09:41 GMT -5
First she mistakenly thought I may be asking her for help or that I was teaching her. Then she mistakenly thought that I was shifting to generalities, and proceeded to show that my previous comments were personal. Then she mistakenly thought I was was saying it's hard for me to be agreeable. Then she mistakenly concluded that I was insisting my a$$essment of her emotional state trumps hers. Then she expressed her concern about labeling and level playing fields and positioning oneself as superior. (referring to me) There is a subtext to all of that, and I don't know if that's the 'good faith' reading you are looking for or not. There is a literal interpretation and then there is my perception of WIBIGO. Yea that's not what I would call a 'good faith' reading. Do you think she could read that and say 'oh yea that's pretty much what I was thinking'? Oh well. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Aug 26, 2016 7:28:43 GMT -5
here#1 ...Well the 'ugliness is in the eye of the beholder' comment is a riff off its beauty cousin. And to deem one ugly in an effortless way also implies that there was no conscious rationale behind the judgement, which would mean that it is unconscious. In general, do you see the logic there? This post could be labeled a puerile poke from one prone to immaturity. here#2 ...I had gotten a gist of what Lolly had written previously concerning power dynamics and communication but was not up to speed on what he had written recently. When I said "I haven't been following carefully" I was referring to not being well-read on the the entirety of what he wrote. Then I summarized the gist I had gleaned from previous writings. here#3 ...I hadn't read that til just now. Seems level-headed to me. So what is the problem? Depends on what you mean by problem. I follow the logic but I don't buy the premise, and it also isn't really applicable to the text that it was in response to. This 2nd point about applicability being a narrow legalistic one, but important in this instance because of how it changes the meaning of that text and radically so. I don't think you're sensitive to how what you wrote did that and I'll be glad to explain exactly what I mean by it but only if you express interest. I didn't respond to it that way, this much is true, I took it seriously. My interest was in the idea that the ugliness of what lolz portrayed was in the eye of the beholder. I'm not and haven't yet neglected the factor of subjectivity, but my interest has been on the possible objective consensus on this point. I'm pretty sure that lolz would agree that what he was portraying was ugly, and all you have to do to make the leap to calling lolz ugly from there is to put yourself in the shoes of the one so portrayed by what lolz wrote. But in order to hang with me in that dialog you'd really have to read this latest version of the portrayal, as it's definitely ratcheted up a few notches from the one's you say you've read previously. Now you see, I don't see a problem in any of this, all the way around the table, and I think I already made that clear in terms of what I wrote to lolz directly. I definitely agree that I was not sensitive to its applicable implications. I was just having #funwithlogic using some of the popular concepts I've picked up around here -- effortless, conscious/unconscious. But now I'm an angry villager!  Can't wait to use my pitchfork on some monster a$$. My curiosity is also piqued with respect to Lolly's crimes. Seems like he really ruffled some feathers. And if Lolly agrees that what he said is ugly (mirroring or not) then that pretty much makes my pitchfork into a pitchspoon. Drat! BTW, I seldom see the mirroring strategery working. The receiver of the reflection needs to be open and generous for it to work cuz the reflection is almost always heavily tarnished, embellished, and exaggerated. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Aug 26, 2016 7:30:15 GMT -5
If it seems like consciousness is a person in waking life, that doesn't mean consciousness is actually a person. It just seems that way. The logic is faulty. Logic is for mathematicians and philosophers, not spiritual seekers. Which are you? You're going to lose with that line. Logic is something we all use to communicate. |
|
Can't wait to use my pitchfork on some monster a$$.