|
Post by Gopal on Nov 3, 2018 2:44:55 GMT -5
Hi all, Pretty funny. Sounds like there some kind of witch hunt going on, which, if true, the search is still outward into the world of appearances. Ironic, Huh? Here's a hint. If it pertains to appearances, it's probabilistic, as in not certain, not 100% bonafide Truth. The truth that can be spoken is not Truth. Kinda like the Zen koan thingy stuff where in answer to a question, with the first word out of the chella's mouth, the ZM smacks the crap out of 'em. Unless, unless, unless... The pointing is at somenothing eternally immediate, prior to any context. Hey dude, long time no see! Welcome back! I have been waiting for you! How are you doing by the way? let's start our argument our witnessing argument eh? Gopal says : The one who realized himself to be a witness has to create the story in which he needs to witness, he should not be creating the story in which he has to act, If he were to act in the story then he hasn't realized. SomeNothing: ____
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Nov 3, 2018 2:47:04 GMT -5
I did not say that. I think you may leave this topic I believe this doesn't suite for you. Let me see whether Reefs can get me. Just keep in mind that we are discussing a misconceived question. The question about the nature of appearances shouldn't even occur if SR is the case. And so whatever logic you apply here and however convincing your conclusion will be based on that, at the end of the day it doesn't really matter. Nothing of this will have any effect on your daily life. We are not discussing about whether it's useful or not. We are discussing about what can be known and what can't be known. If we were to discuss about importance of knowing other individual exist or not, then I am with you, it's not important.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 3, 2018 2:54:54 GMT -5
I understand your frustration. I have a similar impression just from reading along only, but it would be a bit difficult to post some actual quotes that show the contradictions. Because what I've noticed about his style is that he very often doesn't answer questions directly. So you have to infer what he's actually trying to say from what he has said. Which is an invitation to misinterpretation. And some of his replies seem extremely vague, too. Very often it seems one could interpret what he has said either way. And peeps regularly do that. And so what could be sorted out in a couple of posts drags on and on for years, it seems. So do you guys have some actual quotes? It would be interesting to see if he actually does goe back and forth. I've got one quote here re: Tenka's claim that Enigma 'only guesses his wife is real': There's a whole lot of assumptions in that statement, actually. And this is also the kind of statement that tells me that the realization he speaks of doesn't really carry over into daily life. I find his answer is quite straightforward and easy to understand. Perhaps, If you are interested, I would like to clarify his view! Which one of his answer is not clear? please let me know, I will help you to understand. Perhaps when I clarify for you, he may reply to me that whether I have done it correctly or not. Yes, I agree with you. It seems to me that E' sometimes gets to a point in the conversation when he recognizes that he can't directly convey what it is that his correspondent is interested in, but rather than drawing the dialog to a close, he'll offer to continue by writing about their interest in a different way. The reason this sometimes leads to frustration should be obvious. But, trying to help others understand what he means often ends in disaster.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2018 3:17:03 GMT -5
I find his answer is quite straightforward and easy to understand. Perhaps, If you are interested, I would like to clarify his view! Which one of his answer is not clear? please let me know, I will help you to understand. Perhaps when I clarify for you, he may reply to me that whether I have done it correctly or not. Yes, I agree with you. It seems to me that E' sometimes gets to a point in the conversation when he recognizes that he can't directly convey what it is that his correspondent is interested in, but rather than drawing the dialog to a close, he'll offer to continue by writing about their interest in a different way. The reason this sometimes leads to frustration should be obvious.But, trying to help others understand what he means often ends in disaster. Is it because Enigma's not sure what the correspondent is?
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Nov 3, 2018 4:08:27 GMT -5
I find his answer is quite straightforward and easy to understand. Perhaps, If you are interested, I would like to clarify his view! Which one of his answer is not clear? please let me know, I will help you to understand. Perhaps when I clarify for you, he may reply to me that whether I have done it correctly or not. Yes, I agree with you. It seems to me that E' sometimes gets to a point in the conversation when he recognizes that he can't directly convey what it is that his correspondent is interested in, but rather than drawing the dialog to a close, he'll offer to continue by writing about their interest in a different way. The reason this sometimes leads to frustration should be obvious. But, trying to help others understand what he means often ends in disaster. Perhaps it's true. But I don't face any difficulties when he tries to explain some concepts. I find he is always quite straightforward. Actually you are the another person who clearly understand why we say appearance by it's virtue is not conscious but still the question of whether another person is real or not arises due to the suspect of appearance may represent another view point of me. So you may explain to Reefs,Tenka,Andrew if possible. Can you please do that? I know you wouldn't agree with us but still I know you are clear as to why we three think this way. It would be very helpful if you enter into this argument and tries to clarify for them. Would you?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 3, 2018 4:17:08 GMT -5
I'm going to bring it back to something simple. In the realization that creation is ultimately 'whole', the 'personal/individual' creator is seen to be illusion. Yes, there is a context in which we can talk about personal/individual creators, but there is now no reason to ever consider whether 'I am the only creator'. To me, creator implies a cause, which in Buddhism is volition - the perpetuation of kammic cycles. I can see how they can be connected. In that case, wouldn't just 'I' equal 'volition'?
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 3, 2018 4:22:39 GMT -5
To me, creator implies a cause, which in Buddhism is volition - the perpetuation of kammic cycles. I can see how they can be connected. In that case, wouldn't just 'I' equal 'volition'? Pretty much - yeah.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 3, 2018 4:24:22 GMT -5
I'm clear about how he uses the term 'thought' and why it is problematic. What I am not clear about is his realization that he calls SR and the Bernadette Roberts connection. We'll see. Tenka is using 'thought' in the Cartesian sense. Renee saw the essence of the mind as thought, and divided this into will and intellect. Will speaks for itself, the thought 'I will', basically, but more subtly, I suppose, will is the precursor to thought formation. He framed 'intellect' in the way we'd frame 'intelligence' - the ability to perceive. He sub-categorised 'intellect' into 3 parts: pure intellect, imagination and sense perception. Thus Descartes, like Tenka, use 'thought' as the essence of mind, and that includes all nature of perception, conception and imagination. Side note: Descartes divided will into desire/aversion, assertion/denial and doubt, which isn't a 'free will' paradigm. As Descartes meditations were in effect the same as neti neti meditations, doubt was key to his denial of all knowledge and perception as proof of his own existence. Eventually, Descartes concluded he does exist... basically because if he doubts - or makes the inquiry - the he is 'pure intellect', so to speak - cogito ergo sum.
Being a spiritual man, hell bent on proving the existence of God, actually (whom I recently assassinated) (haha! I said assass), Descartes said that 'pure intellect' (as he called it) operates independently of brain and body - which is kinda like Enigma's use of 'consciousness' (there was no such word in Descartes' time of publication). Fun fact: 'consciousness' is often attributed to John Loche (1690), who defined it as 'the perception which passes in a man's own mind' (sorry ladies).
The similarities between Descartes and Tenka do not stop there. Descartes also saw things as substances, and in the most simple terms, there is a matter substance (matter has extension in space) and a mind substance. The difference is, when Descartes was famously questioned by princess Elisabeth of Bohemia about the causation of immaterial mind substance on material matter (mind substance causing the body substance to act), he couldn't resolve the 'mind/body duality' as it is now famously known... Tenka resolved the 'mind/body duality (or the mind/matter duality) by claiming it's all the same substance: Self. In this case I am far more Cartesian than Tenkesian, because to me, be there matter or no matter, body or none, perception or none, substance or none, I am, regardless.
Well, yes. The absolute certainty of one's own existence is what everyone shares, sage and seeker alike. But the way we use intellect here on the forum, it means objectification. Which is an after the fact kind of perception. And Descartes always seemed to me the poster child of the SVP perspective. I think what people don't realize is that one can theoretically dismantle the SVP without actually going beyond the perspective of the SVP. That's what philosophers tend to do and what they are usually really good at. In spirituality and especially in non-duality circles, however, this mental exercise is very often mistaken for SR when in fact it is just a case of what some call 'mind enlightenment'. The way you spot a mind enlightened peep is when someone constantly argues for oneness and separation at the same time, very often in one and the same sentence, and without even noticing it. Some here regularly do that. But Tenka isn't one of them. At least based on what I am aware of.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2018 4:25:35 GMT -5
Yes, I agree with you. It seems to me that E' sometimes gets to a point in the conversation when he recognizes that he can't directly convey what it is that his correspondent is interested in, but rather than drawing the dialog to a close, he'll offer to continue by writing about their interest in a different way. The reason this sometimes leads to frustration should be obvious. But, trying to help others understand what he means often ends in disaster. Perhaps it's true. But I don't face any difficulties when he tries to explain some concepts. I find he is always quite straightforward. Actually you are the another person who clearly understand why we say appearance by it's virtue is not conscious but still the question of whether another person is real or not arises due to the suspect of appearance may represent another view point of me. So you may explain to Reefs,Tenka,Andrew if possible. Can you please do that? I know you wouldn't agree with us but still I know you are clear as to why we three think this way. It would be very helpful if you enter into this argument and tries to clarify for them. Would you?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 3, 2018 4:29:14 GMT -5
What is an outer world? And why does it have to be necessarily a matter of belief? It's matters a lot because that's where everything starts. We three don't believe that there is an outer world exist. We three believe that everything appears in consciousness. By the virtue of appearance, appearance can't be conscious. But the question whether other individual is real or not arises because the appearing individual might be representing the another view point of me. What's that got to do with the questions I asked?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 3, 2018 4:32:29 GMT -5
Just keep in mind that we are discussing a misconceived question. The question about the nature of appearances shouldn't even occur if SR is the case. And so whatever logic you apply here and however convincing your conclusion will be based on that, at the end of the day it doesn't really matter. Nothing of this will have any effect on your daily life. We are not discussing about whether it's useful or not. We are discussing about what can be known and what can't be known. If we were to discuss about importance of knowing other individual exist or not, then I am with you, it's not important. I didn't say it is not important. I said if your realization has no effect on your daily life, then your realization is not important. And based on what you've said so far, your realization has no effect on daily life. Which means it is not important. And I would rather discuss things that are important instead.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 3, 2018 4:34:35 GMT -5
I find his answer is quite straightforward and easy to understand. Perhaps, If you are interested, I would like to clarify his view! Which one of his answer is not clear? please let me know, I will help you to understand. Perhaps when I clarify for you, he may reply to me that whether I have done it correctly or not. Yes, I agree with you. It seems to me that E' sometimes gets to a point in the conversation when he recognizes that he can't directly convey what it is that his correspondent is interested in, but rather than drawing the dialog to a close, he'll offer to continue by writing about their interest in a different way. The reason this sometimes leads to frustration should be obvious. But, trying to help others understand what he means often ends in disaster. Actually, in the beginning, before the great debate, I would have agreed with you. So I think I'd rather stick with what he has said back then. Because that was very clear.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 3, 2018 4:41:38 GMT -5
yes, it's a context mix. In a smaller context of a personal perceiver, we might speak of our perceptions being correct or incorrect. For example, I could mistake a mannequin for a human being from a distance. This context (mistakenly) assumes an objective reality ('Oh! I see now that it is a mannequin, not a human!'), but it's something we all do in our day to day lives I guess. But then what Enigma etc WERE doing is mixing that context with the broader and transcendent spiritual context, in which the word 'appearance' specifically points away from the idea of 'an objective reality'. We shouldn't ever be talking of 'appearances' being correct or incorrect in this context, because there is no personal perceiver. It is the impersonal context, and the most that we can say is 'appearances appear in (impersonal) Consciousness'. To speak in this context of appearances as being 'deceiving', objectifies and reifies 'appearances'....which is kind of hilarious given that the whole point of the concept is to indicate an absence of objectivity. The question ''are there other perceivers'' is at least a contextually correct question to be explored. But to ask 'are appearing perceivers that appear to me, actually perceiving?'' is a contextual mix. We should not be using the word 'appearances' in that way. I don't know if that makes sense. It does to me, but I have abjectly failed to explain it to Fig, so I don't know how clear the explanation is. Unfortunately I can't find a better way to say it. IDK, the way you explained it, this seems even more confusing. So I'll just explain where I see the problem with what has been presented and then you can see how that matches what you were trying to say. I think we should clearly distinguish between what Gopal and Figgles have said and what Enigma has said his initial realization was. Because the perspective Gopal and Figgles are promoting is 100% identical with a purely intellectual perspective, what we usually call the SVP. From that perspective, if you are really honest, you really don't know what the nature of what is appearing to you actually is, if the other persons in your life are actually conscious or not. And I fully agree with Figgles that from that perspective it all seems very convincing to the degree that actually actively questioning it would be going against the flow. Even though the fact remains that, at the end of the day, the SVP doesn't know which end is up in re: the nature of others. But in daily life, it doesn't really matter, because the SVP gets so involved in the story/dream that such a thought usually doesn't even occur, unless we are having a philosophical discussion like this one. And even in such a discussion, the SVP can't help but go with what appears and take it at face value, which means every discussion partner is assumed to be conscious and perceiving exactly the way it is familiar to the SVP. In reality, it really is just some kind of idea play without any real consequences. So if we stay in the context of the SVP, I agree with basically everything Figgles has said. I'd even agree that this perspective she promotes goes beyond the usual consensus trance where the thought that you can't really know if others are conscious or not via intellectual means doesn't even occur. So here's a lot more awareness about the personal perspective and its limits than what one would usually expect, even though it never goes beyond the personal, or maybe I should better say prior to it, because there's something much more fundamental that's been missed from that perspective. Enigma's situation is different. He says nothing is conscious. That's what he says his realization was. That's an absolute statement about the nature of appearances. In that sense, it is not different from saying it's all conscious. It's just opposite statements. But they are both absolute statements about the nature of appearances. And here is where it gets interesting: the SVP, by default, has to be in doubt about the nature of what appears to it. So the SVP has to reject any absolute statements about the nature of appearances by default as mere speculation. Which means Figgles and Gopal shouldn't just reject my realization, they also should reject Enigma's realization for the exact same reason they reject my realization. But somehow this never happens. Now, I am aware that Enigma has also said that you cannot know if others appear to you are conscious or not and that he goes by assumption in daily life. Which is where it gets really awkward because if you contrast this to what he said his initial realization was, then one has to ask the question how do you get from 'nothing is conscious' to 'you cannot know if it is conscious or not'? What happened to that realization? So it seems some people have a lot of explaining to do. And from my perspective, it's not just about mixing contexts. I see what you are saying, though I'm not sure about the last couple of paragraphs. There is a similarity to my explanation, in that...in essence....you are saying that the knowing of one's own nature combined with the not-knowing of another's nature, is the SVP position. Which it is. However, I very much doubt your explanation would be accepted, because they think the 'knowing/not-knowing' position they are taking, is prior to the person. And that's why I have said that it's a context mix i.e they THINK they are taking an impersonal position prior to the SVP, when really, it is just personal position (or the SVP).
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Nov 3, 2018 4:46:38 GMT -5
Yes, I agree with you. It seems to me that E' sometimes gets to a point in the conversation when he recognizes that he can't directly convey what it is that his correspondent is interested in, but rather than drawing the dialog to a close, he'll offer to continue by writing about their interest in a different way. The reason this sometimes leads to frustration should be obvious. But, trying to help others understand what he means often ends in disaster. Actually, in the beginning, before the great debate, I would have agreed with you. So I think I'd rather stick with what he has said back then. Because that was very clear. Yes, that's what I am also saying let's give up this argument about other individual is real or not. This argument is initiated by me in this forum but I no longer has any interest to continue this argument. You are correct let's argue something important.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 3, 2018 4:48:53 GMT -5
Tenka is using 'thought' in the Cartesian sense. Renee saw the essence of the mind as thought, and divided this into will and intellect. Will speaks for itself, the thought 'I will', basically, but more subtly, I suppose, will is the precursor to thought formation. He framed 'intellect' in the way we'd frame 'intelligence' - the ability to perceive. He sub-categorised 'intellect' into 3 parts: pure intellect, imagination and sense perception. Thus Descartes, like Tenka, use 'thought' as the essence of mind, and that includes all nature of perception, conception and imagination. Side note: Descartes divided will into desire/aversion, assertion/denial and doubt, which isn't a 'free will' paradigm. As Descartes meditations were in effect the same as neti neti meditations, doubt was key to his denial of all knowledge and perception as proof of his own existence. Eventually, Descartes concluded he does exist... basically because if he doubts - or makes the inquiry - the he is 'pure intellect', so to speak - cogito ergo sum.
Being a spiritual man, hell bent on proving the existence of God, actually (whom I recently assassinated) (haha! I said assass), Descartes said that 'pure intellect' (as he called it) operates independently of brain and body - which is kinda like Enigma's use of 'consciousness' (there was no such word in Descartes' time of publication). Fun fact: 'consciousness' is often attributed to John Loche (1690), who defined it as 'the perception which passes in a man's own mind' (sorry ladies).
The similarities between Descartes and Tenka do not stop there. Descartes also saw things as substances, and in the most simple terms, there is a matter substance (matter has extension in space) and a mind substance. The difference is, when Descartes was famously questioned by princess Elisabeth of Bohemia about the causation of immaterial mind substance on material matter (mind substance causing the body substance to act), he couldn't resolve the 'mind/body duality' as it is now famously known... Tenka resolved the 'mind/body duality (or the mind/matter duality) by claiming it's all the same substance: Self. In this case I am far more Cartesian than Tenkesian, because to me, be there matter or no matter, body or none, perception or none, substance or none, I am, regardless.
Well, yes. The absolute certainty of one's own existence is what everyone shares, sage and seeker alike. But the way we use intellect here on the forum, it means objectification. Which is an after the fact kind of perception. And Descartes always seemed to me the poster child of the SVP perspective. I think what people don't realize is that one can theoretically dismantle the SVP without actually going beyond the perspective of the SVP. That's what philosophers tend to do and what they are usually really good at. In spirituality and especially in non-duality circles, however, this mental exercise is very often mistaken for SR when in fact it is just a case of what some call 'mind enlightenment'. The way you spot a mind enlightened peep is when someone constantly argues for oneness and separation at the same time, very often in one and the same sentence, and without even noticing it. Some here regularly do that. But Tenka isn't one of them. At least based on what I am aware of. The basic problem as I see it is, it's valid to argue for or against separation, and switch sides if you like, but it's only really drawing a conclusion given one aspect against another in the paradigm of right and wrong. On the other-hand, to say it's 'like this' in no way impels the mind to cling to a side, or leap from side to side, or enter the process of drawing a conclusion, but impels one to notice what 'this is like'. From there one could speak descriptively of 'the way it is' - even if oneness is true - 'what it's like' is more truer.
My Buddhist meditation teachers told me that the dhamma begins with hearing the teachings and understanding it through logic as if it sounds as if it might make sense, which impels seekers to find out - is it true or not? And if so, in what 'way' is it true? That's why the communication is always where the listening happens and your voice comes from, so speakers can always be where they are rather than pulled into excitement, drama and distracted reactivity... And being enlightened insofar as knowing what's going on with themselves is perhaps more appropriate than insisting sides of what is, itself, a dual paradigm.
|
|