|
Post by tenka on Nov 3, 2018 4:50:14 GMT -5
The fact that you deny that peeps including yourself has been speaking along these lines and deny it or forget that you have been speaking about it for the past year or so speaks volumes . I would appreciate it if you get your facts straight before you go down the route of making me out to be making this up . Do you not remember telling me you guess your wife is real . If you have to guess what is real then you can't trust what your experiencing that relates to appearances can you .Sure I can. Real or not (whatever that means) doesn't change the predictability of the experience. I can trust that the sun will come up tomorrow, even though I know it's an appearance only. I understand how you concluded I can't trust my experience, but really, you need to stop assuming and listen to what I actually say. Wel you can discern between what is dream like and what is not, you can discern between what is imagined and what is not, so you can discern with what is real and what is not . You might as well be saying I know what hot and cold refers too but not wet and dry . The problem is, I have been listening to you for too long, that is why I am confused with what you say one minute to the next . The whole scenario of what appearances are and what appearances appear to be has been a complete muddle . Do you remember saying that the heart is just an appearance and has no qualities, then changing your mind and saying of course it has qualities / structures . Back on the other forums I had to actually quote stuff that you denied saying and then tried to wriggle out of it even when your quotes were there in black and white for all to see . The reference of you changing your mind again is on these forums for all to see if someone has got time to do the research . I pulled you up on it twice if my memory serves me correctly . Now you have admitted that your memory serves you well then the question of this denial thing you have got going on has got to do with something else .
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 3, 2018 4:56:09 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. There are no appearances that have 'associated' prior viewpoints, there are no appearances that have 'representing' prior viewpoints, there are no appearances that have 'nexus' prior viewpoints. There's Consciousness, and there are appearances.....and it can be realized that this Consciousness is neither personal nor finite.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 3, 2018 4:57:34 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.
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.
.. Descartes it seems was on to something butt fell short it appears in regards to Self realizing, that is perhaps why he could not resolve the mind/body duality reference . There is only Self and Self is therefore everything, everything of substance and everything or nothing that isn't . There has to be the foundation of this for there to be a sound foundation otherwise you will have peeps going around in doubt about what is appearing .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 3, 2018 4:59:49 GMT -5
The mind is nothing other than the `I’-thought. ramanaRamana: "Get rid of the `I’-thought. So long as `I’ is alive there is grief. When ` I’ ceases to exist there is no grief." "The ego’s phenomenal existence is transcended when you dive into the source from where the `I’-thought rises." There is no grief and there is no mindful world . Niz spoke in the same vein when he spoke of the flame of his lighter . If you perceive the lighters flame, there you are, there is the world .
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Nov 3, 2018 5:01:19 GMT -5
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. There are no appearances that have 'associated' prior viewpoints, there are no appearances that have 'representing' prior viewpoints, there are no appearances that have 'nexus' prior viewpoints. There's Consciousness, and there are appearances.....and it can be realized that this Consciousness is neither personal nor finite. ok
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 3, 2018 5:01:58 GMT -5
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.
.. Descartes it seems was on to something butt fell short it appears in regards to Self realizing, that is perhaps why he could not resolve the mind/body duality reference . There is only Self and Self is therefore everything, everything of substance and everything or nothing that isn't . There has to be the foundation of this for there to be a sound foundation otherwise you will have peeps going around in doubt about what is appearing . Personally I have no doubt as all: 'this is what it's like'... and to me there's no such thing 'there is only self' because I'm thinking of honey, and I am not the thought.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 3, 2018 5:11:25 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. It's actual very straightforward but one needs the insight for use of a better word . Just spreading my wings here in regards to a simple explanation which isn't anything new, it isn't anything that I haven't said constantly for a few years now .. The whole deal here is comparison between self, mind, no self, no mind . If one hasn't that comparison then one cannot have a sound foundation, it will be likened to having an understanding of one side of the coin . First things first . This world and self awareness / I AM awareness is of the mind, Consciousness whatever that is, is of the mind . Thought is of the mind that relates to awareness of I AM present in reflection of what is perceived . You see when I became aware of I AM post 'being' beyond mind/self there is the comparison of having a thought of I AM compared to not . You understand thereafter that I AM present of the mind . You have to have the initial moment of post being to understand all what I have been speaking about . Peeps have a similar notion when they awake from a dream, they become aware of this reality in comparison .. There is the thought that I AM aware of this reality without the need to chatter about it . Now peeps need to understand that in the dream there is a I AM reference of I AM of the dream experience . Now peeps need to understand that beyond mind there is no awareness of I AM experiencing .. When one regains awareness of I AM like said there is the comparison and there is the knowing what self / mind IS . As B.R. says one needs to know of no self in order know the true nature of self . Without this comparison all one has is variants of self reflection/s and from what I gather by what I read there are peeps that think that they are experiencing an absent of self, when the dead give away is that they are aware of the mind, being present saying that . no self is beyond consciousness, beyond mind ..
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 3, 2018 5:12:14 GMT -5
.. Descartes it seems was on to something butt fell short it appears in regards to Self realizing, that is perhaps why he could not resolve the mind/body duality reference . There is only Self and Self is therefore everything, everything of substance and everything or nothing that isn't . There has to be the foundation of this for there to be a sound foundation otherwise you will have peeps going around in doubt about what is appearing . Personally I have no doubt as all: 'this is what it's like'... and to me there's no such thing 'there is only self' because I'm thinking of honey, and I am not the thought. You are coming from the I perspective only . This is why you see things as you do . To say you are not the thought, you are implying that there is you and there is a thought that has nowt to do with you . It's the dividing aspect that peeps do which is the dead giveaway . You can't prise the thought of you from the awareness of you, from what you are . What you are can't actually be divided in this way butt peeps can put a wedge anywhere they like .
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 3, 2018 5:30:17 GMT -5
Personally I have no doubt as all: 'this is what it's like'... and to me there's no such thing 'there is only self' because I'm thinking of honey, and I am not the thought. You are coming from the I perspective only . This is why you see things as you do . To say you are not the thought, you are implying that there is you and there is a thought that has nowt to do with you . It's the dividing aspect that peeps do which is the dead giveaway . You can't prise the thought of you from the awareness of you, from what you are . What you are can't actually be divided in this way butt peeps can put a wedge anywhere they like . If thought goes away am I still there?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2018 5:46:27 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. Nothing to see here, move along I think it's human nature to evaluate appearances, and sometimes to even compare current and former ones
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 3, 2018 8:09:35 GMT -5
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). Well, no one likes to be convinced by someone else that s/he is actually missing a key realization and therefore has come only half circle, right? So never mind that. I'm more interested in talking about it in general terms anyway. What I've been getting at is what I wrote in my reply to Lolly. Knowing your own nature naturally means knowing the nature of everything else. That's the very definition of SR. And the SVP cannot know its own nature in that sense. The best the SVP can come up with is an idea about it's own nature. And this is a very interesting topic. How far can the SVP go? What are the limits of understanding? If you do the "Who am I?" meditation Ramana suggested, and if you do it thoroughly, it will inevitably end in silence. It will end in uncertainty re: your identity. Which will make it abundantly clear that your identity so far has only been an idea construct. You don't have to be SR in order to see that. That was my point to Lolly. The SVP can already see thru it within its own limitations. The SVP just can't end it. And as already mentioned, the only absolute certainty the SVP has is its own existence. And when you keep in mind that the SVP can't do without identity poker, if you combine what I have just said, what the SVP will eventually come up with is something like "I am existence itself" (or Beingness or Isness or Consciousness or Awareness etc.). And that's what the SR will certainly agree with. And this I think is where the SVP reaches its limit. That's how far the identity poker can potentially go. So as long as we keep talking on such a very abstract level, the SVP and the SR can agree on almost everything. Where you will see the differences in understanding though is on the topic about 'others'. That's why this is such a hot topic. The SR doesn't even think in terms of others or appearances. And the SVP cannot think any other than in terms of others and appearances. So that's where the clash of perspectives naturally has to happen every time. Now, the SR can adopt the perspective of the SVP easily and understand the logic of it within the context of the SVP and even speak from that context, but the SVP cannot adopt the perspective of the SR and so cannot speak from that context. You just can't fake this. This has always been blatantly obvious when people talk about oneness and argue for separation at the same time in the same sentence all the time. Long story short: you can get very far in understanding just by philosophical means if you do it thoroughly, you can even get so far that most of the time your understanding seems indistinguishable from the SR. And I think that happens a lot, especially in non-duality circles and with folks who are able to handle complex concepts. But there are certain topics where the actual understanding will be revealed one way or another, where you will clearly see who actually has a reference for what it means to have passed thru the gateless gate and who hasn't.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 3, 2018 8:20:16 GMT -5
You are coming from the I perspective only . This is why you see things as you do . To say you are not the thought, you are implying that there is you and there is a thought that has nowt to do with you . It's the dividing aspect that peeps do which is the dead giveaway . You can't prise the thought of you from the awareness of you, from what you are . What you are can't actually be divided in this way butt peeps can put a wedge anywhere they like . If thought goes away am I still there? If thought is no more then there is no 'I' there is however what you are whether there is a thought of I or not .
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 3, 2018 8:26:13 GMT -5
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.
I agree. From the perspective of the SVP, separation is the case, even though the SVP may fancy with the idea of oneness all day long. And from the perspective of the SR, oneness is the case, even though the SR can engage with the SVP in the context of separation. There's no right or wrong per se here. That's what I like about the A-H perspective. You see, in non-duality, the SVP has a really bad reputation. In the A-H perspective, the SVP is a perspective that is very much wanted, or even adored. A-H always used to say jokingly, "if you'd know how much you wanted to be in these bodies, you wouldn't always try to get of it so quickly..." So nothing really wrong here per se. Right and wrong depends on context anyway. And usually the context here is the largest possible context, the nature of reality. And in that sense, the perspective of the SVP is wrong (or incomplete, if that sounds more appealing to you). I would also agree that this text medium isn't the best medium for communicating such understandings. It's a lot easier to misunderstand each other and also a lot easier to start a fight with each other than lets say compared to a face to face situation where so much more can be conveyed. But it is what it is and we are all trying to make the best of it, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 3, 2018 8:31:15 GMT -5
If thought goes away am I still there? If thought is no more then there is no 'I' there is however what you are whether there is a thought of I or not . So what I am is not the thought.
/
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 3, 2018 8:45:10 GMT -5
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. That's an interesting turn of events. Maybe we should finally close this thread? Show of hands, please. Who is in favor of closing this thread?
|
|