|
Post by Reefs on Nov 4, 2018 10:15:51 GMT -5
More Ramana on the reality of the world: The ajnani [ignorant one] sees the Jnani [wise one] active and is confounded. The world is perceived by both; but their outlooks differ...The ajnani takes the world to be real; whereas the Jnani sees it only as the manifestation of the Self. It is immaterial if the Self manifests itself or ceases to do so. ... In sahaja samadhi [the constant experience of a realized one] the activities, vital and mental, and the three states are destroyed, never to reappear. However, others notice the Jnani active e.g., eating, talking, moving etc. He is not himself aware of these activities, whereas others are aware of his activities. They pertain to his body and not to his Real Self, swarupa. For himself, he is like the sleeping passenger - or like a child interrupted from sound sleep and fed, being unaware of it. The child says the next day that he did not take milk at all and that he went to sleep without it. Even when reminded he cannot be convinced. So also in sahaja samadhi. Right, Ramana and the destruction of mind. That debate was another doozy (to borrow zeniacs words).
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 4, 2018 10:51:08 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. On one hand, "I think therefore I am" is out of fashion because thinking is out of fashion, and on the other, his conclusion that his world and the people in it were real because God wouldn't deceive him, seems to me quite timely given the current popularity of the "simulation theory". He used reason to prove God to fit in with the social constructs of his day, and I agree that subsequent generations of philosopher's went completely neck-up from what he wrote. I've only ever sped-read his work, so I can't really tell what in it would lead you to use him for the poster child of the SVP. Jed wrote about devotion in his first book, and true spiritual devotion is a sublimation of the SVP in the Godhead. We can all smugly proclaim the death of God, but even if we do it in unison, we'll never get rid of the dischord of it. Well, I've read his meditations decades ago in philosophy class. And it never actually appealed to me. The only two western philosophers I found interesting were Schopenhauer (who probably based most of his philosophy on what he has read in his Latin translation of a Greek translation of a Persian translation of an some Sanskrit text of the Upanishads) and Nietzsche (who claimed he had turned Schopenhauer from his head back on his feet). But Schopenhauer was a pessimist and Nietzsche chronically depressed. And I'm the exact opposite by nature. So while I found their works intellectually stimulating, it didn't really resonate. However, their works got me interested in religion and its true foundations. Which eventually got me interested in the eastern traditions, especially India. Anyway, compared to these two, Descartes seems to come from a different planet. At least that's how I remember it. And even if you would use "I think therefore I am" in a much broader (not just rational thought) sense as Lolly seems to suggest, i.e. "I perceive therefore I am" - this is still the SVP, just in a more expansive version. That was my original point to Andrew, that the most advanced and most expansive version of the SVP can come across very convincingly as a perspective that actually went beyond the SVP. When I use the term SVP, I am not automatically speaking of John Doe in the 9 to 5 consensus trance. SVP includes most of the most brilliant minds philosophy has ever seen as well. So SVP is a rather broad term.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 4, 2018 11:00:38 GMT -5
More Ramana on the reality of the world: The ajnani [ignorant one] sees the Jnani [wise one] active and is confounded. The world is perceived by both; but their outlooks differ...The ajnani takes the world to be real; whereas the Jnani sees it only as the manifestation of the Self. It is immaterial if the Self manifests itself or ceases to do so. ... In sahaja samadhi [the constant experience of a realized one] the activities, vital and mental, and the three states are destroyed, never to reappear. However, others notice the Jnani active e.g., eating, talking, moving etc. He is not himself aware of these activities, whereas others are aware of his activities. They pertain to his body and not to his Real Self, swarupa. For himself, he is like the sleeping passenger - or like a child interrupted from sound sleep and fed, being unaware of it. The child says the next day that he did not take milk at all and that he went to sleep without it. Even when reminded he cannot be convinced. So also in sahaja samadhi. Rather than quoting Ramana about SS, can you put all of this into your own words?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 4, 2018 11:02:53 GMT -5
What's that got to do with the questions I asked? This is the way I understand why he keeps bringing that up. The idea of an objective reality conflicts with the perspective (that is more than just an idea), that the only thing you can know for certain is that, you are. The question of whether or not other people are as real as you implies an objective reality because it implies some sort of knowing beyond the one and only thing you can know, for certain, which is, once again, that, you are. Your point that this is a personal perspective is one I agree with, but one that I can understand how they would deny it, and find as pejorative. In impersonal terms: how is it that we share this commonality, if there is no objective, physical reality in which to share it, and how is it that "Consciousness" can be undivided, if you are not me, and I am not you? That it implies an objective reality is flawful logic. And that it does seem as correct logic is the dead giveaway that this is the SVP speaking. There's no cure to this other then a oneness realization. Nothing else will ever convince him. Also, if you are trying to convince him, you have logic working against you and for him. He will win every debate. The perspective of the SVP has to be defeated at its basis, prior to logic. Which only a realization can accomplish. A discussion or debate on a forum plays only in the hands of the SVP because this kind of setting is the SVP's own turf. That's a point I made to Andrew many years ago when we were debating personal perspective vs. impersonal perspective. It's similar to Zhuangzi's story of the sea turtle and the frog in the well.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Nov 4, 2018 11:07:53 GMT -5
More Ramana on the reality of the world: The ajnani [ignorant one] sees the Jnani [wise one] active and is confounded. The world is perceived by both; but their outlooks differ...The ajnani takes the world to be real; whereas the Jnani sees it only as the manifestation of the Self. It is immaterial if the Self manifests itself or ceases to do so. ... In sahaja samadhi [the constant experience of a realized one] the activities, vital and mental, and the three states are destroyed, never to reappear. However, others notice the Jnani active e.g., eating, talking, moving etc. He is not himself aware of these activities, whereas others are aware of his activities. They pertain to his body and not to his Real Self, swarupa. For himself, he is like the sleeping passenger - or like a child interrupted from sound sleep and fed, being unaware of it. The child says the next day that he did not take milk at all and that he went to sleep without it. Even when reminded he cannot be convinced. So also in sahaja samadhi. Rather than quoting Ramana about SS, can you put all of this into your own words? Yes. To the inward turned mind, the world and the I are like something that is not being paid attention to, and so might as well not exist.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 4, 2018 11:18:46 GMT -5
'The world is appearing in me (or to me), but I don't know if the world is appearing in you (or to you)'. Assuming they'd agree with that, as far as I can tell, each of them has quite forcefully rejected any and all conclusions and characterizations you've made about what they might mean, if they would put it that way, by "appearing in me" or "appearing to me". My recollection from the dialogs is that both you and Reefs conclude that they're arguing for separation, and Reefs even goes so far as to conclude that they don't even realize they're doing it as they're doing it. They deny they're arguing for separation. My opinion is that any opinion based on a series of ever finer conceptual distinctions in a dialog like this, very simply, is, what it is. An opinion. I don't know if you've ever traveled in a country where you don't speak the local language and where they don't speak your language or any other language you might speak. So it's basically down to mere gesturing. And that works amazingly well if you and the other are on the same page. If you are not on the same page, you'll notice this right away. Now, if you have a common language and also good command of that language, then this may actually lead you to buy into the illusion that there's actual communication happening. And so you keep talking and talking and thinking you might getting somewhere when in reality you are just going in circles, i.e. nowhere. I've said it many many times, if people are on the same page, then they understand each other immediately. If not, no amount of communication will help. So if you feel that someone just doesn't have a reference for what you're talking about, that's more often a fact than just mere opinion. You would have a point though if you would what you have realized reduce to an opinion as well. But what would be the point of that?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 4, 2018 11:53:19 GMT -5
That's right. Now compare this to the positions of Figgles and Enigma. Figgles,I, Enigma don't even differ a bit in this place ,there may be a chance that we three may use the words differently. The way I see it, you are on one extreme end of the spectrum and Enigma is on the other extreme end and Figgles is somewhere in between. And of all three perspectives, Enigma’s perspective is the closest to my perspective, actually. You are similar only on this "what does oneness imply in practical terms" topic. That's where I see all three of you caught up in self-contradictions and having found a similar solution. You see, what you, Figgles, Enigma, Joe-Non-SR and I all have in common is that we naturally treat our spouses as if they were conscious. The difference is that all four of us had a realization. Joe-Non-SR didn't. Now, to Joe-Non-SR it wouldn’t even occur that his spouse could not be conscious because that’s all he knows and how he’s ever known it to be. So there’s coherence. For me, my day to day experience matches my realization. So there’s coherence again. But to you, Figgles and Enigma, your day to day experience is the opposite of what you’ve realized. So there’s incoherence. And the only way you can bridge that gap between what you've realized (your talk) and what you are actually experiencing (your walk) is with philosophy. And really, the number of philosophical workarounds to your existential problem is rather limited. So from my perspective, that's what you share, a similar philosophical workaround to an obvious existential dilemma. And you've already conceded that this 'realization' is without any real consequence in terms of day to day life experience anyway. But this may actually a point where Figgles and Enigma might strongly disagree with you.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 4, 2018 12:31:45 GMT -5
Rather than quoting Ramana about SS, can you put all of this into your own words? Yes. To the inward turned mind, the world and the I are like something that is not being paid attention to, and so might as well not exist. Do you live all day every day with an inward-turned mind?
|
|
|
Post by bluey on Nov 4, 2018 12:44:09 GMT -5
Is Ramanas statement true for you, in your own realisation of Sahaja Samadhi? A dangerous question to answer , because the one who answers cannot be the one whose "experience" is referred to. It's like asking if someone is asleep; if they reply that they are... That said, yes, this is pointing to a very real fact that applies universally, for there are only realized ones: when attention is paid to the I, the world manifests; when attention is not there, both I and the world disappear. Not only that, but the very possibility that attention ever could be paid to the I such that the world appears... even that possibility is nowhere to be seen. And in fact attention is not now, and never has been paid to the I. Delusion/ignorance is the thought that delusion/ignorance exists, or the thought that a thought of delusion/ignorance exists, and so on, recursively. Realization is the fact that the entire chain is nonsense. As long as fear or doubt seem to manifest, the mind is simply not steady in this truth, that's all. But the truth is unchanged, and the truth is that fear or doubt never manifested, and that there was never any mind capable of being unsteady in the truth. Reading this the words arose 'fake it till you make it' and 'as if'. Terms found in psychology. What they are pointing at I don't know but may unfold make itself known.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Nov 4, 2018 13:09:30 GMT -5
Yes. To the inward turned mind, the world and the I are like something that is not being paid attention to, and so might as well not exist. Do you live all day every day with an inward-turned mind? A paradoxical question, since the the one who lives every day is by definition non-existent from the standpoint of the inward-turned mind... How can it be "my" experience, that which is by definition the negation of anyone who could have an experience?
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Nov 4, 2018 13:10:29 GMT -5
A dangerous question to answer , because the one who answers cannot be the one whose "experience" is referred to. It's like asking if someone is asleep; if they reply that they are... That said, yes, this is pointing to a very real fact that applies universally, for there are only realized ones: when attention is paid to the I, the world manifests; when attention is not there, both I and the world disappear. Not only that, but the very possibility that attention ever could be paid to the I such that the world appears... even that possibility is nowhere to be seen. And in fact attention is not now, and never has been paid to the I. Delusion/ignorance is the thought that delusion/ignorance exists, or the thought that a thought of delusion/ignorance exists, and so on, recursively. Realization is the fact that the entire chain is nonsense. As long as fear or doubt seem to manifest, the mind is simply not steady in this truth, that's all. But the truth is unchanged, and the truth is that fear or doubt never manifested, and that there was never any mind capable of being unsteady in the truth. Reading this the words arose 'fake it till you make it' and 'as if'. Terms found in psychology. What they are pointing at I don't know but may unfold make itself known. Heh, fake it till you make it can be a powerful spiritual technique .
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Nov 4, 2018 13:28:05 GMT -5
Figgles,I, Enigma don't even differ a bit in this place ,there may be a chance that we three may use the words differently. The way I see it, you are on one extreme end of the spectrum and Enigma is on the other extreme end and Figgles is somewhere in between. And of all three perspectives, Enigma’s perspective is the closest to my perspective, actually. You are similar only on this "what does oneness imply in practical terms" topic. That's where I see all three of you caught up in self-contradictions and having found a similar solution. You see, what you, Figgles, Enigma, Joe-Non-SR and I all have in common is that we naturally treat our spouses as if they were conscious. The difference is that all four of us had a realization. Joe-Non-SR didn't. Now, to Joe-Non-SR it wouldn’t even occur that his spouse could not be conscious because that’s all he knows and how he’s ever known it to be. So there’s coherence. For me, my day to day experience matches my realization. So there’s coherence again. But to you, Figgles and Enigma, your day to day experience is the opposite of what you’ve realized. So there’s incoherence. And the only way you can bridge that gap between what you've realized (your talk) and what you are actually experiencing (your walk) is with philosophy. And really, the number of philosophical workarounds to your existential problem is rather limited. So from my perspective, that's what you share, a similar philosophical workaround to an obvious existential dilemma. And you've already conceded that this 'realization' is without any real consequence in terms of day to day life experience anyway. But this may actually a point where Figgles and Enigma might strongly disagree with you. We three agree that appearance can never be conscious We three agree that appearing individual may have associated with other view point of 'I am' but we can't know. We three agree that knowing other individual real or figment has no real consequence in our life and that's reason Enigma was not willing to argue here because it has no real impact in our life and he has said it many times. If you spend you time to look through what we have been talking so far, you may have the chance of understanding what we are saying, but I can perfectly understand if you can't see this because I know why this happens this way and I would wholeheartedly accept the situation as it is. For me you did not understand, For you I did not understand(or haven't realized) but it's okay. It seems like Enigma and Figgles seems to be back away from this forum so I can't ask them to confirm what I am saying now.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 4, 2018 13:49:21 GMT -5
The way I see it, you are on one extreme end of the spectrum and Enigma is on the other extreme end and Figgles is somewhere in between. And of all three perspectives, Enigma’s perspective is the closest to my perspective, actually. You are similar only on this "what does oneness imply in practical terms" topic. That's where I see all three of you caught up in self-contradictions and having found a similar solution. You see, what you, Figgles, Enigma, Joe-Non-SR and I all have in common is that we naturally treat our spouses as if they were conscious. The difference is that all four of us had a realization. Joe-Non-SR didn't. Now, to Joe-Non-SR it wouldn’t even occur that his spouse could not be conscious because that’s all he knows and how he’s ever known it to be. So there’s coherence. For me, my day to day experience matches my realization. So there’s coherence again. But to you, Figgles and Enigma, your day to day experience is the opposite of what you’ve realized. So there’s incoherence. And the only way you can bridge that gap between what you've realized (your talk) and what you are actually experiencing (your walk) is with philosophy. And really, the number of philosophical workarounds to your existential problem is rather limited. So from my perspective, that's what you share, a similar philosophical workaround to an obvious existential dilemma. And you've already conceded that this 'realization' is without any real consequence in terms of day to day life experience anyway. But this may actually a point where Figgles and Enigma might strongly disagree with you. We three agree that appearance can never be conscious We three agree that appearing individual may have associated with other view point of 'I am' but we can't know. You don't all agree that appearances can never be conscious. Hence why Fig has said, 'I don't know if the appearing person that appears to be conscious, is actually conscious'. She is clearly entertaining the possibility that the appearing person MAY be conscious, but she doesn't know (though a problem here is that an objective reality is implied) And Enigma too has argued that there is no realization that 'everything is conscious', instead he has said that 'being conscious' is a property/quality of particular appearances (though he doesn't know which appearances are conscious, he only knows his own 'human appearance' to be conscious). However, he has also said that 'Consciousness 'knows' everything, because it is everything', so I find it tricky to state E's position clearly. The idea of 'associated' viewpoints is deeply problematic because it 'actualizes' viewpoints. At best, a viewpoint is an illusion, at worst, it's a misconceived idea.
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Nov 4, 2018 13:54:17 GMT -5
We three agree that appearance can never be conscious We three agree that appearing individual may have associated with other view point of 'I am' but we can't know. You don't all agree that appearances can never be conscious. Hence why Fig has said, 'I don't know if the appearing person that appears to be conscious, is actually conscious'. She is clearly entertaining the possibility that the appearing person MAY be conscious, but she doesn't know (though a problem here is that an objective reality is implied) And Enigma too has argued that there is no realization that 'everything is conscious', instead he has said that 'being conscious' is a property/quality of appearances (though he doesn't know which appearances are conscious, he only knows his own 'human appearance' to be conscious). However, he has also said that 'Consciousness 'knows' everything, because it is everything', so I find it tricky to state E's position clearly. The idea of 'associated' viewpoints is deeply problematic because it 'actualizes' viewpoints. Okay, let's wait and see whether they are opposing any of my view point. I know they would not. We three understand each other perfectly which you may not know. Note: It seems like Enigma and Figgles give up participating here and continue to participate in SpiritualGap so let's see whether they are saying anything there.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 4, 2018 14:01:12 GMT -5
You don't all agree that appearances can never be conscious. Hence why Fig has said, 'I don't know if the appearing person that appears to be conscious, is actually conscious'. She is clearly entertaining the possibility that the appearing person MAY be conscious, but she doesn't know (though a problem here is that an objective reality is implied) And Enigma too has argued that there is no realization that 'everything is conscious', instead he has said that 'being conscious' is a property/quality of appearances (though he doesn't know which appearances are conscious, he only knows his own 'human appearance' to be conscious). However, he has also said that 'Consciousness 'knows' everything, because it is everything', so I find it tricky to state E's position clearly. The idea of 'associated' viewpoints is deeply problematic because it 'actualizes' viewpoints. Okay, let's wait and see whether they are opposing any of my view point. I know they would not. We three understand each other perfectly which you may not know. Note: It seems like Enigma and Figgles give up participating here and continue to participate in SpiritualGap so let's see whether they are saying anything there. Well, I won't be expecting them to 'oppose' your viewpoint, but I have heard this statement many many times in the last couple of years...'I don't know if the appearing person, that appears to be conscious, is actually conscious'. This denotes the possibility that that person is conscious. Surely you have heard that statement many times too, but maybe Fig says it to me, more than you, so you may not recall it. I doubt Enigma has left this forum, but I might be wrong about that.
|
|