|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 22, 2018 11:05:04 GMT -5
We can say it's the fault of 'polluted' minds, or we can more accurately say it's the fault of THIS acting in self delusion. (God falling into his own dream) There is just THIS, however you look at it. Summing everything up, the glitch in your paradigm is: C(c)onsciousness is unconscious. Then we would still say it's the fault of Consciousness acting in self delusion. Human consciousness cannot be unconscious. The statement is misconceived. Consciousness is nether conscious nor unconscious. It's a pointer you've licked. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 22, 2018 11:21:04 GMT -5
I haven't said anything about asking others to accept it. I'm talking about your false verification. Verification starts quite simply, if you tell me it is raining, I go outside and see if it's raining. (Some things I verified immediately {some of these involved explaining previous experiences, one went back to the age of about 14}, some things took a year, some things 15 years. "First you have to row a little boat"). Your idea of false verification is a conceptual construct via seeing too little of the Whole, IOW you are trapped by what you think you know and realize. There is always further... False verification isn't 'my idea'. It's just verification made on a false basis. Maybe you mean the idea that nothing in your experience can say anything true about what transcends experience. It really is quite obvious. I'm not going to suggest more boat rowing or cake baking, as there's been quite enough of that. What I suggest is emptying your cup, but after 30+ years of fine tuning your ontology, nothing short of a powerful realization can do that. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 22, 2018 11:24:15 GMT -5
You need further explanation? Not now, original post. It sounded like a slam on sN. SN is one of my favorite nothings of all time.  |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 22, 2018 14:01:40 GMT -5
Based on what you've expressed, you seem to be only interested in relative "truths" (i.e., concepts that fulfill your whimsical desires). It's hard to know how to respond to this. The way I see what happens with you, is that every so often the movement arises to read some forum stuff. You don't read a whole lot of the conversation, you know you who resonate with, and you know what you want to see here. So in my perspective, when you come here, you really don't have a good sense of what is actually being discussed. The recent example was with Reefs. You launched in from a great height ignoring the actual discussion. What Reefs said was true....so true that Enigma can't even really argue it. ZD has agreed with Reefs key point. Laughter has agreed with Reefs in essence. There are others here too of course that agree. I would put a strong bet that you don't even know what it is you are defending in regards to E. You really just know that you have liked what he has said for years... 'Greasy spot'. 'Truth'. 'Oneness'. These are all concepts he routinely uses which I imagine are pleasing to someone who comes to the forum every now and then. Maybe YOU come here for a bit of 'brain washing' every now and then, and get irritable when you see that there is actual conceptual discussion here. I guess what you want to see are simple pointers to 'Truth'. It just doesn't work like that when you are here day to day. We like to talk but when it comes to 'Truth', there's nothing to say. So we embellish, expand, look at detail. No-one is here as a seeker. It's just the same old group, year in year out, having a discussion. Gotcha. So, when you ask questions about things like transcendental Truth, you actually already know what it is that is being pointed to, but you are just playing the devil's advocate. So, you embellish, expand upon and look in detail of what is not the case to highlight....what, exactly? Based on what I have read throughout the years, you come across as one who has seen something special, sure, but it hasn't equated with abidance. You appear to get lost and flummoxed in what otherwise would seem to be very "simple" distinctions, and then lash out when called on it. Sorry if this viewpoint appears unkind; you've taken liberty to share yours, however misguided by your impulses. I don't come here for brainwashing, nor am I irritated. Sorry if that's how it appears to you. I take absolutely nothing said (that appears) here of "me" personally. When you get irritated (which is very apparent, btw), I see it as more of "polishing of the mirror" kind of thing, and just let it go. People step into deceit everyday, so I throw in my 2 pence to help them clean the poo off their feet when I get a chance. This forum is a place where convos about realization and waking up can remain sincere. I do enjoy the intricacies of how it is expressed, but no, I'm not just a collector-of-sound-bites kind of guy. I have learned how to talk about it sure, but simply because the reading of various previous and present writers aligns with the realization, no self/other, inability to state IT, etc. But the spiraling into Nothing is not something that can be learned or even made to happen. But, it is only from There/Here that all of this breadth and depth of existence come into more clarity, even the stuff you don't seem to jive with. The appearance known as E is writing about how appearances/experience can't be the source of Knowledge of SR/TR (i.e., not mere conceptual knowledge, labels we use to communicate in the dream state, logic, rationalizations etc.). E knows it can't be said, but only pointed to. That goes for CCs and realizations, too. The description of what is sensed in hindsight of a CC or even what might have been a clear glimpse of Truth, can quickly become deluded by drawing on the resources of mind to express it. There is a very strong desire and momentum to do so, so it's cool, no problem. But, what is clearly very common is for one to become attached to the mind's conclusions of said appearance/experience, falling back into the limited "reality' of the dream state and perhaps even getting lost again. It's about abidance/clarity prior to the "return to the dream state" and seeing what equates with appearances in/as Consciousness moving within Awareness (the dream). The appearance known as E is not arguing, but only because the many won't look from where it is pointing back to. It's too simple, and most are too invested, so E knows the appearances will either seemingly get it or they won't. Such a mind has also likely experienced the likely outcome that once the mind enters into the equation as the source or the tipper of the scale in a context-mix, the duality gains traction, turns into 10,000 things, and the Sisyphian task snowballs. It just gets wack, I tells ya. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 22, 2018 15:53:40 GMT -5
It's hard to know how to respond to this. The way I see what happens with you, is that every so often the movement arises to read some forum stuff. You don't read a whole lot of the conversation, you know you who resonate with, and you know what you want to see here. So in my perspective, when you come here, you really don't have a good sense of what is actually being discussed. The recent example was with Reefs. You launched in from a great height ignoring the actual discussion. What Reefs said was true....so true that Enigma can't even really argue it. ZD has agreed with Reefs key point. Laughter has agreed with Reefs in essence. There are others here too of course that agree. I would put a strong bet that you don't even know what it is you are defending in regards to E. You really just know that you have liked what he has said for years... 'Greasy spot'. 'Truth'. 'Oneness'. These are all concepts he routinely uses which I imagine are pleasing to someone who comes to the forum every now and then. Maybe YOU come here for a bit of 'brain washing' every now and then, and get irritable when you see that there is actual conceptual discussion here. I guess what you want to see are simple pointers to 'Truth'. It just doesn't work like that when you are here day to day. We like to talk but when it comes to 'Truth', there's nothing to say. So we embellish, expand, look at detail. No-one is here as a seeker. It's just the same old group, year in year out, having a discussion. Gotcha. So, when you ask questions about things like transcendental Truth, you actually already know what it is that is being pointed to, but you are just playing the devil's advocate. So, you embellish, expand upon and look in detail of what is not the case to highlight....what, exactly? Based on what I have read throughout the years, you come across as one who has seen something special, sure, but it hasn't equated with abidance. You appear to get lost and flummoxed in what otherwise would seem to be very "simple" distinctions, and then lash out when called on it. Sorry if this viewpoint appears unkind; you've taken liberty to share yours, however misguided by your impulses. I don't come here for brainwashing, nor am I irritated. Sorry if that's how it appears to you. I take absolutely nothing said (that appears) here of "me" personally. When you get irritated (which is very apparent, btw), I see it as more of "polishing of the mirror" kind of thing, and just let it go. People step into deceit everyday, so I throw in my 2 pence to help them clean the poo off their feet when I get a chance. This forum is a place where convos about realization and waking up can remain sincere. I do enjoy the intricacies of how it is expressed, but no, I'm not just a collector-of-sound-bites kind of guy. I have learned how to talk about it sure, but simply because the reading of various previous and present writers aligns with the realization, no self/other, inability to state IT, etc. But the spiraling into Nothing is not something that can be learned or even made to happen. But, it is only from There/Here that all of this breadth and depth of existence come into more clarity, even the stuff you don't seem to jive with. The appearance known as E is writing about how appearances/experience can't be the source of Knowledge of SR/TR (i.e., not mere conceptual knowledge, labels we use to communicate in the dream state, logic, rationalizations etc.). E knows it can't be said, but only pointed to. That goes for CCs and realizations, too. The description of what is sensed in hindsight of a CC or even what might have been a clear glimpse of Truth, can quickly become deluded by drawing on the resources of mind to express it. There is a very strong desire and momentum to do so, so it's cool, no problem. But, what is clearly very common is for one to become attached to the mind's conclusions of said appearance/experience, falling back into the limited "reality' of the dream state and perhaps even getting lost again. It's about abidance/clarity prior to the "return to the dream state" and seeing what equates with appearances in/as Consciousness moving within Awareness (the dream). The appearance known as E is not arguing, but only because the many won't look from where it is pointing back to. It's too simple, and most are too invested, so E knows the appearances will either seemingly get it or they won't. Such a mind has also likely experienced the likely outcome that once the mind enters into the equation as the source or the tipper of the scale in a context-mix, the duality gains traction, turns into 10,000 things, and the Sisyphian task snowballs. It just gets wack, I tells ya. If there has been a deep discussion going on for days, weeks, months....it can take a lot of time to understand what each of us are saying, and quite often, it does change a bit as we are going, so it requires quite a lot of attention on all sides. I can get irritated with people I'm discussing with of course, but if they are putting energy in to the conversation, that goes a long way. But when someone jumps in with a quite strong comment, when I am quite sure that they don't know what is being said, I don't think it takes a big leap of empathy for you to see that it would be a bit irritating. It's not like a big anger or anything, it's just an irritation. To be fair, because you aren't here much, you don't see how much of the time I'm not irritated lol. I resonated with a good portion of what you said in your last paragraph, but you do see Enigma quite differently to me. I don't want to go into any more detail than I have done already, and he basically told me he doesn't want to talk about a particular subject anymore, so I don't want to bring it up here. Otherwise, yep, I know what is 'meant' by Truth...I grok the pointer. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 22, 2018 16:04:32 GMT -5
Summing everything up, the glitch in your paradigm is: C(c)onsciousness is unconscious. Then we would still say it's the fault of Consciousness acting in self delusion. Human consciousness cannot be unconscious. The statement is misconceived. Consciousness is nether conscious nor unconscious. It's a pointer you've licked. I was quoting you. You have said C(c)Iousness (not human consciousness) is unconscious. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 22, 2018 16:14:16 GMT -5
No, I've understood it for about 8 years. You've understood that I think experience is irrelevant for about 8 years? I've been on ST's longer than you have. I was here even before there was a forum. I was here when there was only the spiritual friends locator. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 22, 2018 16:20:58 GMT -5
No, whatever else E is he's consistent. He doesn't consider his own experience in any way validating. Believe what you want to believe. He has said so, he disregards all experience as leading nowhere (only realizations are of significance). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2018 17:25:50 GMT -5
Believe what you want to believe. He has said so, he disregards all experience as leading nowhere (only realizations are of significance). Ok. And how would you explain the difference between an experience and a realisation? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 22, 2018 18:04:59 GMT -5
He has said so, he disregards all experience as leading nowhere (only realizations are of significance). Ok. And how would you explain the difference between an experience and a realisation? E. has defined an experience as something that has duration (a beginning, middle, and end), and he has defined a realization as an instant seeing of what is Not so. Some of us think that non-dual experiences are not experiences in the usual sense because they do not involve time or a separate experiencer, and they often result in significant realizations. In the past here have been many discussions about these issues on the forum. E. discounts the value of CC's and all other non-dual experiences (samadhi, etc) because he considers non-dual experiences to be in the same category and of the same value as dualistic experiences. He can expand upon this general overview if I've misrepresented his POV. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 22, 2018 18:15:50 GMT -5
He has said so, he disregards all experience as leading nowhere (only realizations are of significance). Ok. And how would you explain the difference between an experience and a realisation? I'm not sure in what sense people here use the word realization. I don't use that word. I use the word understanding. For me once you understand something the understanding doesn't change, that is, what one understands doesn't change. For me experience plays a part in understanding. It seems that people (edit: or maybe mostly E?) that use the word realization discount experience as occurrences are merely appearances, subject to-being illusory, or illusory period. An ounce of understanding is worth a pound of realization. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 22, 2018 18:17:33 GMT -5
Ok. And how would you explain the difference between an experience and a realisation? E. has defined an experience as something that has duration (a beginning, middle, and end), and he has defined a realization as an instant seeing of what is Not so. Some of us think that non-dual experiences are not experiences in the usual sense because they do not involve time or a separate experiencer, and they often result in significant realizations. In the past here have been many discussions about these issues on the forum. E. discounts the value of CC's and all other non-dual experiences (samadhi, etc) because he considers non-dual experiences to be in the same category and of the same value as dualistic experiences. He can expand upon this general overview if I've misrepresented his POV. Yea...what he said... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2018 18:29:49 GMT -5
Ok. And how would you explain the difference between an experience and a realisation? E. has defined an experience as something that has duration (a beginning, middle, and end), and he has defined a realization as an instant seeing of what is Not so. Some of us think that non-dual experiences are not experiences in the usual sense because they do not involve time or a separate experiencer, and they often result in significant realizations. In the past here have been many discussions about these issues on the forum. E. discounts the value of CC's and all other non-dual experiences (samadhi, etc) because he considers non-dual experiences to be in the same category and of the same value as dualistic experiences. He can expand upon this general overview if I've misrepresented his POV. Which is why I say that to him, everyone else's experiences have become irrelevant. Yet his own, still keep their relevance. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2018 18:39:02 GMT -5
Ok. And how would you explain the difference between an experience and a realisation? I'm not sure in what sense people here use the word realization. I don't use that word. I use the word understanding. For me once you understand something the understanding doesn't change, that is, what one understands doesn't change. For me experience plays a part in understanding. It seems that people (edit: or maybe mostly E?) that use the word realization discount experience as occurrences are merely appearances, subject to-being illusory, or illusory period. An ounce of understanding is worth a pound of realization. Ok. Have you come to understand how, in your direct experience right now, what is known and the knower of what is known are inseparable? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 22, 2018 18:53:19 GMT -5
E. has defined an experience as something that has duration (a beginning, middle, and end), and he has defined a realization as an instant seeing of what is Not so. Some of us think that non-dual experiences are not experiences in the usual sense because they do not involve time or a separate experiencer, and they often result in significant realizations. In the past here have been many discussions about these issues on the forum. E. discounts the value of CC's and all other non-dual experiences (samadhi, etc) because he considers non-dual experiences to be in the same category and of the same value as dualistic experiences. He can expand upon this general overview if I've misrepresented his POV. Which is why I say that to him, everyone else's experiences have become irrelevant. Yet his own, still keep their relevance. E. has said that realizations inform mind (resulting in understanding). I agree with this. Based upon his reasoning and definitions, however, he would say that his transcendental understanding has SOLELY resulted from his realizations rather than any experiences. By contrast, many of us would say that our understanding has resulted from BOTH experiences (dual and non-dual) AND realizations. Some of us would claim that CC's reveal a depth to reality that pure realizations do not, and this is a point that some of us have agreed to disagree about. |
|
