|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 22, 2018 19:00:41 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. Yes. I doubt E would say that the 'experiences' that he accepts as true, are 'experiences', I guess he would say they are 'knowings beyond experience'. But specifically because they only relate to himself, I would say they should be considered as experiences. A 'knowing beyond experience' would not be applicable to just oneself. They would be applicable to 'all'. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 22, 2018 19:01:08 GMT -5
Okay.So when you say, 'you can't look to experience to find transcendent Truth', is THAT a transcendent Truth or a relative truth? sdp offers andrew a high-5. '-). Obviously, I didn't conclude that from my experience. You just told Jaspa I was consistent about that. Why are you high fiving? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 22, 2018 19:17:16 GMT -5
I was insincerely extrapolating on Andrew's insincere concern for SN's welfare.  A:"Have you been out of sorts lately?...Are you spending time in a strongly religious culture at the moment perhaps?" I read it more as one being cheeky, but no, not really all that curious. In my message, I even used "wave" and "context", which he has been mentioning recently, so I thought it might be easy enough to catch on. But, I was wrong again. I guess Andrew tends to get sensitive to and guided by his illusions about me whenever we write. If he can make you appear 'out of sorts' and 'odd', then your argument need not be taken seriously.If the concern were genuine, that would be a different matter. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2018 19:18:05 GMT -5
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.I respect your diplomacy, though I'm not feeling any 'agree to disagree' sensations right now. Though if there was some breadth to such a noble acknowledgement, then I doubt it would escape my notice. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 22, 2018 19:18:59 GMT -5
I read it more as one being cheeky, but no, not really all that curious. In my message, I even used "wave" and "context", which he has been mentioning recently, so I thought it might be easy enough to catch on. But, I was wrong again. I guess Andrew tends to get sensitive to and guided by his illusions about me whenever we write. If he can make you appear 'out of sorts' and 'odd', then your argument need not be taken seriously.If the concern were genuine, that would be a different matter. I wasn't concerned, either sincerely or insincerely. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 22, 2018 19:25:36 GMT -5
sdp offers andrew a high-5. '-). You just told Jaspa I was consistent about that. Why are you high fiving? Then have you concluded that from what you have realized? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 22, 2018 19:31:41 GMT -5
Does the message 'you can't look to experience to find transcendent Truth' appear in your experience? This could be considered a rhetorical question, but I'm asking you/anyone to sincerely consider and/or realize the immediacy of transcendent Truth. Don't just gloss over the pointers as some exercise in logic or righteousness; penetrate. "Throw a rock in a raging river, and you'll hardly notice its effect. Throw one in a still pond, and that pond is changed forever..." Sincerely, what are you writing this to? Like, how many of these posts are being written with a person in mind, while at the same time proclaiming there is 'no person'. Proclaiming there is no person isn't something I tend to do. I HAVE said there is no separate volitional person, and I have 'proclaimed' there are individuations, assuming there is a point of perception present. They are no different from me. Should I not engage them for some reason? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 22, 2018 19:38:29 GMT -5
Sincerely, what are you writing this to? Like, how many of these posts are being written with a person in mind, while at the same time proclaiming there is 'no person'. Proclaiming there is no person isn't something I tend to do. I HAVE said there is no separate volitional person, and I have 'proclaimed' there are individuations, assuming there is a point of perception present. They are no different from me. Should I not engage them for some reason? An individuation is only an individuation if there is a point of perception present? So a thinking, feeling human being that has no point of perception is not an individuation? Is that when you would use the 'other' word (you know the one I mean)? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 22, 2018 20:15:40 GMT -5
The style and/or intent of the posting is geared toward pointing. Though the pointing may fail much more often than not, the intent is that the assumed recipient can potentially realize, if not for one second, and drop off some illusion or, if lucky, and whole damm bag of 'em. When that kind of thing happens, clarity arises and the dominance of the mind lessened as it is put in its place. It makes the dream a lighter one, less fear ridden. Forgive me for going backwards here, though again, this is what I'm on about. You've written here of an assumed recipient. This just doesn't stand up. If the 'assumed recipient' isn't yourself, then your pointers are doomed to fail. The recipient might stand up if we ask him nicely.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 22, 2018 20:18:36 GMT -5
Okay.So when you say, 'you can't look to experience to find transcendent Truth', is THAT a transcendent Truth or a relative truth? It's a relative truth. There are no transcendent truths, because the word transcendent is a concept. I don't understand the reasoning, and I suspect the reason is that it's unreasonable. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 22, 2018 20:27:58 GMT -5
Does the message 'you can't look to experience to find transcendent Truth' appear in your experience? This could be considered a rhetorical question, but I'm asking you/anyone to sincerely consider and/or realize the immediacy of transcendent Truth. Don't just gloss over the pointers as some exercise in logic or righteousness; penetrate. "Throw a rock in a raging river, and you'll hardly notice its effect. Throw one in a still pond, and that pond is changed forever..." What it is, is that I am here to converse. I'm not here to be taught, let alone patronized. Learning happens just through participating here, and that's great, but I'm not here with the intent to learn, or grow, or become, or 'realize'. I come here for the craic, that's all. But in good spirit, I will answer your question. I grok what 'Truth' points to. I grok what 'Absolute Truth' points to (same 'thing'). I don't see anyone here TRYING to find 'Truth' in their experience or confirm 'Truth' in their experience, so when I se Enigma talking about that, I get interested in what what he is seeing and what he is thinking. Watch Pilgrim, Gopal, Tenka and the C/C, Kensho club just for starters. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 22, 2018 20:30:54 GMT -5
yes, I think this is getting close to the centre of what I find strange about 'transcendent truth'. Yeah, E admitted recently that although he has used the word transcendent for years, he knows it's just another of his rewordings. Essentially he uses it to mean 'special'. I said no such thing. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 22, 2018 23:13:16 GMT -5
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? In the sense of nondual? Yes, in the sense of there cannot be anything outside of all that is (as ZD says). All THAT is, is ND. But for me there are gradations of levels-of-energy such that the Whole does not effect the individuation, influences are local. To come under influences of (more of) the Whole, the individuation must change, be transformed, develop an (inborn) capacity for receptivity. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 22, 2018 23:41:11 GMT -5
What would be the point of offering a relative truth that says relative truths are not Truthy? How does your question relate to my question? I'm saying it's not a relative truth! |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 22, 2018 23:42:27 GMT -5
Yes, I put that badly, I understand, I was creating a shorthand (did the same thing with lolly which he had to correct me on). I've corrected in two other posts (above). I agree that what we (most people) consider is the self, thinking feeling, doing, is an imaginary self. But you accept that there is a body, which makes it easier to talk to you than E. But the cosmos is not everything, there is the cosmos plus the imaginary. So the cosmos, THIS, or ____ is not the the only ~actor~ on the scene. How does the imaginary self arise? Earlier you stated correctly what conditioning is. But what are the surrounding influences? Mostly people, people that are also conditioned, and that conditioning came from previous conditioned people. So it mostly isn't THIS (the actual) which is acting upon people, it's the conditioned masses. What do we call that? We call it cultural. So as people's thoughts-and-feelings-and-actions are illusory-as-culture, which makes culture illusory, this makes illusions mighty powerful in the world. So we have wars, a collective of people, which consists of illusory selves acting, called a country, battles another set of conditioned thinking, another cultural-country. Does that not make sense? The cosmos-THIS-____ is not acting directly, the (nasty) action comes-from the collective "polluted" neural circuitry, of really a few (country-leaders). If you allow/admit the body exists, and the illusory self consists of (faulty) neural connections in the brain, then it seems the mess we call today's world is easily seen to be the result. Massive crazy self-perpetuating-loop. (Ha ha.) Wait wait wait! In your second sentence you equated the cosmos with THIS. From my POV "the cosmos" is a synonym for THIS, so it includes everything--the seen, the unseen, ideas, feelings, conditioning, etc--the whole shebang. What other actor could there be other than THIS? I don't remember the quote exactly, but in the Gospel of Thomas Jesus is reported to have said something like, "I come from the ALL and to the ALL I will return," and "Split a piece of wood and I am there; lift up a stone I and I am there also." His canonical quote, "I and my Father are one" is a pointer to the same thing--the wholeness and infiniteness of THIS. If he hadn't been part of Jewish community with a father-figure deity, he might have said, "I and THIS are one." LOL If we are localized aspects of a Whole, and a movement of the Whole, then whatever is happening is a happening of the Whole, including conditioning and cases of mistaken identity. So when one person injures another because of anger or jealousy or any number of reasons because of conditioning (illusory "personal" reasons), that's the Whole acting? |
|
