|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 22, 2018 23:44:48 GMT -5
The part where you inquired as to whether he was feeling out of sorts lately. You're parsing words and a discussion hasn't begun yet. Are you just warming up in the bullpen? Asking someone if they have been out of sorts lately could come with an energy of concern, but in this case I had no concern about sN, and didn't express concern. It was an expression of curiosity/seeking understanding. You may think that the curiosity was insincere (I wouldn't argue that point with you), but currently, you are projecting concern. Yes, what about it? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 23, 2018 0:02:21 GMT -5
For this body/mind a CC revealed wholeness, infiniteness, and much more, but because the CC was non-dual the seeing and knowing was direct rather than dualistic/intellectual/conceptual. Only after dualistic thought returned did it become possible to say (because the direct seeing informed mind), "Reality is not what I thought it was." This is why many of us claim that CC's involve a major realization and reveal that our true nature is unbounded and intellectually incomprehensible. To deny the realization that results from a CC because a CC is defined as equivalent to a dualistic experience seems like an exercise in intellectual speculation. For most people a CC is a life-changing experiential realization.
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 23, 2018 0:03:17 GMT -5
(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? Absolutely, because there is no "other." |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 23, 2018 0:14:41 GMT -5
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. I said that Consciousness is unconscious? If so, that would be a careless thing for me to say, but I'd like to see a real quote. In any event, my position is that Consciousness is not conscious. Is that still "the glitch in my paradigm"? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 23, 2018 0:17:05 GMT -5
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. What does that have to do with my question? Why are you making this so hard? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 23, 2018 0:31:31 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. Sounds right to me. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 23, 2018 0:35:13 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. I've had woo woo experiences. I don't really talk about them because they're irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 23, 2018 0:42:34 GMT -5
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'. What does that mean? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 23, 2018 0:45:36 GMT -5
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. That's what makes your concern insincere; expressing concern without being concerned. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 23, 2018 0:49:42 GMT -5
Obviously, I didn't conclude that from my experience. You just told Jaspa I was consistent about that. Why are you high fiving? Then have you concluded that from what you have realized? Yes |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 23, 2018 0:52:10 GMT -5
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)? You mean the 'A' word? Yes.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2018 4:05:28 GMT -5
(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? Or God Godding, yes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2018 4:08:32 GMT -5
For this body/mind a CC revealed wholeness, infiniteness, and much more, but because the CC was non-dual the seeing and knowing was direct rather than dualistic/intellectual/conceptual. Only after dualistic thought returned did it become possible to say (because the direct seeing informed mind), "Reality is not what I thought it was." This is why many of us claim that CC's involve a major realization and reveal that our true nature is unbounded and intellectually incomprehensible. To deny the realization that results from a CC because a CC is defined as equivalent to a dualistic experience seems like an exercise in intellectual speculation. For most people a CC is a life-changing experiential realization. He's not listening to you Bob, so save your breath man. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2018 4:14:37 GMT -5
Which is why I say that to him, everyone else's experiences have become irrelevant. Yet his own, still keep their relevance. I don't really talk about them because they're irrelevant. Yeah, so did Marie, in fact me and her spoke about one of hers one time. So I already knew how dominant your view was. When you went to an ER because you were unable to bring your kundalini back to base. Did you also classify that as a 'woo woo experience'? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2018 4:20:53 GMT -5
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. Lol.. I'll find it when I can be bothered. |
|
