Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2018 4:25:02 GMT -5
How does your question relate to my question? I'm saying it's not a relative truth! I knew that if I occupied the space that said it was only a relative truth, that that would force you to answer his question. (I'll keep the laughter to myself this time) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2018 5:54:45 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? How is this process of assuming taking place? Is an assumption, really a mental processing happening because a point of perception engages you first? Or is an assumption being made prior to any mental processing i.e. do you feel it in your gut whether an appearance has a Godly point of perception in it. Or is it just totally dependent on your direct perception? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 23, 2018 9:00:46 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. Haha. You've got a good point, but I often write for other people to act as a counterbalance. I have no illusions about ever changing E.'s mind about anything.  I had a grandfather who was quite a character. When he rode in an elevator, he would always wait for everyone else to tell the operator which floor they wanted to find out if his floor number would be called. When someone asked him why he never called out his floor unless he had to, he replied, "Because I'm saving that breath to die on." He was one of the happiest people I've ever known, so maybe that's a clue. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 23, 2018 9:15:25 GMT -5
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"? Sorry, yea, you said consciousness is not conscious (which {still} seems pretty like to me an oxymoron). I still don't get it. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 23, 2018 9:43:06 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. Sounds right to me. E discounts the value of CC experiences...because he considers ND experiences to be in the same category of dualistic experiences... I didn't mean to say you discount the value of experiences, period (duality in relation to duality). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 23, 2018 9:47:12 GMT -5
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? You said ZD's explanation is correct. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 23, 2018 9:52:11 GMT -5
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. Well, I see folks confirming truths (in experience), but not 'Truth'. Do you take it as true that you are conscious, alive, sentient and experiencing, or do you take it as 'True'? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 23, 2018 9:53:50 GMT -5
How does your question relate to my question? I'm saying it's not a relative truth! So you were stating 'Truth'? How can 'Truth' be stated? This is what I don't understand. It seems like you have another category that I don't have. Maybe you see 'transcendent Truths' as different to both relative truths and Truth? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 23, 2018 9:55:05 GMT -5
I've noticed in the last year that you very often pick out a single line of discussion while ignoring the rest.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? It's irritating because I have to then repeat myself! |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 23, 2018 9:58:24 GMT -5
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? Well, when you say that you know that you are alive, sentient, experiencing, perceiving, conscious...but you don't know if others are, then I would guess that you would say that this is known beyond experience, and that's why you don't question it. Whereas I would say that any knowing that applies only to myself, and which discounts others, is a knowing IN experience and is questionable. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 23, 2018 9:59:59 GMT -5
I wasn't concerned, either sincerely or insincerely. That's what makes your concern insincere; expressing concern without being concerned. And yet there was no expression of concern It's quite possible that I might have been secretly celebrating sN being out of sorts! I guess I'm pleased to see that you at least think that I would be the concerned type. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 23, 2018 10:00:42 GMT -5
Then have you concluded that from what you have realized? Yes Okay, so are you okay when others offer conclusions based on their realizations? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 23, 2018 10:01:55 GMT -5
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. lol I meant 'tnemgif' (I put it in almost unbreakable code). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 23, 2018 10:45:34 GMT -5
Okay, so are you okay when others offer conclusions based on their realizations? Not if they disagree with his. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2018 10:46:03 GMT -5
He's not listening to you Bob, so save your breath man. Haha. You've got a good point, but I often write for other people to act as a counterbalance. I have no illusions about ever changing E.'s mind about anything. I had a grandfather who was quite a character. When he rode in an elevator, he would always wait for everyone else to tell the operator which floor they wanted to find out if his floor number would be called. When someone asked him why he never called out his floor unless he had to, he replied, "Because I'm saving that breath to die on." He was one of the happiest people I've ever known, so maybe that's a clue. Yeah man, that kind of observation makes sense to me. It's a lot like how 'Oneness in action' really works. I guess if you would have asked him whether there was any effort involved with saying his floor number, if it wasn't called, then he would have just laughed at you. |
|
