|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 25, 2018 9:38:34 GMT -5
Well I guess the confusion/debate is twofold. First, some folks know some transcendent truths that others don't. Secondly, perhaps some realizations trump others, so then that creates debate. Realizations are never in conflict with each other. Well, by 'trump', I don't necessarily mean they are in direct conflict, more just that one can supercede another. Perhaps for example, it can be realized that 'I am not a separate volitional person'. And then it can be realized that I am 'This'. The second supersedes the first. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 25, 2018 9:42:45 GMT -5
Okay, now this IS interesting. So you take it as 'transcendent truth' that you are conscious, alive, sentient, experiencing.....but when ZD, Reefs etc speak of a 'transcendent truth' that they have had....you have challenged it on the basis that it is a 'transcendent truth'!!! So are transcendent truths questionable or not? If they're not questionable, then you have to accept Reefs/ZD's transcendent truth, even though you may not personally yet know what they know. Just for the record, when I talk about CC I am referring to the realization, not the experience. ZD uses the term a lot more loosely. And I basically agree with Enigma about experiences not being realizations, always have. It's better to keep the terms apart and not mix them or else everyone thinks they had a CC. But I also do understand how someone who doesn’t have an actual reference for this realization would dismiss it as a spectacular woo-woo experience even though there’s nothing woo-woo about a CC. And there’s nothing I can do or say to change that either. That’s just the nature of realizations, you have to have had the actual realization in order to understand what’s been talked about. That’s called truthin’. On the contrary, if you haven’t had the realization but are at least open minded enough, you can come pretty close to a good conceptual understanding though, but it’s always going to be a mere shadow of the actual thing. Truth is not truthin'. In the terms E was using, I would assume that relative truths are associated with normal experience. He said that his knowing that he is conscious, sentient, alive, and experiencing is a transcendental truth, and as he sees this as unquestionable. I guess his issue with 'sartori' is that he doesn't see that as transcendental truth, he sees it as normal experience. I would say that sartori definitely falls into the category of transcendental truth. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 25, 2018 11:18:19 GMT -5
No, that was just energy ravaging my body. Did you realise that the body was just an appearance before entering the ER or upon leaving it? Of course. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 25, 2018 11:22:22 GMT -5
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). How can there be a non-dual experience? Experience is all about duality. Is this really a serious question? If so, what would you call direct seeing in which there is no separate observer or time? You've been calling it a realization. Well, this is what occurs in a CC, but it can only be processed dualistically afterwards. IOW, you've said that a realization involves realizing what is NOT so. This realization cannot occur during a non-dual experience, or non-dual event, or whatever-we-want-to-call-it, because everything is direct, and there is no separate entity who can think about or know what's been realized until the intellect becomes dualistically functional again. During a CC there can be no comparative thinking regarding what is so or what is not so because there is only what is so. This is why many of us claim that a CC is not an experience in the usual dualistic sense. During a CC there is only oneness. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 25, 2018 11:24:24 GMT -5
I take that to be a transcendent Truth, yes. ZD says those experiences reveal what IS so. Okay, now this IS interesting. So you take it as 'transcendent truth' that you are conscious, alive, sentient, experiencing.....but when ZD, Reefs etc speak of a 'transcendent truth' that they have had....you have challenged it on the basis that it is a 'transcendent truth'!!!So are transcendent truths questionable or not? If they're not questionable, then you have to accept Reefs/ZD's transcendent truth, even though you may not personally yet know what they know. No, I haven't. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 25, 2018 11:29:58 GMT -5
It's not some truth that lies either in experience or beyond, nor is it a knowing. It's simply obvious that neither one of us knows. Don't waste your time questioning whether in fact you really don't know something. I think you misunderstood what I said slightly, I was talking about YOUR knowing that you are alive, sentient, conscious etc. I don't know if you consider this to be a knowing IN experience, or a knowing beyond experience. I would assume that you consider relative truths to be knowings IN experience, and transcendent truths to be knowings beyond experience. And 'Truth' itself is obviously beyond experience. If one is conscious then being conscious is happening. This is the meaning of self evident. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 25, 2018 11:43:28 GMT -5
Realizations are never in conflict with each other. Well, by 'trump', I don't necessarily mean they are in direct conflict, more just that one can supercede another. Perhaps for example, it can be realized that 'I am not a separate volitional person'. And then it can be realized that I am 'This'. The second supersedes the first. If it doesn't supercede it (and I'd agree that it does), at least the second realization you mention certainly expands one's understanding by informing mind about what's going on, and that's why I've mentioned this issue in the past. Suddenly seeing that one is NOT an SVP is usually (but maybe not always) followed by the subsequent realization, "I am THIS." Perhaps, and I'm speculating here, realizing "I am THIS" is more likely to occur if one has first apprehended the totality, wholeness, and infiniteness of reality. My actual thought following the realization that I was NOT who I had thought I was, and then the subsequent realization of what was actually aware of the world in the absence of a SVP, was, "I am the process of reality, itself." Several years later, I shortened this statement of the obvious to, "I am THIS." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 25, 2018 11:52:58 GMT -5
Did you realise that the body was just an appearance before entering the ER or upon leaving it? Of course. You haven't answered the question. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 25, 2018 12:05:38 GMT -5
Okay, now this IS interesting. So you take it as 'transcendent truth' that you are conscious, alive, sentient, experiencing.....but when ZD, Reefs etc speak of a 'transcendent truth' that they have had....you have challenged it on the basis that it is a 'transcendent truth'!!! So are transcendent truths questionable or not? If they're not questionable, then you have to accept Reefs/ZD's transcendent truth, even though you may not personally yet know what they know. Just for the record, when I talk about CC I am referring to the realization, not the experience. ZD uses the term a lot more loosely. And I basically agree with Enigma about experiences not being realizations, always have. It's better to keep the terms apart and not mix them or else everyone thinks they had a CC. But I also do understand how someone who doesn’t have an actual reference for this realization would dismiss it as a spectacular woo-woo experience even though there’s nothing woo-woo about a CC. And there’s nothing I can do or say to change that either. That’s just the nature of realizations, you have to have had the actual realization in order to understand what’s been talked about. That’s called truthin’. On the contrary, if you haven’t had the realization but are at least open minded enough, you can come pretty close to a good conceptual understanding though, but it’s always going to be a mere shadow of the actual thing. Truth is not truthin'. My point is that the realization does not become consciously known in the sense that E. uses the term until afterwards. During a CC various thoughts occurred, but in my case there was no reflective thought such as, "Oh, reality isn't what I thought it was," nor was there any thought, such as, "Wow, so this is what reality really is." There was no comparative thinking. I was simply living in a new and different world where there was no separation, and the body/mind organism had no idea who was perceiving it. The usual dualistic way of perceiving reality had been totally replaced by direct perception. The body/mind was only perceiving what was obviously SO rather than what is NOT so. If we want to define "realization" to be either the realization of what is so as well as what is not so, that's okay with me, but E.'s definition is obviously lacking one side of the coin. I've asked this before, but never gotten an answer. When someone with a strongly-defined sense of selfhood that seems to be "in here," suddenly sees that that sense of "me" has vanished, this is a direct seeing that something that once seemed to be present is no longer present. Is this seeing of an absence an experience or a realization? It happens instantly, so time is definitely not involved, and it is only AFTER that seeing occurs, that one then realizes, "Oh, I'm not a SVP as I previously thought." IOW, I question any definition of the word "realization" that is too narrow to encompass what appear to be different kinds of direct seeing. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 25, 2018 13:03:54 GMT -5
Okay, now this IS interesting. So you take it as 'transcendent truth' that you are conscious, alive, sentient, experiencing.....but when ZD, Reefs etc speak of a 'transcendent truth' that they have had....you have challenged it on the basis that it is a 'transcendent truth'!!!So are transcendent truths questionable or not? If they're not questionable, then you have to accept Reefs/ZD's transcendent truth, even though you may not personally yet know what they know. No, I haven't. Okay, you have challenged it on the basis that they see 'sartori' as a 'transcendent truth'. In the context of there being 'relative truths', 'transcendent truths' and then 'Truth' itself....'sartori' would HAVE to be transcendent truth (especially if you are going to say that knowing yourself to be alive, conscious etc is transcendent truth). |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 25, 2018 13:05:30 GMT -5
I think you misunderstood what I said slightly, I was talking about YOUR knowing that you are alive, sentient, conscious etc. I don't know if you consider this to be a knowing IN experience, or a knowing beyond experience. I would assume that you consider relative truths to be knowings IN experience, and transcendent truths to be knowings beyond experience. And 'Truth' itself is obviously beyond experience. If one is conscious then being conscious is happening. This is the meaning of self evident. I think that's more of a tautology perhaps. But the 'act' of consciousness (being conscious) is both individual and whole, remember? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 25, 2018 13:10:43 GMT -5
Well, by 'trump', I don't necessarily mean they are in direct conflict, more just that one can supercede another. Perhaps for example, it can be realized that 'I am not a separate volitional person'. And then it can be realized that I am 'This'. The second supersedes the first. If it doesn't supercede it (and I'd agree that it does), at least the second realization you mention certainly expands one's understanding by informing mind about what's going on, and that's why I've mentioned this issue in the past. Suddenly seeing that one is NOT an SVP is usually (but maybe not always) followed by the subsequent realization, "I am THIS." Perhaps, and I'm speculating here, realizing "I am THIS" is more likely to occur if one has first apprehended the totality, wholeness, and infiniteness of reality. My actual thought following the realization that I was NOT who I had thought I was, and then the subsequent realization of what was actually aware of the world in the absence of a SVP, was, "I am the process of reality, itself." Several years later, I shortened this statement of the obvious to, "I am THIS." That's how it happened for me. First I clearly saw that the 'I' that I had taken myself to be, was a conditioned 'I'....and therefore I had been living a lie. After that was a process of coming to know the true nature of reality. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 25, 2018 19:10:59 GMT -5
Just for the record, when I talk about CC I am referring to the realization, not the experience. ZD uses the term a lot more loosely. And I basically agree with Enigma about experiences not being realizations, always have. It's better to keep the terms apart and not mix them or else everyone thinks they had a CC. But I also do understand how someone who doesn’t have an actual reference for this realization would dismiss it as a spectacular woo-woo experience even though there’s nothing woo-woo about a CC. And there’s nothing I can do or say to change that either. That’s just the nature of realizations, you have to have had the actual realization in order to understand what’s been talked about. That’s called truthin’. On the contrary, if you haven’t had the realization but are at least open minded enough, you can come pretty close to a good conceptual understanding though, but it’s always going to be a mere shadow of the actual thing. Truth is not truthin'. In the terms E was using, I would assume that relative truths are associated with normal experience. He said that his knowing that he is conscious, sentient, alive, and experiencing is a transcendental truth, and as he sees this as unquestionable. I guess his issue with 'sartori' is that he doesn't see that as transcendental truth, he sees it as normal experience. I would say that sartori definitely falls into the category of transcendental truth. That I am conscious and experiencing is not a transcendent truth, though it IS unquestionable because it is self evident. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 25, 2018 19:20:41 GMT -5
How can there be a non-dual experience? Experience is all about duality. Is this really a serious question? If so, what would you call direct seeing in which there is no separate observer or time? You've been calling it a realization. Well, this is what occurs in a CC, but it can only be processed dualistically afterwards. IOW, you've said that a realization involves realizing what is NOT so. This realization cannot occur during a non-dual experience, or non-dual event, or whatever-we-want-to-call-it, because everything is direct, and there is no separate entity who can think about or know what's been realized until the intellect becomes dualistically functional again. During a CC there can be no comparative thinking regarding what is so or what is not so because there is only what is so. This is why many of us claim that a CC is not an experience in the usual dualistic sense. During a CC there is only oneness. An experience is an event occuring in time. Both the event and the time in which it occurs are dualistic perceptions involving mind. I didn't mean to say anything about CC's, just to say 'non-dualistic experience' seems like an oxymoron. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 25, 2018 19:31:08 GMT -5
Well, by 'trump', I don't necessarily mean they are in direct conflict, more just that one can supercede another. Perhaps for example, it can be realized that 'I am not a separate volitional person'. And then it can be realized that I am 'This'. The second supersedes the first. If it doesn't supercede it (and I'd agree that it does), at least the second realization you mention certainly expands one's understanding by informing mind about what's going on, and that's why I've mentioned this issue in the past. Suddenly seeing that one is NOT an SVP is usually (but maybe not always) followed by the subsequent realization, "I am THIS." Perhaps, and I'm speculating here, realizing "I am THIS" is more likely to occur if one has first apprehended the totality, wholeness, and infiniteness of reality. My actual thought following the realization that I was NOT who I had thought I was, and then the subsequent realization of what was actually aware of the world in the absence of a SVP, was, "I am the process of reality, itself." Several years later, I shortened this statement of the obvious to, "I am THIS." For me, the realization that I am not separate, and the realization of oneness, were simultaneous and identical. They're just different ways of conceptualizing the same thing. In essence, it is the realization that separation is not so. |
|
