|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 25, 2018 19:33:45 GMT -5
You haven't answered the question. Tired of your questions. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 25, 2018 19:37:48 GMT -5
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). It's not. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 25, 2018 20:26:41 GMT -5
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. For many people these realizations are not simultaneous; they're sequential. Suddenly seeing the absence of the SVP leads to the subsequent realization that what one is is THIS. Also, for many people oneness suddenly becomes the case, and it is not a realization in the way that you prefer to define it. One moment one lives in a dualistic reality, and in the next moment that dualistic reality disintegrates and is replaced by an alive oneness witnessed by an unknown witnesser. What do we call that? Perhaps we should call it "a non-dual event." Some people call it "a shift." Many of us talk about CC's as experiences because the condition of oneness continues, but the actual event of shifting from one world to the other is sudden. It happens in a split second. Neither the word "experience" nor "realization" seems adequate as a definition. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 25, 2018 20:54:12 GMT -5
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. It's only an oxymoron if one is attached to a particular definition or a particular way of thinking about the life events that we label "CC's". If someone prefers to call a CC a CC event rather than a CC experience, it doesn't change what happened. It just changes the way we talk about it or think about it. |
|
|
|
Post by etolle on Dec 25, 2018 21:22:32 GMT -5
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. For many people these realizations are not simultaneous; they're sequential. Suddenly seeing the absence of the SVP leads to the subsequent realization that what one is is THIS. Also, for many people oneness suddenly becomes the case, and it is not a realization in the way that you prefer to define it. One moment one lives in a dualistic reality, and in the next moment that dualistic reality disintegrates and is replaced by an alive oneness witnessed by an unknown witnesser. What do we call that? Perhaps we should call it "a non-dual event." Some people call it "a shift." Many of us talk about CC's as experiences because the condition of oneness continues, but the actual event of shifting from one world to the other is sudden. It happens in a split second. Neither the word "experience" nor "realization" seems adequate as a definition. zen you describe whatever it was that happened with me so well..without this board my experience would be the same but I would not have a clue as to what it was..gracias amigo |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 25, 2018 22:24:04 GMT -5
For many people these realizations are not simultaneous; they're sequential. Suddenly seeing the absence of the SVP leads to the subsequent realization that what one is is THIS. Also, for many people oneness suddenly becomes the case, and it is not a realization in the way that you prefer to define it. One moment one lives in a dualistic reality, and in the next moment that dualistic reality disintegrates and is replaced by an alive oneness witnessed by an unknown witnesser. What do we call that? Perhaps we should call it "a non-dual event." Some people call it "a shift." Many of us talk about CC's as experiences because the condition of oneness continues, but the actual event of shifting from one world to the other is sudden. It happens in a split second. Neither the word "experience" nor "realization" seems adequate as a definition. zen you describe whatever it was that happened with me so well..without this board my experience would be the same but I would not have a clue as to what it was..gracias amigo Like you, when it happened to Eckhart Tolle, he didn't understand what had happened to him until much later because he had no reference for it. He only knew that he woke up in a different world than the one he lived in prior to getting sucked into what he called "a vortex" triggered by one strange thought that stopped his mind. Later, he realized that 80% of his thinking had simply ceased as a result of what happened. This is one reason that he talks so much about mind talk and the effect of incessant mind talk. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2018 3:25:31 GMT -5
You haven't answered the question. Tired of your questions. No. You just have a boundary around this aspect and you always will do. It's like you still feel guilty for what happened. I still don't understand why you turned to a hospital and not a Reiki Master. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2018 3:53:18 GMT -5
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. For many people these realizations are not simultaneous; they're sequential. Suddenly seeing the absence of the SVP leads to the subsequent realization that what one is is THIS. Also, for many people oneness suddenly becomes the case, and it is not a realization in the way that you prefer to define it. One moment one lives in a dualistic reality, and in the next moment that dualistic reality disintegrates and is replaced by an alive oneness witnessed by an unknown witnesser. What do we call that? Perhaps we should call it "a non-dual event." Some people call it "a shift." Many of us talk about CC's as experiences because the condition of oneness continues, but the actual event of shifting from one world to the other is sudden. It happens in a split second. Neither the word "experience" nor "realization" seems adequate as a definition. Yeah, that's a great description, though it clearly raises the question of what lives in a 'dualistic reality'. The dualistic reality is never actually so, and yet there is almost a concrete experience of it. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 26, 2018 4:50:02 GMT -5
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. Conversation is hard when you keep creating new categories of truth. There were a few reasons I gave up talking to Fig but this was the main one. You will be throwing in direct and indirect knowing into the mix next. So where does self-evidently true fit into the scheme of 'relative truth, transcendental truth, and Truth'? In my opinion, 'self-evidently true' is problematic because most folks would say it's self-evidently true that they are a person/self. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 26, 2018 5:11:57 GMT -5
For many people these realizations are not simultaneous; they're sequential. Suddenly seeing the absence of the SVP leads to the subsequent realization that what one is is THIS. Also, for many people oneness suddenly becomes the case, and it is not a realization in the way that you prefer to define it. One moment one lives in a dualistic reality, and in the next moment that dualistic reality disintegrates and is replaced by an alive oneness witnessed by an unknown witnesser. What do we call that? Perhaps we should call it "a non-dual event." Some people call it "a shift." Many of us talk about CC's as experiences because the condition of oneness continues, but the actual event of shifting from one world to the other is sudden. It happens in a split second. Neither the word "experience" nor "realization" seems adequate as a definition. Yeah, that's a great description, though it clearly raises the question of what lives in a 'dualistic reality'. The dualistic reality is never actually so, and yet there is almost a concrete experience of it. That's a great question. Apparently THIS, in the form of an adult human inhabits a mind-made sense of reality, and that sense of reality can disintegrate. THIS then returns to a child-like state of mind that is present-moment oriented, egoless, and relatively thought-free compared to the past. When sufficient thinking returns, the previous mind-made sense of reality gradually returns. That's why I suspect it's a brain-shift phenomenon (from left brain to right brain in simplistic terms). This would explain the euphoria that accompanies the shift (endorphin release), etc. This would also explain why someone like Courtois lived in this child-like state of mind for several years before returning to graduate school where reflective thought intensified, and she gradually lost her enlightened state of mind. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 26, 2018 5:20:40 GMT -5
That I am conscious and experiencing is not a transcendent truth, though it IS unquestionable because it is self evident. Conversation is hard when you keep creating new categories of truth. There were a few reasons I gave up talking to Fig but this was the main one. You will be throwing in direct and indirect knowing into the mix next. So where does self-evidently true fit into the scheme of 'relative truth, transcendental truth, and Truth'? In my opinion, 'self-evidently true' is problematic because most folks would say it's self-evidently true that they are a person/self. That's a valid observation. I quit following the discussion regarding relative truth, transcendental truth, Truth, and truthin because I could no longer understand what was being pointed to or discussed. Of course, that also may be because I'm too dumb or too lazy to follow the subtle nuances that these terms attempt to describe.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 26, 2018 5:32:29 GMT -5
Conversation is hard when you keep creating new categories of truth. There were a few reasons I gave up talking to Fig but this was the main one. You will be throwing in direct and indirect knowing into the mix next. So where does self-evidently true fit into the scheme of 'relative truth, transcendental truth, and Truth'? In my opinion, 'self-evidently true' is problematic because most folks would say it's self-evidently true that they are a person/self. That's a valid observation. I quit following the discussion regarding relative truth, transcendental truth, Truth, and truthin because I could no longer understand what was being pointed to or discussed. Of course, that also may be because I'm too dumb or too lazy to follow the subtle nuances that these terms attempt to describe. I don't think it's dumbness/laziness. If we were having a biology discussion, we would handle endless distinctions, and would be fine when more keep being introduced. But on the forum we are fundamentally talking about something that is too simple for words. So although we are fine with some level of distinction, when we see these distinctions multiply, and then multiply again....there's a sense of 'hang on! This is meant to be too simple for words!'. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 26, 2018 10:37:50 GMT -5
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. It's only an oxymoron if one is attached to a particular definition or a particular way of thinking about the life events that we label "CC's". If someone prefers to call a CC a CC event rather than a CC experience, it doesn't change what happened. It just changes the way we talk about it or think about it.All events are experiences and all experiences are dualistic, no matter how cosmic they are. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 26, 2018 10:42:18 GMT -5
It's only an oxymoron if one is attached to a particular definition or a particular way of thinking about the life events that we label "CC's". If someone prefers to call a CC a CC event rather than a CC experience, it doesn't change what happened. It just changes the way we talk about it or think about it.All events are experiences and all experiences are dualistic, no matter how cosmic they are. I think we've agreed to disagree about this. I'm simply presenting a countervailing view to yours of what's going on. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 26, 2018 10:50:10 GMT -5
zen you describe whatever it was that happened with me so well..without this board my experience would be the same but I would not have a clue as to what it was..gracias amigo Like you, when it happened to Eckhart Tolle, he didn't understand what had happened to him until much later because he had no reference for it. He only knew that he woke up in a different world than the one he lived in prior to getting sucked into what he called "a vortex" triggered by one strange thought that stopped his mind. Later, he realized that 80% of his thinking had simply ceased as a result of what happened. This is one reason that he talks so much about mind talk and the effect of incessant mind talk. The way I see it, Tolle created a focus of mind on the question 'Who is it who can't stand to live with myself?' This is not different from inquiring 'Who am I', and is an excellent focus for potential realization. Once disassociated from mind identity, the corresponding self referential thoughts ceased and Peace ensued. |
|
