quotes

[stardustpilgrim]

Jan 8, 2024 3:52:21 GMT -5 inavalan said:

The great Indian yogi, poet, and philosopher Sri Aurobindo wrote:

• “the subliminal being has also a larger direct contact with the world; it is not confined like the surface Mind to the interpretation of sense-images and sense-vibrations supplemented by the mental and vital intuition and the reason. There is indeed an inner sense in the subliminal nature, a subtle sense of vision, hearing, touch, smell and taste; but there are not confined to the creation of images of things belonging to the physical environment (…). It is the subliminal reality and not the outer mind that possesses the powers of telepathy, clairvoyance, second sight and other supernormal faculties whose occurrence in the surface consciousness is due to openings or rifts in the wall erected by the outer personality’s unseeing labour of individualisation and interposed between itself and the inner domain of our being. (…) the power of the subliminal to enter into a direct contact of consciousness with other consciousness or with objects, to act without other instrumentation, by an essential sense inherent in its own substance, by a direct mental vision, by a direct feeling of things (…) but these capacities are occasional, rudimentary, vague. (…) It is only if we can open up the wall between the outer mind and the inner consciousness to which such phenomena are normal” (Aurobindo, 2001)
  

sdp likes immeasurably. Whether by design or by chance, you have stumbled upon the *real deal*. A gazallion years ago (well, probably about 25 years ago), I chanced upon the biography of Aurobindo by Satprem, The Adventure in Consciousness, some such, I'll have to look it up. I was sufficiently interested to further check out both Aurobindo and Satprem. Satprem has a most excellent book, The Mind of the Cells. So I know beyond any doubt whatsoever that Aurobindo was on the right track, Satprem was a student of both Aurobindo and The Mother. The Mind of the Cells has some profoundly existential and phenomenologically significant personal accounts. Aurobindo extensively detailed his paradigm in numerous writings, I'd say pretty accurate. I'd say he wrote from direct experience. I'd say he was a pioneer of the spirit, the higher dimensions, in the sense of "Lewis & Clark".

Good find.

There was a guy here some years ago who also very much liked Aurobindo and Satprem. He was like me not a nondualist without qualification. I don't recall his name, I think I can find it as we corresponded somewhat. sunshine, I think his name was sunshine, 8 years ago.

[inavalan]

Jan 8, 2024 10:31:09 GMT -5 laughter said:

Jan 8, 2024 4:06:33 GMT -5 inavalan said:

The famous physicist and Nobel Prize winner Richard Feynman remarked,

• “the first principle is not to fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool”.

Polonius: "but this above all: to thine own self be true, and it will surely follow, as night follows day, that you cannot be false to any man."

This reply reminds of Frasier's "But if less is more just think how much more more would be."

[stardustpilgrim]

Jan 8, 2024 10:31:09 GMT -5 laughter said:

Jan 8, 2024 4:06:33 GMT -5 inavalan said:

The famous physicist and Nobel Prize winner Richard Feynman remarked,

• “the first principle is not to fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool”.

Polonius: "but this above all: to thine own self be true, and it will surely follow, as night follows day, that you cannot be false to any man."

But it depends upon if you are true to the false self or true to the true self. That has to be sorted out first. A wise man once said, the foolish man built his house upon the sand, the wise man built his house upon a rock. Feynman is correct.

[laughter]

Jan 8, 2024 18:00:44 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

Jan 8, 2024 10:31:09 GMT -5 laughter said:

Polonius: "but this above all: to thine own self be true, and it will surely follow, as night follows day, that you cannot be false to any man."

But it depends upon if you are true to the false self or true to the true self. That has to be sorted out first. A wise man once said, the foolish man built his house upon the sand, the wise man built his house upon a rock. Feynman is correct.

Here, debate this ham sandwich about it -->

[laughter]

Jan 8, 2024 17:00:58 GMT -5 inavalan said:

Jan 8, 2024 10:31:09 GMT -5 laughter said:

Polonius: "but this above all: to thine own self be true, and it will surely follow, as night follows day, that you cannot be false to any man."

This reply reminds of Frasier's "But if less is more just think how much more more would be."

Billy Shakes refrained from saying more, this much is true.

[inavalan]

Jan 8, 2024 19:43:41 GMT -5 laughter said:

Jan 8, 2024 17:00:58 GMT -5 inavalan said:

This reply reminds of Frasier's "But if less is more just think how much more more would be."

Billy Shakes refrained from saying more, this much is true.

To paraphrase your Frasier on my Niles' Feynman's remark:

"But if you can't trust yourself, just think how much better you'll be if you still trust yourself."

[inavalan]

• "At that point perhaps debunkers hold 'the burden of proof', being now responsible for providing evidence to demonstrate the validity of their own claims. Skeptics often forget to be skeptical about their own skepticism." --- Anonymous 

[someNOTHING!]

Jan 8, 2024 13:23:49 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

Jan 8, 2024 8:54:51 GMT -5 someNOTHING! said:

Thanks, that helps me to not have to read ALL of the Enneads, assuming that is where the quotes came from. I'm curious to see if there's an explanation of 'distinctions' between 'soul' and 'The One'. Maybe you can help me with finding any of those.

Your diagram, and the meaning of emanation. It's kind of like making tea, with the same teabag. The One is the teabag. Nous is your first cup. Then you use the same teabag, Soul is the second cup. Then you use the same teabag, the world of manifestation is the 3rd cup. That's a rough analogy.

But I am interested. I've had interest in the past, I will take a refresher course.

Yea...I don't think it's a farce, not in any sense. I just don't know how anyone could say, this is IT, that there is "no which of which there is no whicher" (Alan Watts). ...I can understand CC a little better than Realization, that is, ZD's Vast Intelligence. How would you know that This Is It? For sdp the Vast Intelligence is the Absolute, that's the peak of your Plotinus diagram. ....Gotta walk, it's getting dark, the flood has stopped. ....But the peak is also present, right here, right now.

No. Intelligence is Plotinus’ Intellect/Nous (as in 'God's Mind) in how I see it. People can get a sense of that, no doubt. The break with any previously understood notion of reality is just above that Intellect/Nous. EVERYTHING collapses into The One/NOTHING. How I’d express it is that Intelligence is of the highest, most inclusive substrate of order, and there’s a lot of super-sensory Being involved there. Don’t get me wrong, purddy wingding cool, so I let a lot of that stuff in with respect to what is infinitely potential. I just wouldn’t say it’s The One (per Plotinus). It’s not a judgment in that it is wrong, bad, lacking, etc, just not IT, with respect to the depth of discussions we allow here on the board. I typically would not go chatting about this stuff too much in a public domain that is mostly ordered by the consensual trance paradigm. Not wise, unless of course I needed a rent-free room.

I have assumed you had a glimpse of IT back in 1975ish, but have only identified (impersonally) with said Nous/Intelligence that you felt and perhaps which nudged you past the dark night of the Soul (see Plotinus). It is my supposition that there was a lot of emotional baggage in what was dropped, and perhaps there is something of it that was worth holding on (guilt, for example, has a weasely way of finding its way back into a mix,,, much like 'survivors' guilt after a major accident involving a death). Perhaps it was a peak experience, dunno. But using it as a reference point, if you were to settle into that memory and take a good look around for what was there prior to mind (that noticed and remembers a dreamlike state playing out before its eye via sense/feeling), prior to Nous/Soul that also might inform the mind, you might notice the complete absence of person/thing. Right Here, right Now.

It might be why you like to say more/further/etc. Dunno.

[laughter]

Jan 8, 2024 21:05:05 GMT -5 inavalan said:

Jan 8, 2024 19:43:41 GMT -5 laughter said:

Billy Shakes refrained from saying more, this much is true.

To paraphrase your Frasier on my Niles' Feynman's remark:

"But if you can't trust yourself, just think how much better you'll be if you still trust yourself."

Self-honesty is as profound a question for the seeker of truth as it gets.

[inavalan]

Jan 10, 2024 11:50:50 GMT -5 laughter said:

Jan 8, 2024 21:05:05 GMT -5 inavalan said:

To paraphrase your Frasier on my Niles' Feynman's remark:

"But if you can't trust yourself, just think how much better you'll be if you still trust yourself."

Self-honesty is as profound a question for the seeker of truth as it gets.

People are honestly believing whatever they feel, like Winston. They really get self-suggested into feeling, and believing. For them, that is the reality. Their physical bodies (gestalts) react accordingly. That kind of delusion is like in a very realistic dream, when you have no clue that you are dreaming, when even if you test it, it seems "real". Surely, everything is real. Delusion is a real state.

[stardustpilgrim]

Jan 10, 2024 13:01:38 GMT -5 inavalan said:

Jan 10, 2024 11:50:50 GMT -5 laughter said:

Self-honesty is as profound a question for the seeker of truth as it gets.

People are honestly believing whatever they feel, like Winston. They really get self-suggested into feeling, and believing. For them, that is the reality. Their physical bodies (gestalts) react accordingly. That kind of delusion is like in a very realistic dream, when you have no clue that you are dreaming, when even if you test it, it seems "real". Surely, everything is real. Delusion is a real state.

Somebody explain to inavalan about the mirage and the canteen.

[Reefs]

"Team spirit is the glue that binds the losers together."

— Felix Dennis

[stardustpilgrim]

Jan 9, 2024 8:19:00 GMT -5 someNOTHING! said:

Jan 8, 2024 13:23:49 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

Your diagram, and the meaning of emanation. It's kind of like making tea, with the same teabag. The One is the teabag. Nous is your first cup. Then you use the same teabag, Soul is the second cup. Then you use the same teabag, the world of manifestation is the 3rd cup. That's a rough analogy.

But I am interested. I've had interest in the past, I will take a refresher course.

Yea...I don't think it's a farce, not in any sense. I just don't know how anyone could say, this is IT, that there is "no which of which there is no whicher" (Alan Watts). ...I can understand CC a little better than Realization, that is, ZD's Vast Intelligence. How would you know that This Is It? For sdp the Vast Intelligence is the Absolute, that's the peak of your Plotinus diagram. ....Gotta walk, it's getting dark, the flood has stopped. ....But the peak is also present, right here, right now.

No. Intelligence is Plotinus’ Intellect/Nous (as in 'God's Mind) in how I see it. People can get a sense of that, no doubt. The break with any previously understood notion of reality is just above that Intellect/Nous. EVERYTHING collapses into The One/NOTHING. How I’d express it is that Intelligence is of the highest, most inclusive substrate of order, and there’s a lot of super-sensory Being involved there. Don’t get me wrong, purddy wingding cool, so I let a lot of that stuff in with respect to what is infinitely potential. I just wouldn’t say it’s The One (per Plotinus). It’s not a judgment in that it is wrong, bad, lacking, etc, just not IT, with respect to the depth of discussions we allow here on the board. I typically would not go chatting about this stuff too much in a public domain that is mostly ordered by the consensual trance paradigm. Not wise, unless of course I needed a rent-free room.

I have assumed you had a glimpse of IT back in 1975ish, but have only identified (impersonally) with said Nous/Intelligence that you felt and perhaps which nudged you past the dark night of the Soul (see Plotinus). It is my supposition that there was a lot of emotional baggage in what was dropped, and perhaps there is something of it that was worth holding on (guilt, for example, has a weasely way of finding its way back into a mix,,, much like 'survivors' guilt after a major accident involving a death). Perhaps it was a peak experience, dunno. But using it as a reference point, if you were to settle into that memory and take a good look around for what was there prior to mind (that noticed and remembers a dreamlike state playing out before its eye via sense/feeling), prior to Nous/Soul that also might inform the mind, you might notice the complete absence of person/thing. Right Here, right Now.

It might be why you like to say more/further/etc. Dunno.

You're trying to pour everything into the ND mold, it doesn't work that way. Tenka, for example, has talked about the levels Soul or Nous (spirit), the people he is talking to, for example ZD, have no reference for soul or spirit, inavalan also. Plotinus is talking about vibratory levels. And on the return path you can't skip any levels. You have to ~make real~ each level upward, for yourself. Let's arbitrarily assign a number to the vibratory levels. And let's double the rate of vibration of each successive level, a low number for faster, a higher number for slower vibratory level. So the One, the highest, Source, the Absolute of Plotinus would be the lowest density of matter (there is no dualism as written about by Descartes), the highest rate of vibration. So the second level moving down, emanation, Nous, would be 2. Next level, Soul, would be 4, our level, 8. So tenka, for example, is discussing levels 4 and 2. What tenka is asking, how can you say you have a realization of The One, and at the same time you don't know anything about levels 4 and 2? It's an excellent question. Now, inavalan has a model of the vibratory levels 4 and 2, but I've asked several times, do you have any actual experience of levels 4 and 2, or are you just describing a model? He hasn't answered.

So to understand Plotinus, you have to ~live in~ the model of Plotinus, you have to make-it-not-a-model, but reality. You can't just say, oh, I've had a realization of The One.

You see, sdp is not interested in a ND Realization of The One. sdp is interested in moving up (Richard Rose's ladder, which is essentially the enneads of Plotinus, his description), making real every moment of this world, #8, which is the way to make real the next vibratory level, #4. We have a physical body to live in this physical world. A body does not come ready-made, to live in the next vibratory level, #4. The path upward is about actually constructing a body, of the vibratory level, of each successive vibratory level. And, again, you can't skip levels. You can't jump from 8 to 2. So, for sdp, to have a ND Realization of The One, is a goal, shown, to be existentially achieved. The physical body is a chemical laboratory which is necessary to synthesize a body of the next higher vibratory level. This is what alchemy was all about, it wasn't about turning actual lead into actual gold, that was but an outer symbol according to the law of correspondence.

So to understand Plotinus, you have to work within his model the way he meant it. ....And the further, I have kept mentioning, is the vibratory level, 4. If you don't have reference for it, that's means ~you've never been there~. That's why Realization is not my language, existential experience is my language.

So why can you only-have a ND realization of The One? Because you can't experience it, without first traversing levels 4 and then 2.

And so then, this "model" brings us all together, everybody. But it's a completely arbitrary model. It's *models* the real. That's why, First you have to row a little boat. Plotinus has a wonderful, magnificent model, but it isn't really a model. It's a ~game plan~. Somebody experiences those levels, and then brings back the ashes, the dust, the chards, the whisper, the scent, the shadow. It's a more extensive version of Plato's allegory of the cave, which isn't an allegory. To have a ND Realization, and then go back to your old life, is like Esau selling his birthright to Jacob for a bowl of beans. A glimpse is to be treated as an irresistible and irrevocable motivation, to want to live there. A ND Realization, it seems to me, as it is written about, is like a Moon mission, we planted a flag, and haven't been back in 50 years. But not even that, we had a realization of what going to the Moon, is like.
Just to add a note. Seth would be of the Soul vibratory level, 4. Seth2 would be of the Nous vibratory level 2. Loosely speaking.

What Gurdjieff taught was how to traverse the levels, one person at a time. And then when somebody had gotten it sufficiently, he let them teach, and then likewise. A brief reference. The Mount of Transfiguration was a glimpse, for Peter, James and John. It was just ordinary life for Jesus. Peter, James and John saw Jesus talking to Moses and Elijah. Look at what Peter said. Oh, wow!, this is f-ing fantastic good-God-almighty, let's just pitch a tent and live here. Jesus Christ!, I want to live here! But of course, Peter James and John were just ~going along for the ride~, but they had an unforgettable glimpse. They existentially experienced the next level up.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I was actually beflustered when I first read your post, I couldn't reply. I'll come back to the personal stuff.

[stardustpilgrim]

Meditation is one of the most boring things a person can do. Cheri Huber

Edited, explained in post below. "Just sitting and watching is very much like meditation, and according to egocentric karmic conditioning/self hate, meditation is one of the most boring things a person can do! page 38, The Big Bamboozle by Cheri Huber 2015.

[stardustpilgrim]

Here is another ace up the sleeve of the Big Bamboozle, the illusory self: Heads I win, tails you lose. Cheri Huber (somewhat paraphrased).