|
Post by Reefs on Sept 9, 2017 10:39:43 GMT -5
What does it mean to say a shoe lace is conscious and alive? I wouldn't say that. At the superficial level of thingness...shoelaces, chairs, rocks, animals....I would agree that we can distinguish between some things as alive and some as dead, some as having consciousness/presence and some as not having consciousness/presence etc. But this is the most superficial level, there is a deeper level of intuitive knowing that all things (non specific) have an aliveness, a consciousness, a presence. And this knowing is more potent than our enquiry or superficial curiosity about individual things. Right. And so in order to believe in solipsism, one has to cut oneself off from one's intuitions.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 9, 2017 10:41:51 GMT -5
What does it mean to say a shoe lace is conscious and alive? If you see shoe laces then mind (intellect) has already entered the picture and shoe laces are not conscious and alive by definition. Yes. Conscious/alive is transcendent of dualities that we engage with about specific things and events. So it is valid and true to say that my grandma is dead, but this validity/truth is a mind/intellect validity/truth. There is a deeper, more powerful level that doesn't negate or invalidate that smaller context, it just goes beyond it.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 9, 2017 10:49:26 GMT -5
I wouldn't say that. At the superficial level of thingness...shoelaces, chairs, rocks, animals....I would agree that we can distinguish between some things as alive and some as dead, some as having consciousness/presence and some as not having consciousness/presence etc. But this is the most superficial level, there is a deeper level of intuitive knowing that all things (non specific) have an aliveness, a consciousness, a presence. And this knowing is more potent than our enquiry or superficial curiosity about individual things. Right. And so in order to believe in solipsism, one has to cut oneself off from one's intuitions. For sure. We have to jump through mental hoops to believe in solipsism. I can see value in it to the extent that it invites us to challenge conditioned beliefs, but it strikes me as very fussy about what beliefs it challenges, and I think can potentially leave us with a deeper sense of separation than before we started. Solipsism as a precursor to self-inquiry could be good, because the result should obviously be the dispensing of the mental hoops.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 9, 2017 11:05:56 GMT -5
What's confounding about the commonality of SR is that simple statements of the truth are like a duck/bunny in that there's no way to determine on the face if the understanding expressed is intellectual or embodied, and like you're seeing with the idea of "all is conscious, but that doesn't mean that every thing is conscious", the point where the CC and SR descriptions meet gets easily twisted by mind into the mental confusion of paradox. That's why I am extra careful when words like consciousness, beingness, isness, amness etc. are getting thrown around in every sentence. These words are so abstract that they are essentially void of any meaning. And so you will usually find them at the center of a TMT tornado.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 9, 2017 11:46:07 GMT -5
I mentioned it because you implied the 'solipsist' position is mentally derived and doesn't include direct seeing. But moving on, the issue seems to be that this realization tells you that there are other conscious perceivers while it just tells me that appearances are empty. I've not had that realization. The realization I've had is that everything is actually empty, and nothing is conscious. I've said, myself, that everything is alive, but what I mean is that everything is Consciousness itself, not that every appearance in Consciousness is imbued with it's own life and conscious awareness. I'm, inclined to believe that it IS misconceived, but I'm not buying any of the arguments I've heard so far and I've not had the direct seeing that reveals that misconception. When you realize your own nature, you know there are no others. You don't learn something about the nature of others. The question of others doesn't arise, but this doesn't reveal the relationship between appearances and experiential perspective any more than it reveals how the dream itself will unfold. Before I can respond to this in detail you have to tell me your definitions of those terms that you regularly use because your vocabulary is a little confusing. Except for the term 'empty' I go with the dictionary definitions. And so to me, if consciousness doesn't imply conscious and alive doesn't imply conscious then that's unintelligible. I am also wondering, how does this realization work out in practical terms? What's the difference between Marie and a rock and a character in your nightly dreams if nothing is conscious? How about so-called heartfelt deep emotional bonds between a parent and a child or two lovers? Right, when you realize your own nature, you know there are no others. But there are two ways of realizing this. One in a negative way by seeing directly what is not the case (Realization 1), one in a positive way by seeing directly what is the case (Realization 2). So in this sense, Realization 1 is half circle and Realization 2 is full circle. Remember what Ramana said, he said that both the ordinary man and the sage say "I am the body". Reefs: I agree, though I hesitate to call a CC experience a realization even though I understand why you're suggesting that. Zen uses the term "kensho" to denote an experience during which one sees into one's true nature. A kensho experience can be a minor momentary glimpse, or a huge mind-blowing phenomena of deep unity and insight. Like you said, such an experience can reveal what is so, as well as what isn't so, and it usually results in one or more realizations. The most common realization that results from kensho experiences of all kinds can be stated as, "Reality is not what we think it is," or "Reality has a depth to it that cannot be apprehended by thought." If a kensho experience is extremely deep and powerful, and has sufficient duration, it is more likely to be called a "cosmic consciousness experience" or "daikensho." If sufficiently deep, something is apprehended that can only be called "Spirit," "Self," or "Source." Apprehending THAT results in reverence, humility, awe, and gratitude for being allowed into such Presence. One of my major existential questions prior to a deep kensho experience was, "Is there a God?" or "Does such a thing as God exist?" During the experience something ineffably vast and incomprehensible was apprehended that I'm sure a Christian would have later (after dualistic thinking returned) identified as God. In my case, that which was apprehended was beyond anything imaginable, so the anthropomorphic and baggage-loaded word "God" was way too limited to use as a descriptive term. I prefer Suzanne Segal's term "The Vastness" or Ramana's "Self" because they don't conjure up the kind of images and ideas associated with the word "God." Nevertheless, my existential question definitely got answered, and I definitely apprehended something beyond anything that the mind could possibly have imagined. Another major realization associated with a deep kensho experience can be stated as "The entire cosmos is alive, intelligent, benevolent, loving, and aware." One sees that there is a certain inherent logic to everything that happens, and that the cosmos is perfect just as it is. Like you, I suspect that both realization 1 and 2 are necessary in order for mind to fully relax, and perhaps even more than that. Zen emphasizes that everything must be left behind on the path to "mind functioning freely," and this would include all realizations, attainments, insights, and ideas. I suspect that this level of emptiness is what Jesus was pointing to when he said, "The foxes have their dens, and the birds have their nests, but the son of man has nowhere to lay his head." Such a human simply is. Ironically, virtually nothing can be said about that way of being.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 9, 2017 19:38:01 GMT -5
I mentioned it because you implied the 'solipsist' position is mentally derived and doesn't include direct seeing. But moving on, the issue seems to be that this realization tells you that there are other conscious perceivers while it just tells me that appearances are empty. I've not had that realization. The realization I've had is that everything is actually empty, and nothing is conscious. I've said, myself, that everything is alive, but what I mean is that everything is Consciousness itself, not that every appearance in Consciousness is imbued with it's own life and conscious awareness. I'm, inclined to believe that it IS misconceived, but I'm not buying any of the arguments I've heard so far and I've not had the direct seeing that reveals that misconception. When you realize your own nature, you know there are no others. You don't learn something about the nature of others. The question of others doesn't arise, but this doesn't reveal the relationship between appearances and experiential perspective any more than it reveals how the dream itself will unfold. Yes, in my view, that's a different way of pointing to the same place as removing doubt about the nature of others. And just as it's not true that every thing is conscious, the void nature of otherness quite obviously doesn't mean that you and I are the same peeps. I don't have any doubts about what you've realized. As far as I'm concerned, your experiences are different from mine and lead us to prefer different expressions in terms describing the informing of mind, and on this particular point, especially what we'd suggest to others. And if you opinion of me is other than that I don't have a problem with it, at all. I've written many times over the past year+ that I certainly respect if someone is engaged in not-knowing on the topic of otherness. I'm not too eager to try to convince you that there's some whizbang spiritual experience that you should chase, but on the other hand, what I've found for myself is that things keep getting interestinger and interestinger as time goes on. The aliveness that Reefs is referring to is Life, the totality. It's anywhere and everywhere, anytime. I'm not comfortable relating that to ideas that try to tie in Physics, but like I told Reefs already, Heisenberg makes an interesting point on the topic in his philosophy book. What he wrote, essentially, is that It's not a person that takes a measurement, but the entire Universe. So it doesn't really matter if a person is there to read the Geiger counter when it clicks: from his perspective the falling tree in the empty forest does make a sound.I yike that.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 9, 2017 19:43:14 GMT -5
I know that's what you are saying. It's what the screen metaphor is pointing to. And I don't have an issue with that. What I have an issue with is that this is the realization that will resolve the solipsism issue. There's another realization, also prior to intellect and based on direct seeing, that will reveal that everything is actually alive (and conscious). It's what the extensions of source metaphor is pointing to. And that's the realization that will put the solipsism issue to rest as yet another misconceived existential question. It's what Tenka is pointing to when he says that once you've realized your own nature (or Self) you can't possibly be in doubt about the nature of others. But just in case, let's hear your definitions of 'intellect', 'appearances' and 'empty'. Zackley .. It's a no-brainer as they say ... A no brainer refers to an obvious conclusion. What have you concluded from your realization?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 9, 2017 19:58:13 GMT -5
Something just occurred to me. Do you remember our discussions about this 'all ideas are empty' insight which had been portrayed as a major realization on par with SR? What are the chances that they've just morphed that into 'all appearances are empty'? "The Dharma is the truth that all natures are pure. By this truth, all appearances are empty. Defilement and attachment, subject and object don’t exist."
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 9, 2017 20:28:21 GMT -5
What I am telling you here is what can be seen directly. There are no conclusions involved. That's why I say that it can be seen that everything is alive (or conscious) and not that everything is aliveness (or consciousness). So there is no logical deduction happening, like 'because everything is consciousness everything that appears is conscious' as some want to believe. That's not the case. And it should also be mentioned that when you see that the rock or chair is alive, you don't actually see a rock or a chair. The perception is happening but it doesn't register as a rock or a chair. That's what I was pointing to when I mentioned anthropomorphism in reply to Enigma's post. A rock, by definition, is not alive. And yet, prior to registering as a rock, it is. This is very difficult to explain. But I think you get it. You've been very clear on this topic lately, even though you've approached it mostly conceptually. So it's interesting that we basically agree here. Yep I get it. A rock, or chair, by definition is not alive....but deeper than the superficial registering of the particular things we are talking about, it is all alive. So yes, when you see the chair or rock is alive, you dont actually see 'the rock' and 'the chair'. You see the aliveness. We don't actually lose the superficial registering but the deeper level is more powerful than the superficial. But an alive shoe string doesn't mean a conscious shoe string? Then what does alive mean?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 9, 2017 20:52:43 GMT -5
No realization is happening in a vacuum. As Seth is pointing out, knowledge has to be individualized in order to be realized. And so you naturally get lots different flavors. But they all tend to have some common denominators. In that sense, I'd say SR doesn't really have significant variations. It's pretty clear-cut. Not so CC. There are lots of variations in terms of depth. So SR it's a lot easier to talk about SR than CC for that reason alone. Now, regarding post SR/CC, there are even more variations. And it's fascinating to hear the individual stories and see how that plays out in actuality. Ironically the experiences are as easier to compare than the realizations as they are entirely unique because they're all relative and time-bound, so language is well-suited. But the type of language that gets used runs toward the poetic because of the underlying theme of unity. Where it breaks down is in trying to explain that there is no sense of a separate experiencer in the experience while it's happening, it's the "infinite perceiving the infinite". "The infinite perceiving the infinite" is, of course, a big fat fastball for the analysts and word parsers. What's confounding about the commonality of SR is that simple statements of the truth are like a duck/bunny in that there's no way to determine on the face if the understanding expressed is intellectual or embodied, and like you're seeing with the idea of "all is conscious, but that doesn't mean that every thing is conscious", the point where the CC and SR descriptions meet gets easily twisted by mind into the mental confusion of paradox. Yeah, I'm on the list of confused. It sounds like yous guys are saying everything is alive and conscious, except for Andy who doesn't really think a shoe lace is conscious except on the Donald Trump level, and I don't know where the quote came from. In any case, what does it mean to be a conscious shoe lace? It seems to mean something entirely different from being a conscious animal.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 9, 2017 21:01:34 GMT -5
The destroying mind episode was just Satch taking Ramana literally. As he later conceded, there's no such thing as destroying mind happening or even necessary. This can be resolved easily. Realization 1 reveals that your identity and idea of a personal self has been entirely fictitious and the boundaries you set were actually arbitrary. In this sense, the personal self (or SVP - separate volitional person) doesn't actually exist. What remains is Self. This will resolve a whole bunch of existential questions. Once that is realized, you will never go back to this limited and arbitrary sense of self because the foundation for that just disappeared. That's what is meant by 'you are not coming out of SR'. And the peace that results from resolving those nagging existential questions is permanent because those existential question have been resolved once and for all, they've been seen as misconceived, they've been seen as baseless and so they will never arise again and so the agony that was attached to it won't ever arise again as well. That's what is meant by 'the peace that passes all understanding is an absence and not a presence'. And yes, permanent peace/bliss/contentment as a presence (instead of an absence) or EPJ (ease-peace-joy aka the perpetugasm) is a myth. I agree that one never goes back to 'that' self identity . What I have been speaking about was the actual realisation itself there was no identity at all . You have to engage with the world with some sense of self as I AM . That is why you can't pluck a chicken and eat the chicken without a sense of I AM being hungry . In the realisation itself there is no sense of I AM in reflection of the chicken and hunger . You have to reemerge with the waking world in order to identify with I AM and the chicken . You have to come out of the non identity, Self unmanifest-ness, Self realisation in order to engage with experience .. S.R. is more than just realizing you are not that self you once believed yourself to be .. it's the total disengagement / transcendence /disappearance with the reality that housed such perceptions / beliefs .. S.R. as I see it is not looking in the duality mirror and realizing what I see is not what I am . S.R. is transcending the duality mirror to reveal what you are that exists beyond that . You have to at some point return to the dual experience and then look at yourself in the mirror . Coming back into the dual reality is the coming out of the realisation itself .I think you mean coming out of the mind state. Realization doesn't require such a state, and is not a state, and so is not something you can go into and come out of.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 9, 2017 22:22:24 GMT -5
I would say all things have an aliveness and presence because they are not 'out there' in the world being alive and present but rather 'in here' being Me. There is an intimacy with all things because they are Consciousness, not because they are conscious. That's why the 'intuitive knowing' falls apart when we try to find a conscious shoe lace. It doesn't fall apart though, the knowing remains primary even though we are constantly also engaging with the smaller context. Everyone has this intuitive knowing, but some folks emphasise or focus on the small context more, thus the knowing is not at the front of their experience. Your argument is being used to say that others are conscious perceivers, so you're saying a shoe lace is conscious in the context of conscious perceivers. I'm waiting for somebody to tell me what that really means for Mr Shoelace.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 9, 2017 22:31:01 GMT -5
The issue I have with the CC experience is that, regardless of how powerful and true it seemes, it is experience, and experience involves mind, and any and all conclusions derived from it are suspect. Consciousness is tricky because it's a made up term used to talk about the movement of creation. There is no Consciousness thingy, and it certainly is not meant to imply that everything in creation is conscious. Agree. That 'balance' is fundamental to the relative movement of dualistic experience itself. Bliss, in the way we seem to be talking about it, is both intermittent and addictive, not unlike a drug high. Well, this is a bit of word-lawyering. CC is called an experience because it has a definite ending and beginning. But if you really want to go down this road then SR also has at least a definite beginning. So in that sense CC is as much an experience as is SR. Fact is that both refer to something that happens prior to mind (intellect) and both realizations don't happen in time. And as such it is not what we usually call an experience. Yes, consciousness is not a thing. But the dictionary definition of consciousness is very clear. So what you are doing here seems counterproductive in terms of clarity. So a CC 'experience' is actually a realization? con·scious·ness the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings. "she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later" the awareness or perception of something by a person. plural noun: consciousnesses "her acute consciousness of Mike's presence" the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world. "consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain" Sorry, not what I mean when I say Consciousness.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 9, 2017 22:33:15 GMT -5
What does it mean to say a shoe lace is conscious and alive? If you see shoe laces then mind (intellect) has already entered the picture and shoe laces are not conscious and alive by definition. When mind recognizes a conscious shoelace, it goes unconscious?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 9, 2017 22:40:46 GMT -5
I wouldn't say that. At the superficial level of thingness...shoelaces, chairs, rocks, animals....I would agree that we can distinguish between some things as alive and some as dead, some as having consciousness/presence and some as not having consciousness/presence etc. But this is the most superficial level, there is a deeper level of intuitive knowing that all things (non specific) have an aliveness, a consciousness, a presence. And this knowing is more potent than our enquiry or superficial curiosity about individual things. Right. And so in order to believe in solipsism, one has to cut oneself off from one's intuitions. Appearances are either conscious or not. How can they be conscious on one 'level' and not on another? And even if they are somehow, what could that mean? What does it mean for Mr Shoelace?
|
|