|
Post by enigma on Sept 9, 2017 22:45:02 GMT -5
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. We're not talking about appearances being alive in some way after they die. We're talking about whether another walking, talking person on planet Earth is actually having an experience like you are. The context is clear.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 9, 2017 22:48:22 GMT -5
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. Nobody has confessed to a belief in solipsism. Solipsism and transcendent consciousness are looking a lot like strawmen.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 9, 2017 22:59:18 GMT -5
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. Yes, but as I see it, this simply doesn't translate into the idea that another person who appears to you is a conscious perceiver.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Sept 10, 2017 3:09:54 GMT -5
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. There is no dual mind experience ... then there is . The realisation itself has no mindful content . There is a difference between no self awareness and self awareness .. All you need to do is to try and relate to the difference .. What I relate to coming out of the realisation itself is becoming aware of the mind again within a dual reality .
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 10, 2017 3:16:02 GMT -5
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? As Reefs said....by definition, a rock or shoe lace is neither alive nor consciious (but equally, the person you see walking down the street is). But that is just the small context of thingness. There is a more transcendent context in which it can be seen that 'all' is conscious and alive. This 'all' is non specific. You can't take this 'all' and then start picking out individual things. It is a realization, or a CC (I don't care which), and once you've had it, you don't lose it. I cant explain to you exactly what 'alive' means or 'conscious' means....I could only give you other similar words....but their meaning is intuitively known and felt.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 10, 2017 3:24:30 GMT -5
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. No, a shoe lace is not conscious by definition, and a human is conscious by definition. But to focus on the shoe lace or the human is to miss what's being said about what is intuitively known. The point is that the question about what, specifically, is conscious and perceiving applies only to the small context. It is really just a conspiracy theory type subject, and Im not opposed to them. But the subject is just a point of interest, it has nothing to do with spiritual realizations or cosmic experiences. This is actually what I really take issue with....I have no problem with the question itself as an interesting question, what I have a problem with is that the question has ANY spiritual relevance. To my mind, it has none. There IS value to my mind in seeing WHY it has no spiritual relevance, as that could lead to something more profound. And if perception IS creation, then the question of other perceivers is definitely misconceived.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 10, 2017 3:27:46 GMT -5
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? No, a conscious 'shoelace' cannot be recognized, because a 'shoelace' is defined and known by its inertness. But again, the experience of 'thingness' doesn't constitute our whole experience.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 10, 2017 3:38:33 GMT -5
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? It is the difference between the objectifying/conceptual/distinguishing level and the non-conceptual/intuitive level. Both levels are natural...I am not saying the first level is wrong, You can feel the truth that all of life is alive and conscious. Many have felt and known this truth. But of course, that doesn't mean that 'my grandma' is alive and conscious. That also doesn't totally negate the question of whether there are other perceivers, it just puts the question into a small context. A solipsist has no interest in intuition, spiritual realization and cosmic experience, so for him that larger context doesn't exist or is irrelevant. For the solipsist, the small context is the be all and end all.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 10, 2017 3:40:47 GMT -5
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. Nobody has confessed to a belief in solipsism. Solipsism and transcendent consciousness are looking a lot like strawmen. I beg to differ here.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 10, 2017 3:43:02 GMT -5
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. Yes, but as I see it, this simply doesn't translate into the idea that another person who appears to you is a conscious perceiver. If you are going to say that a shoelace is not a conscious perceiver, we have to say a person is a conscious perceiver. The first is defined by its inertness, the second is defined by its sentience.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 10, 2017 3:50:47 GMT -5
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. We're not talking about appearances being alive in some way after they die. We're talking about whether another walking, talking person on planet Earth is actually having an experience like you are. The context is clear. Well, if something specific is recognized and known by its walking, talking, feeling, thinking, understanding etc....then the something is recognized and known as sentient and perceiving. You recognize and know yourself that way too.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 10, 2017 6:35:35 GMT -5
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. Universal animation isn't intellectually explainable nor intellectually defensible. The misapplication of mind to the idea of literally conscious things is, of course, quite comical. That the science of Physics had to inevitably discover a hint of it is a fantastically wonderful irony. Relating what's meant by it can get quite subtle, and there's two ways to do it well: poetry or mathematics. All the stuff in between can get rather muddled quite easily.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 10, 2017 6:39:59 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. Do they sell insurance for those??
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 10, 2017 7:19:30 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 laughter on Sept 10, 2017 7:26:48 GMT -5
This is pretty close to how I see it. I would say there is a small but valid context in which one can question or not know if a human or rock or chair is conscious and alive but the broader context of knowing that everything is intrinsically conscious and alive always trumps the small context. This intuitive knowing is stable, though as has been said, it may have to be realized or cosmically experienced. And yes, appearances are empty, hence why we use the word 'appearance', but this has little or nothing to do with the point under discussion. What does it mean to say a shoe lace is conscious and alive? You don't seem to me to chasing an answer to the existential question. But do you see how this distinction between a live object and an inanimate object is the basis for a particular form of the existential question?
|
|