|
Post by Reefs on Sept 10, 2017 8:33:16 GMT -5
And in my experience there was a progression of levels to this over the course of my life. As a child and a young adult I reveled in the senses, in different ways of course. But at each stage there were these peak experiences that really put me in touch with the feeling of being alive and plugged into the world. Those experiences and the underling joy of them contributed to my acceptance of the idea of interconnected material oneness. The shock of discovering what was underneath this when the mind suddenly stopped during self-inquiry was sublime, and I've written a few times how my mind made the meaning of more than one meditation where it seemed to me like my car or a room or a landscape was literally staring back at me. Everyone knows this state of interconnectedness, it's what flow is about and flow is the state of being that is most typical in the early years. It's how most of us spent their childhood. It's what some call alignment or a state of grace. Shock, I don't know. More like awe.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 10, 2017 8:38:36 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 .Sure, there's no running away from the human condition.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 10, 2017 8:44:51 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. In the context of philosophy, solipsism has its place. In the context of spirituality, it's just a rigid mental position (to borrow one of your terms, hehe).
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 10, 2017 8:58:49 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. Yeah, I don't find Zen really clear in that regard. Although they do include both realizations. It's clear that non-duality is mostly built around Realization 1 and A-H and Seth is mostly built around Realization 2. About Segal, I do like the phrase 'collision with the infinite' a lot. It's a very apt description. And just to be clear, only having a reference for Realization 2 is as half circle as only having a reference for Realization 1. Having a reference for both gives a more complete picture. Having a reference only for one of the two may result in a rather one sided and unbalanced view on things. And having had both realization doesn't mean one has reached the end of the road either. But it definitely results in a more balanced view.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 10, 2017 9:12:31 GMT -5
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. There's more than one way of realizing oneness, CC is one of them. If you don't like to call CC a realization, that's fine. The fact remains though, CC will leave you with a realization. I already gave you my definition of consciousness, and I'll give it again: consciousness refers to the state of being conscious (and Webster for one agrees with that definition). Now, it would be mighty cool if you could return that favor and finally tell us your own definition so that we can make sense of what you are saying.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 10, 2017 9:15:51 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? Not sure how you get there from what I've said there. This is actually similar to the mountain metaphor. I don't recall you having an issue with understanding that. Just look at what I said there in that way.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 10, 2017 9:18:34 GMT -5
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. I thought the topic was about whether or not those other individual person things were conscious perceivers. Isn't that the solipsist issue being referred to?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 10, 2017 9:22:47 GMT -5
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. It's toadally irrelevant and has no significance. It's the answers that I find intriguing.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 10, 2017 9:26:40 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? No one said that. What we are talking about are different ways of perception. The outer senses don't allow you to see the shoelace as conscious. You need the inner senses for that. But then it's not a shoelace anymore. Again, this is similar to the mountain metaphor again. It's about seeing with two different sets of eyes.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 10, 2017 9:31:00 GMT -5
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. A shoelace is defined by it's utility in tying shoes. The inertness implied is what's being questioned. If peeps will stop saying everything is conscious, I can stop asking about Mr Shoelace.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 10, 2017 9:38:45 GMT -5
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. There are no solipsists here so lets put that straw man away. The issue is that it can't be known whether another individual that is not you is an experiential point of perception. That question doesn't seem to relate to aliveness of Being in it's wholeness. If we stop pretending it does the issue will go away.
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Sept 10, 2017 9:43:47 GMT -5
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. I'm following along loosely over here, and the crux of the issue seems to be whether objects are conscious and alive and the difference between saying an animal is conscious as opposed to a book or what we think of as non living non biological systems. My first thoughts were to look at this idea of consciousness itself. It is through humans, or at least through human mind function, that consciousness creates identification. Mind function allows consciousness to suppress energy and project through the compensation mechanism leaving an unconscious identity (an unconscious identification complex) intricately linked to a facade or ego, that which compensates for truth through distortion of reality. Whether consciousness can create the identification complex through more primitive forms is seemingly up for debate. This distortion of reality skews a singular movement into something it 'was not' such that it is perceived as something it 'is not', and this misperception is causally forced by unconscious energy, or better yet, the creation of unconscious energy. The suppression and compensation through projection run simultaneously, even though as the facade is structured, we can seemingly isolate them from one another. From within the movement of ego structuring, it then makes sense to differentiate between change in form and the unchanging formless dimension. Not to say one exists separate from the other, but that the idea of consciousness gains meaning through the creation of the unconscious, and more pointedly, the identification complex. In this sense, in one way, you could say nothing, objectively speaking, is conscious, only unconscious, or everything is consciousness and unconscious identification seemingly is happening to some things, and these things, humans and perhaps even other creatures, are only introduced as separate through conceptualization. There are some distinctions to be made, of course, among points of apparent perception and whether or not other folks are having the same type of experience you are. If you're saying a shoe lace is comprised of, or animated by, an intelligence not separate from the intelligence at the root of both conscious and unconscious thinking, your own experience, I don't have an issue with it. In my book, the idea of a conscious person doesn't compute until we first introduce the unconscious person, not just a biological system unconscious of its connectedness with all that is, but a system running on a program that distorts truth, distorts consciousness, the singular movement, so that the conscious observer 'has something' to become conscious of. And it is in the wake of becoming conscious that some new contexts arise, most of which logically can at best be conjecture.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 10, 2017 9:46:34 GMT -5
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. I'm saying I don't know any of that and you do. I'm asking how you know, and you're giving me transcendent aliveness that doesn't translate to individual appearances.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 10, 2017 9:49:20 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." That's your definition of 'empty'?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 10, 2017 10:05:36 GMT -5
And in my experience there was a progression of levels to this over the course of my life. As a child and a young adult I reveled in the senses, in different ways of course. But at each stage there were these peak experiences that really put me in touch with the feeling of being alive and plugged into the world. Those experiences and the underling joy of them contributed to my acceptance of the idea of interconnected material oneness. The shock of discovering what was underneath this when the mind suddenly stopped during self-inquiry was sublime, and I've written a few times how my mind made the meaning of more than one meditation where it seemed to me like my car or a room or a landscape was literally staring back at me. Everyone knows this state of interconnectedness, it's what flow is about and flow is the state of being that is most typical in the early years. It's how most of us spent their childhood. It's what some call alignment or a state of grace. Shock, I don't know. More like awe. The awe is common -- like realization -- while the shock is subjective -- experiential. The shock is surprise. The two re-alignments that surprised me the most were the facts of perfection and non-volition. Perfection didn't require any informing of mind, while nonvolition did. These conditioned beliefs might seem common among groups of people but they're ultimately subjective. I'm sure some people aren't surprised at all by what they find. Peeps orientation to interconnected material oneness has been a past tell on these forum dialogs, so I've written critically about it in the past because of that. But overall, there's alot positive that I could write about it as well. "♪ the rock-bone's connected to the ♫ .. ground-bone .. ♫ the ground-bone's connected to the ♪ .. shoe bone ♪ .. the shoe bone's connected to the ♫ ... "
|
|