|
Post by laughter on Sept 27, 2017 16:13:09 GMT -5
. Because it's not merely an intellectual change in the mind, of course. The mind must be quieted.... and then it also has to be in the script. The creator of the script decides what happens to the images in the end. oh, ok. Thanks for clarifying what you really meant then. Ok, so on one hand you've written that Self is experiencing and thinking but then on the other you agree, that in the context you're referring to "Self", that "Self" isn't an object that can have thoughts and experiences. Yes, paradox is always a creation of mind -- you obviously understand the most important facet of paradox -- and objectifying monisms is one of the primary roots of those creations. You've written enough that I see you clearly understand what I mean by this idea of objectifying a monism, but can you notice it happening in your own mind, as it happens? Of course. Language and mind work in monisms, which is precisely why they ought to acknowledge that when it comes to these topics, paradox is inevitable. When people are seekers, they feel that they are in control. If they are honest, they must act per that feeling and engage in the seeking practice that seems to resonate. They may and do follow their honest convictions. At the same time, if they are seekers, they will at some point conclude that personal control cannot possibly be true. So they must act as if they have control while knowing that it cannot really be the case. That's paradoxical, but there we are again. Or they can conclude the whole thing is an incredible mystery, which comes to the same thing. The real truth is that nothing is in the person's control, because the person doesn't really exist. The person no more exists than there is actually a person who lives in the reel of a movie. No -- it's just a series of frames. And if the frames seem to connect in a way that show a causal relationship between what a character in one of the frames does and what that character seems to do in another frame -- that relationship is a) an interpretation assembled in the mind of a viewer and b) ultimately due to the director, actors, etc. Why would we assume one lifetime is enough? Maybe it takes many. Certainly the ancient traditions believed that. Effort is usually necessary but not sufficient. Of course grace is required as well -- again, the mind is a series of thoughts that comes from God. God decides when that series of thoughts has grown sufficiently calm that it ought to be graced with the semblance of self-knowledge. Maybe it comes soon, maybe never. Or conversely, perhaps God decides to enlighten someone who has not put in any prior effort -- at least in this lifetime. We clearly don't see the whole picture. But if that happens, that happens. Well, I'm a one-time atheist who confirmed as a Catholic a few months ago, but I'll be the first to tell you that there is no God deciding who gets to realize the existential truth. Paradox isn't inevitable, it's only created in a mind that applies thought to ideas that can only ever lead to more conceptualization, varied and different forms of the existential question, and an overall mental/physical kinematic effect that obscures, rather than illuminates. Mostly mental. Reincarnation is a great example of a misleading mental construct, very clearly bourne of existential confusion. There is no script. Creation is constantly re-writing itself, in every eternal moment that our minds mistake as instants of time, and there's no putting any of it in a box. So now this version of self-realization that's emerging from the dialog is that it's a change in the conditioned mind that requires effort and then when the time is right some external divine force makes the final tweak. I'm fine with that in metaphorical terms. In my opinion, it works as an abstract template that applies to some path stories. But it doesn't apply to all path stories. If a would-be spiritual teacher sees all their students as nails they'll have nothing for them but a hammer. Letting a seeker off of the hook that is the double-bind of free will is missing a grand opportunity. If they get comfy and cozy with paradox then they're ignoring something right on the tip of their noses that has the potential to motivate them to a clarity that can only happen with a sudden and dramatic burst of sincerity. In my experience, there was nothing so wonderfully dizzying as admitting that I still had something to find in meditation while at the same time accepting that the effort was futile.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 27, 2017 17:29:48 GMT -5
Chicken's head cut-off with body still wiggling. What's your point?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 27, 2017 17:51:26 GMT -5
Ok, so on one hand you've written that Self is experiencing and thinking but then on the other you agree, that in the context you're referring to "Self", that "Self" isn't an object that can have thoughts and experiences. Yes, paradox is always a creation of mind -- you obviously understand the most important facet of paradox -- and objectifying monisms is one of the primary roots of those creations. You've written enough that I see you clearly understand what I mean by this idea of objectifying a monism, but can you notice it happening in your own mind, as it happens? Of course. Language and mind work in monisms, which is precisely why they ought to acknowledge that when it comes to these topics, paradox is inevitable. Sure, please go ahead and elaborate. I'm intrigued. I will say that in my experience, any claimed categorical verbal certainty about what can or cannot be and absolutely be stated about what Is -- has been a far more frequent symptom of "mind creating a false sense of identity." When people are seekers, they feel that they are in control. If they are honest, they must act per that feeling and engage in the seeking practice that seems to resonate. They may and do follow their honest convictions. At the same time, if they are seekers, they will at some point conclude that personal control cannot possibly be true. So they must act as if they have control while knowing that it cannot really be the case. That's paradoxical, but there we are again. Or they can conclude the whole thing is an incredible mystery, which comes to the same thing. The real truth is that nothing is in the person's control, because the person doesn't really exist. The person no more exists than there is actually a person who lives in the reel of a movie. No -- it's just a series of frames. And if the frames seem to connect in a way that show a causal relationship between what a character in one of the frames does and what that character seems to do in another frame -- that relationship is a) an interpretation assembled in the mind of a viewer and b) ultimately due to the director, actors, etc. . Because it's not merely an intellectual change in the mind, of course. The mind must be quieted.... and then it also has to be in the script. The creator of the script decides what happens to the images in the end. Why would we assume one lifetime is enough? Maybe it takes many. Certainly the ancient traditions believed that. Effort is usually necessary but not sufficient. Of course grace is required as well -- again, the mind is a series of thoughts that comes from God. God decides when that series of thoughts has grown sufficiently calm that it ought to be graced with the semblance of self-knowledge. Maybe it comes soon, maybe never. Or conversely, perhaps God decides to enlighten someone who has not put in any prior effort -- at least in this lifetime. We clearly don't see the whole picture. But if that happens, that happens. It seems to me that language and mind are all about pluralism. Isn't that what duality is about? How is that paradoxical? Mind must act in some way because it isn't in control. You talk about God deciding as though it is not a figure of speech. Is it?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 27, 2017 18:01:49 GMT -5
Sure, please go ahead and elaborate. I'm intrigued. I will say that in my experience, any claimed categorical verbal certainty about what can or cannot be and absolutely be stated about what Is -- has been a far more frequent symptom of "mind creating a false sense of identity." Ok, it's enough of a digression that I'm going to write about it separately. What leads you to associate this idea with that? You've stated that realization requires grace. Have you stated a "verbal certainty about what can or cannot be and absolutely be stated about what Is"? To see a paradox in: the mind has to follow a particular pattern of thought that is inherently self-referential. Similar to the the pattern of thought/emotion that generates the false sense of personal self. It goes like this: " well, to say that the question has no explanation is an explanation, so it's a paradox."
With me so far? The train of thought forms the meaning of the statement as a paradox by first labeling it an explanation. This is the way the mind works generally when it's unobserved and left to it's own thing. It generates the next thought in the train based on contriving an interest in the current thought. There's alot more I can write about this, as it's really a fascinating topic, right at that twilight zone where mind has the opportunity either to quiesce or spin. Yes, I see that as the TMT tipping point.
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Sept 27, 2017 18:20:31 GMT -5
Chicken's head cut-off with body still wiggling. What's your point? Detaching the mind from the brain is like cutting the chicken's head off. The wiggling body is the mind. Even if its as good as dead there is still some life in it. This is what Srila Prabhupad told his disciples. That the moment of death one should focus his mind not brain on Krishna alone. That way when he goes into samadhi, one goes home back to God.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 27, 2017 18:57:32 GMT -5
Yes, I think redglove is l-i-k-e 1/2 way between sdp and you-un-suzs.... Oh, do you mean that in the sense of the 48 possible levels of ascended ethereal beings who walk the earth evolving toward ever greater spiritual mastery? More or less... (less).... [Have you been watching too much Stargate SG-1?]
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 27, 2017 19:12:23 GMT -5
This "paradigm" doesn't fit well with (modern) nondual teaching. There is agreement that, as we are, we do not have our own I, our own I am. From my view this is because essence has not grown to its potential (because of the faulty process described above). Nonduality stops there. Essence is one's true individuality, but it is thwarted potential. My path is to some day have one's own, mature, I (am). Ah, ok, I think I understand a little better now. I think I mostly agree with you that non-duality per se does not address the maturation of the essence, as you call it. But that's because it views the baby non-verbal mind and the adult mind as both manifestations of the ego. True, the former is non-verbal and more immediate, and yes, that does bear an important relation to the meditative state. But realization shows that both involve duality, that both are not the true I. IMO. That said, maturation of the ego -- integration of the thinking and non-thinking modes of mind -- happens post-realization. And from the relative standpoint it's a good thing! Well....there us a problem. Ego is a dead end and goes nowhere, there is zero maturation of ego. Any movement in ego is merely moving the deck chairs on the Titanic. (But nice try).
|
|
|
Post by redglove on Sept 27, 2017 19:32:56 GMT -5
Sure, please go ahead and elaborate. I'm intrigued. I will say that in my experience, any claimed categorical verbal certainty about what can or cannot be and absolutely be stated about what Is -- has been a far more frequent symptom of "mind creating a false sense of identity." Ok, it's enough of a digression that I'm going to write about it separately. What leads you to associate this idea with that? You've stated that realization requires grace. Have you stated a "verbal certainty about what can or cannot be and absolutely be stated about what Is"? No -- because I'm more than happy to admit that such metaphysical speculation is just that -- a best guess, not the absolute truth. "Grace" is obviously a mental category, and whatever Is is beyond the mind. If you want to call your "no explanation" theory a speculative theory, I'd be happy to agree with that classification. I'd still disagree with the content, of course. But it seems like -- and please do correct me if I am wrong -- you are suggesting that disagreement with that verbal speculation suggests the presence of "a false sense of identity" in the one who disagrees. And that's what I was referring to above. Well of course. The mind could be stopped by the words, koan-like, if it were seeking Itself. Outside the mind, paradox and non-paradox don't apply, obviously. If the mind is not seeking, however, it has no reason to attempt to still itself, and may proceed to the philosophical import of the words -- thus the labeling. The mental realm of labeling is not destroyed by the realization of the nondual, but exists as a sphere inside it.
|
|
|
Post by redglove on Sept 27, 2017 19:46:32 GMT -5
Well, I'm a one-time atheist who confirmed as a Catholic a few months ago, but I'll be the first to tell you that there is no God deciding who gets to realize the existential truth. Paradox isn't inevitable, it's only created in a mind that applies thought to ideas that can only ever lead to more conceptualization, varied and different forms of the existential question, and an overall mental/physical kinematic effect that obscures, rather than illuminates. Mostly mental. Reincarnation is a great example of a misleading mental construct, very clearly bourne of existential confusion. I see our debate as mirroring an analogous debate in Western philosophy. Some held that all paradox was simply wrong thinking, or thinking where thinking was inapplicable (e.g. Wittgenstein). But others said some things were perfectly legitimate questions but simply beyond the ken of mind to answer (e.g. Kant). So I guess we both have illustrious intellectual predecessors in these positions. What makes you think God isn't making decisions about realization? Where do all the images in experience come from, for instance? The very notions of the senses, the qualitative feel of thoughts and feelings... from whence do they all come? In what cosmic forge are they forged? They aren't created in front of us, and nonduality simply keeps silent. Wherever they come from and whatever intelligence makes them -- we call God. Isn't mind made from that forged stuff? So if God forges them, is it not God who decides to finally polish some particular mind to a clean and classy sheen? Sure, a script was just a metaphor. Though frankly we have no idea whether creation is re-writing itself or whether all events already exist eternally. Try to be everything to everyone and you'll be nothing to no one. The teacher who possesses a hammer should know it and seek out nails. But is it futile? Still, it's a good point to think on for me. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by redglove on Sept 27, 2017 19:50:52 GMT -5
Of course. Language and mind work in monisms, which is precisely why they ought to acknowledge that when it comes to these topics, paradox is inevitable. Sure, please go ahead and elaborate. I'm intrigued. I will say that in my experience, any claimed categorical verbal certainty about what can or cannot be and absolutely be stated about what Is -- has been a far more frequent symptom of "mind creating a false sense of identity." When people are seekers, they feel that they are in control. If they are honest, they must act per that feeling and engage in the seeking practice that seems to resonate. They may and do follow their honest convictions. At the same time, if they are seekers, they will at some point conclude that personal control cannot possibly be true. So they must act as if they have control while knowing that it cannot really be the case. That's paradoxical, but there we are again. Or they can conclude the whole thing is an incredible mystery, which comes to the same thing. The real truth is that nothing is in the person's control, because the person doesn't really exist. The person no more exists than there is actually a person who lives in the reel of a movie. No -- it's just a series of frames. And if the frames seem to connect in a way that show a causal relationship between what a character in one of the frames does and what that character seems to do in another frame -- that relationship is a) an interpretation assembled in the mind of a viewer and b) ultimately due to the director, actors, etc. . Because it's not merely an intellectual change in the mind, of course. The mind must be quieted.... and then it also has to be in the script. The creator of the script decides what happens to the images in the end. Why would we assume one lifetime is enough? Maybe it takes many. Certainly the ancient traditions believed that. Effort is usually necessary but not sufficient. Of course grace is required as well -- again, the mind is a series of thoughts that comes from God. God decides when that series of thoughts has grown sufficiently calm that it ought to be graced with the semblance of self-knowledge. Maybe it comes soon, maybe never. Or conversely, perhaps God decides to enlighten someone who has not put in any prior effort -- at least in this lifetime. We clearly don't see the whole picture. But if that happens, that happens. It seems to me that language and mind are all about pluralism. Isn't that what duality is about? How is that paradoxical? Mind must act in some way because it isn't in control. You talk about God deciding as though it is not a figure of speech. Is it? Not sure I grasp your questions completely... The paradox of free will is how to act while feeling that you're in control but knowing that it doesn't make any sense that you would be. As far as God deciding, as far as I'm concerned it is the truth -- and also a figure of speech (because obviously God is beyond the concept "God").
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 27, 2017 20:13:40 GMT -5
Ok, it's enough of a digression that I'm going to write about it separately. What leads you to associate this idea with that? You've stated that realization requires grace. Have you stated a "verbal certainty about what can or cannot be and absolutely be stated about what Is"? To see a paradox in: the mind has to follow a particular pattern of thought that is inherently self-referential. Similar to the the pattern of thought/emotion that generates the false sense of personal self. It goes like this: " well, to say that the question has no explanation is an explanation, so it's a paradox."
With me so far? The train of thought forms the meaning of the statement as a paradox by first labeling it an explanation. This is the way the mind works generally when it's unobserved and left to it's own thing. It generates the next thought in the train based on contriving an interest in the current thought. There's alot more I can write about this, as it's really a fascinating topic, right at that twilight zone where mind has the opportunity either to quiesce or spin. Yes, I see that as the TMT tipping point. Yet another conversation from years past.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 27, 2017 20:14:29 GMT -5
Oh, do you mean that in the sense of the 48 possible levels of ascended ethereal beings who walk the earth evolving toward ever greater spiritual mastery? More or less... (less).... [Have you been watching too much Stargate SG-1?] (** shakes head sadly **)
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Sept 27, 2017 20:15:39 GMT -5
It seems to me that language and mind are all about pluralism. Isn't that what duality is about? How is that paradoxical? Mind must act in some way because it isn't in control. You talk about God deciding as though it is not a figure of speech. Is it? Not sure I grasp your questions completely... The paradox of free will is how to act while feeling that you're in control but knowing that it doesn't make any sense that you would be. As far as God deciding, as far as I'm concerned it is the truth -- and also a figure of speech (because obviously God is beyond the concept "God"). The word GOD is an acronym for Generator-Operator-Destroyer. Generator represents Brahma. Operator for Vishnu. Destroyer for Siva. The Trimurti/Trinity. In the Christian religion, the Holy Trinity, GOD, refers to the Father, the Son & Holy Spirit.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 27, 2017 23:41:29 GMT -5
It seems to me that language and mind are all about pluralism. Isn't that what duality is about? How is that paradoxical? Mind must act in some way because it isn't in control. You talk about God deciding as though it is not a figure of speech. Is it? Not sure I grasp your questions completely... The paradox of free will is how to act while feeling that you're in control but knowing that it doesn't make any sense that you would be.
As far as God deciding, as far as I'm concerned it is the truth -- and also a figure of speech (because obviously God is beyond the concept "God"). Still don't see a paradox. Do you mean conundrum or some similar word? I'll just say that the concept of God as a decider is misconceived. Personalizing God in a more than metaphorical way is a big step away from anything we call truth.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 27, 2017 23:47:36 GMT -5
Yes, I see that as the TMT tipping point. Yet another conversation from years past. The nice thing about not remembering any of the conversations is that they're always fresh.
|
|