|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 13, 2017 11:34:57 GMT -5
Those scientists who understand what you've expressed here ultimately converge with a fundamental spiritual pointer: there will always be a mystery. An "unchanging story" can, at it's worst, simply play on the very natural human anxiety about and unease of the unknown, in that the story is offered and accepted as a way to temporarily alleviate that fear. To cover it up and suppress it. There's a flip side to spirituality though. Guys who give high-level military briefings have this cute little cliche'd metaphor about a pony and a pile of horsesh!t. What we are -- what consciousness is -- can be found. Self-inquiry does have an answer, just not one that's either objective or subjective. The mystery is still there afterwards, but there's no uncertainty or curiosity about this question any longer. The natural anxiety of existential dread will continue for as long as a person is identified -- consciously or otherwise -- with anything that comes and goes. What I call a certainty, like 'this is happening' (without the words), entails no knowledge, as knowledge is produced post observation, never during, and by knowledge I mean that which can be acquired, remembered and known as information. That is the nature of answers known. I think what you refer to is certainty of the every receding mystery which can't be reduced to acquirable information. That marks the scientific limitation, which signifies the limitation of intellect. Yet somehow there is certainty, which isn't altogether subjective in terms of the truth common to all conscious beings. There doesn't seem to be a distinction here between what can be known via the intellect and what can be known directly. We can know "what is" non-conceptually and directly, in the midst of whatever is happening, and there can be complete certainty regarding that kind of knowing (gnossis). Intellectual meta-realities will always evolve as we, who are "what is," make observations of "what is," and reach conclusions ABOUT "what is." This is why the scientific paradigm is always changing--new distinctions alter our intellectual imagining of the meta-reality that we confuse with the living reality of "what is." |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Dec 13, 2017 19:50:29 GMT -5
What I call a certainty, like 'this is happening' (without the words), entails no knowledge, as knowledge is produced post observation, never during, and by knowledge I mean that which can be acquired, remembered and known as information. That is the nature of answers known. I think what you refer to is certainty of the every receding mystery which can't be reduced to acquirable information. That marks the scientific limitation, which signifies the limitation of intellect. Yet somehow there is certainty, which isn't altogether subjective in terms of the truth common to all conscious beings. There doesn't seem to be a distinction here between what can be known via the intellect and what can be known directly. We can know "what is" non-conceptually and directly, in the midst of whatever is happening, and there can be complete certainty regarding that kind of knowing (gnossis). Intellectual meta-realities will always evolve as we, who are "what is," make observations of "what is," and reach conclusions ABOUT "what is." This is why the scientific paradigm is always changing--new distinctions alter our intellectual imagining of the meta-reality that we confuse with the living reality of "what is." The distinction is delineated by 'certainty' (this is happening) and 'knowledge' (acquirable information). It's just weird how the former is already certain albeit subjective. We have to figure it out, which is to produce knowledge symbolically, which isn't quite the same as imaginatively in the unicorn sense. The knowledge production is symbolic in its axioms, and we find on investigations that it can only be explained in particular ways. That indicates that the experience we attempt to explain do follow rules, but the sciences haven't yet uncovered the psychic rules in the ways Gotama described them for example. Still, the vital role of 'the observer' as fundamental to physics since Einstein explained relativity has seen the shift from objective Newtonian mechanics to an unavoidable subjectivity, and the next phase is underway now in 'science of consciousness', and although that is mere 'fringe rhetoric', the conversation is taken quite seriously and fast becoming 'conventional'. Perhaps in a century or two we will understand the 're-imagining' is basically descriptive and not actually prescriptive. It has to go that way because our current physical descriptions are so completely counter-intuitive they fly in the face of objective realities. Now days scientists are considering the universe as a function unto itself rather than an objective 'something' which functions. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 13, 2017 21:04:01 GMT -5
There doesn't seem to be a distinction here between what can be known via the intellect and what can be known directly. We can know "what is" non-conceptually and directly, in the midst of whatever is happening, and there can be complete certainty regarding that kind of knowing (gnossis). Intellectual meta-realities will always evolve as we, who are "what is," make observations of "what is," and reach conclusions ABOUT "what is." This is why the scientific paradigm is always changing--new distinctions alter our intellectual imagining of the meta-reality that we confuse with the living reality of "what is." The distinction is delineated by 'certainty' (this is happening) and 'knowledge' (acquirable information). It's just weird how the former is already certain albeit subjective. We have to figure it out, which is to produce knowledge symbolically, which isn't quite the same as imaginatively in the unicorn sense. The knowledge production is symbolic in its axioms, and we find on investigations that it can only be explained in particular ways. That indicates that the experience we attempt to explain do follow rules, but the sciences haven't yet uncovered the psychic rules in the ways Gotama described them for example. Still, the vital role of 'the observer' as fundamental to physics since Einstein explained relativity has seen the shift from objective Newtonian mechanics to an unavoidable subjectivity, and the next phase is underway now in 'science of consciousness', and although that is mere 'fringe rhetoric', the conversation is taken quite seriously and fast becoming 'conventional'. Perhaps in a century or two we will understand the 're-imagining' is basically descriptive and not actually prescriptive. It has to go that way because our current physical descriptions are so completely counter-intuitive they fly in the face of objective realities. Now days scientists are considering the universe as a function unto itself rather than an objective 'something' which functions. Well, there's a big difference between observation and distinction, but most scientists haven't yet realized this. Scientists look into a cloud chamber, for example, and they do two things--they see, and then they imagine what they see. What they imagine is imaginary, but what they see is "what is." It is not the act of observation that collapses the wave function; it is the act of distinction. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Dec 15, 2017 0:03:19 GMT -5
The distinction is delineated by 'certainty' (this is happening) and 'knowledge' (acquirable information). It's just weird how the former is already certain albeit subjective. We have to figure it out, which is to produce knowledge symbolically, which isn't quite the same as imaginatively in the unicorn sense. The knowledge production is symbolic in its axioms, and we find on investigations that it can only be explained in particular ways. That indicates that the experience we attempt to explain do follow rules, but the sciences haven't yet uncovered the psychic rules in the ways Gotama described them for example. Still, the vital role of 'the observer' as fundamental to physics since Einstein explained relativity has seen the shift from objective Newtonian mechanics to an unavoidable subjectivity, and the next phase is underway now in 'science of consciousness', and although that is mere 'fringe rhetoric', the conversation is taken quite seriously and fast becoming 'conventional'. Perhaps in a century or two we will understand the 're-imagining' is basically descriptive and not actually prescriptive. It has to go that way because our current physical descriptions are so completely counter-intuitive they fly in the face of objective realities. Now days scientists are considering the universe as a function unto itself rather than an objective 'something' which functions. Well, there's a big difference between observation and distinction, but most scientists haven't yet realized this. Scientists look into a cloud chamber, for example, and they do two things--they see, and then they imagine what they see. What they imagine is imaginary, but what they see is "what is." It is not the act of observation that collapses the wave function; it is the act of distinction. I think the main thing is learning all about science is a different sort of knowledge, which isn't actual insight. The Buddhist approach is called 'scientific' but under a different paradigm where mind is concerned, and knowing the mind is insightful, and it isn't information about a brain. The West has roots in the Christian idea of a soul and body, which Descartes went on to establish as mind/body duality. The school of psychoanalysis sorta ran with that paradigm, and modern 'health services' are still segregated according to that distinction. The Buddhist schools don't make that distinction as body and mind are reborn in each moment as the 'santana' - but no continuous substance such as the Christian soul. In fact, there are no substances that endure time at all. In the Buddhist schools a person will sit and investigate and at some stage directly perceive the nature of impermanence, so it isn't actually necessary to contextualise anything as having dimension. There are no contextual parameters to insight, just the direct knowingness we call realisation. The strange thing about this is, if I have realisation and then discuss that with my teacher, the teacher understands the actualisation anyway - so realisation isn't arbitrary at all, even though it is subjective. My language now presents a problem because I imply that there is a subject, but this is what happens when attempting to reduce insight to some kind of knowledge. Then the next person will be misled by thinking what I say is true, but it isn't. Truth is virtuous, a facet of the 'pure heart' so to speak, and endeavours to produce knowledge will never approach it. In my case it's all heartfelt, the arising of metta from 'beyond', and this to me is the spiritual way. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 15, 2017 4:15:52 GMT -5
The basic insight into what we call "reality" is the realization that all separation is an illusion. There is only the ineffable Infinite, and all of us are one with THAT. There is no separate person who ever does anything. The Infinite is the only actor, and the Infinite, in the form of humans, can realize this simple truth. The Infinite is what sees, hears, feels, walks, talks, thinks, has insights, and does everything else. When the mind becomes sufficiently silent, imagination ceases to obscure the obvious.
I once identified with being a Buddhist, but that turned out to be as erroneous as the idea that I was a person. The word "Infinite" simply points to the truth; it doesn't capture it. May all beings look where the pointer is pointing and discover what is always here and now, beyond all ideas.
|
|
lee
New Member
Posts: 31 
|
Post by lee on Feb 9, 2018 22:45:06 GMT -5
Yes, NDEs are subject to the same induction problem. Never had an NDE. Had a very brief OBE many years ago. Agree that beliefs about afterlife can be driven by fear and can also be a distraction. So I can appreciate why many a time Buddha, RM & Niz refrained from dwelling on the afterlife despite there understandably having so many questions about it. We all have a belief system, whether we like it or not, conscious of it or not, because there is just too much unknown. Whether it is agnosticism, theism, atheism or something else, it is still a belief system. And we all choose a belief system using both our intellect and intuition, whether we are aware of it or not. At the moment, most people are using much more intellect than intuition, partly because our education systems have been focusing on developing the intellect and have neglected intuition. Although the hitherto unknown is unknowable to our intellect, it is knowable to our intuition -- not all of it but at least some of it. So the more we use our intuition -- which does require a fair amount of alignment with the Absolute/Source, the more we are able to make a better-informed decision as to what to believe regarding the unknown. By intuition I mean the feeling we have about something or a knowing/awareness that happens spontaneously. Or both -- sometimes we need to use our feeling to verify and validate our knowing/awareness. Not sure if you buy this intuition stuff but I'm sure you are drawn to Niz & RM (and this forum) not purely because of what you think but also what you intuitively know and feel. So end of the day, given that there is so much unknown, we just have to go with whatever (afterlife or no-afterlife perspective) that resonates for us and feel drawn to. There's plenty of things I believe but it's quite possible to get crystal clear on belief, and I assure you that an existential belief system is completely optional. Underlying every emotion is a thought, so while the dichotomy between intellect and intuition can be useful in all sorts of contexts, thought and feeling are ultimately intertwined, as the mind and the body aren't really two different things. The existential truth is beyond either intellect or intuition. Becoming conscious of the content of our own minds reveals these dynamics for what they are. There is really only one existential question, but it comes in many forms. "What is it that is living?" or "what is it that dies?" is one of the most direct versions. "What is my purpose?" is far more indirect and entangles the subjective and objective elements of our perspective relative to what that perspective is on. But the questioning can and does end, and when it does there is no relative answer as to why you're here. Every moment is full of meaning, and poetry can sometimes capture the wind in a paper cup for the time it takes to read a page, but that meaning is nonconceptual, and ever outside the grasp of mind. Yes thoughts, feelings and emotions are indeed intertwined. Just to add that although “feelings” and “emotions” are commonly used interchangeably, feelings are not exactly always the same as emotions especially when used to describe intuition. Intuitive feelings are inner promptings / subtle impulses while emotions are reactions to thoughts and circumstances, among other things. For instance, an inner prompting to go learn about spirituality is intuitive feeling and the resulting happiness or satisfaction is emotion. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 10, 2018 7:31:17 GMT -5
There's plenty of things I believe but it's quite possible to get crystal clear on belief, and I assure you that an existential belief system is completely optional. Underlying every emotion is a thought, so while the dichotomy between intellect and intuition can be useful in all sorts of contexts, thought and feeling are ultimately intertwined, as the mind and the body aren't really two different things. The existential truth is beyond either intellect or intuition. Becoming conscious of the content of our own minds reveals these dynamics for what they are. There is really only one existential question, but it comes in many forms. "What is it that is living?" or "what is it that dies?" is one of the most direct versions. "What is my purpose?" is far more indirect and entangles the subjective and objective elements of our perspective relative to what that perspective is on. But the questioning can and does end, and when it does there is no relative answer as to why you're here. Every moment is full of meaning, and poetry can sometimes capture the wind in a paper cup for the time it takes to read a page, but that meaning is nonconceptual, and ever outside the grasp of mind. Yes thoughts, feelings and emotions are indeed intertwined. Just to add that although “feelings” and “emotions” are commonly used interchangeably, feelings are not exactly always the same as emotions especially when used to describe intuition. Intuitive feelings are inner promptings / subtle impulses while emotions are reactions to thoughts and circumstances, among other things. For instance, an inner prompting to go learn about spirituality is intuitive feeling and the resulting happiness or satisfaction is emotion. Yes, I have to agree that this is an interesting distinction. There is a tightrope a seeker can walk if they follow their interest in truth with intense engagement after having long abandoned any sort of relative compass. It's a state that's free of emotion, but the exact opposite of neutral. What I've used to describe it before is a state of glorious confusion, where one has accepted -- on a very deep and embodied level -- that there is no path, no progress, and nothing to do, but yet, that the seeking hasn't ended yet. Not that things have to unfold this way for everyone who finally finds the existential truth, but it's one way they can.  |
|
|
|
Post by japhy on Feb 15, 2018 8:14:39 GMT -5
I only read the first pages of the thread, so my post might not fit into the current discussion. I haven't been here for quite some time, so I felt like greeting all the people who still remember me.
Life has so many variations. From my perspective it's hard to say anything at all. My thought and emotional life has since I was ten or so varied so much that it has always been hard for me to have a consistent story of my identity. But still if someone would criticize me for a certain thing I would feel annoyed, ashamed etc. So there is certainly some sort of identification or identity. But it's more like shattered glass. I don't have a one big image of myself but according to the situation some sub identity will come up. Sometimes there is no identity at all. But the sub identities can be quite stubborn and tense. That's probably as good as I can put it.
The other thing which struck me is that some people gave up the search. What is the search? Is it only giving up the idea of a search or is it giving up the activities related to it and which activities are related to a search? One could give up searching and still sit quiet for 3 hours a day. So what are these people talking about? Going back to daily life can also be done in different ways. Did they live like the search never happened? I don't think so.
For me I have given up the search and I haven't given up at all. I will not move one inch and I will not stay still. I am not active here any more, I don't read spiritual books, I don't do Zen anymore. Have I given up the search? I clean my as* with the search each morning. I got drunk twice this week. Is that not searching?
|
|
