|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 14, 2017 5:53:54 GMT -5
I'm interested in the idea that mayhaps CC experiences and the like may be expressions of, or simultaneous with, the corresponding realization such that, while mind is informed, it's not really being informed by the experience. Don't get hung up on the experience part of the term 'CC experience'. It's a bit of a misnomer. Neither CC nor SR happen in a vacuum. In that sense, SR is as much an experience as CC. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2017 6:39:04 GMT -5
You bet!! I'll definitely unload a lot of holy stink on y'all. And I can't wait to have some sort of non-integrated raging meltdown where I threaten to sue and storm away warning all ST innocents to STAY AWAY!! hahaha fun enlightened times ahead, god willing of course. We shall know you by your fruits. (and vegetables, of course) Only the feminine can bear fruit, so you will think you know him by what he gives to you. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2017 8:48:03 GMT -5
My perspective, which is probly clear by now, is that, while experience can influence mind, it doesn't actually inform mind the way realization does. From the direct experience of this body/mind, CC experiences can result in numerous realizations which inform mind just as strongly as any other realizations. Experiencing oneness is the most powerful experience of all, but it may not be an experience in the usual sense because there is no person who experiences that. All sense of separation or personal identity is absent. Nevertheless, whatever we want to call it, it definitely informs mind about the unity, intelligence, perfection, benevolence, and vastness of _____________________ and the illusory nature of all cognitively-imposed boundaries. Such experiences can also inform mind of many other things, and can even reorganize and change the content of mind. Ironically, such experiences rarely result in freedom from the sense o selfhood. It usually takes SR for that to occur. I think awakesowhat was the only poster on this forum who ever claimed that a CC experience resulted in SR. And it's interesting who believed in that claim. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 14, 2017 9:34:02 GMT -5
I'm interested in the idea that mayhaps CC experiences and the like may be expressions of, or simultaneous with, the corresponding realization such that, while mind is informed, it's not really being informed by the experience. Don't get hung up on the experience part of the term 'CC experience'. It's a bit of a misnomer. Neither CC nor SR happen in a vacuum. In that sense, SR is as much an experience as CC. Yes, it's not really an experience in the usual sense because there's no sense of there being a separate person when that kind of event occurs. This is true of all unity conscious "experiences." In nirvikalpa samadhi, for example, there's no sense of anything other than pure awareness as pure awareness. We only refer to it as "an experience" afterwards because that state manifested through a particular human being and obviously involved duration (judging from perceived clock time before that state ensued and after exit from that state). Most realizations involve a sudden seeing through some particular illusion by an apparent person, but CC experiences are not like that. An entirely different order of reality is perceived, and mind becomes directly informed--as if an unseen supercomputer directly downloaded new information into the brain. All kinds of things become obvious instantaneously, but not through thought. Afterwards, when ordinary thought returns, one understands what was seen and experienced. There may then be other realizations of the usual sort that occur. For example, many people report that following a CC experience they realize for the first time the difference between _______________ and how ____________ is usually distinguished. They do not become cognitively aware of this difference until afterwards. This is why Zen people call this kind of event "passing through the gateless gate." On one side of the event one sees the world as imagined, and on the other side of the event one is able to see the world as it is, prior to imaginative distinctions. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2017 12:19:48 GMT -5
Don't get hung up on the experience part of the term 'CC experience'. It's a bit of a misnomer. Neither CC nor SR happen in a vacuum. In that sense, SR is as much an experience as CC. Yes, it's not really an experience in the usual sense because there's no sense of there being a separate person when that kind of event occurs. This is true of all unity conscious "experiences." In nirvikalpa samadhi, for example, there's no sense of anything other than pure awareness being pure awareness. We only refer to it as "an experience" afterwards because that state manifested through a particular human being and obviously involved duration (judging from perceived clock time before that state ensued and after exit from that state). Most realizations involve a sudden seeing through some particular illusion by an apparent person, but CC experiences are not like that. An entirely different order of reality is perceived, and mind becomes directly informed-- as if an unseen supercomputer directly downloaded information into the brain. All kinds of things become obvious instantaneously. Afterwards, when ordinary thought returns, there may be other realizations of the usual sort that occur. For example, many people report that following a CC experience they realize for the first time the difference between _______________ and how ____________ is usually distinguished. This is why Zen people call this kind of event "passing through the gateless gate." On one side of the event one sees the world as imagined, and on the other side of the event one is able to see the world as it is, prior to imaginative distinctions. Like the fact that you are experiencing a simulation made by an advanced civilisation that wants to know how their ancestors respond to the death of what was called 'the ordinary mind'..? |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Nov 14, 2017 12:39:29 GMT -5
We shall know you by your fruits. (and vegetables, of course) Only the feminine can bear fruit, so you will think you know him by what he gives to you.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 14, 2017 15:43:35 GMT -5
 Hey! A cut-wall ..  .. haven't seen one 'o them 'round here ... well, for awhile.  I was disagreeing with my own straw-man of an opinion: intermediate states of body/mind prior to a realization that permanently ends existential questioning are insignificant with regard to the notion of freedom. In terms of what the mind can co-opt after the fact ("pocketing"), my interest in this dialog is that it seems to me this sort of misinformation of mind could apply to either via-negative or via-positive. The flip side of the coin to the bliss-bunny hopping after a one-ended carrot are the peeps who've come out the other side of despair. For example, the Christians have their "dark night of the soul" and my casual readings from Zen suggest a common meme of "practice as dry as dust". Ultimately, I could describe my own story in terms that would blur both of the via-positive/via-negative as well as the experience/realization dichotomies. But I appreciate the power and importance of those ideas even as I'd explore the boundaries of their usefulness. Experience can also influence in such a way as to put one on notice of the illusion, from within the illusion, and that, of course, is a matter of degree. I'm interested in the idea that mayhaps CC experiences and the like may be expressions of, or simultaneous with, the corresponding realization such that, while mind is informed, it's not really being informed by the experience. You could probably always deconstruct a profoundly transformative experience like a CC that way. But experiences all have a duration, are always a matter of degree and sometimes tend to recur. On one end of the spectrum, the permanent end of existential questioning can only happen once, so experience can only ever be incidental, as in, it just happens to be what was going on in the moment. On the other end of the spectrum you have sunsets, puppies, mind-blowing sex and car accidents. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2017 16:36:30 GMT -5
Only the feminine can bear fruit, so you will think you know him by what he gives to you.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 15, 2017 0:40:41 GMT -5
Sometimes you'll see that the dictionary lists slightly different definitions for a given word, and they're designated as '1', '2' etc. These are actually different contexts in which the same word can be used. The dictionary isn't likely to list a spiritual context for freedom. I only mean to introduce the concept of context to you. I hope that clarifies things for you. Clarification of that matter wasn't necessary, as all you've done is once again restate your definition of Freedom that is specialized and only relevant to your religious beliefs, SR, Advaita, Non-duality. What you continue to avoid addressing, no suprise there, is your attempt to redefine Freedom, attempting to transplant your SR version into the position already held by the establishedwith the established secular one. Makes sense. You're so firmly attached to the idea that Advaita is the correct description of reality, therefore it makes sense to re-write the dictionary to match these beliefs. As long as you are free from either attachment or repulsion, everything's fine. |
|
|
|
Post by xander17 on Nov 15, 2017 0:51:34 GMT -5
As long as you are free from either attachment or repulsion, everything's fine. What does that say about folks who are attached to the belief that Advaita is the absolute truth about reality. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Nov 15, 2017 13:07:38 GMT -5
As long as you are free from either attachment or repulsion, everything's fine. What does that say about folks who are attached to the belief that Advaita is the absolute truth about reality? Methinks you already know the key to your answer lies with the underlined above. You may want to ponder a variation of your question: "what does that say about the folks who are attached to the belief that others are attached to the belief that Advaita is the absolute truth about reality?" |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 15, 2017 17:11:23 GMT -5
I actually don't understand how anyone can grow up in this world and not see themselves as 'in the body' looking out on the world. The illusion is all but seamless. To me, an internal homunculus voice is a bit different than what you describe above. Seems to me ZD referring to one end of a spectrum of the seamless illusion you refer to. Similar to, for example, the Introvert/Extrovert scale. At ZD's end the internal voice, agency, intensity of identification was very loud and strong. Nearer to the other end it might not be as noticeable but it doesn't mean the illusion doesn't exist and doesn't color/manifest experience. As I read ZD he's interested in how folks who SR were placed on such a spectrum, if there is such a thing, and what the SR experience was like and ensuing phenomena. Does the quiet homunculus end SR in the same way, or at all? Can't help there. Max: I suspect that SR ends exactly the same way for people on either end of the spectrum, but I just haven't read any well-described accounts about what happened on the less-strongly-identified end of the spectrum. Adyashanti doesn't specifically address the spectrum issue, but his personal account of his own search is certainly fascinating. You can find it by going to youtube and entering "when you can't find yourself adyashanti." |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Nov 15, 2017 17:48:01 GMT -5
As long as you are free from either attachment or repulsion, everything's fine. What does that say about folks who are attached to the belief that Advaita is the absolute truth about reality. Beliefs arise in the absence of certainty. Both can be expressed as knowing, but who can be certain of which is which? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 15, 2017 19:34:19 GMT -5
As long as you are free from either attachment or repulsion, everything's fine. What does that say about folks who are attached to the belief that Advaita is the absolute truth about reality. Everything's not fine? |
|
|
|
Post by xander17 on Nov 16, 2017 1:01:34 GMT -5
What does that say about folks who are attached to the belief that Advaita is the absolute truth about reality? Methinks you already know the key to your answer lies with the underlined above. Well, yeah. It goes something like this. Enigma's proposition is everything is fine if I have neither attachement or repulsion to, I assume, everything. I extrapolate that this must also mean everything is not fine while folks are attached to the precepts of Advaita and repulsed by both alternate ideas and those that consider them. That subject is all academic though as I'm simply having a non-productive though enjoyable conversation with enigma as he avoid self examination of his relationship with Advaita. You may want to ponder a variation of your question: "what does that say about the folks who are attached to the belief that others are attached to the belief that Advaita is the absolute truth about reality?" Is it a belief though. I think that hasn't been established. For starters, I think each person's definition of the term should be established. This also raises consideration of personal interpretation of reality, personal preferences, each individual's relationship with terminology, etc. While I currently see Adviata as just another belief system, just like any other religion or non-religious spiritual philosophy; a set of thoughts or precepts that describes the nature of reality, hence my previous statements about people who appear to me to be the same as any other religious folk, believing these thoughts are an accurate description of reality... ...while those that perceive themselves as Self Realised have a completely different understanding of the matter, and the two differing perceptions shall never meet, there can be no agreement. The thing that continues to fascinate me about religious folk, or anyone who believes something to be true, sitrhe very nature of believing and how they simply don't understand the delusion they place themselves in. For the act of believing is only activated upon experiences that can't be proved or the individual isn't interested in verifying. No one goes around saying they believe they're male or female, they know, the evidence is readily observable. But when it comes to ideas that can't be proved, the process of believing is utilised. And just because someone believes something to be true doesn't automatically make it so. Advaita cannot be proved to be accurate, hence the need for faith to accept it is. Doesn't bother me in the slightest what a person chooses to accept as truth. I just find it interesting to watch people spend so much time and effort proclaiming something to be true when they have zero evidence. Equally fascinating is watching people argue with them that they're wrong. I theorize that many religious folk feel secure in their respective beliefs because they have something far bigger than themselves to stand upon. They require something outside of themselves to dispel the mysteries of existence. Thus for many folks, they actually don't need the actual truth, they're satisfied with anything they choose to accept as truth. Hence so many different religions and spiritual philosophies. |
|
Hey! A cut-wall .. 
.. haven't seen one 'o them 'round here ... well, for awhile. 
