|
Post by andrew on May 30, 2023 2:53:11 GMT -5
Yes, I tend to agree. The wave is a movement 'within' the ocean, albeit it's appearance is a perceived relative experience. Which means two supposedly simultaneous experiences of that movement from different perspectives will be unique. Much like Einstein's train thingy. But it is an experiential movement nonetheless, which means it is sensory, or psycho-somatic. It appears, tangibly. This is why I would distinguish the wave from lines of latitude, which don't meet that criteria and therefore can be said to be purely imaginary, albeit for a functional purpose. Yes, precisely. Really well put.
& If we clump together ALL appearance...all content....all 'waves' to denote such as "Imaginary" then there's no means by which to distinguish an illusion/delusion from that which IS appearing.
Fundamental Separation is imagined. Distinction is not....distinction does appear. The appearance of distinction never was the problem. Erroneously imagining/mistaking that to be evidence of "fundamental separation," was/is.
Basically agree, though I'd express it that (fundamental) separation is a distortion of the experience of distinction. It's 'distinction' taken to its extreme. So much so that when the separation is dropped, it can genuinely feel like dropping into a true reality, a reality that is beneath the false reality of 'separation'. But I think that although it seems like that, it's slightly misleading for us when it happens. It's not a shift from 'false' to 'true' exactly, it's just a dropping of extremity.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 30, 2023 2:57:41 GMT -5
Yes, it's probably confusing to many here. What he likely means though is categorization, classification, designation which is what the intellect does, Watts calls it thing-ifying. It's how THIS (or _______) becomes a thing or object to the intellect/mind, i.e. THIS (or _______) becomes something the intellect or minds can deal with, because the intellect/mind cannot apprehend THIS directly. The way the term 'distinction' is usually used here, it goes hand in hand with perception. No distinction would mean no perception - blank. And that's not what is meant here or else realizing suchness would mean the absence of any sense perception. That is not the case. The world doesn't have to dissolve into a distinctionless white soup of light in order to realize suchness. It can be realized right here right now with normal, raw (!) sensory perception still functioning. The mountain metaphor pretty much applies to realizing suchness. First there is a mountain, then no mountain, then a mountain again. First the mountain is seen as a mental category only, then the mountain is seen directly and prior to any mental categories, then both perspectives become integrated. The first mountain perspective is the perspective of someone living in his head, lost in abstractions, seeing the mountain only via a mental image, indirectly and therefore not actually seeing a mountain, only the phantom of a mountain. That's the pure thingness stage. The second mountain perspective is the perspective of someone actually seeing the mountain directly, as THIS (or _______), prior to any mental imagery and so at this stage you have no idea of or label or category for what you are looking at. The third mountain perspective is the integration of both perspectives, i.e. you can see the mountain as THIS and also categorize it as 'mountain' without losing your clarity that the category mountain is not the actual mountain, you don't confuse the symbol with the actual. So one perspective is the abstract world, the mental world which is symbolic and the other is the non-abstract world, the physical world which is what is actual, what the symbolic world tries to reference or re-present. So the abstract world you can talk about, write about because it consists of categories, classes, labels... and is merely symbolic for the non-abstract, the physical world, which is essentially unspeakable. We all know that no description of the taste of honey will ever give you the actual experience of the taste of honey. And no description or image of a tree will ever be able to represent the actual tree. If we are stuck in the world of abstractions, we don't actually live, we just exist like the AI. And if we escape into the non-abstract world, we cannot function in society. So to live in society a normal and yet spontaneous and carefree life, both perspectives have to be integrated, i.e. you then can deal with abstractions when you have to or want to but your world is not defined by these abstractions, you are deeply rooted in the non-abstract world, the ground of being, which gives rise to the abstract world, the matrix. And regardless of realization there are various states of body/mind that happen prior-to the function of mind to generate distinctions - which is the crux of the criticism here. The "pro-distinction crew" has to word-lawyer pretty hard though. It's not a distinction that knocks you off a horse by the neck. Those states prior-to the functioning of mind can happen deliberately, with the intent to create them, or not, but either way, they have a major potential to inform. I'd say it's the opposite. It takes no effort at all to point out that distinctions are intrinsic to experience. It just requires pointing out that you are experiencing! Of course, this all rests on the definition of 'distinction', and I accept that definitions vary, and there's really no value to trying to assert a 'correct' definition. If someone says that distinctions are the problem, I'm like....okay, that's fine.....but then what about separation...
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 30, 2023 4:32:11 GMT -5
At the relative level, we definitely do question appearances at times, we don't trust equally in how all appearances seem. We know that appearances can be deceptive, and so we are sometimes cautious with our trust. So if we look at the sky and see an interesting dot of light, and we think...oooh is it a spaceship....and then we realize it's an airplane haha. Well, if there is a question as to whether the dot is a bird or an airplane...then sure, there IS a sort of question there. But if a 'dot' appears, do you question that basic perception of an otherwise, undetermined, dot shape appearing in the sky? No. And that would equal a context mix. At the spiritual level (Absolute/impersonal vantage point) there are no doubts. It's crystal clear that there is an abiding ground of awareness and whatever is imminently appearing, is doing so, completely and totally dependent upon (not separate from) that abiding ground. Relative certainty as to what is appearing is one context....Absolute certain/knowing/seeing is another. "Trust" is of the realm of relative experience/relative context. Seeing that appearances have no inherent existence is a realization.....that as Truth then, is but a pointer. Absent the realization/seeing through of inherent existence of all experiential content, it's quite likely that one is mistaking "inherent existence," to mean something different than what the pointer is referencing. It really is a pointer to Oneness...to the dependent nature of the transient upon the abiding/unwavering...to the absence of fundamental separation between appearance and abiding awareness...to the absence of inherent, actual division of "awareness/consciousness." The idea of having Absolute knowledge of multiple, numerous, individuated, discrete, unique "awareness-ess," is misconceived simply because Ultimately, Awareness never actually "becomes" limited...bound....divided....individuated. I'd say that it's inarguable that there's a realization available regarding the nature of individuations/appearances/expressions....and to use your words....that they have no 'inherent existence of their own' i.e they have no fundamental objective existence in a mechanical time-space reality. But in regard to the expressions themselves, there will always be varying levels of mistrust and trust in what we are seeing. Some things (in fact, most things) we look at without a single doubt or question in our minds and 'know' without any wondering, whereas others we will look at quizzically and wonder what they are. And we may be mistaken at times, for example, we may be looking at something and our friends say....''dude, you need to get your eyes tested!'' And there's an assumption of 'objectivity' built into this context i.e sometimes we make apparent 'mistakes'. Experientially, we don't trust our experience equally. There's a lot of variation in our experience. So I don't see the question as to whether what we are seeing as being 'correct/true' or not as a realization as such. At a very logical level, I agree that we can't know if what we are seeing/experiencing is 'true' or 'false' (and again, this is a context that includes objectivity). Logically, I can't say I know that you are perceiving. Logically, I can't say I know that you have a body. Logically, I can't say that that there is a Fig. Logically, there is literally nothing I can know for sure...and I apply that to myself too. Logically, I can question whether I exist, whether I am perceiving etc etc. There is NOTHING I spare when it comes to the logic test, because that's how logic works. So for me, the realization is that 'there is no inherent existence to anything', but the other stuff is a logic context. My only other thing is that if someone says 'awareness is fundamental' or 'perception is fundamental' or 'Being is fundamental' etc etc then because it is fundamental, I apply that universally, on the basis that it is fundamental. Simply, I will never say something fundamental about 'I', that I wouldn't also say about you or anyone/anything else....because it's fundamental.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 30, 2023 4:50:32 GMT -5
Only if you generate that abstract thought about the scenario. .. (** slurp! slurp! slurp! **) I'm saying that at the very finest level, even direct experience is an abstraction. A baby experiencing its Mom is an abstraction. There's still a movement of mind involved, a cognition....something that is 'representative'. So then what we are talking about is a continuum, in which abstractions get more and more intense, to the degree that we can experience being 'separate' from what is being experienced. Nah.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 30, 2023 4:52:30 GMT -5
And regardless of realization there are various states of body/mind that happen prior-to the function of mind to generate distinctions - which is the crux of the criticism here. The "pro-distinction crew" has to word-lawyer pretty hard though. It's not a distinction that knocks you off a horse by the neck. Those states prior-to the functioning of mind can happen deliberately, with the intent to create them, or not, but either way, they have a major potential to inform. I'd say it's the opposite. It takes no effort at all to point out that distinctions are intrinsic to experience. It just requires pointing out that you are experiencing! Of course, this all rests on the definition of 'distinction', and I accept that definitions vary, and there's really no value to trying to assert a 'correct' definition. If someone says that distinctions are the problem, I'm like....okay, that's fine.....but then what about separation... Who said distinctions were a problem? The distinction between clean and dirty water ain't gonna' quench yer thirst.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 30, 2023 4:57:44 GMT -5
I'm saying that at the very finest level, even direct experience is an abstraction. A baby experiencing its Mom is an abstraction. There's still a movement of mind involved, a cognition....something that is 'representative'. So then what we are talking about is a continuum, in which abstractions get more and more intense, to the degree that we can experience being 'separate' from what is being experienced. Nah. Which bit are you 'Nah' to? I'd say nothing experiences without filter of conditioning, and that filter is abstraction, because it's one step removed from potential reality. The only difference between baby human and adult human is the intensity of the abstraction, including the value we give to it, the investment we put in it, and our attachment to it. There's no 'filter free experience' in contrast to 'filtered experience'. There's no 'false vs true' reality. It's just degrees of abstraction. There's no 'clear camera view' of reality, there's always filter...realization or no realization. It could genuinely SEEM like a 'clear camera view', I could agree.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 30, 2023 5:02:05 GMT -5
I'd say it's the opposite. It takes no effort at all to point out that distinctions are intrinsic to experience. It just requires pointing out that you are experiencing! Of course, this all rests on the definition of 'distinction', and I accept that definitions vary, and there's really no value to trying to assert a 'correct' definition. If someone says that distinctions are the problem, I'm like....okay, that's fine.....but then what about separation... Who said distinctions were a problem? The distinction between clean and dirty water ain't gonna' quench yer thirst. I believe that was part of what ZD was saying....he said distinctions are imagination/meta-reality, and ideally, they are dropped. To be fair, I don't necessarily have a problem with what ZD says once I grasp his definitions. If I have a quibble, it's the same quibble in my other message.....there's no 'true or false reality'. There's no perception of reality that is 'obstructed' by abstraction compared to a perception of reality that is 'free' from obstruction. As Tenka says, it's all 'mindful'.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 30, 2023 5:18:59 GMT -5
Nah. Which bit are you 'Nah' to? I'd say nothing experiences without filter of conditioning, and that filter is abstraction, because it's one step removed from potential reality. The only difference between baby human and adult human is the intensity of the abstraction, including the value we give to it, the investment we put in it, and our attachment to it. There's no 'filter free experience' in contrast to 'filtered experience'. There's no 'false vs true' reality. It's just degrees of abstraction. There's no 'clear camera view' of reality, there's always filter...realization or no realization. It could genuinely SEEM like a 'clear camera view', I could agree. Even the words "experience", "perception", etc. are abstractions. What the words abstract, is ineffable.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 30, 2023 5:21:11 GMT -5
Who said distinctions were a problem? The distinction between clean and dirty water ain't gonna' quench yer thirst. I believe that was part of what ZD was saying....he said distinctions are imagination/meta-reality, and ideally, they are dropped. To be fair, I don't necessarily have a problem with what ZD says once I grasp his definitions. If I have a quibble, it's the same quibble in my other message.....there's no 'true or false reality'. There's no perception of reality that is 'obstructed' by abstraction compared to a perception of reality that is 'free' from obstruction. As Tenka says, it's all 'mindful'. The desert mirage is an example of a perception that is distorted by the thinking process overlaid on top of what is seen.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on May 30, 2023 6:04:16 GMT -5
I might be straying off-topic here but want to offer some more thoughts about the nature of distinction for consideration. I would make the case that If you were to jump off a skyscraper, when you hit the ground the body will distinguish between itself and the concrete pavement quite naturally and without the need for imagination. (Incidentally, I would say that, that isn't necessarily the case, and I'm talking in terms of woo here. But it's said that one of the powers of a Buddha is to be able to sink into the ground and rise up again. Walk through walls etc. I genuinely believe that is possible under certain circumstances, but If I were to talk about that I'd have to get a bit vague and talk in terms of variations in vibration etc. Perhaps something akin to field theory). Another example is that when the body processes food it distinguishes between that which is nutritional, which it utilises, and that which it discards as waste. Again, quite naturally and without the need for imagination. (Incidentally that also would cease, upon the death of the mind-body organism, and is destined to do so). The main point being that both examples are of distinction which could be said to happen Intelligently, i.e without conscious direction. Which is why I say distinction happens at a Conscious level and not just a conscious level, (Consciousness and Intelligence being synonymous here). So it happens more broadly than is generally conceived. Now I guess some might think I'm taking liberties with the phrase distinction. But really I'm just utilising it to point to something. For me, the real danger is that we end up trying to express various insights whilst unwittingly being constrained by prevailing first mountain conceptions and conventional understandings and usages of phrases. Another temptation might be to take the stance that in the context of Intelligence, we're essentially talking in terms of THIS, and so any notion of distinction happening is irrelevant and not applicable. It's all just THIS, THIS'ing or whatever. But I would consider taking that tact as attempting to 2nd mountaineer your way out of the conundrum. Some might be satisfied with that stance but I wouldn't be. I think it's fine to talk about distinction in conjunction with Intelligence from a 3rd mountain perspective. In fact it's necessary as part of the development of a broader and more insightful perspective. Pain, smashed bodies, cherry sundaes, bee stings, orgasms .. these are all after-the-fact descriptions of sensation and perception. Why even bother applying the notion of "distinction" in this context to physical sensation? When you depress a keyboard key, where does your finger end and the key begin? Where does the key end and the keyboard begin? Where does the keyboard end and the desk begin? All TMT. All a "distinction" can ever do is abstract. "Contrast" is an idea that is an after-the-fact description of discerning red for green. "heh heh .. good thing .. heh heh". The point is that they're all distinctive prior to the after the fact descriptions …. although of course, not separate. And I consider there is good reason for acknowledging that, which may come out in the wash.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 30, 2023 6:06:07 GMT -5
Which bit are you 'Nah' to? I'd say nothing experiences without filter of conditioning, and that filter is abstraction, because it's one step removed from potential reality. The only difference between baby human and adult human is the intensity of the abstraction, including the value we give to it, the investment we put in it, and our attachment to it. There's no 'filter free experience' in contrast to 'filtered experience'. There's no 'false vs true' reality. It's just degrees of abstraction. There's no 'clear camera view' of reality, there's always filter...realization or no realization. It could genuinely SEEM like a 'clear camera view', I could agree. Even the words "experience", "perception", etc. are abstractions. What the words abstract, is ineffable. Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that perception/experience is always filtered, and that filter is abstraction.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 30, 2023 6:08:19 GMT -5
I believe that was part of what ZD was saying....he said distinctions are imagination/meta-reality, and ideally, they are dropped. To be fair, I don't necessarily have a problem with what ZD says once I grasp his definitions. If I have a quibble, it's the same quibble in my other message.....there's no 'true or false reality'. There's no perception of reality that is 'obstructed' by abstraction compared to a perception of reality that is 'free' from obstruction. As Tenka says, it's all 'mindful'. The desert mirage is an example of a perception that is distorted by the thinking process overlaid on top of what is seen. Well, yes I agree but it's a slightly different context...now we are in the context of 'mistaken/incorrect perceptions'. But in the absence of the mirage, the experience/perception is still filtered, it's still one step removed. A baby sees a dog. An adult sees a dog. The difference is the intensity of the abstraction. It's not that the baby is seeing a 'true reality' and the adult a 'false reality', it's just degrees of 'steps removed'. Human adults can be quite far removed. Also why even very abstract adults know their beingness, the abstraction filter can be very strong, but not totally removed/divorced.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 30, 2023 6:12:48 GMT -5
Pain, smashed bodies, cherry sundaes, bee stings, orgasms .. these are all after-the-fact descriptions of sensation and perception. Why even bother applying the notion of "distinction" in this context to physical sensation? When you depress a keyboard key, where does your finger end and the key begin? Where does the key end and the keyboard begin? Where does the keyboard end and the desk begin? All TMT. All a "distinction" can ever do is abstract. "Contrast" is an idea that is an after-the-fact description of discerning red for green. "heh heh .. good thing .. heh heh". The point is that they're all distinctive prior to the after the fact descriptions …. although of course, not separate. And I consider there is good reason for acknowledging that, which may come out in the wash. Nah.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 30, 2023 6:14:17 GMT -5
Even the words "experience", "perception", etc. are abstractions. What the words abstract, is ineffable. Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that perception/experience is always filtered, and that filter is abstraction. The filter has nothing to do with the ineffable.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on May 30, 2023 6:14:40 GMT -5
You seem to use separation and distinction interchangeably when you talk about this and essentially say that both are merely imagined. Whereas I am saying, despite the fact that both can be said to originate in mind, imagination isn't a good way of describing the situation.Separation is imagined and therefore is delusion, however distinction is apparent prior to imagination, (imagination being a more superficial or surface level event than distinction). This is where I come along making a distinction between the potential for unconscious tree thwacking versus the impossibility of unconscious lines of longitude thwacking. But it doesn't make any difference. You'll stick with trees are imaginary. I see it as an extreme way of referring to WIBIGO. Some of the experiences that make the nature of boundary clear, can be quite extreme. The extreme version is G-d imagining the world into apparency. Which is closer to where I'm coming from than the other side.
|
|