|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2023 9:41:39 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". I don't mind admitting this makes no sense. If there aren't distinctions (previous to mind-making), then why can't why can't you draw a keyboard on a table and get music out of it? www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEm-6lYMgCI&t=40s
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 30, 2023 9:53:51 GMT -5
It's a piece of software that is running on pieces of hardware that are both created and maintained by humans. I think Zazeniac expressed it well earlier, do you have to be afraid of pointy things or the people using pointing things? But, if we're talking "suchness"....with suchness reigning supreme over thing-ness, transcending thingness but also thereby, including thingness, isn't the piece of software that is running on pieces of hardware no different than the person, shoe, paper-clip, all of which you've said you have realized via Kensho/CC, to BE a perceiving/experiencing, perceiver?
I seem to recall that when it came to the question of "are appearing people actually perceiving/perceivers," that you answered that from the relative position there was no direct knowing of an appearing person's perception, but that you did say that from an impersonal vantage point, that "yes," you had realization based, Absolute, certain knowing that all appearing people and even objects/things, such as socks and paperclips, were in fact, All unique perceivers/experiencers. Do I have that right?
If that is so, then I assume that absolute knowing, being realization based, would have to be NOW, direct and imminent knowing vs. a memory of the past Kensho/CC content?
And if so, and it's Absolute True that you DO know a person....a paperclip (A piece of software?) for Absolute certain to be a unique experiencer/perceiver, if it is in fact an immediate/NOW knowing, wouldn't you also then have immediate/Direct knowing of "the content" of that known perception/experience?
I have no idea what "suchness reigning supreme over thing-ness" even means. Suchness refers to your true nature, what you are. And there is only what you are (hat tip to Tenka). This fully understood, settles all questions about 'others' once and for all. And a realization is nothing newly acquired, it's more of a recognition of what has always been so, something utterly familiar. Once you've walked thru that door, you don't go back. You cannot go back.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 30, 2023 9:56:55 GMT -5
Okay. Interesting. Thanks for answering so concisely. So for you, seeing through separation does not reveal the absence of a some-thing/some-one that perceives...?
What IS that "perceiving entity" per se? Is it the body that is giving rise to perception....does experience/perception depend on a brain? (I do recall you being quite adamant that you knew socks and rocks and paperclips to also be perceiving...so how does that work?)
& then, What did you mean then in the past when you said that people are "appearance only"? Have you changed your view on that? (for whatever it's worth, there is nothing at all wrong with changing views on this stuff).
Andrew: That the question is misconceived! And this conclusion is based on another conclusion (for example, 'there are no people') My basic definition of SR has always been seeing the real as real and the false as false. And what is false comes and goes, but what is real does not come and go.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2023 10:01:00 GMT -5
In the deliberate creation context, you are the creator of your own realty, which means in your reality, you are God. People inherently know this, that they are the masters of their own fate. But they've got their heads full of conflicting theories that they've gathered along the way. So they can't see the forest for the tees. The don't know who they are anymore and why they are here. But deep inside they still know. This innate sense of absolute freedom is also the reason why people have to be free and express themselves freely or else they won't feel fully alive and fulfilling their purpose for being and then stop thriving and wither away. And not just people, animals too. Would you classify that quote above as an Absolute Truth, a theory....a relative truth? This is where I get confused with your LOA/deliberate creation talk.
How does that belief/theory survive the Ultimately/Absolute seeing that time is an illusion...that causation.... past/future are mere ideas arising NOW, that there is ultimately an absence of personal volition, that it's all one seamless movement...? All there is, is NOW...HERE....THIS.
It just seems so obvious to me that in the seeing through of separation, volition, causation, time, the very idea of "LOA/creating reality" gets called into question. Absent actual time/passage/one moment "becoming" the next, this happening causing a future happening, absent actual causality, how does that idea of LOA/deliberate creation still stand up as a valid law/truth?
Yes. I don't see how ZD and Reefs stay in peaceful agreement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2023 10:03:23 GMT -5
It's a piece of software that is running on pieces of hardware that are both created and maintained by humans. I think Zazeniac expressed it well earlier, do you have to be afraid of pointy things or the people using pointing things? But, if we're talking "suchness"....with suchness reigning supreme over thing-ness, transcending thingness but also thereby, including thingness, isn't the piece of software that is running on pieces of hardware no different than the person, shoe, paper-clip, all of which you've said you have realized via Kensho/CC, to BE a perceiving/experiencing, perceiver?
[...] I raised a similar point a last month. [1] I think people responded at that time saying it was a "context mix", though I don't fully agree with that. People seem to resolve the question or "context mix" differently, depending on where they have labeled the "thing" as "human" or "machine". But what causes them to give that label in the first place? Physical appearance? Biological squishiness? The difference may not hold up over time. Some in the AI field have joked that once they give the AI robot or even VR or normal-screen animated embodiments that look young and female, a bunch of guys are going to declare that they are conscious and fall in love. The statement "I don't know" seems undervalued on the forum. Obviously we're writing to each other, so we need to project a kind of knowing/confidence to put down words. But some seem allergic to just admitting that at bottom they don't know (about AI, or other things) and it's all a big mystery. That position might be healthier, or more fun. [2] I think it was Niz that said, post realization he "knew" a lot less. [1]: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/501018/thread[2]: Imagine a Being that "knows" everything and how everything will turn out in the "future", forever. Sounds like HELL!
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 30, 2023 10:03:45 GMT -5
In A-H terms, the AI doesn't have an Inner Being. Do you agree with those A-H terms?
If so then, is it only people that have an inner Being.....do animals, paper-clips...socks...rocks?
And, does this 'inner Being,' have anything to do with your Absolute knowing that all appearing people are perceivers/experiencers? And if so...then where does that leave the paperclips and rocks that you also say you've realized to be having their own unique experience/perception?
Those A-H terms have some practical value. And they have to be understood and used in that context. Inner Being is still the thingness context, after all.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 30, 2023 10:08:51 GMT -5
The problem with this approach though is that from your seeker perspective, you may assume, if you are humble enough, that what you are is a known unknown. You know what you want (usually you want what you think your teacher/guru/master has), you have a rough idea about where you are heading (aka practice, practice, practice) and you join the spiritual circus with high hopes. In reality though, what you are is a unknown unknown from your seeker perspective. That's something that usually doesn't even occur to seekers, but will be seen clearly in SR. This is why pre-SR practice is all what people are talking about, but post-SR it is grace. Also, practicing being what you already are is utterly illogical. The dolphin doesn't have to practice to be a dolphin and the ant doesn't have to practice being an ant. Maybe you meant to say practicing awareness of being what you are. But that raises the question of who has to be aware of who he is. Which brings us back to true self vs. false self. Another point is that practicing who you are places you in time. But your true nature, what you are, is outside of time, as is SR.In short, you cannot get THERE from there. It's a similar dilemma with alignment. The more you try to be in a state of alignment, the further you move into a state of misalignment. Alignment means going down stream, letting the stream carry you. Trying to be in alignment means going up stream, paddling against the stream. So how can you get into alignment then? It just happens when you let go of the oars, because alignment is your natural state. You just stop doing what keeps you out of that state and whooops you're there. Similar being who you are. Stop doing and just be and you're THERE. And so, practice, if you are lucky, may land you in front of the gateless gate, but it won't get you thru it to the other side. I find this bit confusing and am trying to understand.
Recently I think you said that 'the person' is 'in time.' And I think you've said your Absolute knowing that persons are perceivers/experiencers goes hand in hand with having realized "true nature"....?
Here you are asserting "true nature" to be "outside of time." So how is it then that you know "the person" (that which you've denoted to be "in time") to be for Absolute certain, a perceiver/experiencer, via a "realization"? It seems to me to be a context mix.
"What" specifically is it that you "know" to be "the experiencer/perceiver"....?
The question of "Is it/can it be known for certain if appearing people are actual perceivers/experiencers," was always a question about "the appearing person/body." Absent an appearing body/person, outside of/beyond time, what is there to BE "a perceiver/an experiencer?"
I don't think I've said that persons are perceivers. You may be confusing person with individual.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2023 10:21:56 GMT -5
Would you classify that quote above as an Absolute Truth, a theory....a relative truth? This is where I get confused with your LOA/deliberate creation talk.
How does that belief/theory survive the Ultimately/Absolute seeing that time is an illusion...that causation.... past/future are mere ideas arising NOW, that there is ultimately an absence of personal volition, that it's all one seamless movement...? All there is, is NOW...HERE....THIS.
It just seems so obvious to me that in the seeing through of separation, volition, causation, time, the very idea of "LOA/creating reality" gets called into question. Absent actual time/passage/one moment "becoming" the next, this happening causing a future happening, absent actual causality, how does that idea of LOA/deliberate creation still stand up as a valid law/truth?
Yes. I don't see how ZD and Reefs stay in peaceful agreement. Because ZD ignores the LOA/creation/cancer stuff. Figgles on the other hand... haha.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 30, 2023 10:26:00 GMT -5
In the deliberate creation context, you are the creator of your own realty, which means in your reality, you are God. People inherently know this, that they are the masters of their own fate. But they've got their heads full of conflicting theories that they've gathered along the way. So they can't see the forest for the tees. The don't know who they are anymore and why they are here. But deep inside they still know. This innate sense of absolute freedom is also the reason why people have to be free and express themselves freely or else they won't feel fully alive and fulfilling their purpose for being and then stop thriving and wither away. And not just people, animals too. Would you classify that quote above as an Absolute Truth, a theory....a relative truth? This is where I get confused with your LOA/deliberate creation talk.
How does that belief/theory survive the Ultimately/Absolute seeing that time is an illusion...that causation.... past/future are mere ideas arising NOW, that there is ultimately an absence of personal volition, that it's all one seamless movement...? All there is, is NOW...HERE....THIS.
It just seems so obvious to me that in the seeing through of separation, volition, causation, time, the very idea of "LOA/creating reality" gets called into question. Absent actual time/passage/one moment "becoming" the next, this happening causing a future happening, absent actual causality, how does that idea of LOA/deliberate creation still stand up as a valid law/truth?
Deliberate creation and LOA is the thingness context. And the thingness context is also the practical everyday life context. And in that context, and understanding of LOA and deliberate creation has enormous value. In the context of absolute truth, it has no relevance, of course. But that's not where everyday life happens. When someone asks you who you are, you answer with your name, you don't tell them that you are All-That-Is or the ground of being, right?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2023 10:26:46 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.
Yes. Maybe I don't understand ZD definition of distinction? It seems animals necessarily recognize distinctions (absent abstractions).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2023 10:30:22 GMT -5
This and zd's posts remind me of Tolle telling folks to observe the world without labels. If there is 'a world' of any sort TO observe, distinction has arisen. The merest arising sense is a distinction arising within/to the unwavering, unmoving ground of awareness.
To observe with an application of labels to everything is akin to whole "lines of latitude/longitude" application. Mentally labelling things constantly involves a mental overlay upon basic experience....an overlay applied upon basic, appearing content.
Kind of obvious, isn't it.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 30, 2023 10:30:38 GMT -5
Intellect = concepts and logic. Only armed with this, you cannot tell if you are Zhuang Zhou who dreamed being a butterfly or if you are a butterfly now dreaming he is Zhuang Zhou. That's the whole point of the butterfly story, you can't resolve this intellectually. The question has to be resolved in a different way. I would do it as Tenka suggested. You start with the fundamentals, i.e. there is only what you are. And if your hypothetical non-dualist can only argue in the absolute context, the conversation is essentially over at this point already. If your ontology can't account for individual experiences, integrate it somehow, it has no practical value and is useless for practical matters and questions like these. What specifically do you mean by "account for individual experiences, integrate it somehow"?
The seeing of the entirety of experiential content as a temporal expression of the unwavering/abiding, couches and includes the experience of unique, discrete experience/apparent windows of perception. There is no need to account for or integrate that which is clearly seen/known to be fundamentally not separate.
Apply it to real life circumstances. You see, your dream stuff ontology is irrelevant in a real life situations. You can't help but take everyone as a real perceiver, despite your realization to the contrary, and in the hustle and bustle of life or even these forum conversations, you never even notice how you do that.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 30, 2023 10:38:45 GMT -5
The question is based on a context mix. You can talk about intelligence or consciousness or aliveness in the context of suchness or in the context of thingness. In the context of suchness, there are no boundaries and so you cannot compare machines to human. Because in this context, there is only THIS. And THIS is seeing everything from the perspective of THIS as THIS. In this context you can say that it is all conscious, alive and intelligent. But once you start comparing machine to human, you are in the thingness context, where boundaries exist, where there is this and that. And then you can't say anymore that it is all conscious, alive and intelligent. You've quite perfectly described the issue with a supposed "Absolute, realized Knowing that people and rocks and paperclips are ALL each, unique, discrete perceivers/experiencers. The question of knowing regarding persons as actual perceivers/experiencers," is/was a relative question only. But it got answered with an Absolute answer and that's the issue. The question was about "a person," specifically, vs. arising content as a whole. The moment we begin talking about "Absolute, certain knowing/seeing" that each person is a unique, discrete perceiver/experiencer (and so are paper-clips/rocks/socks) we've entered into a misconceived context mix. But that WAS the assertion made. If there are no boundaries at all....by what means are you identifying/denoting a rock from a sock....a person from a paperclip to then know each specific item to be having it's own unique experience? How do you know a "paper-clip" to be having it's own unique perception/experience if there's no boundary appearing by which to denote "the paperclip." Apparent "Boundaries" by which an object/thing/person can be denoted/distinguished, were always inherent to the question of knowing, to the assertion of absence of knowing/misconceived question. To know of a particular 'thing/object' as having it's own, unique, discrete perception/experience, is to necessarily speak from the 'thingness' context. For all boundaries to be overlooked in favor of seeing the common "nature/ground" to content as a whole, absent dividing it up to denote specific objects, is indeed the "suchness" context. An Absolute knowing that "a" specific object....a "paperclip" is to invoke those boundaries that you say are not in play. Yes, precisely! This has always been my issue with your assertion of "Absolute knowing that "A" person..."A" paperclip...."A" sock, is having it's own, discrete, unique experience/perception...that each, singular object/thing has been realized to be "an" experiencer/perceiver. You've taken a seeing re: Fundamentals of All appearance (in general) and have applied that general "nature" (which can ever only be a pointer!) to specific, appearing objects/things to then arrive at your Absolute knowing of "discrete/unique" people, socks, rocks that 'each' are, an experiencer/perceiver. But your answer IS of the "thingness" context. (I know for Absolute certain that the appearing person...the sock....the rock....is having it's own unique perception/experience...that IT is a unique perceiver/experiencer.) From the get-go, you entered into the conversation to clearly and firmly refute the assertion of not knowing/question is misconceived, by saying that you DID know each of those things/objects to be perceivers. I totally agree, the question was always a relative one. The moment we try to take it into the Absolute context, we've got a misconception on our hands. But that's was your assertion...that socks are having their own unique perception/experience....as I recall you even went as far as suggesting that a sock did have a different kind of "experience/perception" than a person or an animal, but you were quite firm in your counter to the assertion of not knowing/misconceived question, that a sock was Absolutely known, via CC/Kensho realization, to be "a unique perceiver/experiencer." What I am saying isn't really any different from what Niz said: "In reality there is only consciousness. All life is conscious, all consciousness — alive. Even stones are conscious and alive." - Niz the Maharaj You see, we are going in circles. This Q & A game isn't going anywhere. Obviously we are not seeing eye to eye and are not going to given that this discussion has been going on for at least six years. From my perspective, you have not yet realized suchness, which means your only reference is thingness, which is precisely why you still struggle with the question about other perceivers, oneness and aliveness. IOW, you haven't seen into your true nature, you haven't realized yet who you really are. Because if you would, you would agree with what ZD and I have been saying and what Niz, Ramakrishna, Watts, Tolle and countless others have been saying. So at this point, all I can offer is to agree to disagree and let this topic go for good.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on May 30, 2023 10:41:25 GMT -5
Just a bit of friendly input, but perhaps try and pace yourself. Clearly there is a number of contentions you're keen to work through which have probably built up a bit due to circumstances and that's fine. But maybe try to focus them a bit more, be succinct, and wait for some answers before you go on too far ahead. I think Reefs had specifically requested along these lines and probably both from a personal and moderator POV. Also mentioning he's not here as often. Obviously things ebb and flow and we can mix it up, and sometimes the situation does call for a thorough breakdown of a post or a text wall response. But I think the scattergun approach will turn folks off and it runs the danger of becoming a chore. My motto is quality over quantity, (at least in my own mind, hehe), and I treat it as a marathon rather than a sprint. But I appreciate everyone is different. And I'm sure you'll understand when I say that sometimes with the finer aspects of these topics, less really is more. Just my 2 cents anyway, and I hope it doesn't come across as too condescending. Correct. I just logged in and see 8 notifications from Figgles alone and at least 10 pages to catch up with. Anyway, here's what I am going to do. I promise to answer all her questions in all her posts to me today and tomorrow, no matter how many posts. But starting from next month, I am not going to promise anything anymore. I may reply or may not reply at all. This matter is not rocket science. With two open minds engaged, it can be sorted out in just a couple of post already. If it can't be sorted out after ten posts, then another hundred are not going to bring more clarity either. It's just going to be a waste of time and will annoy everyone involved. Think about it, if the student asks the teacher and the teacher answers with great clarity but the student doesn't get it and asks another hundred times and still doesn't get it, whose fault is it? And will asking another hundred times bring more clarity? Well, I think that last part runs the danger of positioning you as teacher and figs as student and raising the heckles , but okay.
I take your point- questions are being asked and answers given, and the concern is that if there is not the reference for those answers, or general grokking from the other side, then the situation goes on indefinitely and deteriorates. In advance I can predict that there will be quite a lot of perceived misrepresentation and picture painting from your side, which compounds the quantity issue. And the perception of twisting, contradiction or evasion, from figs side, which will make it difficult to ultimately just agree to disagree. But it looks like you're going to address it anyway, so hopefully it will take its course, reasonably positively.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 30, 2023 10:50:08 GMT -5
Correct. I just logged in and see 8 notifications from Figgles alone and at least 10 pages to catch up with. Anyway, here's what I am going to do. I promise to answer all her questions in all her posts to me today and tomorrow, no matter how many posts. But starting from next month, I am not going to promise anything anymore. I may reply or may not reply at all. This matter is not rocket science. With two open minds engaged, it can be sorted out in just a couple of post already. If it can't be sorted out after ten posts, then another hundred are not going to bring more clarity either. It's just going to be a waste of time and will annoy everyone involved. Think about it, if the student asks the teacher and the teacher answers with great clarity but the student doesn't get it and asks another hundred times and still doesn't get it, whose fault is it? And will asking another hundred times bring more clarity? Well, I think that last part runs the danger of positioning you as teacher and figs as student and raising the heckles , but okay. I take your point- questions are being asked and answers given, and the concern is that if there is not the reference for those answers, or general grokking from the other side, then the situation goes on indefinitely and deteriorates. In advance I can predict that there will be quite a lot of perceived misrepresentation and picture painting from your side, which compounds the quantity issue. And the perception of twisting, contradiction or evasion, from figs side, which will make it difficult to ultimately just agree to disagree. But it looks like you're going to address it anyway, so hopefully it will take its course, reasonably positively. Remember, Figgles' mission here, which she accepted, is to teach us the art of civil discussion by being a shining example. So I expect no such evil things to happen. Two days, then I'm out. So, carpe diem, Ms. Figsy!
|
|