|
Post by Reefs on May 30, 2023 10:53:06 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. Pretty simple, we focus on the points where we agree. If you'd do that with all your relationships in life, you'd see a major improvement. It is law.
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on May 30, 2023 10:55:29 GMT -5
So Kannon is wrong. Only some of the five aggregates are empty.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2023 11:06:17 GMT -5
FWIW, I'll stick with my claim that all distinctions are mind-based. Suchness is prior to thingness. Thingness is mind-made, but suchness is beyond the mind. So does "distinctions are mind based," then mean that distinctions are "bad/wrong/something to try to do away with"?
As I see it, suchness and distinction is not at war. Suchness and "separation" ARE! It's entirely possible to go about your business, quietly or not, interacting with the world of things, and all the while, have suchness reign supreme.
Being free from the world does not require he world to disappear.
I'm pretty sure ZD understands all this. Something is amiss, can't put my finger on it. For some reason ZD refuses to acknowledge contexts. I just chalk it up to ZD refuses to depart from teacher-mode. I've really gotten tired of pushing, good to have some relief.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2023 11:10:54 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. I think that's the whole point, realization sees behind it all.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2023 11:13:06 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. Bingo.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2023 11:26:26 GMT -5
It's just an example of a "perception of reality that is 'obstructed' by abstraction compared to a perception of reality that is 'free' from obstruction". Nothing more, nothing less. The context was established by the example that was invited. It's an example of a 'mistaken perception', it's not an example of an obstruction. Obstruction exists in every perception, it's just a question of how MUCH obstruction. Going to get back to The Experience Machine-Perception Deception thread . Perception is always creation-formation. (The book says) we perceive less than 1% of what's available, the body-automatic brain processing does the editing. There is no such thing as a direct perception. And further than that, 90% of perception is furnished by information already existing in memory. Sensory data is sent to different areas of the brain, the data pulls up preexisting memory, and this is sent to another brain-center and the preexisting memory tells the combining-center (my words) what it is we are seeing. That's current neurological science. In a very real sense we are seeing what we expect to see. Perception is a construct.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2023 11:29:18 GMT -5
Exactly, and it goes beyond labels. IOW, a primary distinction might be a distinct image, but until it's labeled with a word, the image can't be talked about. As noted before, the intellect deals with images, ideas, and symbols. If the mind is quiescent, one interacts with the world through direct sensory perception without distinction. Without distinction the observer and the observed are, by definition, indistinguishable, and that is exactly what happens during a CC. The world is seen, but it is not known what is doing the seeing. Duality collapses, and the world comes alive in the most extraordinary way. In saying this are you not separating 'one interacting' …. from …. 'the world', at a fundamental level, and effectively reifying both?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 30, 2023 11:34:46 GMT -5
Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that perception/experience is always filtered, and that filter is abstraction. I think that's the whole point, realization sees behind it all. yeah, but the realization doesn't shift experience from 'false reality' to 'true reality', though it can certainly seem as if it does because the falling away of the intensity of abstraction is profound.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 30, 2023 11:35:24 GMT -5
It's an example of a 'mistaken perception', it's not an example of an obstruction. Obstruction exists in every perception, it's just a question of how MUCH obstruction. Going to get back to The Experience Machine-Perception Deception thread . Perception is always creation-formation. (The book says) we perceive less than 1% of what's available, the body-automatic brain processing does the editing. There is no such thing as a direct perception. And further than that, 90% of perception is furnished by information already existing in memory. Sensory data is sent to different areas of the brain, the data pulls up preexisting memory, and this is sent to another brain-center and the preexisting memory tells the combining-center (my words) what it is we are seeing. That's current neurological science. In a very real sense we are seeing what we expect to see. Perception is a construct. yes
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 30, 2023 11:40:19 GMT -5
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). I'd say animals demonstrate strong recognition of food. They just aren't invested in the experience of the abstraction itself. They just want the food lol. Humans tend to love the experience of the abstraction as much as they love food.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2023 11:40:35 GMT -5
It's really not. I set up the context of the discussion and your example is a different context. Enlightened folks see mirages in deserts too (and have mistaken perceptions) because their experience/perception is still filtered/abstracted. Enlightened folks still have conditioning. Yes. J Krishnamurti goes into this deeply, how to separate the knowledge of the mechanic who can fix your car (necessary learning-programming-"conditioning") from the psychology of the mechanic who goes home to beat his dog (or wife) obviously unnecessarily, his distorted psychology, the me. The point I've made dozens of times, the (some) SR don't seem to be concerned with "alignment", cleaning up their distorting psychology, because they consider it imaginary anyway. That's my basic problem with ND. Nasty psychology is responsible for 90% of the punishing-"evil" in the world. And that's OK with ND, because nothing can be done, it's all just one flow of All That Is. ....So I'll probably stick around to keep putting a stick in the spokes.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2023 11:51:51 GMT -5
Nah. I got nuther one for ya. This morning I bent down to pick something up off the floor and my hand naturally rested on the side of the bath as I knelt. The bath is enamel and as my hand came to rest on it there was a sensation of coldness. This precipitated the arising of the thought, 'that's cold', shortly followed by ' the temperature must have dropped outside since yesterday'. Both of which are obviously mental overlays to the sensation itself. But I took the opportunity the trace the occurrence as a whole backwards, and I'm adamant that the sensation 'coldness' was distinctive prior to the aforementioned mental overlays. So whilst the distinctive sensation of coldness arose prior to the conception and classification of it, it was only subsequently recognised as such. Which is why I posit distinctiveness in conjunction with sensation and perception. I'm adamant that it was perceived and apparent at a more fundamental level than the idea and classification of it. I've told this story a couple of times. Once were we wiring an unfinished basement, new construction. Up in a corner, on the block wall between some floor-ceiling joists, I noticed a brown cotton glove, many construction workers use them in the winter. I moved my ladder over to the corner, reached over to get the free glove. I was a few inches away, almost grabbed it, but it turned its head quicky around to face me. I've never come off a six ft ladder so quickly. It was a snake.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2023 12:01:46 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? Yes. Most of us are only interested in defending our own position, trying to get other people to see we are obviously correct. It's very difficult to change our position, our POV.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2023 12:26:39 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?
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? But how can anyone say OTOH there is nobody doing anything, and OToH speak of deliberate creation?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 30, 2023 12:37:03 GMT -5
Yes. Maybe I don't understand ZD definition of distinction? It seems animals necessarily recognize distinctions (absent abstractions). I'd say animals demonstrate strong recognition of food. They just aren't invested in the experience of the abstraction itself. They just want the food lol. Humans tend to love the experience of the abstraction as much as they love food.
|
|