|
Post by zendancer on May 30, 2023 16:24:27 GMT -5
One of the interesting things that happened after a CC was the body lost interest in eating any more food than what it took to satisfy hunger. Without a "me" the body left lots of food on its plate uneaten--something that hadn't happened since childhood.
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on May 30, 2023 16:30:39 GMT -5
See. Dogs ARE superior to cats. The debate is over.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on May 30, 2023 16:57:43 GMT -5
Correct. I haven't read any of the McKenna books because they sound like shock-jock stuff implying that waking up is some horrible transformative event (akin to "being skinned alive," etc). ITSW, Shiv's book, "Advaitacoholics Anonymous," appears to set up a straw man for people who are guru worshipers or people strongly attached to religious belief systems, and it ignores the simple down-to-earth path of having realizations that change one's habits of mind and lead to psychological freedom. Yes, THIS can apparently do lots of things that appear to be non-rational or non-logical. In the past I wondered if there could be a logical explanation for the "miracles" reported in various spiritual traditions. After a CC it became apparent that THIS can do anything via particular humans. I've never been interested in making anything unusual happen or manifesting anything because ordinary life seems fine just as it is. I've seen unusual things happen, and even my wife has had a non-local event occur, so I accept that THIS can manifest in many unexpected and non-logical ways. OK, I have no problem with any of that, but...I'll take a non-answer, as an answer. ....... A Jesus-story, as an example. Jesus didn't claim to do any of the miracles, the father did them, but the fact is they happened in-his-presence. Once, either he or his disciples had to pay some taxes. So Jesus said to go fish at a certain place. And they caught a fish which had swallowed some coins, enough to pay the taxes. ....And he also said, the things I do you can do too. Yes, there is this flow, George Leonard called it The Silent Pulse. Yes, it can be tuned in to. ....I'll accept there was a long chain of events the resulted in that coin-fish, at that time. And Jesus knew how to tap-in-to that chain of events. I don't think it was a miracle in the sense God put the coins in the fish and told Jesus about it, right then and there. I prefer to say it takes a body-individual to tap-in-to the flow. And the SVP-conditioned-thingy, is an obstruction to tapping-in-to. Just my view. And...if money hadn't been needed for taxes, some other lucky somebody might have caught the fish, or not. biblehub.com/matthew/17-27.htm" Pulpit CommentaryVerse 27. - Lest we should offend them; cause them to stumble. In his large charity he would not take the advantage of his position to avoid the tax. Though above the Law, he would place himself under the Law. Offence would be given by the nonpayment. His motive would be unknown and misunderstood (see on ver. 24). The people would attribute it to caprice, sectarianism, contempt of religion; they would see in it dishonour to the temple. Suspicion and animosity would be aroused; ill feeling, injurious both to themselves who encouraged it and to the cause of Christ, would weaken the effects of his acts and doctrine. Further offence would supervene if he did not confirm Peter's engagement and execute the promise which the foremost disciple had virtually made in his name; since it might thus appear that he and his followers were not of one mind in this important matter. For such considerations he was content to waive his prerogative, and to provide for the payment by a miracle, which should at once vindicate his royal character and demonstrate that, while he was obedient to the Law, he was superior to it, was the Lord of heaven and earth and sea. Go thou to the sea. The Sea of Galilee, on whose shore Capernaum stood, and with which Peter had been all his life familiar. Cast an hook. The fisherman was to ply his trade, yet not to use his customary net; he was to fish with line and hook, that the miracle might be more striking. Take up the fish that first cometh up. From the deep waters to the bait. Thou shalt find a piece of money; a stater. This Greek coin, circulating throughout the East, was about equal in value to the shekel, or two didrachms, and therefore sufficient to pay the half shekel for two persons. That fish should seize a bright object which might drop into the sea is nothing uncommon. A cod has been found with a watch in its stomach, still going. The miracle is shown in the omniscience which knew what the fish carried in its maw, and in the omnipotence which drew it to the hook. As far as we know, and regarding the present age as the sabbath of creation (see John 5:17), Christ in his miracles created nothing absolutely, always using a natural and existing basis as the support of the wonder. So here he does not create the fish or the skater, but by marvellous coincidences makes them subserve his purpose. Tradition has stereotyped the miracle by assigning to a certain tribe of fish a permanent mark of the occurrence. The johndory. whose name is corrupted either from jaune dore, "gold colour," or adore, "worshipped," is called in some countries Peter's fish, and is supposed to retain the impression of the apostle's fingers on its sides. Others assert that it is the haddock which presents this memorial of the miracle. But neither of these fish is found in the Lake of Gennesareth. Give... for me and thee (a)nti\ e)mou = kai\ sou = ). The form of expression recalls the original design of the institution, as a ransom of souls (comp. Matthew 20:28 in the Greek). He does not say, "for us;" for, though he submitted to the tax, it was not on the same ground as his servant. He himself paid, though exempt; Peter paid because he was liable. In the one ease it was from humility, in the other from legal obligation. The account ends somewhat abruptly, nothing being said of the result of the Lord's command, what action Peter took, and what ensued thereon. But we need no assurance that all came to pass as Christ directed. The very silence is significant; it is the sublimest language. Neologian criticism has endeavoured to explain away or to throw discredit on the miraculous nature of this "transaction." We are asked to believe that Christ by his command meant only that Peter was to go and catch a fish and sell it for a skater. If this was the case, why did not the evangelist say so? Why did he introduce a story which he must have known to be untrue? Is there any ground for supposing that St. Matthew was a writer of myths and legends, or one who intentionally falsified the records on which he framed his history? Surely no unprejudiced person could judge thus of the writer of the First Gospel; to those who believe in inspiration the notion is sacrilegious. The incident is no embellishment of a natural fact, no mere sailor's anecdote, but the true account of a real occurrence, which the narrator credited and probably witnessed. Another allegation equally unfounded is that Christ was rebuking Peter for precipitancy in promising payment when they had no funds in their possession, as though Jesus was saying ironically, "You had better go and catch a fish, and look for the money in its mouth!" Such attempted evasions of the miraculous are puerile and saddening. And if it be objected, as indeed it is, that the miracle was unnecessary and unworthy of Jesus, who never exerted his supernatural power for his own benefit, it is easy to show that the wonder was required in order to give and enforce a lesson to Peter and his companions."
|
|
|
Post by sharon on May 30, 2023 17:09:39 GMT -5
Video of Chaser and Neil. See. Dogs ARE superior to cats. The debate is over. Chaser deducing that the toy she didn't know, was Darwin, was an excellent touch. But getting a cat to care about what you've named a toy, would be a walk into the impossible.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 30, 2023 17:15:52 GMT -5
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. My point was that suchness and thingness co-abide just fine...are NOT at war with each other. But if abiding SR is the case, "suchness" is primary...thingness, secondary. Another way to say that is Oneness reigns supreme even as distinction arises. Distinction does not have to cease for Oneness to not only be the case. The world of things are experienced differently post SR...and yet, 'things' still appear. They're just no longer "out there" or "not THIS." Re-cognition...? Does that mean there is some kind of "memory" involved as you see it in SR/waking up?...that upon awakening, you have recall of a sort of "former" wakefulness? The way I'd put it that the Truth was always there, shining through, just waiting to be revealed when separation/delusion/the SVP was no longer in play, obscuring it. But that view you seem to be putting forth that there is a sort of "re" membering, or re-cognition of something formerly "cognized"..." doesn't really resonate here.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 30, 2023 17:21:03 GMT -5
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. Ah yes, and I don't mean here at all to try to "force" you to answer if for some reason you really don't want to, but I did notice you didn't respond at all to this bit. It would really clear things up I think if you could answer this particular query of mind....it's been the crux of the argument I think....that one hand, boundaries disappear...things dissolve, but then your assertion re: "knowing a rock is perceiving," specifically pertains to "a rock."
As I see it "unique" discrete, multiple, perception(s) have inherent to them, apparent boundary. If the boundaries collapse, then the uniqueness/discreteness also collapses, no?
"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."
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2023 17:25:19 GMT -5
OK, I have no problem with any of that, but...I'll take a non-answer, as an answer. .......A Jesus-story, as an example. Jesus didn't claim to do any of the miracles, the father did them, but the fact is they happened in-his-presence. Once, either he or his disciples had to pay some taxes. So Jesus said to go fish at a certain place. And they caught a fish which had swallowed some coins, enough to pay the taxes. ....And he also said, the things I do you can do too. Yes, there is this flow, George Leonard called it The Silent Pulse. Yes, it can be tuned in to. ....I'll accept there was a long chain of events the resulted in that coin-fish, at that time. And Jesus knew how to tap-in-to that chain of events. I don't think it was a miracle in the sense God put the coins in the fish and told Jesus about it, right then and there. I prefer to say it takes a body-individual to tap-in-to the flow. And the SVP-conditioned-thingy, is an obstruction to tapping-in-to. Just my view. And...if money hadn't been needed for taxes, some other lucky somebody might have caught the fish, or not. Well, if the story is true, no one else could have caught the fish because there was no other alternative except in imagination. That's why I often say it's impossible to make a mistake. There's no "me" doing anything, and THIS unfolds however it unfolds. In this sense there's no "tapping into the flow" because what we are is the flow. Our conventional use of language obscures the underlying unity of "what is." Whatever happens is the only way it can happen. Paul Morgan-Somers has said that he knew all kinds of things prior to their occurrence (including his future wife's name two years before he met her), and I assume that this kind of internal knowing, or intuitive knowing, is simply an illustration that THIS is a unified whole that includes what we call "past, present, and future" as one indivisible NOWness. I agree, at the moment things happen, they happen in the only way they can happen. But accidents and random events also happen. ____ happens. .....I recall a film based on a part-biography-story of Charles Bukowski, Factotum. Matt Dillon played Bukowski. He was in a room with a bunch of guys taking a class for obtaining credentials to drive a cab. The teacher asked: What is an occurrence which can cause an accident while driving? (It was probably a slightly more complicated directed-question). Bukowski replied correctly, a sneeze. ____ happens. I've experienced this myself. A sneeze scares me a little in bad traffic, everything is obliterated, you go blind for a split second. That's not too bad, but I've also had double-sneezes, I just try to hold the steering wheel straight, but I could have ended up anywhere. ____ happens. And, stuff just breaks from mechanical wear, planes crash, boats disappear, trains crash. ____ happens. ....The story of the death of James Dean also comes to mind, the auto crash. Probably a one-second differential, James Dean might still be alive today. Have you ever been on a long drive and had to stop to take a whiz on the side of the road? I have. Surmise.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 30, 2023 17:25:52 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.
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. A distortion of the experience...that's a good way to put it.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 30, 2023 17:33:20 GMT -5
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. So, if I'm understanding then, your point is that 'relatively/experientially' speaking, discriminating mind plays into how relatively true or false we determine a particular experience to be?
If so, I agree of course.
To get back to the issue of the experience of intuition....intuiting a tree for example as having an inner/energy/life....perhaps even intent...feelings...etc....or we can take an experience of having a seeming telepathic convo with a deceased loved one....feeling their energy/love support...that kind of thing.
I would say these days (and this wasn't always the case) I attribute equal veracity to these kinds of experiences in terms of relative denoting that what I'm experiencing is beyond question, as I attribute to so called "normal" experience (stuff that is not subject to pure intuition....a seeing of sorts that lies beyond so called normal consensus trance experience).
Intuition is an integral facet of my daily experience....it's just sort of blended in with the other facets of mind/minding/experiencing.
I'm guessing you are somewhat the same?
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 30, 2023 17:36:04 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 may be wrong but I'm pretty sure ZD is...he seems to be suggesting that where there is distinction there is no knowing of 'suchness.'...that mind must be completely devoid of any content, or no go.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2023 17:39:05 GMT -5
OK, I have no problem with any of that, but...I'll take a non-answer, as an answer. ....... A Jesus-story, as an example. Jesus didn't claim to do any of the miracles, the father did them, but the fact is they happened in-his-presence. Once, either he or his disciples had to pay some taxes. So Jesus said to go fish at a certain place. And they caught a fish which had swallowed some coins, enough to pay the taxes. ....And he also said, the things I do you can do too. Yes, there is this flow, George Leonard called it The Silent Pulse. Yes, it can be tuned in to. ....I'll accept there was a long chain of events the resulted in that coin-fish, at that time. And Jesus knew how to tap-in-to that chain of events. I don't think it was a miracle in the sense God put the coins in the fish and told Jesus about it, right then and there. I prefer to say it takes a body-individual to tap-in-to the flow. And the SVP-conditioned-thingy, is an obstruction to tapping-in-to. Just my view. And...if money hadn't been needed for taxes, some other lucky somebody might have caught the fish, or not. biblehub.com/matthew/17-27.htm" Pulpit CommentaryVerse 27. - Lest we should offend them; cause them to stumble. In his large charity he would not take the advantage of his position to avoid the tax. Though above the Law, he would place himself under the Law. Offence would be given by the nonpayment. His motive would be unknown and misunderstood (see on ver. 24). The people would attribute it to caprice, sectarianism, contempt of religion; they would see in it dishonour to the temple. Suspicion and animosity would be aroused; ill feeling, injurious both to themselves who encouraged it and to the cause of Christ, would weaken the effects of his acts and doctrine. Further offence would supervene if he did not confirm Peter's engagement and execute the promise which the foremost disciple had virtually made in his name; since it might thus appear that he and his followers were not of one mind in this important matter. For such considerations he was content to waive his prerogative, and to provide for the payment by a miracle, which should at once vindicate his royal character and demonstrate that, while he was obedient to the Law, he was superior to it, was the Lord of heaven and earth and sea. Go thou to the sea. The Sea of Galilee, on whose shore Capernaum stood, and with which Peter had been all his life familiar. Cast an hook. The fisherman was to ply his trade, yet not to use his customary net; he was to fish with line and hook, that the miracle might be more striking. Take up the fish that first cometh up. From the deep waters to the bait. Thou shalt find a piece of money; a stater. This Greek coin, circulating throughout the East, was about equal in value to the shekel, or two didrachms, and therefore sufficient to pay the half shekel for two persons. That fish should seize a bright object which might drop into the sea is nothing uncommon. A cod has been found with a watch in its stomach, still going. The miracle is shown in the omniscience which knew what the fish carried in its maw, and in the omnipotence which drew it to the hook. As far as we know, and regarding the present age as the sabbath of creation (see John 5:17), Christ in his miracles created nothing absolutely, always using a natural and existing basis as the support of the wonder. So here he does not create the fish or the skater, but by marvellous coincidences makes them subserve his purpose. Tradition has stereotyped the miracle by assigning to a certain tribe of fish a permanent mark of the occurrence. The johndory. whose name is corrupted either from jaune dore, "gold colour," or adore, "worshipped," is called in some countries Peter's fish, and is supposed to retain the impression of the apostle's fingers on its sides. Others assert that it is the haddock which presents this memorial of the miracle. But neither of these fish is found in the Lake of Gennesareth. Give... for me and thee (a)nti\ e)mou = kai\ sou = ). The form of expression recalls the original design of the institution, as a ransom of souls (comp. Matthew 20:28 in the Greek). He does not say, "for us;" for, though he submitted to the tax, it was not on the same ground as his servant. He himself paid, though exempt; Peter paid because he was liable. In the one ease it was from humility, in the other from legal obligation. The account ends somewhat abruptly, nothing being said of the result of the Lord's command, what action Peter took, and what ensued thereon. But we need no assurance that all came to pass as Christ directed. The very silence is significant; it is the sublimest language. Neologian criticism has endeavoured to explain away or to throw discredit on the miraculous nature of this "transaction." We are asked to believe that Christ by his command meant only that Peter was to go and catch a fish and sell it for a skater. If this was the case, why did not the evangelist say so? Why did he introduce a story which he must have known to be untrue? Is there any ground for supposing that St. Matthew was a writer of myths and legends, or one who intentionally falsified the records on which he framed his history? Surely no unprejudiced person could judge thus of the writer of the First Gospel; to those who believe in inspiration the notion is sacrilegious. The incident is no embellishment of a natural fact, no mere sailor's anecdote, but the true account of a real occurrence, which the narrator credited and probably witnessed. Another allegation equally unfounded is that Christ was rebuking Peter for precipitancy in promising payment when they had no funds in their possession, as though Jesus was saying ironically, "You had better go and catch a fish, and look for the money in its mouth!" Such attempted evasions of the miraculous are puerile and saddening. And if it be objected, as indeed it is, that the miracle was unnecessary and unworthy of Jesus, who never exerted his supernatural power for his own benefit, it is easy to show that the wonder was required in order to give and enforce a lesson to Peter and his companions." I never doubted this story, always thought it pretty cool.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 30, 2023 17:39:12 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. Right, but ZD doesn't seem to see any relevant difference between simply denoting an a shimmering sight off in the distance that looks like water, vs. fully believing that that vision IS in fact, an Oasis. I think he'd say BOTH are distinction...both are imagined.....and what needs to happen is mind just needs to be completely free of either for freedom to be.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2023 17:41:45 GMT -5
Who said distinctions were a problem? The distinction between clean and dirty water ain't gonna' quench yer thirst. I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure ZD is...he seems to be suggesting that where there is distinction there is no knowing of 'suchness.'...that mind must be completely devoid of any content, or no go. Curious, I don't think he's saying that at all.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 30, 2023 17:45:12 GMT -5
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." 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. Not condescending at all...I actually had the same thought last night. I think I've got a much better chance of having my questions answered if I present in more of a piece-meal fashion. Totally agree with what you're sayin'....nailed it.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 30, 2023 17:55:24 GMT -5
"The non-dual perspective encourages exploration, open-mindedness, and the recognition of the fluid and ever-evolving nature of truth."
If the nature of truth is recognized as being 'ever-evolving,' that's not the non-dual perspective.
That repsonse was from a query made in the context of members particiapting in a non-dual online forum. It speaks to the participants and their "personal truth" (beliefs, bias, conditioning, etc) Not to the Absolute truth.
That's quite a creative interpretation that ignores the fact that A "non-dual perspective," puts personal growth/personal, ever-evolving truths well in their place.
It also ignores the fact that a non-dual perspective is not simply, willfully, immediately donned the moment a seeker hops on a Nonduality forum....there is an important realization/shift in locus of seeing for a true "non-dual perspective," to BE.
|
|