|
Post by zendancer on May 31, 2023 6:19:30 GMT -5
It's usually the carrot or the stick, but sometimes not. I'd say 99.99% of people experience dukkha. I don't think Jed was saying anything else. My recollection is that he said something far more specific and dramatic than that. Correct.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on May 31, 2023 6:44:39 GMT -5
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. There's an obvious difference between a mental distinction - say, lat/long lines - and the contrast of physical sensation. To say that the tub is cold before you touched it simply acknowledges physical reality from a personal perspective.There are realizations and experiences that are trips to the other side of the looking glass, and afterwards, nothing really looks exactly the same as it did before. There are also flights of intellectual fancy that are shadows and hints of these realizations and experiences. That's not exactly what I was saying. I was beginning by talking about the experience holistically so in terms of THIS. Saying that the distinctive sensation coldness arose, or was apparent, prior to imagination or any subsequent associated surface level thoughts and classification. I mean, I'm not even sure you can talk about it as being cold before I touched it. If you think about it that engenders the 'if a tree falls in the forest …' scenario. In that respect. So I'm not interested in hand or bath tub at that level, or existing coldness. That doesn't really fit with my understanding of emptiness anyway. Which would be more along the lines of there is no coldness per se, prior to the arising sensation of it, presently, and ultimately holistically. So for arguments sake, think of the starting point as pea soup. Or 'THIS, THISing'. As the surface level aspects of mind are quiescent. (I know you like that word). And the first thing to become consciously apparent was the distinctive sensation coldness, ... followed by the rest (subsequent mental overlay/classification etc). And I say that was prior to imagination. And that it would be the same with tree'ness. Edit. To be clear, the way I tend to approach these topics is from the base of the iceberg, not the tip.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on May 31, 2023 7:03:40 GMT -5
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. Yes. No, not memory because it isn't knowledge. We are using pointers here, don't we? You are trying to lick the pointer by being too literal. I don't know if you do this unconsciously or on purpose, but it's at the root of these boring perpetual discussions with you that don't go anywhere and have no actual content other than parsing words. Let's not do this anymore, okay? Yes, it seems reasonable to talk about G-d coming to know Herself, for example, in terms of a form of 'recognition'.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 31, 2023 8:02:10 GMT -5
There's an obvious difference between a mental distinction - say, lat/long lines - and the contrast of physical sensation. To say that the tub is cold before you touched it simply acknowledges physical reality from a personal perspective.There are realizations and experiences that are trips to the other side of the looking glass, and afterwards, nothing really looks exactly the same as it did before. There are also flights of intellectual fancy that are shadows and hints of these realizations and experiences. That's not exactly what I was saying. I was beginning by talking about the experience holistically so in terms of THIS. Saying that the distinctive sensation coldness arose, or was apparent, prior to imagination or any subsequent associated surface level thoughts and classification. I mean, I'm not even sure you can talk about it as being cold before I touched it. If you think about it that engenders the 'if a tree falls in the forest …' scenario. In that respect. So I'm not interested in hand or bath tub at that level, or existing coldness. That doesn't really fit with my understanding of emptiness anyway. Which would be more along the lines of there is no coldness per se, prior to the arising sensation of it, presently, and ultimately holistically. So for arguments sake, think of the starting point as pea soup. Or 'THIS, THISing'. As the surface level aspects of mind are quiescent. (I know you like that word). And the first thing to become consciously apparent was the distinctive sensation coldness, ... followed by the rest (subsequent mental overlay/classification etc). And I say that was prior to imagination. And that it would be the same with tree'ness. Edit. To be clear, the way I tend to approach these topics is from the base of the iceberg, not the tip. I think you'd agree that there's no idea of hot or cold for a baby or an animal; there's just "what is," and a direct physical response to "what is." This is why the old Zen Master told the monk who was complaining about the Summer heat, "Why not go where there is no hot or cold?" The direct sensory perception is beyond concept, and it remains beyond concept until ideation makes a distinction and labels the distinction, all of which may be useful but is not necessary. In the world of suchness, beyond mind, the body functions intelligently without reflective thought. The Rinzai Zen tradition encourages a direct non-conceptual response to all of its formal test questions, and this is why a large number of koans are answered with a silent physical response rather than words. I can imagine a ZM handing a student something and asking, "Is this hot or cold?" Anyone familiar with koans and their usage as a teaching tool will know that if the student opens her mouth, she will have already made a mistake. If the student is NOT thinking, a silent response will occur. There will be no act of distinction and no idea of distinction because no act or idea of distinction will be necessary.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 31, 2023 8:05:37 GMT -5
See, this is exactly what I meant by trying to force others to engage. Where's the attempt at 'force' towards engagment. If you feel compelled in some way to engage, that's ultimately on you, no?
In fact I'm telling you I'm fine to talk about/write about the delusion inherent in mistaking suchness for Absolute knowledge of discrete/unique perceivers/experiencers, absent any engagement at all. He could just as easily assert that you feel compelled to paint the portraits.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 31, 2023 8:06:25 GMT -5
Yes. As I recall. In your terms perhaps it would be something like "dark night of the soul is non-optional". The Jed author may or may not have used that phrase. Well, St John of the Cross said the darkness comes as a result of getting close to God, blinded by the Light as it were. This is basically what happened to Saul-Paul on the road to Damascus. He was blinded encountering Jesus, for 3 days I think it was. (I read the poem and St John's interpretation about 35 years ago, there are two dark nights actually, the second much darker. [The dark night of the senses and the dark night of the spirit]. I don't recall if he mentioned Paul-Saul). Interesting stuff, but hardly universal. If the author of the Jed books was in earnest, he's simply mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 31, 2023 8:13:26 GMT -5
It seems like the situation is reaching an impasse. In my view, the way out of it is that it has to become more a conversation in which we allow for difference of path, experience and definitions. We understand where people are, and that it is appropriate for them to be 'there'...wherever that is. Easier said than done (including for me) and the context of the forum is such that to some extent it is appropriate and inevitable to 'make each other wrong' to some extent...it's part of the questioning and challenging that we are here for. So I guess it's about finding the balance. There's really nothing wrong with some tension, it can be part of the fun, but when it gets too much, communication breaks down. And we aren't the warriors we were 10 years ago lol.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 31, 2023 8:15:44 GMT -5
The Jed character does make it clear in his first book that he's attached to the idea that the person has to go through very negative experiences prior to "enlightenment". I've only ever read that re-enforced in the quotes from the latter books I've come across. I know, some people go through a "dark night of the soul," or become suicidally distressed prior to a breakthrough, but I could probably name dozens of people for whom nothing like that that was ever the case. In most cases there was simply frustration caused by an inability to understand, and in some cases not even that. It's the flip side of the coin to E's "bliss bunny". It's always great to read your thoughts on this 'cause I know from reading along over the years how much material along these lines about people's stories and experiences you've absorbed, and how many in-person dialogs you've had with seekers and finders. Saves me alot of time! Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on May 31, 2023 8:27:59 GMT -5
Yup....seems It's well underway already. Hmmmm .... if it turns out that others aren't in fact real perceivers, I'm afraid to say this might prove to be closer to home that you think! (I should say in advance that it is my policy to give the hornets nest a good poke and then run away )
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on May 31, 2023 8:46:11 GMT -5
But, then there is this post also...
Do you see why someone might be confused? Your 1st quote there in 2016 asserts that you CAN know that people are real... Please...Can you/will you explain?
I'm mostly just skimming these at the moment, but I'll answer this one for him. Back then he was mostly talking 2nd mountain stuff to a perceived 1st mountain crowd. These days he tends to work in more 3rd mountain contexts. My advice is to forget the past stuff and concentrate on what you (at least) perceive are any contradictions in the current stuff.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 31, 2023 9:00:12 GMT -5
That's not exactly what I was saying. I was beginning by talking about the experience holistically so in terms of THIS. Saying that the distinctive sensation coldness arose, or was apparent, prior to imagination or any subsequent associated surface level thoughts and classification. I mean, I'm not even sure you can talk about it as being cold before I touched it. If you think about it that engenders the 'if a tree falls in the forest …' scenario. In that respect. So I'm not interested in hand or bath tub at that level, or existing coldness. That doesn't really fit with my understanding of emptiness anyway. Which would be more along the lines of there is no coldness per se, prior to the arising sensation of it, presently, and ultimately holistically. So for arguments sake, think of the starting point as pea soup. Or 'THIS, THISing'. As the surface level aspects of mind are quiescent. (I know you like that word). And the first thing to become consciously apparent was the distinctive sensation coldness, ... followed by the rest (subsequent mental overlay/classification etc). And I say that was prior to imagination. And that it would be the same with tree'ness. Edit. To be clear, the way I tend to approach these topics is from the base of the iceberg, not the tip. I think you'd agree that there's no idea of hot or cold for a baby or an animal; there's just "what is," and a direct physical response to "what is." This is why the old Zen Master told the monk who was complaining about the Summer heat, "Why not go where there is no hot or cold?" The direct sensory perception is beyond concept, and it remains beyond concept until ideation makes a distinction and labels the distinction, all of which may be useful but is not necessary. In the world of suchness, beyond mind, the body functions intelligently without reflective thought. The Rinzai Zen tradition encourages a direct non-conceptual response to all of its formal test questions, and this is why a large number of koans are answered with a silent physical response rather than words. I can imagine a ZM handing a student something and asking, "Is this hot or cold?" Anyone familiar with koans and their usage as a teaching tool will know that if the student opens her mouth, she will have already made a mistake. If the student is NOT thinking, a silent response will occur. There will be no act of distinction and no idea of distinction because no act or idea of distinction will be necessary. Approaching this from a position of looking at definitions. Some folks might define 'what is' as prior to direct physical/sensory experience/responses, because we need to talk of a 'ground' that is prior to experience. I don't know what you would call that, personally I'd go for 'Being' or 'the Absolute' or.....there are many options....but it points prior to what you are calling 'what is'.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on May 31, 2023 9:00:27 GMT -5
... In that quote, Niz is taking liberties....obviously speaking to someone who is still very mired in experience/duality. He often did that...spoke to a seeker from where the seeker sat...making at times, some very deep and wide concessions to mind. It doesn't mean what you think it means.
...
That is one way of looking at it. Another is that he was using a bit of poetic licence in an attempt to express something actually quite profound. And if you had been in the circle and responded by asking about paperclips as perceivers, I'm pretty sure you would've got a beedie flicked at your head! Edit- although I suppose you might class that as twisting/evasion.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on May 31, 2023 9:19:01 GMT -5
What does that mean though? What is it to take someone to be "a real" perceiver vs. an apparent perceiver? How would you know the difference?
Seeing it all as 'dream-stuff' is exactly the same as seeing 'suchness.' And it's not so at all that that seeing/realization has zero impact. Just because you can't readily see that impact, does not mean it's not there. Freedom is not going to necessarily be overtly observable just by observing general behaviors and engagements with the appearing world.
& I don't specifically single out "people/persons" to denote them as dream-content/suchness...the entirety of it ALL is 'an appearance arising within/to the unwavering ground...but indeed, appearing people and their apparent sentience, perceptions, experiencing, are all included/encompassed in that.
There is only one "Kind" of perceiver....and it's relative, experiential, appearance based.
The realization that ultimately, perception/experience, thought, doings, actions, ALL of it....is happening, absent a 'something/some-one' that is giving rise to it, doing it, is not at war with the appearance of people who apparently perceive.
The very idea of a 'real/actual/Absolutely known/realized' perceiving entity/person = misconception. It's a context mix. The question can indeed be asked, but can't be soundly, (relatively) answered with certainty from the relative context and from the transcendent/Absolute/impersonal context, the question is entirely misconceived. The very question/wondering about whether apparent perceiving people are "actual" perceivers, involves a context mix and a misconception. In seeing 'suchness' how/why would such a question ever arise...? How could there be a specific some-thing, that is "perceiving/experiencing/doing/seeing/thinking" etc, if Oneness/no separation is the Truth? To single out single thing/object to declare it as a "perceiving/experiencing/thinking/seeing/doing" entity, is to invoke separation.
Relatively speaking, for the non-awake seeker, the question is fine, but once all appearance, including the appearance of perceiving/experiencing 'people,' are all seen with eyes that see "suchness" the question itself crumbles and is seen to be a nonsense.
You continue to assert that the seeing of ALL content, including apparent sentient/experiencing/perceiving people has zero impact on day to day life, but what you are missing is is the 'absence' that obviously, of course, goes unseen as you observe. You cannot know what that absence is or how it impacts day to day experience, unless you have direct reference for that absence.
Rest assured, it makes all the difference in the world when the entirety of experiential content, ALL perceivables, both subtle and tangible, are seen to be empty and devoid of inherent existence. It's plain and simply the difference between freedom and bondage.
That doesn't seem to leave a lot of room for 'others may or may not be real perceivers', or however you want to phrase it. It's only really ever been the case that, in whatever context you want to work in, there has to be consistency.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 31, 2023 9:21:35 GMT -5
There's an obvious difference between a mental distinction - say, lat/long lines - and the contrast of physical sensation. To say that the tub is cold before you touched it simply acknowledges physical reality from a personal perspective.There are realizations and experiences that are trips to the other side of the looking glass, and afterwards, nothing really looks exactly the same as it did before. There are also flights of intellectual fancy that are shadows and hints of these realizations and experiences. That's not exactly what I was saying. I was beginning by talking about the experience holistically so in terms of THIS. Saying that the distinctive sensation coldness arose, or was apparent, prior to imagination or any subsequent associated surface level thoughts and classification. I mean, I'm not even sure you can talk about it as being cold before I touched it. If you think about it that engenders the 'if a tree falls in the forest …' scenario. In that respect. So I'm not interested in hand or bath tub at that level, or existing coldness. That doesn't really fit with my understanding of emptiness anyway. Which would be more along the lines of there is no coldness per se, prior to the arising sensation of it, presently, and ultimately holistically. So for arguments sake, think of the starting point as pea soup. Or 'THIS, THISing'. As the surface level aspects of mind are quiescent. (I know you like that word). And the first thing to become consciously apparent was the distinctive sensation coldness, ... followed by the rest (subsequent mental overlay/classification etc). And I say that was prior to imagination. And that it would be the same with tree'ness. Edit. To be clear, the way I tend to approach these topics is from the base of the iceberg, not the tip. This is what I was acknowledging with the "difference between a mental distinction - say, lat/long lines - and the contrast of physical sensation". And I can understand why you'd clarify as you've done here. You know, if we're going to engage with this via thought, then here's one of those shadows: the feeling of coldness is a process, a transfer of heat from your body to the metal, that doesn't happen until the moment you touch your hand to the tub. So this "distinction that is prior-to" is simply an inevitability of conditions. Just the interdependent interplay in the endless and boundless dance of emptiness, which has no real boundaries that aren't arbitrary creations of mind. The tree is far easier even still to deal with.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 31, 2023 9:24:45 GMT -5
What does that mean though? What is it to take someone to be "a real" perceiver vs. an apparent perceiver? How would you know the difference?
Seeing it all as 'dream-stuff' is exactly the same as seeing 'suchness.' And it's not so at all that that seeing/realization has zero impact. Just because you can't readily see that impact, does not mean it's not there. Freedom is not going to necessarily be overtly observable just by observing general behaviors and engagements with the appearing world.
& I don't specifically single out "people/persons" to denote them as dream-content/suchness...the entirety of it ALL is 'an appearance arising within/to the unwavering ground...but indeed, appearing people and their apparent sentience, perceptions, experiencing, are all included/encompassed in that.
There is only one "Kind" of perceiver....and it's relative, experiential, appearance based.
The realization that ultimately, perception/experience, thought, doings, actions, ALL of it....is happening, absent a 'something/some-one' that is giving rise to it, doing it, is not at war with the appearance of people who apparently perceive.
The very idea of a 'real/actual/Absolutely known/realized' perceiving entity/person = misconception. It's a context mix. The question can indeed be asked, but can't be soundly, (relatively) answered with certainty from the relative context and from the transcendent/Absolute/impersonal context, the question is entirely misconceived. The very question/wondering about whether apparent perceiving people are "actual" perceivers, involves a context mix and a misconception. In seeing 'suchness' how/why would such a question ever arise...? How could there be a specific some-thing, that is "perceiving/experiencing/doing/seeing/thinking" etc, if Oneness/no separation is the Truth? To single out single thing/object to declare it as a "perceiving/experiencing/thinking/seeing/doing" entity, is to invoke separation.
Relatively speaking, for the non-awake seeker, the question is fine, but once all appearance, including the appearance of perceiving/experiencing 'people,' are all seen with eyes that see "suchness" the question itself crumbles and is seen to be a nonsense.
You continue to assert that the seeing of ALL content, including apparent sentient/experiencing/perceiving people has zero impact on day to day life, but what you are missing is is the 'absence' that obviously, of course, goes unseen as you observe. You cannot know what that absence is or how it impacts day to day experience, unless you have direct reference for that absence.
Rest assured, it makes all the difference in the world when the entirety of experiential content, ALL perceivables, both subtle and tangible, are seen to be empty and devoid of inherent existence. It's plain and simply the difference between freedom and bondage.
That doesn't seem to leave a lot of room for 'others may or may not be real perceivers', or however you want to phrase it. It's only really ever been the case that, in whatever context you want to work in, there has to be consistency. Consistency is a priority for me too. I have a hierarchy of ideas, truths etc, and 'Oneness' is at the very top. So whatever context I'm talking in, whatever concepts I'm engaging with, ultimately, they won't betray 'Oneness'. Even if I was arguing for separation in some way (which I have done in the past), I would (try to) do so in such way that doesn't betray 'Oneness'.
|
|