|
Post by ouroboros on May 31, 2023 11:31:31 GMT -5
That makes sense to me, in fact this whole discussion makes more sense to me. Some folks here like to point beyond all experiences and states (including NS). They are pointing to a 'foundation' or 'ground'. I haven't spent time studying Zen, but it strikes me that your path really is a Zen path, whereas others here are more.....say.... Nisargadatta....who definitely points beyond 'what is' (as you define it). That's not a criticism, there's much to be said for the Zen path, and it clearly works well for you. In my early days here, Steven once described me as a Taoist, which seemed odd to me because it's also not something I've studied in depth, but as the years have gone by, I was reminded of that description occasionally, and he may have been right. Yes, when I read your post above I just wanted to ask you if you said that maybe with Niz in mind (parabrahman and stuff, hehe). I have my disagreements with Niz' approach on this topic as well, precisely for the reasons ZD mentioned. It gives SR an almost theoretical touch. I think Steve is right in the sense that your approach to spirituality seems to be a very soft and flexible approach, and that's typical for Daoism (the so-called way of the water aka attachmentless attachment of the positionless position, hehe). Yes, like Bruce Lee's "be water, my friend". Although, you can understand how someone who prizes logic specifically, might prefer more rigid or unchanging perspectives over time.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on May 31, 2023 11:39:53 GMT -5
Fwiw, that's not the Buddhist perspective. Although the terminology is different, as far as I can glean NS is comparable with the 8th jhana, which is a rare enough attainment to be sure. But there is one deeper still. The 9th Jhana ... which is synonymous with paranibanna. I would tend to agree with the sense of the rest of your post, insofar as NS is transitory etc, but for me when we begin to talk at this depth, it highlights the issues with the whole "what is"/THIS paradigm.
In new age terms I have begun to equate paranibanna with ascention, which obviously won't be everyones cup of tea. Frankly, it sounds daft when I say it!
Funny how you keep correcting ZD about Buddhism. ZD certainly knows Zen, but it does show you that Zen isn't exactly Buddhism (even though they refer to sutras) and also not exactly Daoism (even though they use Daoist lingo and concepts) but something unique that stands for itself. For questions on 9th jnana, I may refer you to Steve. I'm not sure I was correcting him on Buddhism, coz I didn't perceive that as where he was coming from. Maybe, as he was talking about zen before. But there is quite a contrast between zen and the Theravada stuff I tend to talk anyway, as you say. Where's Steve when you need him!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 31, 2023 12:39:31 GMT -5
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. Okay. But after the first couple of lines I'm not entirely sure what your point is. Maybe I'm missing something. My point is that distinction happens prior to imagination. I'm not quite sure what yours is, hehe. Perhaps it's that ultimately it all just happens spontaneously, which is fine. I grok 'conditions' anyway, and tend to work with 'the world at large' in terms of 'the conditioned'. (Obviously in noun-like form merely as a concession). And when it comes to emptiness it's turtles all the way down. Well, first off, thinking along these lines will only bring you so far, but that's what you want to discuss so ... Second off, I already initially conceded your point about "imagination" here, with the difference between lat/long lines and the feeling of, say, "cold". But now for the past two posts you're morphing back to that point about "imagination", from where you started, which was this: 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. In what you say you don't understand I'm offering basis for the contradictory argument that no, "cold" isn't a "distinction prior-to" .. anything. "cold", is a process.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 31, 2023 12:43:21 GMT -5
That makes sense to me, in fact this whole discussion makes more sense to me. Some folks here like to point beyond all experiences and states (including NS). They are pointing to a 'foundation' or 'ground'. I haven't spent time studying Zen, but it strikes me that your path really is a Zen path, whereas others here are more.....say.... Nisargadatta....who definitely points beyond 'what is' (as you define it). That's not a criticism, there's much to be said for the Zen path, and it clearly works well for you. In my early days here, Steven once described me as a Taoist, which seemed odd to me because it's also not something I've studied in depth, but as the years have gone by, I was reminded of that description occasionally, and he may have been right. Yes, when I read your post above I just wanted to ask you if you said that maybe with Niz in mind (parabrahman and stuff, hehe). I have my disagreements with Niz' approach on this topic as well, precisely for the reasons ZD mentioned. It gives SR an almost theoretical touch. I think Steve is right in the sense that your approach to spirituality seems to be a very soft and flexible approach, and that's typical for Daoism (the so-called way of the water aka attachmentless attachment of the positionless position, hehe). A debateless debate from the positionless position with the andyful andy is about as good fun as anyone can ever maybe-might-have-haved on a spiritual forum!
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 31, 2023 12:44:55 GMT -5
Fwiw, that's not the Buddhist perspective. Although the terminology is different, as far as I can glean NS is comparable with the 8th jhana, which is a rare enough attainment to be sure. But there is one deeper still. The 9th Jhana ... which is synonymous with paranibanna. I would tend to agree with the sense of the rest of your post, insofar as NS is transitory etc, but for me when we begin to talk at this depth, it highlights the issues with the whole "what is"/THIS paradigm.
In new age terms I have begun to equate paranibanna with ascention, which obviously won't be everyones cup of tea. Frankly, it sounds daft when I say it!
Funny how you keep correcting ZD about Buddhism. ZD certainly knows Zen, but it does show you that Zen isn't exactly Buddhism (even though they refer to sutras) and also not exactly Daoism (even though they use Daoist lingo and concepts) but something unique that stands for itself. For questions on 9th jnana, I may refer you to Steve. Chuckle chuckle. Yes, the "Buddhist perspective" is a lot like the Christian perspective or the perspective of any other spiritual tradition--it includes a wide range of beliefs and/or practices that form a broad spectrum from fundamentalism on one end of the spectrum to non-duality on the other end of the spectrum. There are Buddhist fundamentalists who think many of the obvious myths about the Buddha are literally true (including not being born in the traditional way). Zen Buddhism is a form of Buddhism, but Zen and the Mahayana orientation is quite different from the Theraveda orientation. Zen probably has more in common with Advaita Vedanta than most of the other Buddhist traditions (Pure land, etc), but Zen, more than any other tradition I can think of eschews intellection and abstraction, so you don't find treatises like that of Shankara and other Indian sages. As one example, Zen teachers only write about two kinds of samadhi--shallow and deep (the deep form, or NS, they call "absolute samadhi" and they define it as "the falling off of body and mind.") By contrast, Advaita sages refer to many different forms of samadhi. Zen teachers rarely talk about NS in public, but they do talk a lot about CC's, which they term "kensho," defined as "seeing into one's true nature." I once thought that the word "satori" referred to SR, but I now think that most Zen teachers use that word for pointing to exceptionally deep kensho events. My reason for this is that many Zen Masters describe a triggering sensory event as the precursor of satori, and I can't think of a single sage outside of the Zen tradition claiming that a sensory event triggered SR. SR is usually a far more subtle insight event that we would describe as a "sudden seeing" that something believed to be true is actually false. Both of the Zen traditions (Soto and Rinzai) strongly emphasize formal sitting meditation, but the Rinzai tradition exhibits far more interest in kensho events and sudden breakthrough realizations. Both traditions use koans in an effort to reveal the illusions created by cultural conditioning, but they play a much larger role in Rinzai training than in Soto training. The basic question that Zen attempts to answer is "how can any human attain the same basic realization that the Buddha attained?" Zen Masters talk about "the carryover effect" of meditation into ordinary life, and they emphasize that the result of realizations must become embodied, but I've never heard any Zen teachers talk about informal meditative activities such as ATA-T being pursued throughout the day. They are much more oriented toward formal sitting meditation for prescribed periods of time. That's one reason that I lost interest in Zen after I encountered Advaita teachers. The Advaita approach is much more relaxed and informal.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on May 31, 2023 13:46:20 GMT -5
Okay. But after the first couple of lines I'm not entirely sure what your point is. Maybe I'm missing something. My point is that distinction happens prior to imagination. I'm not quite sure what yours is, hehe. Perhaps it's that ultimately it all just happens spontaneously, which is fine. I grok 'conditions' anyway, and tend to work with 'the world at large' in terms of 'the conditioned'. (Obviously in noun-like form merely as a concession). And when it comes to emptiness it's turtles all the way down. Well, first off, thinking along these lines will only bring you so far, but that's what you want to discuss so ... Second off, I already initially conceded your point about "imagination" here, with the difference between lat/long lines and the feeling of, say, "cold". But now for the past two posts you're morphing back to that point about "imagination", from where you started, which was this: 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. In what you say you don't understand I'm offering basis for the contradictory argument that no, "cold" isn't a "distinction prior-to" .. anything. "cold", is a process. Okay, yes. "Cold" is a process. Of distinction. Called perception. *coughs* Prior to imagination.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 31, 2023 14:01:41 GMT -5
... I mean I'm well aware that her questioning could be very annoying, and she's said some shit in the past. But what I read here, it sounded like a magnanimous invitation to return with a clean slate. But that's not what she got. She got blasted immediately with condescension. Now that's totally understandable, and human – if there's a past conflict, bitterness, grievance, and an entrenched pattern of one-upmanship. My point is: if that's the case, just stop pretending you're High and Enlightened and better than Average Joe, and stop projecting all the issues unto the other party. But you see, her very persistent questioning is precisely what puts her into the student position and myself into the teacher position. Obviously Figgles is trying very hard to understand something that she just can't grasp and she also seems to think that I am the solution to her problem. If she wouldn't consider myself an authority on these matters, she wouldn't care about my perspective and dissect every word that I say. So unconsciously, she creates that kind of unequal relationship right from the start. You do the same, btw. And then you complain being treated not as an equal. But you're literally asking for it, unconsciously. If you wouldn't feel worthless to some degree, you wouldn't extract condescending behavior from others. And I actually do treat everyone as equals. I don't tell people that what I have seen or realized they can't see or realize. I only tell them that what I have seen and realized is exactly what others before me have seen and realized and that they can too, but they haven't seen or realized it yet, given what they are telling me. That kind of directness offends a lot of spiritual egos, of course. But my position is, if you are still struggling with bruised ego issues, you're not ready for non-duality yet. So I expect people to leave that kind of silly game playing behind. Which is why I don't have much patience with such people like you and Figgles. Obviously, people are getting something out of these interactions, no matter how well or badly they unfold, or else they wouldn't be here. My focus has always been mainly on finding new ways to explain the inexplainable in better and better ways. And that can be done under almost any conditions. So be clear what you are getting out of this for yourself and stop complaining. Also, my offer and invitation to Figgles was genuine or 'magnanimous' as you call it. It was intended to be an opportunity to clear the air. But it seems she has wasted her opportunity. She is already back into old bad habits. Which I saw coming with a 99.9% probability. That's why I set the time limit. Not for her, but for myself. Because I don't want to engage with others on those terms Figgles prefers to engage. I think she can do better, we all can do better. But that requires to let go of the past. And that requires a decision for something better. Apparently, there is no actual interest in something better. And that is also okay as long as it happens within the forum guidelines. But the fact remains, I don't want to be part of this pointless perpetual negativity, neither with you nor with her. That's why I stopped engaging with you and will do the same with her. You obviously can't do that, and she can't do that either. So someone has to just do it and tip the balance. And that's the way I am planning to it, like it or not. You are always welcome to follow suit by being an even better example. There is no way you actually believe that.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 31, 2023 14:04:45 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 ) All good.
We've all got our styles on these forums....mine is a bit more like this!
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 31, 2023 14:17:24 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. As I see it, there are certain terms, "appearance only" being one of them...."real/not real" that when used, carry their meaning from 2nd mountain right through to 3rd mountain.
Something "not actual...absent inherent existence" at 2nd mountain, never becomes something something actual...something inherently existent at 3rd mountain.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 31, 2023 14:22:18 GMT -5
Well, first off, thinking along these lines will only bring you so far, but that's what you want to discuss so ... Second off, I already initially conceded your point about "imagination" here, with the difference between lat/long lines and the feeling of, say, "cold". But now for the past two posts you're morphing back to that point about "imagination", from where you started, which was this: In what you say you don't understand I'm offering basis for the contradictory argument that no, "cold" isn't a "distinction prior-to" .. anything. "cold", is a process. Okay, yes. "Cold" is a process. Of distinction. Called perception. *coughs* Prior to imagination.A distinction of what, from what? The process is an energy gradient, with no independent origination. The way points along the gradient are arbitrary.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 31, 2023 14:30:18 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. Well, in the case of this discussion, no beedie flicking, just a very succint, concrete, affirmative answer of "yes, even paperclips are experiencers/perceivings, having their own unique experience."
"It's all consciousness" is a very pointy pointer...and I have no issues at all with 'poetic licence in an attempt to express profundity,' so long as there's clarity that that's what it is.
Pointers are not meant to be taken literally and gobbled up, and that's precisely what the "I do have absolute knowing of discrete/unique perceivers/experiencers" have done.
I take no issue with the suggestion that post SR, the world lights up....something akin to; it's all experienced as vibrant, alive, an inner consciousness shining through each apparent, discrete object, and all of it encompassed within an unbroken, undivided singularity. (That, btw, is how I'd define 'suchness.' It's 'how' the world is experienced post SR.....it describes a quality of experiencing where fundamental nature pervades the entirety of experience.)
That though is something very different than asserting that there is a realization/Absolute knowing that reveals each appearing person/thing is "AN" experiencer/perceiver.
At 3rd mountain, it's crystal clear, there is no object/thing/some-thing/some-one that is 'doing' any of it. It's all an arising within/to Awareness...even an apparent sense of "being" a something/someone that perceives.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 31, 2023 14:41:48 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. Yes. "They may or may not be" is of the relative context only. All questions and wondering pertaining to this issue, relative context only.
SR/awakening/3rd mountain-integration, the question has been well and completely seen as misconceived...the question/wondering no longer arises.....has no legs to stand upon.
A seeker, relatively speaking may think he sees an Oasis off in the distance. He's not entirely sure, but he sure thinks it looks like water and he's thirsty as hell, so he really 'wants' to know. (This is similar to how a seeker find it very important to know that other people are actual/real perceivers, because his peace of mind, his sense of well-being, depends on it).
But, when the seeker heads out and realizes the Oasis was just a mirage and there is no water there (a metaphor of course for 2nd mountain realization of emptiness) and he heads back to camp, he does not wake up the next morn and again, wonder and ask if perhaps that shimmering vision contains real water or not.
At 3rd mountain, "the appearance" of sentience.....the experiencing of self and people as sentient, perceiving, experiencing is what it is and the very idea of trying to dig in deeper to find out IF that experience is something more than just a temporal, ephemeral, transient, empty appearance, just does not even occur. It's clear that beyond it's temporal arising, it's all empty.
At 3rd mountain, the experience itself of a me character/other characters as perceivers/experiencers is more than enough....a beautiful, mystical, magical facet of experience that requires nothing other than it's imminent appearance to evoke awe and gratitude.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 31, 2023 14:46:23 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. Perhaps their 'breakthrough' is still only surface deep?
What I have observed is that most folks are absolute A-okay with the relinquishing of certain ideas/beliefs, but it's when they begin to get the memo that ALL of it...even the most sacred of ideas....even the most sacred seeming of experiences, is ultimately, empty, that they begin to get their hair in a knot.
And that's really what that 'dark night' business is all about....fighting tooth and nail to try to hang on to the person's most cherished notions about himself...about life.....about what is True.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 31, 2023 14:52:02 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? It's the "utterly familiar" bit combined with the "re-cognition" bit that had me asking.
For one who has been seeking/suffering his entire life and then wakes up, "utterly familiar" does not very aptly describe things at all.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 31, 2023 15:00:41 GMT -5
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? There's a scene in the bible where Jesus somehow reveals his true nature to his disciples at the top of a mountain and leaves them cowering in terrified awe. The Catholics run their bible readings in a yearly cycle and this one comes up when the new recruits are just ready be baptized. Father Joe's sermon for that day was .. "we don't live on the mountain top". But what was realized/seen through on the mountaintop is left as dust, up on that mountain-top and does not remain an item in your back-pack thereafter.
Either there is a seeing through/absence or there isn't. And when there isn't, then all we have is a mere conceptual grasp. A conceptual grasp of Oneness will still allow one to believe in a fundamental "law" that dictates how/why what shows up in experience, does so.
But an actual seeing through/absence means that the very idea of an Absolute law that dictates what manifests/appears, would defy the very Truth of Oneness/no separation.
Let's take the mirage/oasis metaphor again.
Once you've seen there's no water there, the action/behavior of heading out there to fill your canteen for the purpose of quenching your thirst, ceases.
This idea that ones comes down from the top of 3rd mountain and just goes back to believing again in fundamental laws that dictate 'creation," is plain and simply, false.
|
|