Appearance and Reality

[zendancer]

Sept 1, 2019 13:58:05 GMT -5 andrew said:

Sept 1, 2019 12:25:49 GMT -5 zendancer said:

I understand the claim, but don't agree. Seeing through the illusion of time and space has nothing to do with whether dinosaurs ever roamed the earth. What I saw was that what we call "reality" is non-local/unified, and that time and space are cognitive grids projected by the intellect. It is seen that time and space are ideas, and if ideas are left behind, then what remains is "what is." "What is" is intellectually incomprehensible, so all that one can do it point to it.

The claim, "If one has seen through the illusion of time-space, then one shouldn't think anything in the past ever happened," is similar to the claim that if one has seen through the illusion of separateness, then one should also have seen through the illusion of selfhood. Ignoring the idea of "should" (a major error in thought if ever there was one), most people who have CC experiences do not simultaneously see through the illusion of selfhood. In fact, that's the major problem that people have to deal with afterwards--the idea that the experience happened to a "someone." Those people who have had big CC experiences know that they apprehended the Infinite, and when the sense of selfhood returns, they go off searching for a way for the "me" to regain the sense of unity that was experienced--not realizing that there was never a "me" involved in the CC. Spiritual literature suggests that most people who apprehend the Infinite spend many subsequent years of contemplation before they finally realize that who they thought they were never had any existence except in imagination generated by self-referential thinking.

yes I understand what you are saying. I think the dinosaur example is probably not the best one to discuss (as there are people out there that think there were no dinosaurs). So, I'll change the example if I may. Take the experience of 'experiencing rain', which is a very day to day experience,

In my view, I become aware of the rain. The rain began to fall from the sky prior to my awareness of it, and then I felt it. So there is both cause/effect and time involved with the statement 'becoming aware of'.

Whereas in their view there is no 'becoming aware of'. Instead, 'the awareness of' = 'the creation of'. So the instant they feel rain, they created rain (though I don't know how they did it). But they do not believe there was rain falling from the sky.

Now, I don't wholly write off their view, I could perhaps find a context in which I agree. But basically I think their view is a context mix. I believe that when we speak of something 'worldly related' then that relates to the universe...or all that is...as a whole. So to say that all things are inter-relating and inter-connecting is a bit inadequate from a non-dual point of view, it's also not wrong. In my view, the sky, the rain and the body are connecting and relating. Whereas in their view, there's no rain unless they directly feel it, or see it, or hear it.

I understand, but I see the issue much like the map/territory, menu/food, or idea-of-a-tree/what-a-tree-is issue. People confuse/mistake the map with the territory, but for those who know the difference, that understanding does not get rid of the territory. Like lines of longitude, boundaries of countries, maps, or descriptions of food, all distinctions are imaginary.

As for seeing rain and then feeling it, there's no necessity of imagining either causation or time. There's also no need to imagine becoming (as in "becoming" aware). When ideation ceases, this kind of thinking simply doesn't occur. Life becomes psychologically direct, unified and empty--the state that Zen calls "mushin" or "no mind."

[andrew]

Sept 1, 2019 14:34:47 GMT -5 zendancer said:

Sept 1, 2019 13:58:05 GMT -5 andrew said:

yes I understand what you are saying. I think the dinosaur example is probably not the best one to discuss (as there are people out there that think there were no dinosaurs). So, I'll change the example if I may. Take the experience of 'experiencing rain', which is a very day to day experience,

In my view, I become aware of the rain. The rain began to fall from the sky prior to my awareness of it, and then I felt it. So there is both cause/effect and time involved with the statement 'becoming aware of'.

Whereas in their view there is no 'becoming aware of'. Instead, 'the awareness of' = 'the creation of'. So the instant they feel rain, they created rain (though I don't know how they did it). But they do not believe there was rain falling from the sky.

Now, I don't wholly write off their view, I could perhaps find a context in which I agree. But basically I think their view is a context mix. I believe that when we speak of something 'worldly related' then that relates to the universe...or all that is...as a whole. So to say that all things are inter-relating and inter-connecting is a bit inadequate from a non-dual point of view, it's also not wrong. In my view, the sky, the rain and the body are connecting and relating. Whereas in their view, there's no rain unless they directly feel it, or see it, or hear it.

I understand, but I see the issue much like the map/territory, menu/food, or idea-of-a-tree/what-a-tree-is issue. People confuse/mistake the map with the territory, but for those who know the difference, that understanding does not get rid of the territory. Like lines of longitude, boundaries of countries, maps, or descriptions of food, all distinctions are imaginary.

As for seeing rain and then feeling it, there's no necessity of imagining either causation or time. There's also no need to imagine becoming (as in "becoming" aware). When ideation ceases, this kind of thinking simply doesn't occur. Life becomes psychologically direct, unified and empty--the state that Zen calls "mushin" or "no mind."

Well I agree that when one feels the rain, one simply feels the rain, and I think that's true whether one is spiritually oriented or not. But the question of whether the raindrop has a history (i.e it fell from the sky), or whether it is created in the instant it is felt, is arguably a relevant spiritual question.

I'll give you an example that perhaps you can relate to. If you go on a hiking trip to the mountain, is there a mountain that you become aware of (as it hoves into view)? Or is the mountain created by you, as you see it?

[zendancer]

Sept 1, 2019 14:43:48 GMT -5 andrew said:

Sept 1, 2019 14:34:47 GMT -5 zendancer said:

I understand, but I see the issue much like the map/territory, menu/food, or idea-of-a-tree/what-a-tree-is issue. People confuse/mistake the map with the territory, but for those who know the difference, that understanding does not get rid of the territory. Like lines of longitude, boundaries of countries, maps, or descriptions of food, all distinctions are imaginary.

As for seeing rain and then feeling it, there's no necessity of imagining either causation or time. There's also no need to imagine becoming (as in "becoming" aware). When ideation ceases, this kind of thinking simply doesn't occur. Life becomes psychologically direct, unified and empty--the state that Zen calls "mushin" or "no mind."

Well I agree that when one feels the rain, one simply feels the rain, and I think that's true whether one is spiritually oriented or not. But the question of whether the raindrop has a history (i.e it fell from the sky), or whether it is created in the instant it is felt, is arguably a relevant spiritual question.

I'll give you an example that perhaps you can relate to. If you go on a hiking trip to the mountain, is there a mountain that you become aware of (as it hoves into view)? Or is the mountain created by you, as you see it?

This kind of question does not arise here, but I know the answer that would occur if this question were contemplated by someone who was seriously interested in it. It's similar to a particular class of Zen koans, and there's a simple non-verbal answer to it. If the intellect gets involved, the answer will remain unseen. I'm not suggesting that this isn't a legitimate existential question for someone else, but not for me.

Koans fall into several different classes. There are "why?" koans (Why is the world the way it is? Why was I born? Why do mountains exist? etc). There are koans like "Where was I before this body was born?" "Is it I or God who lifts this hand?" "What is this?" etc. Then, there are what I call "personal koans," such as "Should I marry this person I'm dating?" or "How should I respond to the situation I find myself in?" There are about 2000 formal Zen koans, but an infinite number of other possible koans. My experiences have shown me that any koan can be resolved through contemplation if there is sufficient interest in the issue. Each resolution involves a non-conceptual realization.

[andrew]

Sept 2, 2019 9:18:48 GMT -5 zendancer said:

Sept 1, 2019 14:43:48 GMT -5 andrew said:

Well I agree that when one feels the rain, one simply feels the rain, and I think that's true whether one is spiritually oriented or not. But the question of whether the raindrop has a history (i.e it fell from the sky), or whether it is created in the instant it is felt, is arguably a relevant spiritual question.

I'll give you an example that perhaps you can relate to. If you go on a hiking trip to the mountain, is there a mountain that you become aware of (as it hoves into view)? Or is the mountain created by you, as you see it?

This kind of question does not arise here, but I know the answer that would occur if this question were contemplated by someone who was seriously interested in it. It's similar to a particular class of Zen koans, and there's a simple non-verbal answer to it. If the intellect gets involved, the answer will remain unseen. I'm not suggesting that this isn't a legitimate existential question for someone else, but not for me.

Koans fall into several different classes. There are "why?" koans (Why is the world the way it is? Why was I born? Why do mountains exist? etc). There are koans like "Where was I before this body was born?" "Is it I or God who lifts this hand?" "What is this?" etc. Then, there are what I call "personal koans," such as "Should I marry this person I'm dating?" or "How should I respond to the situation I find myself in?" There are about 2000 formal Zen koans, but an infinite number of other possible koans. My experiences have shown me that any koan can be resolved through contemplation if there is sufficient interest in the issue. Each resolution involves a non-conceptual realization.

yes, I can see how it can be asked as a koan. This question has been debated more philosophically, though it's still spiritually relevant, even as a philosophical issue, because it engages the issue/question of what 'you' are (and what 'I' am).

[enigma]

Sept 1, 2019 12:25:49 GMT -5 zendancer said:

Aug 29, 2019 17:00:51 GMT -5 andrew said:

Because if you think dinosaurs walked the earth (and if you think there was an earth), then you also think there is time and space in some way. This would indicate that you are lost in mind. They would say that if you have seen through the illusion of time-space then you shouldn't think they walked the earth.

I'm just presenting their argument to be clear.

I understand the claim, but don't agree. Seeing through the illusion of time and space has nothing to do with whether dinosaurs ever roamed the earth. What I saw was that what we call "reality" is non-local/unified, and that time and space are cognitive grids projected by the intellect. It is seen that time and space are ideas, and if ideas are left behind, then what remains is "what is." "What is" is intellectually incomprehensible, so all that one can do it point to it.

The claim, "If one has seen through the illusion of time-space, then one shouldn't think anything in the past ever happened," is similar to the claim that if one has seen through the illusion of separateness, then one should also have seen through the illusion of selfhood. Ignoring the idea of "should" (a major error in thought if ever there was one), most people who have CC experiences do not simultaneously see through the illusion of selfhood. In fact, that's the major problem that people have to deal with afterwards--the idea that the experience happened to a "someone." Those people who have had big CC experiences know that they apprehended the Infinite, and when the sense of selfhood returns, they go off searching for a way for the "me" to regain the sense of unity that was experienced--not realizing that there was never a "me" involved in the CC. Spiritual literature suggests that most people who apprehend the Infinite spend many subsequent years of contemplation before they finally realize that who they thought they were never had any existence except in imagination generated by self-referential thinking.

They don't see through the illusion of selfhood because the CC is an experience and not a realization, but an actual realization of the true nature and self and Oneness will reveal that there could never be an objective past. "cognitive grids" ,as you say. So, in this context, one may wonder why you say you believe dino's existed in the past. Is the past part of a 'cognitive grid' or is it 'real'?

You can say the question never arises, but your statement of belief means that the question has arisen and been answered, in contradiction to your own realization of the true nature of time and space. 

[enigma]

Sept 1, 2019 13:58:05 GMT -5 andrew said:

Sept 1, 2019 12:25:49 GMT -5 zendancer said:

I understand the claim, but don't agree. Seeing through the illusion of time and space has nothing to do with whether dinosaurs ever roamed the earth. What I saw was that what we call "reality" is non-local/unified, and that time and space are cognitive grids projected by the intellect. It is seen that time and space are ideas, and if ideas are left behind, then what remains is "what is." "What is" is intellectually incomprehensible, so all that one can do it point to it.

The claim, "If one has seen through the illusion of time-space, then one shouldn't think anything in the past ever happened," is similar to the claim that if one has seen through the illusion of separateness, then one should also have seen through the illusion of selfhood. Ignoring the idea of "should" (a major error in thought if ever there was one), most people who have CC experiences do not simultaneously see through the illusion of selfhood. In fact, that's the major problem that people have to deal with afterwards--the idea that the experience happened to a "someone." Those people who have had big CC experiences know that they apprehended the Infinite, and when the sense of selfhood returns, they go off searching for a way for the "me" to regain the sense of unity that was experienced--not realizing that there was never a "me" involved in the CC. Spiritual literature suggests that most people who apprehend the Infinite spend many subsequent years of contemplation before they finally realize that who they thought they were never had any existence except in imagination generated by self-referential thinking.

yes I understand what you are saying. I think the dinosaur example is probably not the best one to discuss (as there are people out there that think there were no dinosaurs). So, I'll change the example if I may. Take the experience of 'experiencing rain', which is a very day to day experience,

In my view, I become aware of the rain. The rain began to fall from the sky prior to my awareness of it, and then I felt it. So there is both cause/effect and time involved with the statement 'becoming aware of'.

Whereas in their view there is no 'becoming aware of'. Instead, 'the awareness of' = 'the creation of'. So the instant they feel rain, they created rain (though I don't know how they did it). But they do not believe there was rain falling from the sky.

Now, I don't wholly write off their view, I could perhaps find a context in which I agree. But basically I think their view is a context mix. I believe that when we speak of something 'worldly related' then that relates to the universe...or all that is...as a whole. So to say that all things are inter-relating and inter-connecting is a bit inadequate from a non-dual point of view, it's also not wrong. In my view, the sky, the rain and the body are connecting and relating. Whereas in their view, there's no rain unless they directly feel it, or see it, or hear it.

But how do you know that? How can you be aware of what is happening before you are aware of what is happening?

[enigma]

Sept 1, 2019 14:34:47 GMT -5 zendancer said:

Sept 1, 2019 13:58:05 GMT -5 andrew said:

yes I understand what you are saying. I think the dinosaur example is probably not the best one to discuss (as there are people out there that think there were no dinosaurs). So, I'll change the example if I may. Take the experience of 'experiencing rain', which is a very day to day experience,

In my view, I become aware of the rain. The rain began to fall from the sky prior to my awareness of it, and then I felt it. So there is both cause/effect and time involved with the statement 'becoming aware of'.

Whereas in their view there is no 'becoming aware of'. Instead, 'the awareness of' = 'the creation of'. So the instant they feel rain, they created rain (though I don't know how they did it). But they do not believe there was rain falling from the sky.

Now, I don't wholly write off their view, I could perhaps find a context in which I agree. But basically I think their view is a context mix. I believe that when we speak of something 'worldly related' then that relates to the universe...or all that is...as a whole. So to say that all things are inter-relating and inter-connecting is a bit inadequate from a non-dual point of view, it's also not wrong. In my view, the sky, the rain and the body are connecting and relating. Whereas in their view, there's no rain unless they directly feel it, or see it, or hear it.

I understand, but I see the issue much like the map/territory, menu/food, or idea-of-a-tree/what-a-tree-is issue. People confuse/mistake the map with the territory, but for those who know the difference, that understanding does not get rid of the territory. Like lines of longitude, boundaries of countries, maps, or descriptions of food, all distinctions are imaginary.

As for seeing rain and then feeling it, there's no necessity of imagining either causation or time. There's also no need to imagine becoming (as in "becoming" aware). When ideation ceases, this kind of thinking simply doesn't occur. Life becomes psychologically direct, unified and empty--the state that Zen calls "mushin" or "no mind."

Obviously the territory remains, as has been said innumerable times, but for those who know the difference between an oasis and an illusion of an oasis, that understanding will prevent you from riding your camel out to the mirage to fill your canteen.

[enigma]

Sept 1, 2019 14:43:48 GMT -5 andrew said:

Sept 1, 2019 14:34:47 GMT -5 zendancer said:

I understand, but I see the issue much like the map/territory, menu/food, or idea-of-a-tree/what-a-tree-is issue. People confuse/mistake the map with the territory, but for those who know the difference, that understanding does not get rid of the territory. Like lines of longitude, boundaries of countries, maps, or descriptions of food, all distinctions are imaginary.

As for seeing rain and then feeling it, there's no necessity of imagining either causation or time. There's also no need to imagine becoming (as in "becoming" aware). When ideation ceases, this kind of thinking simply doesn't occur. Life becomes psychologically direct, unified and empty--the state that Zen calls "mushin" or "no mind."

Well I agree that when one feels the rain, one simply feels the rain, and I think that's true whether one is spiritually oriented or not. But the question of whether the raindrop has a history (i.e it fell from the sky), or whether it is created in the instant it is felt, is arguably a relevant spiritual question.

I'll give you an example that perhaps you can relate to. If you go on a hiking trip to the mountain, is there a mountain that you become aware of (as it hoves into view)? Or is the mountain created by you, as you see it?

Yes, that's the question, clearly stated. ZD: It would be dismissive to say 'that question never arises for me' when it has just arisen for you.

[stardustpilgrim]

Sept 2, 2019 19:04:11 GMT -5 enigma said:

Sept 1, 2019 14:34:47 GMT -5 zendancer said:

I understand, but I see the issue much like the map/territory, menu/food, or idea-of-a-tree/what-a-tree-is issue. People confuse/mistake the map with the territory, but for those who know the difference, that understanding does not get rid of the territory. Like lines of longitude, boundaries of countries, maps, or descriptions of food, all distinctions are imaginary.

As for seeing rain and then feeling it, there's no necessity of imagining either causation or time. There's also no need to imagine becoming (as in "becoming" aware). When ideation ceases, this kind of thinking simply doesn't occur. Life becomes psychologically direct, unified and empty--the state that Zen calls "mushin" or "no mind."

Obviously the territory remains, as has been said innumerable times, but for those who know the difference between an oasis and an illusion of an oasis, that understanding will prevent you from riding your camel out to the mirage to fill your canteen.

But then what does it mean, to you?, that: "Obviously the territory remains".

[stardustpilgrim]

Sept 2, 2019 18:48:03 GMT -5 enigma said:

Sept 1, 2019 12:25:49 GMT -5 zendancer said:

I understand the claim, but don't agree. Seeing through the illusion of time and space has nothing to do with whether dinosaurs ever roamed the earth. What I saw was that what we call "reality" is non-local/unified, and that time and space are cognitive grids projected by the intellect. It is seen that time and space are ideas, and if ideas are left behind, then what remains is "what is." "What is" is intellectually incomprehensible, so all that one can do it point to it.

The claim, "If one has seen through the illusion of time-space, then one shouldn't think anything in the past ever happened," is similar to the claim that if one has seen through the illusion of separateness, then one should also have seen through the illusion of selfhood. Ignoring the idea of "should" (a major error in thought if ever there was one), most people who have CC experiences do not simultaneously see through the illusion of selfhood. In fact, that's the major problem that people have to deal with afterwards--the idea that the experience happened to a "someone." Those people who have had big CC experiences know that they apprehended the Infinite, and when the sense of selfhood returns, they go off searching for a way for the "me" to regain the sense of unity that was experienced--not realizing that there was never a "me" involved in the CC. Spiritual literature suggests that most people who apprehend the Infinite spend many subsequent years of contemplation before they finally realize that who they thought they were never had any existence except in imagination generated by self-referential thinking.

They don't see through the illusion of selfhood because the CC is an experience and not a realization, but an actual realization of the true nature and self and Oneness will reveal that there could never be an objective past. "cognitive grids" ,as you say. So, in this context, one may wonder why you say you believe dino's existed in the past. Is the past part of a 'cognitive grid' or is it 'real'?

You can say the question never arises, but your statement of belief means that the question has arisen and been answered, in contradiction to your own realization of the true nature of time and space. 

Quite peculiar, you think you are right. I think I'm right. Everybody is right in their own eyes. How can that be? Can everybody be right? You are trying to point something out here. What are the chances your realization is THE correct one?

[stardustpilgrim]

"Now scientists agree that the human nervous system is incapable of distinguishing between actual experience and the same experience imagined vividly and in complete detail". pg 30 (I could give a dozen and more like sources, going back over 100 years).

How can everyone be right? Through their own imagination.

Ah but yes, there is a slight catch.

The human nervous system can imagine that it doesn't ~objectively~ exist.

[andrew]

Sept 2, 2019 18:52:37 GMT -5 enigma said:

Sept 1, 2019 13:58:05 GMT -5 andrew said:

yes I understand what you are saying. I think the dinosaur example is probably not the best one to discuss (as there are people out there that think there were no dinosaurs). So, I'll change the example if I may. Take the experience of 'experiencing rain', which is a very day to day experience,

In my view, I become aware of the rain. The rain began to fall from the sky prior to my awareness of it, and then I felt it. So there is both cause/effect and time involved with the statement 'becoming aware of'.

Whereas in their view there is no 'becoming aware of'. Instead, 'the awareness of' = 'the creation of'. So the instant they feel rain, they created rain (though I don't know how they did it). But they do not believe there was rain falling from the sky.

Now, I don't wholly write off their view, I could perhaps find a context in which I agree. But basically I think their view is a context mix. I believe that when we speak of something 'worldly related' then that relates to the universe...or all that is...as a whole. So to say that all things are inter-relating and inter-connecting is a bit inadequate from a non-dual point of view, it's also not wrong. In my view, the sky, the rain and the body are connecting and relating. Whereas in their view, there's no rain unless they directly feel it, or see it, or hear it.

But how do you know that? How can you be aware of what is happening before you are aware of what is happening?

Good question.

In one way...if I start from the assumption that I can only know what I am presently knowing, then, it's true that I don't know if the rain or mountain preceded the knowing of them.

But there's two big problems with this for me.

The first is that in order to speak of a 'present knowings', I have to arbitrarily carve out specific moments of knowing. Now while it's true that I am doing that, in actuality, these 'specific moments' don't exist. Instead, experience...the story of life... is an 'unfolding'. So 'present knowings' are a (necessary) illusion (and I don't think we should be 'actualizing' them)

Secondly, there's also an intuitive knowing that what I experience right now (or what I am aware of right now) is intimately connected to every other experience, appearance, expression. For me, no experience is independent, no experience is alone. I can't divorce it from any other experience, I can't even find an actual point at which one experience begins and ends. And I deeply trust that intuitive knowing.

So for me, it boils down to the fact that I value the intuitive knowing higher than the seeming 'knowingness' of 'present knowings'. As I said, logically, for me..the idea of 'present knowings' is a necessary illusion, but flawed.

In addition, if the mountain only appears when I see it, then I create the mountain. This is a personal creation. While I don't ignore the apparent role of personal creation, I also intuitively know (and can't ignore) that creation is bigger than any one personal creation. In one sense, reality is a shared creation, in another sense, it's impersonal. Creation is never just about 'I', as a creator/perceiver.

[andrew]

Sept 2, 2019 23:49:32 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

Sept 2, 2019 18:48:03 GMT -5 enigma said:

They don't see through the illusion of selfhood because the CC is an experience and not a realization, but an actual realization of the true nature and self and Oneness will reveal that there could never be an objective past. "cognitive grids" ,as you say. So, in this context, one may wonder why you say you believe dino's existed in the past. Is the past part of a 'cognitive grid' or is it 'real'?

You can say the question never arises, but your statement of belief means that the question has arisen and been answered, in contradiction to your own realization of the true nature of time and space. 

Quite peculiar, you think you are right. I think I'm right. Everybody is right in their own eyes. How can that be? Can everybody be right? You are trying to point something out here. What are the chances your realization is THE correct one?

The way I see it, what's happening here...and in general, is that folks prioritize or value, differing senses or qualities of knowing.

[Deleted]

Sept 3, 2019 5:49:46 GMT -5 andrew said:

Sept 2, 2019 23:49:32 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

Quite peculiar, you think you are right. I think I'm right. Everybody is right in their own eyes. How can that be? Can everybody be right? You are trying to point something out here. What are the chances your realization is THE correct one?

The way I see it, what's happening here...and in general, is that folks prioritize or value, differing senses or qualities of knowing.

It's also akin to arm chair quarterbacking. They're telling how to play the game not being in it, having withdrawn. It's interesting to hear their views and bravado about life's horrors.I'm thinking of the folks in the bahamas who just endured 48 hours of a category five "imaginary" hurricane, an unprecedented event, but it's not real, nothing to worry about. It's a dream. Just wondering if any of the folks posting here are from those islands. When life smacks you upside the head, do views change? I believe they do. In fact, it's a central truth. Why folks commit and devote themselves to find themselves.

[enigma]

Sept 2, 2019 22:54:25 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

Sept 2, 2019 19:04:11 GMT -5 enigma said:

Obviously the territory remains, as has been said innumerable times, but for those who know the difference between an oasis and an illusion of an oasis, that understanding will prevent you from riding your camel out to the mirage to fill your canteen.

But then what does it mean, to you?, that: "Obviously the territory remains".

Everything appears just as it did.