|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 6, 2024 14:47:49 GMT -5
Just an interesting correspondence, linking an earlier post (just above), suitably bolded correspondence, two subjects. laughter may or may not be interested. All this also answers tenka's concern (at least speaks to) that there is a personal person, and zazeniac's walk on the tightrope. There are so many N.D. guidelines that one can't say this or that. From the person that only exists as an illusory SVP leaves no room for there being a person that isn't a SVP, to one that has a spirit and soul etc etc. One has to follow the rule book. Free will emanates from the same rule book. You never really get straight answers, even if individual consciousness gets thrown in the mix, no-one knows what that is. As a foundation there isn't much to be certain of. I know lets have another poem or analogy  If a nonduality pointing erodes a foundation - any sort of foundation - then it's working. Guidbook? Rules? Nah.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 6, 2024 14:57:09 GMT -5
I was interested only in so far as to offer a few examples of "informing of mind". Your understanding of personality results in you writing about it in a way that I agree with, but we're coming at it in different ways. You express your understanding in terms of functionality. I consider that to be a shadow on the side of Plato's cave. The source of the shadow is what the Buddhists call "emptiness". People who point using emptiness are sometimes mistaken as dismissing the material and the relative as unimportant. "Spiritual bypassing". Now, bypassing is a thing, but not everyone pointing to emptiness is doing that. Again, thanks for taking the time, I needed to get the other done first. As I say to my legal clients, always a pleasure and an honor sir. I won't feel the least bit slighted if you never revisit ... |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 6, 2024 14:58:57 GMT -5
I'll assume you really don't understand what I wrote, and how that relates to you too. It's okay. I understand perfectly. The question is, how do you get past your own subjectivity?When I interpret anything, I firstly get into a light trance, establishing a good connection with my subconscious, and I ask to leave aside all my beliefs and expectations in order to minimize distortions. This is the same kind of advice given in the quotes below. Amusingly, the author doesn't apply his own advice to himself, regarding his beliefs about non-dualism and about his masters' teachings ...  - Ask the Awakened - The Negative Way by Wei Wu Wei (2002)
ASK THE AWAKENED PART 1 : THE CROSS-ROADS
CHAPTER 1 : : The Harlequinade
*****
We have a basic conditioning
*****
Then the urge manifests, and we start reading.
Every time we happen on a statement or sentiment that fits in with our conditioned notions we adopt it, perhaps with enthusiasm, at the same time ignoring, as though they did not exist, the statements or sentiments which either we did not like or did not understand.
*****
We are required to 'lay down' absolutely everything that is 'ours', and which is known as 'ignorance' - even though we regard it as knowledge.
*****
That 'laying down' of everything that is 'ours' has always been insisted upon by the Masters, but we affect to ignore it,
*****
in the recently discovered collection of sayings of Jesus there is one in which he formally adjured His disciples to divest themselves of all their 'garments'.
|
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jan 6, 2024 15:29:13 GMT -5
Going to emphasize a few things for laughter, he may or may not be interested. (Bazinga, I don't know how to otherwise single out a post, to link). I find it quite interesting that two posts so closely related came up within about 12 hours of each other. This is a functional definition of nonvolition. Those are the images on the side of Plato's cave. You, are not a machine. This isn't to say that the 10 gazillionidy thimgamabobbies aren't interesting. Material insights such as the one you allude to here can also be profoundly practical. But metaphysically, there's always another side of the argument. The secular humanist consensus is that consciousness is a gestalt, an emergent phenomenon. If that's the case then we can say the experiments that measure the formation of a thought of intent, and locate the event after the action, are a similar expression of gestalt, and the brain process is just an expression of some other process with a (higher-level) noetic cause. I understand your an inavalen's basis for the idea of a "free will", in the big picture. I'm sure they're are many details each of you could enlighten me about. I've traced the dialog here all the way back to E's 2020 post, and this is where I'll join it: I'd be curious to read how you might flip this statement in a way that expresses a pointer to ND. Or is that against one of your rules? .. to you: noone really disagrees with what you wrote there. The dimensions and hierarchies aren't negated. They are placed into context, into perspective. There's nothing wrong with spending a lifetime exploring them, refining your understanding and experience. But the notion of free will is premised on a dichotomy, and that dichotomy is, existentially speaking, a misconception. That doesn't mean that functionally speaking, you can't have an interesting and even potentially useful model and even practical engagement with that model, that includes "free will". The gestalt is the illusion, but I still like watching movies. You seem to understand this point about the gestalt, but your understanding of "non-separation", based on the refrigerator experiment, is rooted in functionalism. This is one of those shadows. That's a purddy nice application of how I was thinking the Plotinus model could (maybe) help clear up some misunderstandings, whether you are using it or not. In how I've been thinking about it (with respect to the convos/discussion here), it puts the perspective of the search as an 'upward' movement (in that model), while what one does (outside the search or after realization) is 'downward' from any 'height' on the flagpole. It seems that has been part of the confusion, anyway. Of course, any such model can make sense to mind, logically, as it's supposed to. Whereas, any potential pop at the top (peak experience/CC/satori/kensho/woowoo/etc) changes the calculus of cavernous thought, sometimes dramatically. That will still need to be brought into better light than found in the cave, which is what can really get the fire burning. Some of that plays out here in convos, methinks. 🔥 Once burned down sufficiently, more of a flow-like 'just THIS' attitude and clarity can rise above the ashes. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jan 6, 2024 15:51:43 GMT -5
Welp, you'd have to ask ZD whether or not he agrees with your conclusion about his refusing to consider the 'inward' aspect. It is a dualistic term, obviously, so I'd understand the refusal in certain contexts, and he did practice zazen meditation for 20-30 years or so. We know what the Zennies don't really subscribe to with respect to thought in general, and what satori, kensho, etc refer to (at least theoretically). All systems for 'achieving' realization (like Gurdji's, or Zen) are considered as potential paths through the river of thought... are intended/assumed to be of use. So, is the self-remembering the same as 'first you gotta row a little boat'? Because the YOU/SELF the greatererer literature has been talking about and pointing to is not you/self. And using thought to traverse the thought river can be a dubious endeavor, however well-intended. Is it within the realm of infinite potential? Sure, but stumble one must. #3 says excluding any thought process, so I was a little exasperated that you immediately answered with 'using thought to traverse the thought river'.... This is about as close as I can get to describing what's most significant to me. And then you ____ all over it. What's quoted is active awareness equated to self-observation, 7 necessary factors, King considers the term self-observation misleading. self-remembering is even beyond this. self-remembering is awareness previous-to-any-conceptualization, whatsoever. But Gurdjieff said one should not practice self-observation apart from self-remembering. The practice of sensing would be rowing a little boat. sdp is over the exasperation. Not looking for results, applies everywhere. (But all that is why I asked if you had not read the 7). In self-remembering impressions are ~intercepted~ before they can activate a chain of conditioned mental processes. Thus, it is outside all ordinary mental processing. Madame de Salzman called this 'getting in front of yourself', which is a pretty good description. (The first time I mentioned self-remembering, years ago, is when ZD very mistakenly described it, from a report from another person. I quoted Gurdjieff from Life Is Real Only Then, When I Am, to correct him. Up until that time, probably 4 years after joining here, I had not mentioned my Gurdjieff connection). I hope my follow up post cleared up at least some of the misunderstanding. You'll have to tell me, but I didn't mean to ___ all over the 7. If they have value to you, then stick with it. I was just expressing a general idea of the pitfalls with respect to self-inquiry (as the opposite wing of meditation), both of which I assumed was the general intention of the list. You're now sharing how different teachers value/express the importance of these steps with respect to nuances of self-remembering and self-observation and whatnot. It starts to get a little hard for me to conceptualize the different moving parts as they are playing out within you subjectively. So, it may get a little difficult for me to fully appreciate how you then rez with Salzman's 'getting in front of yourself'. 'Remembering' usually refers to looking back, while 'observation' refers to keeping it out front. Boil it down and explain this, and then tell me what you think you're left with once the process(-es) have run their course, concisely. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 6, 2024 16:05:10 GMT -5
I understand perfectly. The question is, how do you get past your own subjectivity?When I interpret anything, I firstly get into a light trance, establishing a good connection with my subconscious, and I ask to leave aside all my beliefs and expectations in order to minimize distortions. This is the same kind of advice given in the quotes below. Amusingly, the author doesn't apply his own advice to himself, regarding his beliefs about non-dualism and about his masters' teachings ... - Ask the Awakened - The Negative Way by Wei Wu Wei (2002)
ASK THE AWAKENED PART 1 : THE CROSS-ROADS
CHAPTER 1 : : The Harlequinade
*****
We have a basic conditioning
*****
Then the urge manifests, and we start reading.
Every time we happen on a statement or sentiment that fits in with our conditioned notions we adopt it, perhaps with enthusiasm, at the same time ignoring, as though they did not exist, the statements or sentiments which either we did not like or did not understand.
*****
We are required to 'lay down' absolutely everything that is 'ours', and which is known as 'ignorance' - even though we regard it as knowledge.
*****
That 'laying down' of everything that is 'ours' has always been insisted upon by the Masters, but we affect to ignore it,
*****
in the recently discovered collection of sayings of Jesus there is one in which he formally adjured His disciples to divest themselves of all their 'garments'.
95% of everything we think and feel and do arises out-from our subconscious. To ask your subconscious to get out of the way is like asking the fox to guard the henhouse. From- where does your intuition arise? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 6, 2024 16:24:15 GMT -5
This is a functional definition of nonvolition. Those are the images on the side of Plato's cave. You, are not a machine. This isn't to say that the 10 gazillionidy thimgamabobbies aren't interesting. Material insights such as the one you allude to here can also be profoundly practical. But metaphysically, there's always another side of the argument. The secular humanist consensus is that consciousness is a gestalt, an emergent phenomenon. If that's the case then we can say the experiments that measure the formation of a thought of intent, and locate the event after the action, are a similar expression of gestalt, and the brain process is just an expression of some other process with a (higher-level) noetic cause. I understand your an inavalen's basis for the idea of a "free will", in the big picture. I'm sure they're are many details each of you could enlighten me about. I've traced the dialog here all the way back to E's 2020 post, and this is where I'll join it: .. to you: noone really disagrees with what you wrote there. The dimensions and hierarchies aren't negated. They are placed into context, into perspective. There's nothing wrong with spending a lifetime exploring them, refining your understanding and experience. But the notion of free will is premised on a dichotomy, and that dichotomy is, existentially speaking, a misconception. That doesn't mean that functionally speaking, you can't have an interesting and even potentially useful model and even practical engagement with that model, that includes "free will". The gestalt is the illusion, but I still like watching movies. You seem to understand this point about the gestalt, but your understanding of "non-separation", based on the refrigerator experiment, is rooted in functionalism. This is one of those shadows. That's a purddy nice application of how I was thinking the Plotinus model could (maybe) help clear up some misunderstandings, whether you are using it or not. In how I've been thinking about it (with respect to the convos/discussion here), it puts the perspective of the search as an 'upward' movement (in that model), while what one does (outside the search or after realization) is 'downward' from any 'height' on the flagpole. It seems that has been part of the confusion, anyway. Of course, any such model can make sense to mind, logically, as it's supposed to. Whereas, any potential pop at the top (peak experience/CC/satori/kensho/woowoo/etc) changes the calculus of cavernous thought, sometimes dramatically. That will still need to be brought into better light than found in the cave, which is what can really get the fire burning. Some of that plays out here in convos, methinks. 🔥 Once burned down sufficiently, more of a flow-like 'just THIS' attitude and clarity can rise above the ashes. Thanks, yeah sure .. as we already agreed, it is the d@mndest thing after all .. I honestly can't imagine anything more interesting than the existential truth! Doesn't mean that all sorts of models - some we know beforehand, others we enounter later -- they still might be interesting too. Just, .. not as. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jan 6, 2024 16:43:45 GMT -5
That's a purddy nice application of how I was thinking the Plotinus model could (maybe) help clear up some misunderstandings, whether you are using it or not. In how I've been thinking about it (with respect to the convos/discussion here), it puts the perspective of the search as an 'upward' movement (in that model), while what one does (outside the search or after realization) is 'downward' from any 'height' on the flagpole. It seems that has been part of the confusion, anyway. Of course, any such model can make sense to mind, logically, as it's supposed to. Whereas, any potential pop at the top (peak experience/CC/satori/kensho/woowoo/etc) changes the calculus of cavernous thought, sometimes dramatically. That will still need to be brought into better light than found in the cave, which is what can really get the fire burning. Some of that plays out here in convos, methinks. 🔥 Once burned down sufficiently, more of a flow-like 'just THIS' attitude and clarity can rise above the ashes. Thanks, yeah sure .. as we already agreed, it is the d@mndest thing after all .. I honestly can't imagine anything more interesting than the existential truth! Doesn't mean that all sorts of models - some we know beforehand, others we enounter later -- they still might be interesting too. Just, .. not as. Indeed, the simplicity defies, past the point of absurdity somehow. And let me tell you, I was an absurd mess. I got some pictures and stories that might even humble Diogenes or Socrates. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 6, 2024 16:53:02 GMT -5
#3 says excluding any thought process, so I was a little exasperated that you immediately answered with 'using thought to traverse the thought river'.... This is about as close as I can get to describing what's most significant to me. And then you ____ all over it. What's quoted is active awareness equated to self-observation, 7 necessary factors, King considers the term self-observation misleading. self-remembering is even beyond this. self-remembering is awareness previous-to-any-conceptualization, whatsoever. But Gurdjieff said one should not practice self-observation apart from self-remembering. The practice of sensing would be rowing a little boat. sdp is over the exasperation. Not looking for results, applies everywhere. (But all that is why I asked if you had not read the 7). In self-remembering impressions are ~intercepted~ before they can activate a chain of conditioned mental processes. Thus, it is outside all ordinary mental processing. Madame de Salzman called this 'getting in front of yourself', which is a pretty good description. (The first time I mentioned self-remembering, years ago, is when ZD very mistakenly described it, from a report from another person. I quoted Gurdjieff from Life Is Real Only Then, When I Am, to correct him. Up until that time, probably 4 years after joining here, I had not mentioned my Gurdjieff connection). I hope my follow up post cleared up at least some of the misunderstanding. You'll have to tell me, but I didn't mean to ___ all over the 7. If they have value to you, then stick with it. I was just expressing a general idea of the pitfalls with respect to self-inquiry (as the opposite wing of meditation), both of which I assumed was the general intention of the list. You're now sharing how different teachers value/express the importance of these steps with respect to nuances of self-remembering and self-observation and whatnot. It starts to get a little hard for me to conceptualize the different moving parts as they are playing out within you subjectively. So, it may get a little difficult for me to fully appreciate how you then rez with Salzman's 'getting in front of yourself'. 'Remembering' usually refers to looking back, while 'observation' refers to keeping it out front. Boil it down and explain this, and then tell me what you think you're left with once the process(-es) have run their course, concisely. I have stated numerous time (not that you have read them all) that self-remembering is just a name. Once upon a time somebody called the sky, blue. It would still be blue, even if it was called green. We were NEVER told what self-remembering is, only how to practice a method called self-remembering. But then when the state comes, there is no doubt, you gnosis it. And then you understand the why of the practice, it's a kind of reverse-engineering project. I know that means nothing to you, but read the bottom signature. (It will still not mean anything to you). The point is, it doesn't matter what you call the practice or the state, The Tao that is written about, isn't the Tao. But I will further consider your question. I quoted C. Daly King because nowhere else is written the seven requirements for active awareness (self-observation). Incidentally, C. Daly King wrote a book (another book) called The Oragean Version (AR Orage was his primary teacher. Orage is the only person among his students Gurdjieff mentioned by name in any of his 3 books, and he called him my dear brother). The Oragean Version was privately printed, only 200 copies, numbered. One copy was placed in the rare books collection of Duke University. Our teacher, who among several occupations was a University Professor, had an MA in Psychology, went to Duke and asked, can I make a photocopy of The Oragean version? They said yes. I was allowed to make a copy (of his copy) over 45 years ago. Now you can buy it on Amazon. I have never even read it in full. I only quote things that speak to the question, and are relevant to my experience. I don't quote just to be quoting. It's all one tradition. (But of, there are better books-accounts and not-as-good). |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 6, 2024 18:25:41 GMT -5
When I interpret anything, I firstly get into a light trance, establishing a good connection with my subconscious, and I ask to leave aside all my beliefs and expectations in order to minimize distortions. This is the same kind of advice given in the quotes below. Amusingly, the author doesn't apply his own advice to himself, regarding his beliefs about non-dualism and about his masters' teachings ... - Ask the Awakened - The Negative Way by Wei Wu Wei (2002)
ASK THE AWAKENED PART 1 : THE CROSS-ROADS
CHAPTER 1 : : The Harlequinade
*****
We have a basic conditioning
*****
Then the urge manifests, and we start reading.
Every time we happen on a statement or sentiment that fits in with our conditioned notions we adopt it, perhaps with enthusiasm, at the same time ignoring, as though they did not exist, the statements or sentiments which either we did not like or did not understand.
*****
We are required to 'lay down' absolutely everything that is 'ours', and which is known as 'ignorance' - even though we regard it as knowledge.
*****
That 'laying down' of everything that is 'ours' has always been insisted upon by the Masters, but we affect to ignore it,
*****
in the recently discovered collection of sayings of Jesus there is one in which he formally adjured His disciples to divest themselves of all their 'garments'.
95% of everything we think and feel and do arises out-from our subconscious. To ask your subconscious to get out of the way is like asking the fox to guard the henhouse. From- where does your intuition arise? I don't ask my subconscious to get out of the way; I work with my subconscious!"Arise", "points", ... are euphemisms that try to hide a lack of a clear hypothesis. Repeatedly using them, eventually people suggestion themselves that they know and understand more than they actually do. Thinking doesn't "arise" from subconscious. Intuition doesn't "arise" from subconscious. The fox and henhouse analogy is out of context too. As I said: you don't understand what I'm talking about, and jump to incorrect conclusions. But it's okay. We all here, in this reality, are work in progress that malfunctions to some degree. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 6, 2024 19:41:14 GMT -5
Thanks, yeah sure .. as we already agreed, it is the d@mndest thing after all .. I honestly can't imagine anything more interesting than the existential truth! Doesn't mean that all sorts of models - some we know beforehand, others we enounter later -- they still might be interesting too. Just, .. not as. Indeed, the simplicity defies, past the point of absurdity somehow. And let me tell you, I was an absurd mess. I got some pictures and stories that might even humble Diogenes or Socrates.  |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jan 6, 2024 23:55:00 GMT -5
Indeed, the simplicity defies, past the point of absurdity somehow. And let me tell you, I was an absurd mess. I got some pictures and stories that might even humble Diogenes or Socrates. Don't worry, bruh. Wifey has them under lock and key for laughs... and painful, unrequited dreams of my youthful looks.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 7, 2024 11:06:05 GMT -5
Don't worry, bruh. Wifey has them under lock and key for laughs... and painful, unrequited dreams of my youthful looks. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 7, 2024 13:31:19 GMT -5
95% of everything we think and feel and do arises out-from our subconscious. To ask your subconscious to get out of the way is like asking the fox to guard the henhouse. From- where does your intuition arise? I don't ask my subconscious to get out of the way; I work with my subconscious!"Arise", "points", ... are euphemisms that try to hide a lack of a clear hypothesis. Repeatedly using them, eventually people suggestion themselves that they know and understand more than they actually do. Thinking doesn't "arise" from subconscious. Intuition doesn't "arise" from subconscious. The fox and henhouse analogy is out of context too. As I said: you don't understand what I'm talking about, and jump to incorrect conclusions. But it's okay. We all here, in this reality, are work in progress that malfunctions to some degree. Why do you trust your subconscious? I understand that you are aware of a filter of distortion, but was there a series of events that lead to a leap of faith in your subconscious? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 7, 2024 13:52:44 GMT -5
Don't worry, bruh. Wifey has them under lock and key for laughs... and painful, unrequited dreams of my youthful looks. |
|
