|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 20, 2023 17:00:28 GMT -5
Why make things complicated? Is there hearing? What we are is the effortless awareness of what is heard. No thinking required. No concepts required. No science is required. No effort or work is required. Is there seeing? What we are is the effortless awareness of what is seen. No levels. No idea of control. No teachings. No practice. No effort. No "me" seeing anything. Just effortless seeing and effortless being. What we are is THIS. That which sees and that which is seen is one unified field of effortless being. Thoughts come and go. What we are is what effortlessly sees thoughts come and go. What we are is the beingness of THIS. If you had a child who gave you that kind of philosophy to justify not going to school or being a lazy, how would you feel? Where would you draw the line, if any? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 20, 2023 17:13:28 GMT -5
Why make things complicated? Is there hearing? What we are is the effortless awareness of what is heard. No thinking required. No concepts required. No science is required. No effort or work is required. Is there seeing? What we are is the effortless awareness of what is seen. No levels. No idea of control. No teachings. No practice. No effort. No "me" seeing anything. Just effortless seeing and effortless being. What we are is THIS. That which sees and that which is seen is one unified field of effortless being. Thoughts come and go. What we are is what effortlessly sees thoughts come and go. What we are is the beingness of THIS. You can't know (or gnosis) this. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 20, 2023 18:13:47 GMT -5
Why make things complicated? Is there hearing? What we are is the effortless awareness of what is heard. No thinking required. No concepts required. No science is required. No effort or work is required. Is there seeing? What we are is the effortless awareness of what is seen. No levels. No idea of control. No teachings. No practice. No effort. No "me" seeing anything. Just effortless seeing and effortless being. What we are is THIS. That which sees and that which is seen is one unified field of effortless being. Thoughts come and go. What we are is what effortlessly sees thoughts come and go. What we are is the beingness of THIS. You can't know (or gnosis) this. Levels are a product of imagination. That which is actual is NOT imaginary. The unity and undivided nature of THIS can directly be apprehended, but not through the mind. ITSW, the mind/intellect is not necessary for seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, and smelling. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 20, 2023 20:22:24 GMT -5
You can't know (or gnosis) this. Levels are a product of imagination. That which is actual is NOT imaginary. The unity and undivided nature of THIS can directly be apprehended, but not through the mind. ITSW, the mind/intellect is not necessary for seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, and smelling.Actually, I see this the other way around: seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, and smelling aren't necessary for the mind/intellect. The physical senses are attributes of the outer-self, outer-ego; they sense the physical reality created by your subconscious; they have no function in perceiving the inner reality; they are specific to each incarnation. The mind/intellect is an attribute of the whole-self; it is also functional when perceiving the inner reality; it is carried on from one state of consciousness to another, from incarnation to incarnation. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 20, 2023 21:14:44 GMT -5
Why make things complicated? Is there hearing? What we are is the effortless awareness of what is heard. No thinking required. No concepts required. No science is required. No effort or work is required. Is there seeing? What we are is the effortless awareness of what is seen. No levels. No idea of control. No teachings. No practice. No effort. No "me" seeing anything. Just effortless seeing and effortless being. What we are is THIS. That which sees and that which is seen is one unified field of effortless being. Thoughts come and go. What we are is what effortlessly sees thoughts come and go. What we are is the beingness of THIS. If you had a child who gave you that kind of philosophy to justify not going to school or being a lazy, how would you feel? Where would you draw the line, if any? That's actually an easy one. But you are likely confusing 'non-doing' with 'not doing'. 'Non-doing' (spontaneity) is beyond 'doing' (effort) and 'not doing' (laziness). |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 20, 2023 21:30:03 GMT -5
Levels are a product of imagination. That which is actual is NOT imaginary. The unity and undivided nature of THIS can directly be apprehended, but not through the mind. ITSW, the mind/intellect is not necessary for seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, and smelling.Actually, I see this the other way around: seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, and smelling aren't necessary for the mind/intellect. The physical senses are attributes of the outer-self, outer-ego; they sense the physical reality created by your subconscious; they have no function in perceiving the inner reality; they are specific to each incarnation. The mind/intellect is an attribute of the whole-self; it is also functional when perceiving the inner reality; it is carried on from one state of consciousness to another, from incarnation to incarnation. What he is talking about is the absolute perspective, the ultimate truth - which not about levels and layers, not about qualities or attributes. What you are talking about is the relative perspective, matryoshka truths - which is all about levels and layers, all about qualities and attributes. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 20, 2023 21:40:22 GMT -5
Actually, I see this the other way around: seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, and smelling aren't necessary for the mind/intellect. The physical senses are attributes of the outer-self, outer-ego; they sense the physical reality created by your subconscious; they have no function in perceiving the inner reality; they are specific to each incarnation. The mind/intellect is an attribute of the whole-self; it is also functional when perceiving the inner reality; it is carried on from one state of consciousness to another, from incarnation to incarnation. What he is talking about is the absolute perspective, the ultimate truth - which not about levels and layers, not about qualities or attributes. What you are talking about is the relative perspective, matryoshka truths - which is all about levels and layers, all about qualities and attributes. I understand, but I disagree. And, again, gestalt structures aren't matryoshkas. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 20, 2023 21:52:26 GMT -5
What he is talking about is the absolute perspective, the ultimate truth - which not about levels and layers, not about qualities or attributes. What you are talking about is the relative perspective, matryoshka truths - which is all about levels and layers, all about qualities and attributes. I understand, but I disagree. And, again, gestalt structures aren't matryoshkas. Same same but different. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 20, 2023 22:15:23 GMT -5
You can't know (or gnosis) this. That which is actual is NOT imaginary. The unity and undivided nature of THIS can directly be apprehended, but not through the mind. ITSW, the mind/intellect is not necessary for seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, and smelling. You don't know that. You don't know the totality of All That Is. Are x-rays imaginary? Are gamma rays imaginary? 200 years ago we didn't know they existed. I could give a thousand examples. The guy who designed the Periodic Table of Elements left blank spaces where he knew an element with certain characteristics should exist, because of periodic. He was later proven to be correct when his missing elements were discovered. Some scientists probably said his missing elements were just his imagination. Did an atomic bomb exist prior to 1945? Prior to 1905? In January 1939 two German scientists reported they had demonstrated nuclear fission. In August 1939 Leo Szilard wrote a letter to FDR saying Germany could develop a nuclear bomb, he got Albert Einstein to sign the letter. This was essentially the beginning of the Manhattan Project. Do you know where Szilard first heard of and so first contemplated an atomic bomb? From the book The World Set Free by HG Wells. blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/leo-szilard-a-traffic-light-and-a-slice-of-nuclear-history/ Leó Szilárd waited irritably at a traffic light waiting for it to change from red to green. He had just attended a lecture by the great English physicist Ernest Rutherford. Rutherford, known to many as the father of nuclear physics, was discussing the newly prophesied release of energy from atoms, most notably by science-fiction pioneer H G Wells in his book The World Set Free. In his baritone voice, Rutherford, acknowledged master of the atomic domain, dismissed this fanciful idea as nonsense. Any thought of releasing the energy locked in atoms, he said, was "moonshine".Szilárd was irritated by this flippant repudiation. Accomplished as he was, how could even the great Lord Rutherford know what the future held in store? ...From here on I will let the acclaimed historian Richard Rhodes do the talking. It was the riveting description of this event in Rhodes's magnificent book that engraved it in my mind like nothing else: "In London, where Southampton Row passes Russell Square, across from the British Museum in Bloomsbury, Leo Szilard waited irritably one gray Depression morning for the stoplight to change. A trace of rain had fallen during the night; Tuesday, September 12, 1933, dawned cool, humid and dull. Drizzling rain would begin again in early afternoon. When Szilard told the story later he never mentioned his destination that morning. He may have had none; he often walked to think. In any case another destination intervened. The stoplight changed to green. Szilard stepped off the curb. As he crossed the street time cracked open before him and he saw a way to the future, death into the world and all our woes, the shape of things to come"... Time cracked open indeed. What Szilard realized as he stepped off that curb was that if we found an element that when bombarded by one neutron would release two neutrons, it could lead to a chain reaction that could possibly release vast amounts of energy. Leo Szilárd had discovered the nuclear chain reaction long before anyone else, six years before the discovery of nuclear fission and any inkling that anyone could have had about the release of atomic energy, let alone the woeful apocalyptic future that would await the world because of its release. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The point, we don't know the totality of All That Is. We don't even know what we don't know. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 20, 2023 22:54:34 GMT -5
Actually, I see this the other way around: seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, and smelling aren't necessary for the mind/intellect. The physical senses are attributes of the outer-self, outer-ego; they sense the physical reality created by your subconscious; they have no function in perceiving the inner reality; they are specific to each incarnation. The mind/intellect is an attribute of the whole-self; it is also functional when perceiving the inner reality; it is carried on from one state of consciousness to another, from incarnation to incarnation. What he is talking about is the absolute perspective, the ultimate truth - which not about levels and layers, not about qualities or attributes. What you are talking about is the relative perspective, matryoshka truths - which is all about levels and layers, all about qualities and attributes. I've had this discussion with ZD before. He has said there is no relative world, only the absolute exists. At that point, all discussion ceases. That view negates all of life from birth to death. If we all had that view we would still be living in caves. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 21, 2023 0:22:56 GMT -5
What he is talking about is the absolute perspective, the ultimate truth - which not about levels and layers, not about qualities or attributes. What you are talking about is the relative perspective, matryoshka truths - which is all about levels and layers, all about qualities and attributes. I've had this discussion with ZD before. He has said there is no relative world, only the absolute exists. At that point, all discussion ceases. That view negates all of life from birth to death. If we all had that view we would still be living in caves. There are an infinite number of subjective physical-worlds, but no objective physical-world. Those are virtual worlds, like the dream-worlds we experience, and are "populated" by consciousnesses that are interconnected and that attract each other due to their characteristics, and choices. Think in terms of students who are in the same class in a school. They are people / children who are part-time in a state of student, with rules, goals, interactions, ... They can choose the classes they take. They aren't just students, although they might get so immersed that they don't think of (forget) their being people / children. Think also in terms of a video game you play, and you are an avatar in it, as all the other players are. There are rules, goals, interactions, ... You can choose the level and the scenario you play. You aren't just the game character, although you might get so immersed that you forget your being a player. EDIT: I disagree with ZD's beliefs on reality, and with everybody else that I know of, although in some cases I recognize how they distort the wider reality, and why. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 21, 2023 20:53:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 21, 2023 21:55:21 GMT -5
What he is talking about is the absolute perspective, the ultimate truth - which not about levels and layers, not about qualities or attributes. What you are talking about is the relative perspective, matryoshka truths - which is all about levels and layers, all about qualities and attributes. I've had this discussion with ZD before. He has said there is no relative world, only the absolute exists. At that point, all discussion ceases. That view negates all of life from birth to death. If we all had that view we would still be living in caves. How does that negate life in any way? Is there seeing? All we're saying is that there is no "me" seeing what it seen. If we see without dualistically cognizing what is seen, THIS. doesn't go anywhere. SDP is THIS imagining that the see-er is SDP. If SDP falls away as an illusion, THIS remains. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 30, 2023 2:52:39 GMT -5
I've had this discussion with ZD before. He has said there is no relative world, only the absolute exists. At that point, all discussion ceases. That view negates all of life from birth to death. If we all had that view we would still be living in caves. How does that negate life in any way? Is there seeing? All we're saying is that there is no "me" seeing what it seen. If we see without dualistically cognizing what is seen, THIS. doesn't go anywhere. SDP is THIS imagining that the see-er is SDP. If SDP falls away as an illusion, THIS remains. Bingo! The problem with SDP is that, conceptually, i.e. as a thought experiment, he can make a distinction between imaginary and actual. But in practical terms, i.e. in real life, he cannot. And so every discussion, in the end, always comes back to this: to SDP, SDP is not an illusion. And from that premise, he will draw his final conclusions. Hence his fear that you are trying to destroy his entire world. And in a sense, he's right, but not in the sense he thinks, hehe. Too funny!  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 22, 2023 7:46:18 GMT -5
Prepare to have your mind blown. In 1964 on BBC Arthur C Clarke predicts the future.
|
|
