|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 25, 2020 20:50:46 GMT -5
But also, perhaps can be said 'consciousness' IS 'self'. At core, perhaps the pure 'un-storied self' (though still not 'True/Actual' in the non-dual sense)e.g we wake frrom deep sleep and consciousness/self arises. That last line of yours is a real doozy btw. It's something I've found myself contemplating from time to time, and not really coming up with a satisfactory handle on it. And I'm too tired right now.
No doubt in one respect it's true, but at the same time I don’t think it's quite that simple. Certainly when we bring mind-body and 'other' into the equation.
You see I'm not even exactly sure where I'd place that point in my cake.
Somewhere between the sponge and the butter icing!
Yes. What we usually think of as self, what we think, feel and do, is actually not-self, is a false sense of self. When we take this to be self, yes, that's sleep. At this point, consciousness is-not. consciousness is-not. So you are right.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 25, 2020 21:35:38 GMT -5
Good to hear! It's certainly the case the more consciousness errs toward 'self' the more effortful it becomes, and vice-versa. I've been musing that you can't really separate consciousness from the mind-body, in one respect it's like a continuum, and in another way can be viewed as mutually supporting. So, in one respect mind-body is merely an appearance arising within consciousness (itself appearance), but in another it can be viewed as a station for consciousness, and station that must be maintained, and in part that's what I've been pointing to in terms of work.In fact, with that interdependency in mind, I was thinking on what L said about appearances being entropic, and moreover, how the mind-body in particular is basically a march against the flow of that entropy, hence 'work'. And trying to decide how broadly that can be extended. To life, the universe, and everything. The universal body. For me, 'the All' in its entirety is the realm of appearance, and I'm happy to conceive of that in terms of varying degrees of consciousness, i.e from fine to course. Yes, precisely true. For consciousness to be able to be experienced, a body is necessary. Physical experience necessitates a physical body. But the physical body eventually wears out, dies. The physical is subject to entropy, everything physical eventually degrades. But here we can come to the thread Peter started, which he chose not to pursue. Where does "Seth" reside? Seth lives in the middle layer. How do we know about Seth? His consciousness was able to somehow merge with the consciousness of Jane. Seth lowered his vibratory consciousness so that it resonated with Jane, and he was able to communicate through her. But Seth lived in a certain vibratory level, necessarily at a finer level than our level. He essentially disappeared, to us, when not in contact with Jane, but he did not cease to exist. Seth lived/lives in a Hyperdimensional Reality (Peter's thread name). Now, why don't we experience the world of Seth? We have a physical body, we do not have a body constructed of the ~substance~ of the vibratory level of Seth's world. Our consciousness cannot ~take in~ the world of Seth. That does not mean it does not exist. Now, take a look at Alchemical Taoism. It talks about the formation of a spiritual embryo. Is this symbolic? No. Taoism speaks of becoming immortal. This does not mean the immortality of the physical body. It means that through practices an embryo is formed, and this embryo can grow and mature, and eventually it can become a body of a higher vibratory level. This is, without getting complicated, the world of Seth. So Taoist Alchemy is about the formation of a body of a higher vibratory level than the physical, and this body can survive the death of the physical body, thus the goal of immortality in Alchemical Taoism. So work is about spiritual practice, and this results in the transformation of energy which negates entropy. This is the formation of a body which can function in the Hyperdimensional Reality of Seth and Abraham. I didn't make up Taoist Alchemy, it has existed for thousands of years. So the evolution of consciousness is about the growth of consciousness which allows ~the person~ (consciousness) to be able to take in more That Is, more of time and space, and more-of-what is beyond time and space. This even corresponds with today's physics which says that we only know about 4% of the universe. We don't know what 96% of the universe consists of (which physics calls dark matter and dark energy). Picked at random as an example. taoistalchemy.org/the-practical-process-of-taoist-alchemy/
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 25, 2020 23:13:14 GMT -5
Good to hear! It's certainly the case the more consciousness errs toward 'self' the more effortful it becomes, and vice-versa. I've been musing that you can't really separate consciousness from the mind-body, in one respect it's like a continuum, and in another way can be viewed as mutually supporting. So, in one respect mind-body is merely an appearance arising within consciousness (itself appearance), but in another it can be viewed as a station for consciousness, and station that must be maintained, and in part that's what I've been pointing to in terms of work. In fact, with that interdependency in mind, I was thinking on what L said about appearances being entropic, and moreover, how the mind-body in particular is basically a march against the flow of that entropy, hence 'work'. And trying to decide how broadly that can be extended. To life, the universe, and everything. The universal body. For me, 'the All' in its entirety is the realm of appearance, and I'm happy to conceive of that in terms of varying degrees of consciousness, i.e from fine to course. This is definitely rather mindy but it's for a punch line, I promise. As with all appearance/duality, this coin has two sides. The flame is also what powers, as in, what animates the body/mind - (from a purely mechanistic perspective, of course). Life, in general, and DNA, in particular, are more complex expressions of form - ie: less entropic - than a cloud of gas. So, if we start with the lens of the big bang, there's this one, grand, outer entropic movement, that manifests in a sort of fractal set of Russian dolls: galaxies, solar systems, planets, species and individuals all form inner movements of negative entropy that burn what they borrow from the outer entropic movements enclosing/encompassing them. This relates to the existential question as it eventually leads to expression of it as the mind/body "problem": what's the difference between animate and inanimate matter? The answer in the back of the book (that has drawn much ridicule) is that, there is none. Not to borrow ZD's thunder, but one of his amusing refrains is "It's alive! Igor! It's alive!" In intellectual terms that straddle philosophy and pointing, we can recognize that all these distinctions: Universe, galaxy, sun etc.. are all arbitrary, right down to that of the individual. Any notion of establishing some sort of existential relationship between consciousness and physicality has to be set aside before the inquiry can really even start to get interesting.
|
|
|
Post by shadowplay on Jun 26, 2020 5:37:07 GMT -5
I struggle to find credibility in such claims. If there were such a wide-awake witness throughout deep sleep - which ‘transcends mental states’ - why on earth would it have ANY connection (or association, or relationship) to a particular body-mind unit? Think about it. If the mind/identity has been left behind in deep sleep why would there be a transcendent witness of the contents or circumstances of THAT particular mind? Why would it hang about watching the unconscious body at rest (as opposed to all manner of alternative possibilities)? The reason why is surely because it is still within the sphere of that particular body-mind - albeit in a very subtle state of cognition. In other words, the mind is not really asleep.
I find it far more credible to understand such claims/assertions as a confirmation of the fact that in deep sleep ’something’ is still very much operative - a deep intelligence remains at work which is ultimately is beyond the limited cognition of ordinary waking intellect and sensory perception. This deep intelligence transcends - and is the ground of - all states.
Hi, I read all your reply. First off, I wanted to tell you I met the "third realized individual" in this forum after Enigma and someNothing! I really see the value in your writing and also I see honesty and integrity in your writing.
coming back to conversation, I did not say I advocate that idea that ZD posted from that book instead I said I liked that idea because when someone made some supernatural claim, I always amazed by their view whether they are true or false.
And here is my view towards deep sleep. Perceiver can't be left with no perception at any point in time even if it is a deep sleep(even though I couldn't recall anything), perceiver always finds something to be perceived, the reason is, KNOWING is happening IN perceiver which also means perceiver is attached part of perception If we watch it very carefully. And also If perceiver enters into the state in which he perceives nothing(in deep sleep), then the question always comes to me how does his memory reports back when he comes back to reality, that's impossible. So I really like your line of "fact that in deep sleep ’something’ is still very much operative -"
Most people around here seem to have had realisations of various types and depths. I think that we tend to be biased towards someone being realised if what they express tallies with our own hard-won insights. Soon I will say things that you disagree with then you will have to reconsider. I tend to agree that perception is always of something. My comment about deep sleep is based on the fact that even at the basest level we know that something profound is going on as we enter sleep cycles, the body regulates itself and cell renewal takes place. An intelligence deeper than our local intelligence is clearly at work. Intelligence indicates consciousness of some kind - not necessarily anthropomorphic. So I don’t see that as a local consciousness that we might remember the next day. If we are remembering it the next day then we probably weren’t really sleeping - or we have a special talent.
|
|
|
Post by shadowplay on Jun 26, 2020 5:44:12 GMT -5
I don’t know that. If you know that ‘flat out’ then you certainly know more than me. As I said earlier, for me (in my experience/realisation) the essence of non-duality (or no-separation) is simple. Instead of the delusion of trillions of things happening there is the felt-sense apperception of ‘one thing’ (or no thing) happening. That’s it. The rest is mainly philosophy of mind related differences and factional issues - which have their place. The realisation comes in an instant - the philosophy of mind is an add-on. Not flat-out untrue in a philisophical sense. Not relative, intellectual falsity. Existential falsity. No mechanical description of what an individual mind can or can't do or perceive or experience has anything to with the existential truth. Right. So this is the ‘add-on’ bit that I talked about. This IS a philosophical conclusion (which I’m not necessarily disagreeing with) that you have worked out or intellectually realised. So my question is, do ‘you’ have an apperception (apperception is a word that is used commonly in non-duality writings to describe a non-dual-seeing/knowing - very different from ordinary perception) of the ‘non-dual/singular/not-two’ ‘nature’ of ‘reality’? (The excessive number of inverted commas is to hopefully avoid sidetracking.)
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 26, 2020 8:22:44 GMT -5
Okay, but I'm watching from behind the sofa. Sure, I understand about the pro's and cons either way. For me, Neo loses something in its rigidity, and perhaps has a tendency to get extra 'brown-beary' at times. Personally I'll draw from anything that helps me express, and so my writing tends to be a bit of mish-mash. And I'm not adverse to biting off more than I can chew. In fact that's what tends to interest me most.
Four layers works for me ... if those four layers (in descending order) are Awareness, Consciousness, consciousness, mind-body.
As far as I am aware, Niz doesn't distinguish between Consciousness and consciousness. Because to Niz, everything that falls within the context of consciousness is also always conscious (or alive). So, the Niz hierarchy goes more like this: 1) awareness (Parabrahman, the Absolute) 2) consciousness (Brahman, Beingness, I-AM-ness, knowingness, the world, God) 3) mind (I-AM this/that, the person) 4) body (food essence). As far as the Niz dialogs go, #1 and #2 never change, #3 and #4 are sometimes arranged differently when he talks about the gunas. Then he may add an extra layer (or more). That's pretty similar to the way I'm viewing it actually, .. 1) the same, 2) the same - except I'm capitalising that Consciousness to signify it's essentially Consciousness at a cosmic level, a primal Self-Awareness. 3) small consciousness to signify it's happening at a more personal, or mundane level as I like to say, and that it functions as an umbrella term, or part of a triad for; 4) where I'm grouping mind-body together. I suppose the main reason for making a distinction between 3 and 4 is so I can distinguish between different levels of mind, i.e. thought etc, and any other cognitive functions that may vary between waking and sleeping states for example. I agree about the sovereignty of 1 and 2, with more flexibility for 3 and 4, it makes sense about the gunas. And when I talked previously about a continuum, that is to say that each is substrate of the next and so ultimately it is all Awareness-awareing.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 26, 2020 8:31:20 GMT -5
That last line of yours is a real doozy btw. It's something I've found myself contemplating from time to time, and not really coming up with a satisfactory handle on it. And I'm too tired right now.
No doubt in one respect it's true, but at the same time I don’t think it's quite that simple. Certainly when we bring mind-body and 'other' into the equation.
You see I'm not even exactly sure where I'd place that point in my cake.
Somewhere between the sponge and the butter icing!
Yes. What we usually think of as self, what we think, feel and do, is actually not-self, is a false sense of self. When we take this to be self, yes, that's sleep. At this point, consciousness is-not. consciousness is-not. So you are right. Sounds good. Although I think we were talking about the process in relation to actual physical sleep, as in 'catching some zeds' hehe At least I was. Trying to visualise the waking process and discern to what extent the world comes into being at that point.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 26, 2020 8:52:20 GMT -5
Good to hear! It's certainly the case the more consciousness errs toward 'self' the more effortful it becomes, and vice-versa. I've been musing that you can't really separate consciousness from the mind-body, in one respect it's like a continuum, and in another way can be viewed as mutually supporting. So, in one respect mind-body is merely an appearance arising within consciousness (itself appearance), but in another it can be viewed as a station for consciousness, and station that must be maintained, and in part that's what I've been pointing to in terms of work.In fact, with that interdependency in mind, I was thinking on what L said about appearances being entropic, and moreover, how the mind-body in particular is basically a march against the flow of that entropy, hence 'work'. And trying to decide how broadly that can be extended. To life, the universe, and everything. The universal body. For me, 'the All' in its entirety is the realm of appearance, and I'm happy to conceive of that in terms of varying degrees of consciousness, i.e from fine to course. Yes, precisely true. For consciousness to be able to be experienced, a body is necessary. Physical experience necessitates a physical body. But the physical body eventually wears out, dies. The physical is subject to entropy, everything physical eventually degrades. But here we can come to the thread Peter started, which he chose not to pursue. Where does "Seth" reside? Seth lives in the middle layer. How do we know about Seth? His consciousness was able to somehow merge with the consciousness of Jane. Seth lowered his vibratory consciousness so that it resonated with Jane, and he was able to communicate through her. But Seth lived in a certain vibratory level, necessarily at a finer level than our level. He essentially disappeared, to us, when not in contact with Jane, but he did not cease to exist. Seth lived/lives in a Hyperdimensional Reality (Peter's thread name). Now, why don't we experience the world of Seth? We have a physical body, we do not have a body constructed of the ~substance~ of the vibratory level of Seth's world. Our consciousness cannot ~take in~ the world of Seth. That does not mean it does not exist. Now, take a look at Alchemical Taoism. It talks about the formation of a spiritual embryo. Is this symbolic? No. Taoism speaks of becoming immortal. This does not mean the immortality of the physical body. It means that through practices an embryo is formed, and this embryo can grow and mature, and eventually it can become a body of a higher vibratory level. This is, without getting complicated, the world of Seth. So Taoist Alchemy is about the formation of a body of a higher vibratory level than the physical, and this body can survive the death of the physical body, thus the goal of immortality in Alchemical Taoism. So work is about spiritual practice, and this results in the transformation of energy which negates entropy. This is the formation of a body which can function in the Hyperdimensional Reality of Seth and Abraham. I didn't make up Taoist Alchemy, it has existed for thousands of years. So the evolution of consciousness is about the growth of consciousness which allows ~the person~ (consciousness) to be able to take in more That Is, more of time and space, and more-of-what is beyond time and space. This even corresponds with today's physics which says that we only know about 4% of the universe. We don't know what 96% of the universe consists of (which physics calls dark matter and dark energy). Picked at random as an example. taoistalchemy.org/the-practical-process-of-taoist-alchemy/ That's the thing. Whatever I'm dealing with, I always endeavour to approach it from a holistic pov. So, with an eye on where and how it transitions smoothly into the next, and on the bigger picture. As Oneness is the case it's crucial to have one eye on the holistic, and in part, that's what I had in mind when I contend consciousness is always subject to 'work'. The inseparability of those expressions upon which it is stationed. That holistic principle is also what causes me a bit of a headache when I try to tackle that line from Andrew, hehe, and the fact is my lucidity on issues like that, comes and goes. I haven't followed too closely the material you mention here on the forum. You talk about Seth residing in "the middle layer", and along with what I do know, I'm picturing it might be somewhere between layers 2 and 3 on the models Reefs and I have been talking about. Level 2.5 maybe Would that be fair to say? Incidentally that's where I'd put the realm of 'woo', a topic I notice that has come up now and then on the forum lately.
In a manner of speaking yes, we can talk about the evolution of the universe as being analogous to the path God coming to know Herself takes. Another I like is the prodigal son. Perhaps we could talk in terms of what we commonly perceive as 'individuated' enlightenment and subsequent liberation, as being a microcosm of that greater process, like an eddy in the stream.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 26, 2020 9:46:01 GMT -5
Not flat-out untrue in a philisophical sense. Not relative, intellectual falsity. Existential falsity. No mechanical description of what an individual mind can or can't do or perceive or experience has anything to with the existential truth. Right. So this is the ‘add-on’ bit that I talked about. This IS a philosophical conclusion (which I’m not necessarily disagreeing with) that you have worked out or intellectually realised.So my question is, do ‘you’ have an apperception (apperception is a word that is used commonly in non-duality writings to describe a non-dual-seeing/knowing - very different from ordinary perception) of the ‘non-dual/singular/not-two’ ‘nature’ of ‘reality’? (The excessive number of inverted commas is to hopefully avoid sidetracking.) Thing is, you wrote about your apperception quite well, and I don't want to borrow or stand on that. I had a sudden experience years ago where I was walking/talking around and acting in the absence of any "I-sense". This went on for months to one degree or another, and sometimes, it wasn't a matter of degree. The existential illusion collapsed completely as a result. The way I prefer to describe the nature of this illusion is in terms of identity, perception, and felt sense of reality. There are involved back and forward stories relative to that experience, but the bottom line is a few years later I became conscious that all existential questioning had ended. We'll have to agree to differ on that point. If you're interested, I could describe my past experiences and realizations on the nature of thingness, and separation, and directly relate that to what you've written about apperception in your last two replies.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 26, 2020 10:23:02 GMT -5
Well, let's see how that goes. Anyway, I think the anti-layer cake stance is a neo-advaita thing only because they are unwilling to make any concessions to the seeker (which has its pros and cons). Traditional advaita, however, does make concessions to the seeker (which has its pros and cons again). Niz' model is basically a 4 layer cake model. Yes. Does that mean Niz has his cake and eats it too? : ) Does Niz anywhere negate what was his ~personal~ path? (Lived in as much as possible for 3 years I Am). That is, does he ever say those 3 years were superfluous? Well, let's just say that Niz is flexible and both able and willing to meet the seeker where he is at the moment. But he always tries to bring the conversation back to awareness or at least the I AM as soon as possible. I haven't seen him calling it a waste of time, more like a prerequisite. And that is most likely because traditional advaita works with the ego. When reading Niz you'll notice that apart from the I AM thingy (direct method), Niz is actually pretty heavy on neti-neti practice (indirect method). Waite writes:
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 26, 2020 10:50:17 GMT -5
As far as I am aware, Niz doesn't distinguish between Consciousness and consciousness. Because to Niz, everything that falls within the context of consciousness is also always conscious (or alive). So, the Niz hierarchy goes more like this: 1) awareness (Parabrahman, the Absolute) 2) consciousness (Brahman, Beingness, I-AM-ness, knowingness, the world, God) 3) mind (I-AM this/that, the person) 4) body (food essence). As far as the Niz dialogs go, #1 and #2 never change, #3 and #4 are sometimes arranged differently when he talks about the gunas. Then he may add an extra layer (or more). That's pretty similar to the way I'm viewing it actually, .. 1) the same, 2) the same - except I'm capitalising that Consciousness to signify it's essentially Consciousness at a cosmic level, a primal Self-Awareness. 3) small consciousness to signify it's happening at a more personal, or mundane level as I like to say, and that it functions as an umbrella term, or part of a triad for; 4) where I'm grouping mind-body together. I suppose the main reason for making a distinction between 3 and 4 is so I can distinguish between different levels of mind, i.e. thought etc, and any other cognitive functions that may vary between waking and sleeping states for example. I agree about the sovereignty of 1 and 2, with more flexibility for 3 and 4, it makes sense about the gunas. And when I talked previously about a continuum, that is to say that each is substrate of the next and so ultimately it is all Awareness-awareing. In good old neti-neti fashion, we could even put it this way: 1) prior to consciousness 2) prior to mind 3) prior to the body What I found interesting about Niz' model is that he equates consciousness with the world and the world with God and Beingness. Niz actually says that he is prior to God. It reminds me somehow of Meister Eckhart's model (Godhead/Ground of Being, God/Being, World/Creatures).
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 26, 2020 10:59:18 GMT -5
Good to hear! It's certainly the case the more consciousness errs toward 'self' the more effortful it becomes, and vice-versa. I've been musing that you can't really separate consciousness from the mind-body, in one respect it's like a continuum, and in another way can be viewed as mutually supporting. So, in one respect mind-body is merely an appearance arising within consciousness (itself appearance), but in another it can be viewed as a station for consciousness, and station that must be maintained, and in part that's what I've been pointing to in terms of work. In fact, with that interdependency in mind, I was thinking on what L said about appearances being entropic, and moreover, how the mind-body in particular is basically a march against the flow of that entropy, hence 'work'. And trying to decide how broadly that can be extended. To life, the universe, and everything. The universal body. For me, 'the All' in its entirety is the realm of appearance, and I'm happy to conceive of that in terms of varying degrees of consciousness, i.e from fine to course. This is definitely rather mindy but it's for a punch line, I promise. It's not a problem at all, when we tackle this stuff it tends to get a bit abstract by nature. I'm doing it all the time, to some extent it's unavoidable, and as long as we're aware that it's the case it's not an issue. Of course, most commonly folks aren't conscious of it being the case. Yes, this gives me an opportunity to talk briefly about the nature of appearance. The way I use the phrase, it signifies anything that is transient in nature, and ultimately empty of inherent existence. That's is to say it's dichotomous, and essentially that means it ranges from level 2 to level 4 in the 4 layer cake model. So encompassing everything from CC, SS, and NS down to the mind-body expression, Broadly it is 'the All', the world. Folks sometimes describe appearance as illusion, but I've always felt that overshoots the mark, because it's nature doesn't somehow make it unreal. I prefer to describe it as illusory in nature, being that way by virtue of its transience, and emptiness. For me, special relativity is an expression of this. What you go on to say touches on what I call the universal or 'dhamma-body'. I've said before that my being in form takes a universe. Russian dolls is a good analogy, I often conceive of it in terms of concentric circles. Obviously there's a risk of stirring up a hornets nest when we talk about inanimate matter that way , but I've always been happy with the point, and see CC as a transcendental experience incorporating the realisation of this. I offer a couple of pics I feel are in keeping with your post, the first of which I've put up before. (The second reminds me a bit of the 10 items of less queue, down at my local supermarket).
|
|
|
Post by shadowplay on Jun 26, 2020 13:10:00 GMT -5
Right. So this is the ‘add-on’ bit that I talked about. This IS a philosophical conclusion (which I’m not necessarily disagreeing with) that you have worked out or intellectually realised.So my question is, do ‘you’ have an apperception (apperception is a word that is used commonly in non-duality writings to describe a non-dual-seeing/knowing - very different from ordinary perception) of the ‘non-dual/singular/not-two’ ‘nature’ of ‘reality’? (The excessive number of inverted commas is to hopefully avoid sidetracking.) Thing is, you wrote about your apperception quite well, and I don't want to borrow or stand on that. I had a sudden experience years ago where I was walking/talking around and acting in the absence of any "I-sense". This went on for months to one degree or another, and sometimes, it wasn't a matter of degree. The existential illusion collapsed completely as a result. The way I prefer to describe the nature of this illusion is in terms of identity, perception, and felt sense of reality. There are involved back and forward stories relative to that experience, but the bottom line is a few years later I became conscious that all existential questioning had ended. We'll have to agree to differ on that point. If you're interested, I could describe my past experiences and realizations on the nature of thingness, and separation, and directly relate that to what you've written about apperception in your last two replies. You don’t have to borrow my phrase but I’m intrigued (especially in the light of your reply here) to know how you would describe your ongoing lived experience of not-two (assume that most of the preceding words came with inverted commas.) I’m particularly interested in how descriptions of realisation and collapsing illusions are related without having to concede that these too are positioned within the manifestation.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 26, 2020 15:07:09 GMT -5
That's pretty similar to the way I'm viewing it actually, .. 1) the same, 2) the same - except I'm capitalising that Consciousness to signify it's essentially Consciousness at a cosmic level, a primal Self-Awareness. 3) small consciousness to signify it's happening at a more personal, or mundane level as I like to say, and that it functions as an umbrella term, or part of a triad for; 4) where I'm grouping mind-body together. I suppose the main reason for making a distinction between 3 and 4 is so I can distinguish between different levels of mind, i.e. thought etc, and any other cognitive functions that may vary between waking and sleeping states for example. I agree about the sovereignty of 1 and 2, with more flexibility for 3 and 4, it makes sense about the gunas. And when I talked previously about a continuum, that is to say that each is substrate of the next and so ultimately it is all Awareness-awareing. In good old neti-neti fashion, we could even put it this way: 1) prior to consciousness 2) prior to mind 3) prior to the body What I found interesting about Niz' model is that he equates consciousness with the world and the world with God and Beingness. Niz actually says that he is prior to God. It reminds me somehow of Meister Eckhart's model (Godhead/Ground of Being, God/Being, World/Creatures). That neti-neti formula sounds good to me. As for the usage of God, it's an interesting one. Although I sometimes use it to express, I hafta confess I'm never quite sure on its appropriateness, or where I'd position it in any model. No doubt it's a loaded phrase, and especially tricky because at least in part must incorporate the ineffable I suppose. Can you clarify, are you saying you figure Niz puts it around 2) in the four part model you talked about previously? … or does it not translate neatly into that. (I'd also be interested to hear any other members opinions on how best (if at all) to use the phrase, if anyone fancies having a crack at it).
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 27, 2020 0:41:23 GMT -5
This is definitely rather mindy but it's for a punch line, I promise. It's not a problem at all, when we tackle this stuff it tends to get a bit abstract by nature. I'm doing it all the time, to some extent it's unavoidable, and as long as we're aware that it's the case it's not an issue. Of course, most commonly folks aren't conscious of it being the case. Yes, this gives me an opportunity to talk briefly about the nature of appearance. The way I use the phrase, it signifies anything that is transient in nature, and ultimately empty of inherent existence. That's is to say it's dichotomous, and essentially that means it ranges from level 2 to level 4 in the 4 layer cake model. So encompassing everything from CC, SS, and NS down to the mind-body expression, Broadly it is 'the All', the world. Folks sometimes describe appearance as illusion, but I've always felt that overshoots the mark, because it's nature doesn't somehow make it unreal. I prefer to describe it as illusory in nature, being that way by virtue of its transience, and emptiness. For me, special relativity is an expression of this. What you go on to say touches on what I call the universal or 'dhamma-body'. I've said before that my being in form takes a universe. Russian dolls is a good analogy, I often conceive of it in terms of concentric circles. Obviously there's a risk of stirring up a hornets nest when we talk about inanimate matter that way , but I've always been happy with the point, and see CC as a transcendental experience incorporating the realisation of this. I offer a couple of pics I feel are in keeping with your post, the first of which I've put up before. (The second reminds me a bit of the 10 items of less queue, down at my local supermarket).
Perhaps it's a sort of cosmic irony that there's this apparently natural (and so, inevitable) process of evolution that runs a local negative entropy in going from the simple to the complex, from the disordered, to the ordered .. while the process of seeing the false, as false, is a movement toward .. simplicity. Evolution is useful in existential terms as a point of negation : the appearence of evolution applies to what it is that can change, but, in the absence of falsity, it becomes clear that none of that can ever define what you really are. I agree that appearances aren't an illusion. But notice how time is woven into this notion of appearances appearing, in the same what that it's already baked into the idea of creation. The existential truth, is eternal, as in, the existential truth, is, eternity. This actually has nothing to do .. with, time. This isn't to deny time, as an illusion, but rather, simply to suggest that time, and all that derives from it, isn't what most people think it is.
|
|