|
|
Post by shadowplay on Jul 27, 2020 5:58:33 GMT -5
Thank you for your reply. What triggered my question was a statement you made, either in what I read, or on your talk on vimeo, that you found "the truth" in 1999 (if I remember correctly). To me, that means that you strongly feel (let's say based on intuition) that to be the case. ... I wrote a few more phrases, but I deleted them, because I don't think that I'll get a direct answer on the lines I'm looking for, so it doesn't matter how I read your reply. Thanks for trying. When I wrote, or said, that I found the truth in 1999, what I meant was that on that day the illusion of being a separate volitional entity collapsed and I finally understood what I had always wanted to understand. I realized (1) that who I had imagined I was prior to that day had been an illusion and had never existed, and (2) that what I AM (and what everyone and everything else is) is what we call "reality"--a seamless infinite field of being. This ended the search for existential understanding and resulted in peace of mind. Perhaps what was seen on that day might be more accurately called "the living truth" because it's more like a verb than a noun. Yes, I think that ‘the living truth’ is quite an accurate way of describing this (THIS.) And verb is a really strong pointer. As we rest as a (the) verb, we rest in the present. Without past and future there is no true separation - just the ‘real time’ seamless unfolding of existence. This brings to mind this quote from the Buddhist writer, Andrew Olendzki: “The core insight of the Buddhist tradition—the relentless emptiness of phenomena—has profound implications for all of us who are trying to understand the nature of life. It points to the disturbing fact that all nouns are arbitrary constructions. A person, place or thing is just an idea invented to freeze the fluid flow of the world into objects that can be labeled and manipulated by adroit but shallow modes of mind. Beyond and behind these snapshots we take for ourselves is a vast and unnamable process.” Now the analytical mind struggles with this. It is designed to divide and abstract and so noun-like entities are processed with ease. But it is not equipped to grasp this present sense of the ‘universal verb’. This is more of a visceral felt-sense, a non-conceptual recognition, realisation or apperception (and to some extent, intuition.) |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 27, 2020 10:25:34 GMT -5
When I wrote, or said, that I found the truth in 1999, what I meant was that on that day the illusion of being a separate volitional entity collapsed and I finally understood what I had always wanted to understand. I realized (1) that who I had imagined I was prior to that day had been an illusion and had never existed, and (2) that what I AM (and what everyone and everything else is) is what we call "reality"--a seamless infinite field of being. This ended the search for existential understanding and resulted in peace of mind. Perhaps what was seen on that day might be more accurately called "the living truth" because it's more like a verb than a noun. Yes, I think that ‘the living truth’ is quite an accurate way of describing this (THIS.) And verb is a really strong pointer. As we rest as a (the) verb, we rest in the present. Without past and future there is no true separation - just the ‘real time’ seamless unfolding of existence. This brings to mind this quote from the Buddhist writer, Andrew Olendzki: “The core insight of the Buddhist tradition—the relentless emptiness of phenomena—has profound implications for all of us who are trying to understand the nature of life. It points to the disturbing fact that all nouns are arbitrary constructions. A person, place or thing is just an idea invented to freeze the fluid flow of the world into objects that can be labeled and manipulated by adroit but shallow modes of mind. Beyond and behind these snapshots we take for ourselves is a vast and unnamable process.” Now the analytical mind struggles with this. It is designed to divide and abstract and so noun-like entities are processed with ease. But it is not equipped to grasp this present sense of the ‘universal verb’. This is more of a visceral felt-sense, a non-conceptual recognition, realisation or apperception (and to some extent, intuition.) Exactly. It can be described as either a felt sense of oneness with "what is," or, conversely, a lack of any sense of separation. The word "flow" pretty well captures the verb-like movement and quality of life when nouns are no longer imagined as things having rigid boundaries. The Zen tradition utilizes several koans to help penetrate the illusion of such imaginary boundaries. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jul 27, 2020 13:16:48 GMT -5
Thanks  Coincidence somebody else mentioned an Alan Watts' quote yesterday: That seemed to point to something I resonated with, but, reading a little more around that quote, I believe AW was saying something differently that I hoped. What were you hoping to read? That he acknowledges that there is a personal creator? Not sure what you mean by "there is a personal creator" ... I haven't read more than another couple of AW's paragraphs recently, but I remember listening to him on youtube longer time ago, and not subscribing to much of his beliefs. I don't recall what / why. My reference was to the nature of time: not linearly flowing in one direction only. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jul 27, 2020 13:29:05 GMT -5
When I wrote, or said, that I found the truth in 1999, what I meant was that on that day the illusion of being a separate volitional entity collapsed and I finally understood what I had always wanted to understand. I realized (1) that who I had imagined I was prior to that day had been an illusion and had never existed, and (2) that what I AM (and what everyone and everything else is) is what we call "reality"--a seamless infinite field of being. This ended the search for existential understanding and resulted in peace of mind. Perhaps what was seen on that day might be more accurately called "the living truth" because it's more like a verb than a noun. Yes, I think that ‘the living truth’ is quite an accurate way of describing this (THIS.) And verb is a really strong pointer. As we rest as a (the) verb, we rest in the present. Without past and future there is no true separation - just the ‘real time’ seamless unfolding of existence. This brings to mind this quote from the Buddhist writer, Andrew Olendzki: “The core insight of the Buddhist tradition—the relentless emptiness of phenomena—has profound implications for all of us who are trying to understand the nature of life. It points to the disturbing fact that all nouns are arbitrary constructions. A person, place or thing is just an idea invented to freeze the fluid flow of the world into objects that can be labeled and manipulated by adroit but shallow modes of mind. Beyond and behind these snapshots we take for ourselves is a vast and unnamable process.” Now the analytical mind struggles with this. It is designed to divide and abstract and so noun-like entities are processed with ease. But it is not equipped to grasp this present sense of the ‘universal verb’. This is more of a visceral felt-sense, a non-conceptual recognition, realisation or apperception (and to some extent, intuition.) Guys, I can't imagine how it is to be sure that you know "the truth". Surely, I believe that you all experience what you believe, as I do too, just something different. Hence no point in arguing. As truth is decided neither by majority, nor by seniority, I don't see any yardstick to measure it. And I disagree that there are flavors of truth, all of them in an oneness pot. There can be only flavors of non-truth (a.k.a falsity). |
|
|
|
Post by shadowplay on Jul 27, 2020 14:08:14 GMT -5
Yes, I think that ‘the living truth’ is quite an accurate way of describing this (THIS.) And verb is a really strong pointer. As we rest as a (the) verb, we rest in the present. Without past and future there is no true separation - just the ‘real time’ seamless unfolding of existence. This brings to mind this quote from the Buddhist writer, Andrew Olendzki: “The core insight of the Buddhist tradition—the relentless emptiness of phenomena—has profound implications for all of us who are trying to understand the nature of life. It points to the disturbing fact that all nouns are arbitrary constructions. A person, place or thing is just an idea invented to freeze the fluid flow of the world into objects that can be labeled and manipulated by adroit but shallow modes of mind. Beyond and behind these snapshots we take for ourselves is a vast and unnamable process.” Now the analytical mind struggles with this. It is designed to divide and abstract and so noun-like entities are processed with ease. But it is not equipped to grasp this present sense of the ‘universal verb’. This is more of a visceral felt-sense, a non-conceptual recognition, realisation or apperception (and to some extent, intuition.) Guys, I can't imagine how it is to be sure that you know "the truth". Surely, I believe that you all experience what you believe, as I do too, just something different. Hence no point in arguing. As truth is decided neither by majority, nor by seniority, I don't see any yardstick to measure it. And I disagree that there are flavors of truth, all of them in an oneness pot. There can be only flavors of non-truth (a.k.a falsity). Non-duality/no separation is a very difficult topic for discussion. It’s hard enough when you are conversing with someone who is eager, willing and really open to the topic - someone who, perhaps, has had a glimpse and is trying to refine or develop their understanding. But in my experience it is pointless, thankless and counterproductive to discuss it with those who really have no sense of it - or are actively hostile to it (not saying that you are at all hostile, inavalan.) Language is against you from the start. Also the subtlety of this sensibility is problematic for the conditioned and analytical mind. This is why teachers ultimately rely on pointers. For this reason I don’t usually bother getting embroiled in the arguments and counter arguments which take us further and further away from the actual essence of this sensibility. And the ‘actual essence’ is what is meant (as far as I can see) by ‘living truth’. It’s here, now, obvious… THIS - this ineffable ‘occurrence’ (whatever that is.) This is known from a realised/experiential perspective AND to some extent from a logical argument perspective. Duality no longer makes sense to me from either of those perspectives. It’s not that I believe in non-duality or no-separation - it’s that I’ve seen through duality/separation/inherent-ness. Not just intellectually but as a felt sense/visceral apprehension of how things are. What attracted me to ZDs description wasn’t so much the truth bit (truth here simply refers to actuality or thus-ness) but the living bit. Many people talk about truth but it is usually a static, dusty, over-intellectualised affair. ‘Living truth’ captures the essential ever-freshness of this (THIS.) |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 27, 2020 17:02:42 GMT -5
Guys, I can't imagine how it is to be sure that you know "the truth". Surely, I believe that you all experience what you believe, as I do too, just something different. Hence no point in arguing. As truth is decided neither by majority, nor by seniority, I don't see any yardstick to measure it. And I disagree that there are flavors of truth, all of them in an oneness pot. There can be only flavors of non-truth (a.k.a falsity). Non-duality/no separation is a very difficult topic for discussion. It’s hard enough when you are conversing with someone who is eager, willing and really open to the topic - someone who, perhaps, has had a glimpse and is trying to refine or develop their understanding. But in my experience it is pointless, thankless and counterproductive to discuss it with those who really have no sense of it - or are actively hostile to it (not saying that you are at all hostile, inavalan.) Language is against you from the start. Also the subtlety of this sensibility is problematic for the conditioned and analytical mind. This is why teachers ultimately rely on pointers. For this reason I don’t usually bother getting embroiled in the arguments and counter arguments which take us further and further away from the actual essence of this sensibility. And the ‘actual essence’ is what is meant (as far as I can see) by ‘living truth’. It’s here, now, obvious… THIS - this ineffable ‘occurrence’ (whatever that is.) This is known from a realised/experiential perspective AND to some extent from a logical argument perspective. Duality no longer makes sense to me from either of those perspectives. It’s not that I believe in non-duality or no-separation - it’s that I’ve seen through duality/separation/inherent-ness. Not just intellectually but as a felt sense/visceral apprehension of how things are. What attracted me to ZDs description wasn’t so much the truth bit (truth here simply refers to actuality or thus-ness) but the living bit. Many people talk about truth but it is usually a static, dusty, over-intellectualised affair. ‘Living truth’ captures the essential ever-freshness of this (THIS.) Maybe this will help. Over on the old Beliefnet we had some pretty good discussions. zd has said the following, here, many, many times, in one way or another. Blu wasn't talking in terms of ND, but maybe what he said applies. He used to say there is no such thing as a 2, anywhere in the universe, apart from human abstraction. (He obviously wasn't a Platonist, but likewise, there probably are no ND Platonists). |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 28, 2020 5:55:29 GMT -5
What were you hoping to read? That he acknowledges that there is a personal creator? Not sure what you mean by "there is a personal creator" ... I haven't read more than another couple of AW's paragraphs recently, but I remember listening to him on youtube longer time ago, and not subscribing to much of his beliefs. I don't recall what / why. My reference was to the nature of time: not linearly flowing in one direction only. I think most people can agree that time is of a somewhat illusory nature. In the early sessions Seth is already hinting at the illusory nature of time by making a distinction between clock time and psychological time, i.e. the experience of time in terms of speed is subjective. And I think everyone has a reference for that. But then he takes it a step further and says that not only does the past affect the future, but the reverse is true as well, i.e. the future affecting the past. And that's a much more difficult concept to comprehend. So time not only unfolds at different speeds, but also in different directions. Later, Seth takes it another step further when he talks about the spacious present, saying that everything exists all at once, now. So not only does time unfold at different speeds and into different directions, the whole concept of time 'unfolding' is now under question. You've probably heard Seth say that the point of power is in the present. That's why. Also, consider what these three steps do to the idea of reincarnation as it is commonly understood. It doesn't have to be tossed out, but it has to be totally reworked. Now, non-duality doesn't stop there. Non-duality takes it a step further still. Non-duality actually tosses out the entire idea of reincarnation by exposing its root concept, which is actually just a simple error in perception. And by doing so, not only does the idea of reincarnation go out the window, but a whole lot of other ideas go with it (like personal creators, free will etc.). And that's what we mostly talk about here. Unfortunately, that's not something you seem particularly interested in. We both may actually share an interest in freedom, but you seem more interested in a freedom to (do or be or have something) while we here are more interested in talking about a freedom from (having to be or do or have something), i.e. freedom from any such mental overlays, not freedom to indulge in any mental overlay you like or see fit. Big difference. It's the difference between samsara and moksha. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 28, 2020 5:57:32 GMT -5
Guys, I can't imagine how it is to be sure that you know "the truth". Surely, I believe that you all experience what you believe, as I do too, just something different. Hence no point in arguing. As truth is decided neither by majority, nor by seniority, I don't see any yardstick to measure it. And I disagree that there are flavors of truth, all of them in an oneness pot. There can be only flavors of non-truth (a.k.a falsity). Non-duality/no separation is a very difficult topic for discussion. It’s hard enough when you are conversing with someone who is eager, willing and really open to the topic - someone who, perhaps, has had a glimpse and is trying to refine or develop their understanding. But in my experience it is pointless, thankless and counterproductive to discuss it with those who really have no sense of it - or are actively hostile to it (not saying that you are at all hostile, inavalan.) Language is against you from the start. Also the subtlety of this sensibility is problematic for the conditioned and analytical mind. This is why teachers ultimately rely on pointers. For this reason I don’t usually bother getting embroiled in the arguments and counter arguments which take us further and further away from the actual essence of this sensibility. And the ‘actual essence’ is what is meant (as far as I can see) by ‘living truth’. It’s here, now, obvious… THIS - this ineffable ‘occurrence’ (whatever that is.) This is known from a realised/experiential perspective AND to some extent from a logical argument perspective. Duality no longer makes sense to me from either of those perspectives. It’s not that I believe in non-duality or no-separation - it’s that I’ve seen through duality/separation/inherent-ness. Not just intellectually but as a felt sense/visceral apprehension of how things are. What attracted me to ZDs description wasn’t so much the truth bit (truth here simply refers to actuality or thus-ness) but the living bit. Many people talk about truth but it is usually a static, dusty, over-intellectualised affair. ‘Living truth’ captures the essential ever-freshness of this (THIS.) Bingo. We used to call that truthin'! (verb, not noun) |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jul 28, 2020 12:47:27 GMT -5
Not sure what you mean by "there is a personal creator" ... I haven't read more than another couple of AW's paragraphs recently, but I remember listening to him on youtube longer time ago, and not subscribing to much of his beliefs. I don't recall what / why. My reference was to the nature of time: not linearly flowing in one direction only. I think most people can agree that time is of a somewhat illusory nature. In the early sessions Seth is already hinting at the illusory nature of time by making a distinction between clock time and psychological time, i.e. the experience of time in terms of speed is subjective. And I think everyone has a reference for that. But then he takes it a step further and says that not only does the past affect the future, but the reverse is true as well, i.e. the future affecting the past. And that's a much more difficult concept to comprehend. So time not only unfolds at different speeds, but also in different directions. Later, Seth takes it another step further when he talks about the spacious present, saying that everything exists all at once, now. So not only does time unfold at different speeds and into different directions, the whole concept of time 'unfolding' is now under question. You've probably heard Seth say that the point of power is in the present. That's why. Also, consider what these three steps do to the idea of reincarnation as it is commonly understood. It doesn't have to be tossed out, but it has to be totally reworked. Now, non-duality doesn't stop there. Non-duality takes it a step further still. Non-duality actually tosses out the entire idea of reincarnation by exposing its root concept, which is actually just a simple error in perception. And by doing so, not only does the idea of reincarnation go out the window, but a whole lot of other ideas go with it (like personal creators, free will etc.). And that's what we mostly talk about here. Unfortunately, that's not something you seem particularly interested in. We both may actually share an interest in freedom, but you seem more interested in a freedom to (do or be or have something) while we here are more interested in talking about a freedom from (having to be or do or have something), i.e. freedom from any such mental overlays, not freedom to indulge in any mental overlay you like or see fit. Big difference. It's the difference between samsara and moksha. Thank you for taking the time to explain |
|
