|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Sept 8, 2020 13:30:44 GMT -5
Insights into nonduality are those elements that are somehow both "in the dream" and "outside of it." They appear to have one significance inside the dream, but that significance is in fact pointing to a different reality, a different perspective, of which they are a part... and in which their significance is very different. I illustrate with my made-up analogy of celebrity who has been felled by.a seizure... and plunged into a dream.
|
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Sept 11, 2020 11:41:25 GMT -5
Insights into nonduality are those elements that are somehow both "in the dream" and "outside of it." They appear to have one significance inside the dream, but that significance is in fact pointing to a different reality, a different perspective, of which they are a part... and in which their significance is very different. I illustrate with my made-up analogy of celebrity who has been felled by.a seizure... and plunged into a dream. Brilliant. Now I finally understand kensho. Awesome. Now I see that I've had several kensho (insight) ahas. I'll have to review this vid a few times for it to sink in. But it's definitely made an impact. I can feel things moving. Just brilliant. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Sept 11, 2020 14:24:49 GMT -5
Insights into nonduality are those elements that are somehow both "in the dream" and "outside of it." They appear to have one significance inside the dream, but that significance is in fact pointing to a different reality, a different perspective, of which they are a part... and in which their significance is very different. I illustrate with my made-up analogy of celebrity who has been felled by.a seizure... and plunged into a dream. Brilliant. Now I finally understand kensho. Awesome. Now I see that I've had several kensho (insight) ahas. I'll have to review this vid a few times for it to sink in. But it's definitely made an impact. I can feel things moving. Just brilliant. Thank you. You're welcome  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 12, 2020 1:15:25 GMT -5
Brilliant. Now I finally understand kensho. Awesome. Now I see that I've had several kensho (insight) ahas. I'll have to review this vid a few times for it to sink in. But it's definitely made an impact. I can feel things moving. Just brilliant. Thank you. Just to recap, kensho literally means seeing into your own nature. And that doesn't happen from the SVP perspective. Which means what is happening there is Source seeing Source as Source, directly. In-betweenness is classic SVP perspective. So what he's describing in the video sounds more like woo-woo + TMT. Actually, his analogy and explanation could have been straight from a Seth book.  Insights are not realizations. Insights belong to the relative realm. What we call kensho is not an insight, it's a realization. Realizations belong to the absolute realm. Which means by definition kensho cannot be a woo-woo experience. These are very important distinctions. That's why I rarely use the dream analogy, it's only confusing people and then they drift off into TMT-land. The wave analogy is much safer in that regard. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Sept 12, 2020 9:43:44 GMT -5
Brilliant. Now I finally understand kensho. Awesome. Now I see that I've had several kensho (insight) ahas. I'll have to review this vid a few times for it to sink in. But it's definitely made an impact. I can feel things moving. Just brilliant. Thank you. Just to recap, kensho literally means seeing into your own nature. And that doesn't happen from the SVP perspective. Which means what is happening there is Source seeing Source as Source, directly. In-betweenness is classic SVP perspective. So what he's describing in the video sounds more like woo-woo + TMT. Actually, his analogy and explanation could have been straight from a Seth book. Insights are not realizations. Insights belong to the relative realm. What we call kensho is not an insight, it's a realization. Realizations belong to the absolute realm. Which means by definition kensho cannot be a woo-woo experience. These are very important distinctions. That's why I rarely use the dream analogy, it's only confusing people and then they drift off into TMT-land. The wave analogy is much safer in that regard. The reason the video resonates with me is that he makes the opposite argument, that kensho or whatever you want to call it is a realization, an insight, a glimpse, not necessarily a woo-woo experience. I've had woo-woo experiences but never associated them with kensho or meditation or enlightenment,. However, I've heard kensho experiences described by some Zen masters that sound very much like woo-woo experiences. It's not the experience, but rather connecting the dots. He says this insight, shift, what-have-you is kensho, the I-thought, the ego. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Sept 12, 2020 10:08:37 GMT -5
Just to recap, kensho literally means seeing into your own nature. And that doesn't happen from the SVP perspective. Which means what is happening there is Source seeing Source as Source, directly. In-betweenness is classic SVP perspective. So what he's describing in the video sounds more like woo-woo + TMT. Actually, his analogy and explanation could have been straight from a Seth book. Insights are not realizations. Insights belong to the relative realm. What we call kensho is not an insight, it's a realization. Realizations belong to the absolute realm. Which means by definition kensho cannot be a woo-woo experience. These are very important distinctions. That's why I rarely use the dream analogy, it's only confusing people and then they drift off into TMT-land. The wave analogy is much safer in that regard. The reason the video resonates with me is that he makes the opposite argument, that kensho or whatever you want to call it is a realization, an insight, a glimpse, not necessarily a woo-woo experience. I've had woo-woo experiences but never associated them with kensho or meditation or enlightenment,. However, I've heard kensho experiences described by some Zen masters that sound very much like woo-woo experiences. It's not the experience, but rather connecting the dots. He says this insight, shift, what-have-you is kensho, the I-thought, the ego. Basically we have differing views of the word insight, to me seeing the rope is not a snake is an insight, as well as a realization. I see the two as synonymous. You don't. I'll accept your distinction and suggest he sees the two as synonymous as well. What he is describing is a residue of the real in the dream. It's not the dream character that recognizes this. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 12, 2020 10:26:08 GMT -5
Just to recap, kensho literally means seeing into your own nature. And that doesn't happen from the SVP perspective. Which means what is happening there is Source seeing Source as Source, directly. In-betweenness is classic SVP perspective. So what he's describing in the video sounds more like woo-woo + TMT. Actually, his analogy and explanation could have been straight from a Seth book. Insights are not realizations. Insights belong to the relative realm. What we call kensho is not an insight, it's a realization. Realizations belong to the absolute realm. Which means by definition kensho cannot be a woo-woo experience. These are very important distinctions. That's why I rarely use the dream analogy, it's only confusing people and then they drift off into TMT-land. The wave analogy is much safer in that regard. The reason the video resonates with me is that he makes the opposite argument, that kensho or whatever you want to call it is a realization, an insight, a glimpse, not necessarily a woo-woo experience. I've had woo-woo experiences but never associated them with kensho or meditation or enlightenment,. However, I've heard kensho experiences described by some Zen masters that sound very much like woo-woo experiences. It's not the experience, but rather connecting the dots. He says this insight, shift, what-have-you is kensho, the I-thought, the ego. The key point about realizations like kensho and satori is that they refer to the absolute, the impersonal perspective, which means they happen outside of time and are therefore (strictly speaking) not experiences. Insights and woo-woo refer to the relative, the personal context and they happen in time. They are experiences in every sense of the word. And that's all I heard him talking about in the video. I actually watched the video twice because I thought I may have misunderstood something. But the impersonal perspective was somehow still missing. Now, no realization is happening in a vacuum either. They are usually couched in an experience. But the experience is not important, what is important is the realization that happens alongside the experience. Unfortunately, people with no actual reference for such a realization will automatically identify with the accompanying experience and mistake that experience for the realization. And that's what I think is at the core of all the confusion about kensho. So again, the experience and the realization have to be kept separate, in the same way as insights and realizations have to be kept separate. One is of the mind and happening in time, the other is prior to mind and happening outside of time. It's that simple. He's been throwing it all together. That's my objection. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Sept 12, 2020 10:57:03 GMT -5
The reason the video resonates with me is that he makes the opposite argument, that kensho or whatever you want to call it is a realization, an insight, a glimpse, not necessarily a woo-woo experience. I've had woo-woo experiences but never associated them with kensho or meditation or enlightenment,. However, I've heard kensho experiences described by some Zen masters that sound very much like woo-woo experiences. It's not the experience, but rather connecting the dots. He says this insight, shift, what-have-you is kensho, the I-thought, the ego. The key point about realizations like kensho and satori is that they refer to the absolute, the impersonal perspective, which means they happen outside of time and are therefore (strictly speaking) not experiences. Insights and woo-woo refer to the relative, the personal context and they happen in time. They are experiences in every sense of the word. And that's all I heard him talking about in the video. I actually watched the video twice because I thought I may have misunderstood something. But the impersonal perspective was somehow still missing. Now, no realization is happening in a vacuum either. They are usually couched in an experience. But the experience is not important, what is important is the realization that happens alongside the experience. Unfortunately, people with no actual reference for such a realization will automatically identify with the accompanying experience and mistake that experience for the realization. And that's what I think is at the core of all the confusion about kensho. So again, the experience and the realization have to be kept separate, in the same way as insights and realizations have to be kept separate. One is of the mind and happening in time, the other is prior to mind and happening outside of time. It's that simple. He's been throwing it all together. That's my objection. See the post before this one for further clarification. Remember this is an analogy and it's not the dream character that connects the dots and awakens. There's something off with the dream that draws out the real. This is akin to searching for the self( little s) and not being able to get to it. There's something off. It's not that life is a dream, but rather from the relative realm, it is useful to see life from a dreamer's perspective and Reality as something separate, better. When Reality comes knocking, you recognize Yourself and see that the two, the permanent and impermanent, are inexorably inseparable. There is nothing but the Real. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 12, 2020 11:13:28 GMT -5
The key point about realizations like kensho and satori is that they refer to the absolute, the impersonal perspective, which means they happen outside of time and are therefore (strictly speaking) not experiences. Insights and woo-woo refer to the relative, the personal context and they happen in time. They are experiences in every sense of the word. And that's all I heard him talking about in the video. I actually watched the video twice because I thought I may have misunderstood something. But the impersonal perspective was somehow still missing. Now, no realization is happening in a vacuum either. They are usually couched in an experience. But the experience is not important, what is important is the realization that happens alongside the experience. Unfortunately, people with no actual reference for such a realization will automatically identify with the accompanying experience and mistake that experience for the realization. And that's what I think is at the core of all the confusion about kensho. So again, the experience and the realization have to be kept separate, in the same way as insights and realizations have to be kept separate. One is of the mind and happening in time, the other is prior to mind and happening outside of time. It's that simple. He's been throwing it all together. That's my objection. See the post before this one for further clarification. Remember this is an analogy and it's not the dream character that connects the dots and awakens. There's something off with the dream that draws out the real. This is akin to searching for the self( little s) and not being able to get to it. There's something off. It's not that life is a dream, but rather from the relative realm, it is useful to see life from a dreamer's perspective and Reality as something separate, better. When Reality comes knocking, you recognize Yourself and see that the two, the permanent and impermanent, are inexorably inseparable. There is nothing but the Real. I'm just not on board with this idea of dots needing to be connected. We are talking about the Infinite recognizing the Infinite as the Infinite, directly, and non-locally. And that takes absolutely no time and no reflection by no one. How more simple can it get? |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Sept 12, 2020 11:27:48 GMT -5
See the post before this one for further clarification. Remember this is an analogy and it's not the dream character that connects the dots and awakens. There's something off with the dream that draws out the real. This is akin to searching for the self( little s) and not being able to get to it. There's something off. It's not that life is a dream, but rather from the relative realm, it is useful to see life from a dreamer's perspective and Reality as something separate, better. When Reality comes knocking, you recognize Yourself and see that the two, the permanent and impermanent, are inexorably inseparable. There is nothing but the Real. I'm just not on board with this idea of dots needing to be connected. We are talking about the Infinite recognizing the Infinite as the Infinite, directly, and non-locally. And that takes absolutely no time and no reflection by no one. How more simple can it get? You're also not on board with the definition of "analogous." There is no pointer that is true including the snake and the rope, but that pointer is useful. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 12, 2020 12:14:00 GMT -5
See the post before this one for further clarification. Remember this is an analogy and it's not the dream character that connects the dots and awakens. There's something off with the dream that draws out the real. This is akin to searching for the self( little s) and not being able to get to it. There's something off. It's not that life is a dream, but rather from the relative realm, it is useful to see life from a dreamer's perspective and Reality as something separate, better. When Reality comes knocking, you recognize Yourself and see that the two, the permanent and impermanent, are inexorably inseparable. There is nothing but the Real. I'm just not on board with this idea of dots needing to be connected. We are talking about the Infinite recognizing the Infinite as the Infinite, directly, and non-locally. And that takes absolutely no time and no reflection by no one. How more simple can it get? Maybe zazeniac is talking about what can't be talked about. Say there is a door. On this side of the door small s self exists. Small s self cannot step through the door, stepping through the door small s self no longer is, quite literally, but True Self IS on the other side (door also being a metaphor), beyond space and time and experience. Now, previously, zazeniac says something has occurred (my language), the other side of the door is Kensho. Now, zazeniac is back in small s self on this side of the door. zazenaic says the video gives clarity, IOW the small s self catching a glimpse of the significance of other side of the door (what has previously occurred). If it cannot be said, then how does Reefs interpret the words (zazeniac's post) to negate what zazeniac is trying to convey, but can't be talked about. Same with sifting. Maybe this has something to do with E's: mind being informed. Language is arbitrary. Example: Over ten years ago I tried to describe something to E. When sdp is functioning through small s self, then I don't exist (what I truly am, as essence). Now, I don't know ~my not-self~ does not exist when I am in small s self, except maybe theoretically, but really it is a total and complete forgetting. But when I am in awareness, I am awareness, small s self does not matter. Eventually, sdp gets to the point of recognition that when in small s self this is a state of poverty, something is horribly missing. And this is a kind of in-between state. But, however I tried to describe this (in public, not private with E), E could not understand what I meant by *not existing*. So I just gave up. My point is, to Reefs, zazeniac says gobbledegook (his post). How does Reefs negate what zazeniac is trying to convey when no words, gobbledegook, can convey what's trying to be said. Same with sifting. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ In Tractatus, Wittgenstein said the most important part of the book is what's not said. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 12, 2020 12:15:15 GMT -5
I'm just not on board with this idea of dots needing to be connected. We are talking about the Infinite recognizing the Infinite as the Infinite, directly, and non-locally. And that takes absolutely no time and no reflection by no one. How more simple can it get? You're also not on board with the definition of "analogous." There is no pointer that is true including the snake and the rope, but that pointer is useful. I tried to speak to this, post above. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Sept 12, 2020 12:43:01 GMT -5
You're also not on board with the definition of "analogous." There is no pointer that is true including the snake and the rope, but that pointer is useful. I tried to speak to this, post above. All just bluster. I understand what Reefs is saying: "the peace that surpasses all understandind" can't be understood. I don't think Sifty's saying that it can be understood. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 12, 2020 13:40:31 GMT -5
I tried to speak to this, post above. All just bluster. I understand what Reefs is saying: "the peace that surpasses all understandind" can't be understood. I don't think Sifty's saying that it can be understood. OK. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 13, 2020 2:06:09 GMT -5
I'm just not on board with this idea of dots needing to be connected. We are talking about the Infinite recognizing the Infinite as the Infinite, directly, and non-locally. And that takes absolutely no time and no reflection by no one. How more simple can it get? You're also not on board with the definition of "analogous." There is no pointer that is true including the snake and the rope, but that pointer is useful. I do use analogies all the time. And if pointers were true they would be called truth, not pointers. And if you mistake a pointer for the truth, then you have mistaken the symbolic of the real, and that's what we call pointer-licking. Mostly I see pointers working in two ways, directly and indirectly. If two sages are talking to each other via pointers, they work directly, because both parties have an actual reference for what the pointer is pointing to and so there is immediate mutual understanding. If a sage talks to a seeker, they work indirectly, because the seeker has no reference for what the pointer is pointing to, so the pointer cannot work as pointing directly to the truth for the seeker, the pointer can only work as pointing away from all the untruths the seeker has accumulated. And if two seekers are talking to each other via pointers, well, that's when it gets really funny, because then, pointers usually get mangled so badly that they work neither directly nor indirectly. |
|
