|
Post by Reefs on Sept 13, 2020 2:26:11 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? 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. There is no door. There are no sides. And there is no in-between-state. A switch gets flipped. Small s self perspective switched off, Big S Self perspective remains. Big S Self perspective is always there. Small s self perspective comes and goes. No matter how informed mind is, it's always going to be the small s perspective, i.e. it's always going to be symbolic only, never real. To your point, the actual words the Zeniac or Sifty use don't matter at all. What matters is the perspective conveyed. If the perspective conveyed is identical with my perspective, I'll recognize it immediately. So it's more about what's communicated between the lines. If you have a reference for the impersonal perspective, you will recognize that perspective in the writings of others. And I didn't recognize that perspective in Sifty's video and also not in Zeniac's replies. Simple.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 13, 2020 2:27:51 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. No, that's not what I am saying (even though I would agree with that statement).
|
|
|
Post by shadowplay on Sept 13, 2020 4:54:01 GMT -5
There is nothing but the Real. This is key. This is at the heart of realisation. Realisation is not a rejection of the relative it is the seeing that the relative is not other than the absolute. So yes, we can say that the truth cannot be found in the relative - it is only found in the absolute - but here’s the thing: we don’t leave the relative and move to the absolute to find truth (there are NOT two realms), we realise that the relative is/was the absolute all along - so the truth IS found right here in the relative as the relative is the absolute relative-ing. THAT which is glimpsed, realised, seen, awoken to, apperceived is NOT relative. But the glimpsing, realising, recognising etc. IS relative. So (in my outlook) there is absolutely no difference between a meditator’s insight or a self-inquirer’s realisation or even a (let’s say) hill walker’s glimpse. THAT which is revealed is the same timeless recognition. A stone hits a piece of bamboo… a dog is barking… a distant church bell rings… wonder of wonders… it’s THIS.
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Sept 13, 2020 11:11:54 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 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. I just played ball with my cattle dog in a hard rain. It was kensho. You'll hear kensho described as an "initial insight" applied to ordinary life with more training or I've heard Zuzuki describe it as "pure" experience. Very often you hear references to "little" kensho vs "big" kensho. Ramana makes the distinction between kevala nirvikalpa samadhi and sahaja where in the former there is an impermanent awakening or thought free state. So the notion of there being a switch and only one realization seems dubious to me as a seeker unless you're saying the switch is flipped when permance happens. I've heard zd talk about "many" realizations. With regards to pointers if they only point to what you're not only, then it's neti-neti. I am in fact a seeker and accept Sifty's claim of SR. I don't think Ramana intended the Self/self pointer to point to what you're not considering his distaste for neti-neti. I find Sifty's photo flash analogy a clever way of describing how the Real reveals itself. You don't agree. Cool. So you contend Sifty's not Self-Realized. Perhaps. I won't argue that. But I find the subtle insult indicative of very active, self-absorbed ego, that I readily recognize.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 13, 2020 12:19:33 GMT -5
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. I just played ball with my cattle dog in a hard rain. It was kensho. You'll hear kensho described as an "initial insight" applied to ordinary life with more training or I've heard Zuzuki describe it as "pure" experience. Very often you hear references to "little" kensho vs "big" kensho. Ramana makes the distinction between kevala nirvikalpa samadhi and sahaja where in the former there is an impermanent awakening or thought free state. So the notion of there being a switch and only one realization seems dubious to me as a seeker unless you're saying the switch is flipped when permance happens. I've heard zd talk about "many" realizations. With regards to pointers if they only point to what you're not only, then it's neti-neti. I am in fact a seeker and accept Sifty's claim of SR. I don't think Ramana intended the Self/self pointer to point to what you're not considering his distaste for neti-neti. I find Sifty's photo flash analogy a clever way of describing how the Real reveals itself. You don't agree. Cool. So you contend Sifty's not Self-Realized. Perhaps. I won't argue that. But I find the subtle insult indicative of very active, self-absorbed ego, that I readily recognize. But I'm not saying that there is only one realization. You must be confusing me with someone else. Yes, basically neti-neti. Look, ZD and I had extensive talks with Sifty about CC/kensho in the past, which basically went nowhere. That was about 2 years ago, I think. Just re-read those conversations. They will show you the actual state of affairs in terms of understanding. He actually used to mock us for considering CC/kensho a realization.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 13, 2020 13:11:11 GMT -5
I just played ball with my cattle dog in a hard rain. It was kensho. You'll hear kensho described as an "initial insight" applied to ordinary life with more training or I've heard Zuzuki describe it as "pure" experience. Very often you hear references to "little" kensho vs "big" kensho. Ramana makes the distinction between kevala nirvikalpa samadhi and sahaja where in the former there is an impermanent awakening or thought free state. So the notion of there being a switch and only one realization seems dubious to me as a seeker unless you're saying the switch is flipped when permance happens. I've heard zd talk about "many" realizations. With regards to pointers if they only point to what you're not only, then it's neti-neti. I am in fact a seeker and accept Sifty's claim of SR. I don't think Ramana intended the Self/self pointer to point to what you're not considering his distaste for neti-neti. I find Sifty's photo flash analogy a clever way of describing how the Real reveals itself. You don't agree. Cool. So you contend Sifty's not Self-Realized. Perhaps. I won't argue that. But I find the subtle insult indicative of very active, self-absorbed ego, that I readily recognize. But I'm not saying that there is only one realization. You must be confusing me with someone else. Yes, basically neti-neti. Look, ZD and I had extensive talks with Sifty about CC/kensho in the past, which basically went nowhere. That was about 2 years ago, I think. Just re-read those conversations. They will show you the actual state of affairs in terms of understanding. He actually used to mock us for considering CC/kensho a realization. I think zd considers CC an experience. If this is incorrect he can correct me.
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Sept 13, 2020 13:21:51 GMT -5
I just played ball with my cattle dog in a hard rain. It was kensho. You'll hear kensho described as an "initial insight" applied to ordinary life with more training or I've heard Zuzuki describe it as "pure" experience. Very often you hear references to "little" kensho vs "big" kensho. Ramana makes the distinction between kevala nirvikalpa samadhi and sahaja where in the former there is an impermanent awakening or thought free state. So the notion of there being a switch and only one realization seems dubious to me as a seeker unless you're saying the switch is flipped when permance happens. I've heard zd talk about "many" realizations. With regards to pointers if they only point to what you're not only, then it's neti-neti. I am in fact a seeker and accept Sifty's claim of SR. I don't think Ramana intended the Self/self pointer to point to what you're not considering his distaste for neti-neti. I find Sifty's photo flash analogy a clever way of describing how the Real reveals itself. You don't agree. Cool. So you contend Sifty's not Self-Realized. Perhaps. I won't argue that. But I find the subtle insult indicative of very active, self-absorbed ego, that I readily recognize. But I'm not saying that there is only one realization. You must be confusing me with someone else. Yes, basically neti-neti. Look, ZD and I had extensive talks with Sifty about CC/kensho in the past, which basically went nowhere. That was about 2 years ago, I think. Just re-read those conversations. They will show you the actual state of affairs in terms of understanding. He actually used to mock us for considering CC/kensho a realization. Going back the only reference to kensho from Sifty comes in his commentary on Sekida's book. He seems quite amenable to the notion of kensho and cc at that time. And he and zd seem to share quite pleasantly. Maybe he changed his mind upon reconsideration and maybe you missed that. Like I said I'm not interested in defending Sifty's status. What I would like to ask you is if he had mocked you in the past, do you feel that justifies your mocking now? Especially since he's not directly involved in any of these exchanges. I can understand your attempt to insult me. I provoked it. But the stab at Sifty speaks to something deeper.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 13, 2020 13:27:20 GMT -5
But I'm not saying that there is only one realization. You must be confusing me with someone else. Yes, basically neti-neti. Look, ZD and I had extensive talks with Sifty about CC/kensho in the past, which basically went nowhere. That was about 2 years ago, I think. Just re-read those conversations. They will show you the actual state of affairs in terms of understanding. He actually used to mock us for considering CC/kensho a realization. I think zd considers CC an experience. If this is incorrect he can correct me. Nes and yo. He'd call it a different category of experience because it results in a major realization. I used to call it an event or a happening. I think ZD would agree. So this is very different from the narrow Enigma definition of experience.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 13, 2020 13:36:38 GMT -5
But I'm not saying that there is only one realization. You must be confusing me with someone else. Yes, basically neti-neti. Look, ZD and I had extensive talks with Sifty about CC/kensho in the past, which basically went nowhere. That was about 2 years ago, I think. Just re-read those conversations. They will show you the actual state of affairs in terms of understanding. He actually used to mock us for considering CC/kensho a realization. Going back the only reference to kensho from Sifty comes in his commentary on Sekida's book. He seems quite amenable to the notion of kensho and cc at that time. And he and zd seem to share quite pleasantly. Maybe he changed his mind upon reconsideration and maybe you missed that. Like I said I'm not interested in defending Sifty's status. What I would like to ask you is if he had mocked you in the past, do you feel that justifies your mocking now? Especially since he's not directly involved in any of these exchanges. I can understand your attempt to insult me. I provoked it. But the stab at Sifty speaks to something deeper. Try using the search function. There's plenty. Not important though. I'm not here to prove a point about Sifty's realization status. I made a comment about what he said in his video, that's all. You turned that into something else entirely. I'm not interested in a food fight. My forum time these days is very limited. And I'd prefer to spend it with high quality discussions, not with this kind of he said she said nonsense. I hope that was clear enough.
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Sept 13, 2020 13:51:09 GMT -5
Going back the only reference to kensho from Sifty comes in his commentary on Sekida's book. He seems quite amenable to the notion of kensho and cc at that time. And he and zd seem to share quite pleasantly. Maybe he changed his mind upon reconsideration and maybe you missed that. Like I said I'm not interested in defending Sifty's status. What I would like to ask you is if he had mocked you in the past, do you feel that justifies your mocking now? Especially since he's not directly involved in any of these exchanges. I can understand your attempt to insult me. I provoked it. But the stab at Sifty speaks to something deeper. Try using the search function. There's plenty. Not important though. I'm not here to prove a point about Sifty's realization status. I made a comment about what he said in his video, that's all. You turned that into something else entirely. I'm not interested in a food fight. My forum time these days is very limited. And I'd prefer to spend it with high quality discussions, not with this kind of he said she said nonsense. I hope that was clear enough. Clever dodge. No "she" in this discussion unless that's intended as another insult being the sexist sweetheart you are. Dude by all means. Push along. Just to remind you, you jumped on my comment. Next time since it's "low" quality and you're such a "high" quality "winner." Let it pass. Don't waste your time.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 13, 2020 16:43:00 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. I can understand your making this distinction between kensho and the way sifty used it there. Perhaps a better translation for his metaphor into Zen might have been at least the 2nd or 3rd bull. Insights and realizations and how they relate to the sense of identity and reality are as ultimately as complicated a topic as the human mind. .. and I think it's always wise to keep sight of the weight of Zen culture before adopting it's terminology: not everyone does battle with the mind via meditation, which is the way some of that culture can be misinterpreted (it seems to me, from both within it, and outside of it), and some of what people describe as woo-woo's seem to me to sometimes implicate rather deep existential water.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 13, 2020 16:46:28 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. This is a great script idea! The Next Generation screen writer's explored something similar. It was an incredibly poignant episode. One of my friends went out of his way to lend me a vhs tape of it back in the day.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Sept 13, 2020 17:36:16 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. This is a great script idea! The Next Generation screen writer's explored something similar. It was an incredibly poignant episode. One of my friends went out of his way to lend me a vhs tape of it back in the day. Oh cool, I will check it out! And thanks
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 13, 2020 19:08:23 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. This is a great script idea! The Next Generation screen writer's explored something similar. It was an incredibly poignant episode. One of my friends went out of his way to lend me a vhs tape of it back in the day. Yes, one of my favorite episodes. The link says the probe terminates. What is not precisely clear is that means the complete record of that planet is erased, Picard's memory is now the only record. This also reminds me of a Hindu myth about the nature of What Is and the nature of time. I'll post it if I can find it. Found it but from my limited computer skills I can't specify the section. It starts on page 29 (*9). Narada has asked to be taught about Maya. So Vyasa gives him a demonstration, plunging him below water. Narada lives a whole life as a maiden in just the time Vyasa holds him under the water. It's very short, ends on page 30. Reading that story over 45 years ago made a deep impression on me... "Plunge into yonder water and you shall experience the secret of my Maya".... archive.org/stream/HeinrichRobertZimmerMythsAndSymbolsInIndianArtAndCivilization/Heinrich+Robert+Zimmer+Myths+and+Symbols+in+Indian+Art+and+Civilization_djvu.txt
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 13, 2020 19:20:22 GMT -5
This is a great script idea! The Next Generation screen writer's explored something similar. It was an incredibly poignant episode. One of my friends went out of his way to lend me a vhs tape of it back in the day. Yes, one of my favorite episodes. The link says the probe terminates. What is not precisely clear is that means the complete record of that planet is erased, Picard's memory is now the only record. This also reminds me of a Hindu myth about the nature of What Is and the nature of time. I'll post it if I can find it. Found it but from my limited computer skills I can't specify the section. It starts on page 29 (*9). Narada has asked to be taught about Maya. So Vyasa gives him a demonstration, plunging him below water. Narada lives a whole life as a maiden in just the time Vyasa holds him under the water. Reading that story over 45 years ago made a deep impression on me... "Plunge into yonder water and you will experience the secret of my Maya".... archive.org/stream/HeinrichRobertZimmerMythsAndSymbolsInIndianArtAndCivilization/Heinrich+Robert+Zimmer+Myths+and+Symbols+in+Indian+Art+and+Civilization_djvu.txt Interesting. Thanks. It's likely that this was an influence on the Trek writer's, whether they were aware of that or not.
|
|