|
Post by laughter on Sept 19, 2021 6:06:16 GMT -5
It's a pointer to the end of the questions "what is it that is born?" and "what is it that dies?". It's the answer in the appendices at the back of the self-inquiry textbook. Clearly, in relative, personal terms, birth and death are facts of life. Beliefs are personal, relative affairs. Okay, thank you for clarifying. In my book, the body is what is born and what dies. Works for me! But that leaves the question, what about the mind? It's a question worth approaching in relative, mechanistic terms, but only for the purposes of discerning the precise point where such an approach becomes futile.
|
|
Xiao
Full Member
Posts: 184
|
Post by Xiao on Sept 19, 2021 6:27:09 GMT -5
Okay, thank you for clarifying. In my book, the body is what is born and what dies. Works for me! But that leaves the question, what about the mind? It's a question worth approaching in relative, mechanistic terms, but only for the purposes of discerning the precise point where such an approach becomes futile. Agreed. To me there seems to be a strong enough correlation between the mind and the brain that I have no reason to see them as independent of each other, and I leave it at that. The juicy stuff lies in the lived experience of this moment, without ideas about mind or matter, in the spirit of "steeping" oneself in that reality to further understand it on its own terms. I resonate with Joan Tollifson's writing on all of this - she certainly does it better than I. for reference: www.joantollifson.com/writing50.html
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 19, 2021 9:24:15 GMT -5
The death before dying is the oblivion of an illusion. What you really are was never born, so can never die. This is not dogma, but can be known, directly. In the absence of illusion, there is the clarity of eternity. This death does not necessitate you to quell the vassana's - either entirely or even partially. Much of the culture you write about is quite insightful on these topics, and, working on vassana's can lead to mental/emotional quiescence. But. There are more things on heaven and Earth that are dreamt of in any philosophy. Horatio. Is this analogous to the whole "you are pure awareness" notion, or are you pointing at something else? It seems like a comforting belief rather than anything verifiable in my experience. Even the Samadhi states seem to center around/from the physical organism, and may be as chemically dependent on the brain as any altered state, so I am unable to make the leap into such statements as this with any certainty. To be clear though, this isn't a problem in my eyes, but it is a thing I hear thrown around a lot and I think it unnecessarily gets a free pass from criticism. My take on this is a bit different, and is admittedly super woo-woo. Haha. Apparently THIS can apprehend Itself directly via a CC, and in 1984 that's what happened here. Ordinary reality, as I had always known it, disintegrated, and the Infinite was revealed. Afterwards, I thought that I, as an SVP, had seen the Infinite, but 15 years later it was realized that the seeing of what was seen did not happen to a SVP. During a CC THIS apprehends Itself directly in some incomprehensible way. Here's what was seen on that day: 1. What we call "reality" is perfect just as it is (I can't think of a better word than "perfect" even though that may be disturbing to other people) 2. Awareness is primordial (even if the entire universe disappeared, awareness would remain) 3. Love is foundational 4. There is no actual birth or death 5. There are no such things as time or space; they are simply cognitive grids dreamed up by the intellect 6. Separate thingness is also a cognitive illusion Etc. etc. etc. I came away from that seeing in a state of awe and wonderment. All fear of death disappeared and never returned. I/THIS saw something so vast and so incomprehensible that all else paled into insignificance. The primary verbal takeaway was, "Reality is NOT what I thought it was." Haha. That event propelled me into a state much like the one that Tolle described, but it only lasted a few days. For about three days there was no concern for anything related to a "me." I didn't want anything and didn't need anything. My interest shifted away from "me" to other people and how I might be able to help them. I attempted to give away our family business and our home, and how that failed to occur is just another hysterically funny as well as poignant story. There was a lot of woo-woo, but that eventually went away, and life gradually got back to a more "normal" state, but various understandings remained that never changed. It took another 15 years and many other less dramatic seeings of what is NOT true to finally realize that the SVP is an illusion, and that there is only THIS, and THIS is unborn and undying.
|
|
Xiao
Full Member
Posts: 184
|
Post by Xiao on Sept 19, 2021 10:40:44 GMT -5
Is this analogous to the whole "you are pure awareness" notion, or are you pointing at something else? It seems like a comforting belief rather than anything verifiable in my experience. Even the Samadhi states seem to center around/from the physical organism, and may be as chemically dependent on the brain as any altered state, so I am unable to make the leap into such statements as this with any certainty. To be clear though, this isn't a problem in my eyes, but it is a thing I hear thrown around a lot and I think it unnecessarily gets a free pass from criticism. 1. What we call "reality" is perfect just as it is (I can't think of a better word than "perfect" even though that may be disturbing to other people) 2. Awareness is primordial (even if the entire universe disappeared, awareness would remain) 3. Love is foundational 4. There is no actual birth or death 5. There are no such things as time or space; they are simply cognitive grids dreamed up by the intellect 6. Separate thingness is also a cognitive illusion I agree with 1, 4, 5, and 6, particularly because birth and death are mere words and THIS is simply ineffable flux. For that very reason I am hesitant to subscribe to no. 3, though I think there's a sense of wonder inherent when this reality recognizes itself, and if that's what you mean then I can get behind it. As for awareness being primordial, I have no clue. Being is all there is, and awareness seems inseparable from that, but I am hesitant to say which one came first or if they are even two different things to begin with. I don't see any soteriological value in it, so it's more or less kindling for the philosophical fire in my book and I tend not to go there. Thankfully non-abidance in mind renders all such distinctions wonderfully pointless
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 19, 2021 11:27:36 GMT -5
1. What we call "reality" is perfect just as it is (I can't think of a better word than "perfect" even though that may be disturbing to other people) 2. Awareness is primordial (even if the entire universe disappeared, awareness would remain) 3. Love is foundational 4. There is no actual birth or death 5. There are no such things as time or space; they are simply cognitive grids dreamed up by the intellect 6. Separate thingness is also a cognitive illusion I agree with 1, 4, 5, and 6, particularly because birth and death are mere words and THIS is simply ineffable flux. For that very reason I am hesitant to subscribe to no. 3, though I think there's a sense of wonder inherent when this reality recognizes itself, and if that's what you mean then I can get behind it. As for awareness being primordial, I have no clue. Being is all there is, and awareness seems inseparable from that, but I am hesitant to say which one came first or if they are even two different things to begin with. I don't see any soteriological value in it, so it's more or less kindling for the philosophical fire in my book and I tend not to go there. Thankfully non-abidance in mind renders all such distinctions wonderfully pointless Yes, and perhaps for #2 I should have said that THAT which is aware is primordial rather than awareness, alone, because everything is included in that. My sense was that the Infinite is aware of Itself out of Itself through all that is, so awareness and the contents of awareness seemed to be an inseparable unity. #3 is hard to explain, but there was a sense that the Infinite loves every aspect of Itself, including every blade of grass. It sounds a bit weird, but that's what was sensed in some indefinable way.
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Sept 19, 2021 13:54:22 GMT -5
You often say that all teachers/sages point to the same thing (presumably in-line with how you see things), so I take it you believe this is what the Buddha intended to teach. If so, fwiw I disagree. Sure. 'Realms' and 'states of Being' are analogous. No, I don't think that was what the Buddha intended to teach. I think the rebirth thing, as taught by the buddha, and conventionally interpreted by Buddhists, is as nonsensical as the conventional Christian idea of a future heaven. That was why I posted the comment supposedly made by Ramana on his deathbed. If accurate, that statement points beyond all realms or states to what is always and only here and now. If one looks deeply enough, one sees that any idea of a future is an idea based on an imaginary distinction between two differing states. As some of us repeatedly say, "Twoness is solely a product of imagination." I also don't think that ALL sages point to the same thing. I usually say MANY sages and sometimes MOST sages. If I ever say ALL sages, then that's an exaggeration triggered by trying too strongly to make a point. Oh, ye of little faith.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 19, 2021 14:51:53 GMT -5
No, I don't think that was what the Buddha intended to teach. I think the rebirth thing, as taught by the buddha, and conventionally interpreted by Buddhists, is as nonsensical as the conventional Christian idea of a future heaven. That was why I posted the comment supposedly made by Ramana on his deathbed. If accurate, that statement points beyond all realms or states to what is always and only here and now. If one looks deeply enough, one sees that any idea of a future is an idea based on an imaginary distinction between two differing states. As some of us repeatedly say, "Twoness is solely a product of imagination." I also don't think that ALL sages point to the same thing. I usually say MANY sages and sometimes MOST sages. If I ever say ALL sages, then that's an exaggeration triggered by trying too strongly to make a point. Oh, ye of little faith. Listened to the first 26 minutes. I've said multiple times, our view of reality is reflected back to us, that is, we can only see what our own filters (our conditioning) allow in (to our mind-consciousness). IOW, we live in a hall of mirrors. It's hard to see the truth of what is. Is it nonsensical that these children remember past lives? It is what it is. Can we twist facts into a pretzel trying to make them fit into our own view? Yes, people do it every day. Does this change reports and facts? No. There used to be a TV program on this subject also. Our vasanas and sankaras make us come back until we clear them out. I'd suggest again zd, watch the 3 bodies in Buddhism videos. I'd suggest Ramana and Niz went deep enough to encounter their very subtle body, they became their very subtle body. Few do.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 19, 2021 15:20:08 GMT -5
Listened to the first 26 minutes. I've said multiple times, our view of reality is reflected back to us, that is, we can only see what our own filters (our conditioning) allow in (to our mind-consciousness). IOW, we live in a hall of mirrors. It's hard to see the truth of what is. Is it nonsensical that these children remember past lives? It is what it is. Can we twist facts into a pretzel trying to make them fit into our own view? Yes, people do it every day. Does this change reports and facts? No. There used to be a TV program on this subject also. ... (my highlights, and underlines)
Why would you think that those reports and facts, which you perceive through your filters too, aren't also reflections, part of that hall of mirrors? I think they are.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 19, 2021 16:03:39 GMT -5
Listened to the first 26 minutes. I've said multiple times, our view of reality is reflected back to us, that is, we can only see what our own filters (our conditioning) allow in (to our mind-consciousness). IOW, we live in a hall of mirrors. It's hard to see the truth of what is. Is it nonsensical that these children remember past lives? It is what it is. Can we twist facts into a pretzel trying to make them fit into our own view? Yes, people do it every day. Does this change reports and facts? No. There used to be a TV program on this subject also. ... (my highlights, and underlines)
Why would you think that those reports and facts, which you perceive through your filters too, aren't also reflections, part of that hall of mirrors? I think they are. Indubitably, I've never said otherwise (indicated by our). I don't presume I know much of anything, everything is subject to new data. The key is not to try to make the data fit our viewpoint. I'm not the one who used the word nonsensical.
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Sept 19, 2021 21:29:34 GMT -5
Listened to the first 26 minutes. I've said multiple times, our view of reality is reflected back to us, that is, we can only see what our own filters (our conditioning) allow in (to our mind-consciousness). IOW, we live in a hall of mirrors. It's hard to see the truth of what is. Is it nonsensical that these children remember past lives? It is what it is. Can we twist facts into a pretzel trying to make them fit into our own view? Yes, people do it every day. Does this change reports and facts? No. There used to be a TV program on this subject also. Our vasanas and sankaras make us come back until we clear them out. I'd suggest again zd, watch the 3 bodies in Buddhism videos. I'd suggest Ramana and Niz went deep enough to encounter their very subtle body, they became their very subtle body. Few do. I was just trying to make a point about reincarnation. The case is not so open and shut. I remember reading an article back in the late 80s in Scientific American about psychic phenomena. They stipulated that reincarnation was the hardest to disprove. It's not something I get a hard-on about so not interested in a debate. It's a curiosity. Also, interesting in the piece was Planck's quote regarding consciousnessand the material world. I concur.
|
|
Xiao
Full Member
Posts: 184
|
Post by Xiao on Sept 20, 2021 3:26:46 GMT -5
Listened to the first 26 minutes. I've said multiple times, our view of reality is reflected back to us, that is, we can only see what our own filters (our conditioning) allow in (to our mind-consciousness). IOW, we live in a hall of mirrors. It's hard to see the truth of what is. Is it nonsensical that these children remember past lives? It is what it is. Can we twist facts into a pretzel trying to make them fit into our own view? Yes, people do it every day. Does this change reports and facts? No. There used to be a TV program on this subject also. Our vasanas and sankaras make us come back until we clear them out. I'd suggest again zd, watch the 3 bodies in Buddhism videos. I'd suggest Ramana and Niz went deep enough to encounter their very subtle body, they became their very subtle body. Few do. I was just trying to make a point about reincarnation. The case is not so open and shut. I remember reading an article back in the late 80s in Scientific American about psychic phenomena. They stipulated that reincarnation was the hardest to disprove. It's not something I get a hard-on about so not interested in a debate. It's a curiosity. Also, interesting in the piece was Planck's quote regarding consciousnessand the material world. I concur. I personally feel that the population explosion of the past few-hundred years is an important point to consider. When bringing this up to a Buddhist once, they countered with the rapid loss of wildlife and other species on earth. It seems silly to think that conception will only occur successfully when a soul is lined up and ready to inhabit the human, or that the loss of animal life throughout the world means that those souls may now be in human bodies. Alternate theories of course involve different realms or other planets with intelligent life, but I stick with Occam's razor on this one. It may have been a useful teaching tool or "skillful means" in the past, perhaps it still is for some folk, but it doesn't seem likely to be true.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 20, 2021 6:19:53 GMT -5
But that leaves the question, what about the mind? It's a question worth approaching in relative, mechanistic terms, but only for the purposes of discerning the precise point where such an approach becomes futile. Agreed. To me there seems to be a strong enough correlation between the mind and the brain that I have no reason to see them as independent of each other, and I leave it at that. The juicy stuff lies in the lived experience of this moment, without ideas about mind or matter, in the spirit of "steeping" oneself in that reality to further understand it on its own terms. I resonate with Joan Tollifson's writing on all of this - she certainly does it better than I. for reference: www.joantollifson.com/writing50.htmlJoan's writing reminds me of Albert Low's Iron Cow of Zen .. just even more .. tantric. Any interest in death, in what dies, is existential interest, whether that ultimately translates into an interest in the "body/mind problem", or not. Of course the mind and the body aren't two different things. The imagined boundaries are creations of mind, as is the boundary between your body/mind and what that body mind isn't. There is no " isn't". For months after I'd realized the futility of intellect the questions would recur, witnessed. There are, of course, many interesting ideas about the way it all works, all of them constantly sidling sideways around what intellect can never touch. But suppressing the process of contemplative thinking, well, didn't work for me, I dunno'. It was pretty trippy constantly shifting attention, constantly remembering that the thoughts were just the minds version of disco lights. Heady times that I can get nostalgic for now and then.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 20, 2021 6:41:23 GMT -5
I agree with 1, 4, 5, and 6, particularly because birth and death are mere words and THIS is simply ineffable flux. For that very reason I am hesitant to subscribe to no. 3, though I think there's a sense of wonder inherent when this reality recognizes itself, and if that's what you mean then I can get behind it. Joan wrote this: "Notice the constantly changing nature of experiencing, the way each moment disappears as soon as it appears" Have there ever been any things that you'd rather not change? Some people, places and things that you'd want to freeze in time and hold in your hand forever? There's a poignancy, a pathos that can emerge from what Joan points to there. The excruciating beauty of one moment, constantly dying to the next. It's all wrapped up in that wonder, that awe, and even the personal emotion toward grief at the apparent loss of it. Love is embodied by the understanding that nothing is ever lost.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2021 6:48:33 GMT -5
Lol, There be friction between you two. If you were in the same room I would have you both Dance to the same music, blindfolded. After an hour both of you would fall silent and throw aside your walking frames. No friction. I'm just having fun poking an inflated balloon to see if there's any chance that it can be popped. A balloon is fine. I worry about more solidity, and then shrapnel. I'm probably paranoid. The pressure cookers and IEDs probably don't show up on this forum.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 20, 2021 7:07:27 GMT -5
I was just trying to make a point about reincarnation. The case is not so open and shut. I remember reading an article back in the late 80s in Scientific American about psychic phenomena. They stipulated that reincarnation was the hardest to disprove. It's not something I get a hard-on about so not interested in a debate. It's a curiosity. Also, interesting in the piece was Planck's quote regarding consciousnessand the material world. I concur. I personally feel that the population explosion of the past few-hundred years is an important point to consider. When bringing this up to a Buddhist once, they countered with the rapid loss of wildlife and other species on earth. It seems silly to think that conception will only occur successfully when a soul is lined up and ready to inhabit the human, or that the loss of animal life throughout the world means that those souls may now be in human bodies. Alternate theories of course involve different realms or other planets with intelligent life, but I stick with Occam's razor on this one. It may have been a useful teaching tool or "skillful means" in the past, perhaps it still is for some folk, but it doesn't seem likely to be true. Well, in relative terms, it's not space nor renewable resource cycles that can or should constrain population levels. The downward pressures on population are actually all social, primarily a function of distribution. It does seem that the scale of humanity has gotten to the point where we are effecting the Earth, but there are far more species that have gone extinct - by many orders of magnitude - than are present today, and again by an order of magnitude most of those extinctions occurred even before the arrival of the great apes. The current world population would be completely unimaginable by the standards of even the 19th century much less the 18th or 17th, and, to my eye, the constant chicken-littling of the doom sayers (who constantly get proven wrong btw) is due to a poverty of imagination and a propensity to incorrectly project the present onto the future. That's my relative take. In absolute terms, any relation between this topic and the question of the source of souls for reincarnation is, ultimately, just more existential questioning, and posing of that question in mechanistic terms.
|
|