|
Post by zendancer on Aug 23, 2021 12:44:58 GMT -5
How can anyone truly know this? Roy, I speak to you as a fellow individual having done my research on near-term human extinction; as far as I see it you are right in making such a prediction on that front. However, if a rise in global temperatures and sea level, extreme weather events, acidification of the oceans and many other interlinked events all culminate in human extinction, how would consciousness be transitioning into a digital realm? Is this assuming someone is actually able to 1) isolate consciousness from the rest of experience, and 2) find a way to introduce it into digital technology? If so it seems astronomically unlikely - I mean, we don't even know if consciousness works or is findable in that way. Furthermore, assuming i'm understanding your notion of a transition even remotely correctly, and it does indeed refer to some sort of technological hardware or computer in which consciousness is imbibed, I can't imagine a scenario where such hardware wouldn't also crumble and fall in the rapidly changing climate of the earth. This whole aspect of the teaching seems like a conceptual assumption made based on other theories on the outer layers of the one step path. In a sense, and you'd probably agree here, they aren't even related. Step out of thought and into being. That's it. The rest is irrelevant and very much more of the thought virus itself, to use your language a bit. All this stuff about numbers and digital realms and whatnot is totally irrelevant if nobody understands or takes up the basic practice of shifting attention away from thought and towards being. The Buddha's "Parable of the Poisoned Arrow" comes to mind as a relevant historical example of anti-metaphysical rhetoric in relation to awakening. I agree. i'm done trying to convince. One can only hope that's true.
|
|
|
Post by roydop on Aug 23, 2021 13:21:31 GMT -5
When the whole of human consciousness (the collective unconsciousness) pays more attention to the digital, thought-produced realm, the transition will occur. I have no idea how something like the focus of attention could be quantified, but the focus of attention is where consciousness follows.To escape the time-loop human consciousness is in, and about to begin a new iteration, attention must be shifted away from the screen and all thought has created. Roy, I realize you partially answer some of my questions here. The focus of attention is where consciousness follows, sure, in any given individual human life. We have no way of knowing what goes on after death and definitely no way of knowing if humanity's collectively growing fascination with screens (which is obviously a problem while any given individual human is alive, for a number of reasons) will be able to lead somehow into a future where consciousness is magically transported to a digital realm. I maintain that these concepts are simply beliefs you hold - beliefs that are not really provable or necessary to the ending of psychological suffering, and that for some will actually muddy the waters of the mind by providing more philosophical positions to think about. One might expect consciousness that is advanced on the path to possess knowledge that others do not. roy dopson can't help what has been presented to him, and also cannot help but share it. You personally have no use for the information presented because you are already on the one step path (or at least understand it). This new information is used as a segue to Spirituality. As it becomes increasingly apparent that humanity's new religion, science, will not save us from our suffering there will dawn a Spiritual renaissance. Perhaps some will find Mauna through this literal hell the species is entering.
|
|
|
Post by roydop on Aug 23, 2021 13:24:24 GMT -5
When the whole of human consciousness (the collective unconsciousness) pays more attention to the digital, thought-produced realm, the transition will occur. I have no idea how something like the focus of attention could be quantified, but the focus of attention is where consciousness follows. To escape the time-loop human consciousness is in, and about to begin a new iteration, attention must be shifted away from the screen and all thought has created. TMT. For someone who recommends leaving the thought-based realm behind, it appears that thoughts have run amok. Go spend some time with a tree or a rock, and let go of all these ideas about numbers and transitions. If you discover what Ramana was pointing to, you won't be concerned about what might happen in some hypothetical dystopic future. Claiming that your post is "the most important message ever presented to humanity" reveals an extremely inflated sense of selfhood. Better do some more Ramana self-enquiry. It's the most important message to ever be presented to humanity. You just don't get it. Does zen say that the world is an illusion?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2021 16:20:28 GMT -5
TMT. For someone who recommends leaving the thought-based realm behind, it appears that thoughts have run amok. Go spend some time with a tree or a rock, and let go of all these ideas about numbers and transitions. If you discover what Ramana was pointing to, you won't be concerned about what might happen in some hypothetical dystopic future. Claiming that your post is "the most important message ever presented to humanity" reveals an extremely inflated sense of selfhood. Better do some more Ramana self-enquiry. It's the most important message to ever be presented to humanity. You just don't get it. Does zen say that the world is an illusion? Roy, have you seen this quote from Ramana? What do you think of it? " That silent Self alone is God, Self alone is the individual soul, Self alone is this ancient world." In Zen it's something about mountains not being mountains, and then again being mountains. In other words, whether the world is an illusion or not depends on the seer, or the seeing.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 23, 2021 17:45:38 GMT -5
It's the most important message to ever be presented to humanity. You just don't get it. Does zen say that the world is an illusion? Roy, have you seen this quote from Ramana? What do you think of it? " That silent Self alone is God, Self alone is the individual soul, Self alone is this ancient world." In Zen it's something about mountains not being mountains, and then again being mountains. In other words, whether the world is an illusion or not depends on the seer, or the seeing. Yes, in Zen the path is often described as circular. You eventually end up where you started from but with a totally different understanding. First mountains are mountains, and then mountains are not mountains. Finally, mountains are mountains again, and life is very ordinary--"chopping wood and carrying water." Along the way there are often miracles and all kinds of mystical fireworks, but if that stuff is ignored in favor of simple being, one ends up in what is called "The Natural State." Ramana points to the same thingless thing. Zen people call it "non-abidance in mind."
|
|
|
Post by roydop on Aug 24, 2021 10:56:06 GMT -5
Roy, have you seen this quote from Ramana? What do you think of it? " That silent Self alone is God, Self alone is the individual soul, Self alone is this ancient world." In Zen it's something about mountains not being mountains, and then again being mountains. In other words, whether the world is an illusion or not depends on the seer, or the seeing. Yes, in Zen the path is often described as circular. You eventually end up where you started from but with a totally different understanding. First mountains are mountains, and then mountains are not mountains. Finally, mountains are mountains again, and life is very ordinary--"chopping wood and carrying water." Along the way there are often miracles and all kinds of mystical fireworks, but if that stuff is ignored in favor of simple being, one ends up in what is called "The Natural State." Ramana points to the same thingless thing. Zen people call it "non-abidance in mind." Circular implies no conclusion. Does Zen state that the world is an illusion? Does Zen say there is an end to suffering? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%83s%C4%81raThe core tenets of Buddhism and Hinduism is that the world ends upon liberation. Does Zen say that the world ends upon liberation?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 24, 2021 12:41:40 GMT -5
Yes, in Zen the path is often described as circular. You eventually end up where you started from but with a totally different understanding. First mountains are mountains, and then mountains are not mountains. Finally, mountains are mountains again, and life is very ordinary--"chopping wood and carrying water." Along the way there are often miracles and all kinds of mystical fireworks, but if that stuff is ignored in favor of simple being, one ends up in what is called "The Natural State." Ramana points to the same thingless thing. Zen people call it "non-abidance in mind." Circular implies no conclusion. Does Zen state that the world is an illusion? Does Zen say there is an end to suffering? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%83s%C4%81raThe core tenets of Buddhism and Hinduism is that the world ends upon liberation. Does Zen say that the world ends upon liberation? Circular implies nothing of the sort. Any implication is in the mind of the one who imagines an implication. Zen makes no official statement of any kind because it eschews words, ideas, and abstractions. It points people to the direct seeing of "what is." Zen is a form of Buddhism, and the Buddha's main teaching was about the cause of suffering and what leads to the cessation of suffering. Most non-dual traditions including Zen point to an end of the world as it is usually imagined.
|
|
|
Post by roydop on Aug 25, 2021 10:49:55 GMT -5
Circular implies no conclusion. Does Zen state that the world is an illusion? Does Zen say there is an end to suffering? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%83s%C4%81raThe core tenets of Buddhism and Hinduism is that the world ends upon liberation. Does Zen say that the world ends upon liberation? Circular implies nothing of the sort. Any implication is in the mind of the one who imagines an implication. Zen makes no official statement of any kind because it eschews words, ideas, and abstractions. It points people to the direct seeing of "what is." Zen is a form of Buddhism, and the Buddha's main teaching was about the cause of suffering and what leads to the cessation of suffering. Most non-dual traditions including Zen point to an end of the world as it is usually imagined. So according to Buddhism: 1. What is the source of suffering? 2: What leads to the cessation of suffering? Does this apply also to Zen? And if "yes" why Zen at all? Why the need for further interpretation of Buddha's teaching? Also, what is seen when seeing "what is"?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 25, 2021 13:03:37 GMT -5
Circular implies nothing of the sort. Any implication is in the mind of the one who imagines an implication. Zen makes no official statement of any kind because it eschews words, ideas, and abstractions. It points people to the direct seeing of "what is." Zen is a form of Buddhism, and the Buddha's main teaching was about the cause of suffering and what leads to the cessation of suffering. Most non-dual traditions including Zen point to an end of the world as it is usually imagined. So according to Buddhism: 1. What is the source of suffering? 2: What leads to the cessation of suffering? Does this apply also to Zen? And if "yes" why Zen at all? Why the need for further interpretation of Buddha's teaching? Also, what is seen when seeing "what is"? Zen resulted when Buddhism went to China. Zen = Buddhism + Taoism. Except Zen also goes all the way back to Buddha. There is a famous non-sermon where only one disciple understood Buddha lifting up a flower. That was the beginning of Zen. (This lineage was traced by two different sources). The cultural self (the conditioned self) mediates everything that enters the organism. So it filters and distorts everything. So seeing what is, is impossible (We see what we are, not what is. The Talmud). When the conditioned self is operating, looking at life is looking into a mirror. So Zen is all about seeing what is, seeing without the distorting filter of self. Seeing without the shadow of abstractions. Suffering is a result of the cultural self desiring stuff, it's almost the definition of the cultural self/small s self. There isn't a ceasing of desire as long as the cultural self is operating. If you want other than what you now have, you're just digging the hole of self deeper. The cultural/small s self operates from compulsion.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 25, 2021 13:18:03 GMT -5
Roy: The Buddha taught that desire is the source of all suffering, and that desire is caused by attachment. Attachment is the need to control or direct life to make things happen as one wishes. There is a way to become free from attachment and attain non-abidance in the mind. He taught meditation as a temporary means to an end, but his full teaching involves much more than that, and includes things like the 4 noble truths, the eightfold path, etc. He implied that techniques, practices, etc can be left behind after freedom is attained.
I'm not a Buddhist, so I'm no expert on all of the subtleties involved in his teachings, but the Buddhist canon is something like ten times longer than the Bible, and many of his discourses are profound.
Zen is a Buddhist sect that probably developed as a response to the over-intellectualization of Buddhism by later followers of the teachings. Zen people basically bypass the intellect and go for direct seeing into the nature of what we are. They're primarily interested in what we might call "big mind"--the intelligence that is infinite--, and the realization that humans are THAT. The unborn, or Buddha Mind, or Big Mind, is what Ramana called "the Self." Zen has no beliefs and is NOT an interpretation of the Buddha's teachings. Zen is only interested in pointing to what the Buddha discovered, so that anyone can discover what Gautama discovered.
What is seen when seeing "what is?" It is impossible to state what is seen because anything stated is dualistic and "what is" is non-dual. One either sees and understands or one does not.
I like to explain what's going on something like this: what we actually are is infinite, unified, whole, and incomprehensible to the intellect. What we are can only be realized to be what we are by what we are, because there is no "other." No person ever attains enlightenment because there is no person separate from Self/Source/THAT.
Self runs the entire show. It is what pumps blood, moves nerve impulses, adjusts hormone levels, adjusts oxygen/carbon dioxide levels, grows teeth, hair, bones, and flesh, and moves every atom in the universe. It evolved humans to have an intellect, which is like a personal computer hooked to a graphics generator. The intellect allows humans to look at "what is" and imagine "what is" as the 10,000 things. All thingness, or separateness, is imaginary, including the idea that the one who sees things is a thing. Seeing through the illusion of separateness is what the path of non-duality is all about. When that illusion is seen through, Self realizes Itself. Any human who sees through the illusion of separateness becomes detached from that idea and lives much like a small child while retaining full adult intellectual capability. Many of us call that "the Natural State" and it is what Ramana referred to as "sahaja samadhi," although he also used a slightly more accurate phrase that I've momentarily forgotten.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 25, 2021 14:37:50 GMT -5
So according to Buddhism: 1. What is the source of suffering? 2: What leads to the cessation of suffering? Does this apply also to Zen? And if "yes" why Zen at all? Why the need for further interpretation of Buddha's teaching? Also, what is seen when seeing "what is"? Zen resulted when Buddhism went to China. Zen = Buddhism + Taoism. The cultural self (the conditioned self) mediates everything that enters the organism. So it filters and distorts everything. So seeing what is, is impossible (We see what we are, not what is. The Talmud). When the conditioned self is operating, looking at life is looking into a mirror. So Zen is all about seeing what is, seeing without the distorting filter of self. Seeing without the shadow of abstractions. Suffering is a result of the cultural self desiring stuff, it's almost the definition of the cultural self/small s self. There isn't a ceasing of desire as long as the cultural self is operating. If you want other than what you now have, you're just digging the hole of self deeper. The cultural/small s self operates from compulsion. From what I've read the people who live and perpetuate the Zen tradition place it's origins during the Buddha's life some 1000 years earlier in India. They list a line of patriarchs that include Bodiharma, the guy who is remembered for introducing Buddhism to China, and stretches all the way back to the flower sermon.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 25, 2021 14:44:39 GMT -5
Circular implies nothing of the sort. Any implication is in the mind of the one who imagines an implication. Zen makes no official statement of any kind because it eschews words, ideas, and abstractions. It points people to the direct seeing of "what is." Zen is a form of Buddhism, and the Buddha's main teaching was about the cause of suffering and what leads to the cessation of suffering. Most non-dual traditions including Zen point to an end of the world as it is usually imagined. So according to Buddhism: 1. What is the source of suffering? 2: What leads to the cessation of suffering? Does this apply also to Zen? And if "yes" why Zen at all? Why the need for further interpretation of Buddha's teaching? Also, what is seen when seeing "what is"? Regardless of what the Buddhist sources say, "what is the source of suffering?" is one of a myriad of forms of the existential question. Ramana, of course, spoke about the most direct form of it, "who am I?". It hides itself in plain sight out in the common culture, always percolating away in peoples subconscious. One particular form of it would be: "can a computer ever achieve consciousness?". In my opinion, "meditate on it" is about as good an answer as any, to anyone genuinely curious about it.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Aug 25, 2021 15:27:25 GMT -5
Roy: The Buddha taught that desire is the source of all suffering, and that desire is caused by attachment. Attachment is the need to control or direct life to make things happen as one wishes. There is a way to become free from attachment and attain non-abidance in the mind. He taught meditation as a temporary means to an end, but his full teaching involves much more than that, and includes things like the 4 noble truths, the eightfold path, etc. He implied that techniques, practices, etc can be left behind after freedom is attained. I'm not a Buddhist, so I'm no expert on all of the subtleties involved in his teachings, but the Buddhist canon is something like ten times longer than the Bible, and many of his discourses are profound. Zen is a Buddhist sect that probably developed as a response to the over-intellectualization of Buddhism by later followers of the teachings. Zen people basically bypass the intellect and go for direct seeing into the nature of what we are. They're primarily interested in what we might call "big mind"--the intelligence that is infinite--, and the realization that humans are THAT. The unborn, or Buddha Mind, or Big Mind, is what Ramana called "the Self." Zen has no beliefs and is NOT an interpretation of the Buddha's teachings. Zen is only interested in pointing to what the Buddha discovered, so that anyone can discover what Gautama discovered. What is seen when seeing "what is?" It is impossible to state what is seen because anything stated is dualistic and "what is" is non-dual. One either sees and understands or one does not. I like to explain what's going on something like this: what we actually are is infinite, unified, whole, and incomprehensible to the intellect. What we are can only be realized to be what we are by what we are, because there is no "other." No person ever attains enlightenment because there is no person separate from Self/Source/THAT. Self runs the entire show. It is what pumps blood, moves nerve impulses, adjusts hormone levels, adjusts oxygen/carbon dioxide levels, grows teeth, hair, bones, and flesh, and moves every atom in the universe. It evolved humans to have an intellect, which is like a personal computer hooked to a graphics generator. The intellect allows humans to look at "what is" and imagine "what is" as the 10,000 things. All thingness, or separateness, is imaginary, including the idea that the one who sees things is a thing. Seeing through the illusion of separateness is what the path of non-duality is all about. When that illusion is seen through, Self realizes Itself. Any human who sees through the illusion of separateness becomes detached from that idea and lives much like a small child while retaining full adult intellectual capability. Many of us call that "the Natural State" and it is what Ramana referred to as "sahaja samadhi," although he also used a slightly more accurate phrase that I've momentarily forgotten. Really the teaching starts one back from that. The Buddhist position is that ultimately ignorance (avijja) is the root of all dukkha, as that is which underpins even the desire/aversion dichotomy. So, it is upon 'not knowing', or 'not seeing' (i.e. ignorance) that such circumstance arises. Naturally enough I suppose, in the course of events. Note, I refrain from translating dukkha to suffering (as generally defined on the forum) …. Because dukkha is synonymous with samsara.
|
|
|
Post by roydop on Aug 25, 2021 15:27:39 GMT -5
So any Spiritual teaching/system of thought that does not place the illusionary nature of experience (thoughts/the non-physical realm, and sensations/the physical realm) as paramount, is not a comprehensive model/understanding.
The new, most pertinent and effective metaphor is that of a computer simulation. The singular source of suffering is the inability to see that all experience is fundamentally unsubstantial and unfulfilling. All desire arises from the search for Self/Reality. We desire to be liberated from this Divine game/simulation because that is the singular purpose to all of THIS. One will not transcend desire until unintermittent Self-Awareness/Reality is realized.
There are not four truths, there is but a singular fundamental Truth. That is that all experience is fundamentally as empty and unsubstantial as a video game or a movie.
There's nothing "wrong" with being "present" in this physical realm (not thinking but focused on sensations rather than Mauna/Self). The physical realm is more stable and "real" than the digital realm human consciousness is about to transition into, but complete liberation/winning of the game results in no manifestation/relative existence.
|
|
|
Post by roydop on Aug 25, 2021 15:31:09 GMT -5
Roy: The Buddha taught that desire is the source of all suffering, and that desire is caused by attachment. Attachment is the need to control or direct life to make things happen as one wishes. There is a way to become free from attachment and attain non-abidance in the mind. He taught meditation as a temporary means to an end, but his full teaching involves much more than that, and includes things like the 4 noble truths, the eightfold path, etc. He implied that techniques, practices, etc can be left behind after freedom is attained. I'm not a Buddhist, so I'm no expert on all of the subtleties involved in his teachings, but the Buddhist canon is something like ten times longer than the Bible, and many of his discourses are profound. Zen is a Buddhist sect that probably developed as a response to the over-intellectualization of Buddhism by later followers of the teachings. Zen people basically bypass the intellect and go for direct seeing into the nature of what we are. They're primarily interested in what we might call "big mind"--the intelligence that is infinite--, and the realization that humans are THAT. The unborn, or Buddha Mind, or Big Mind, is what Ramana called "the Self." Zen has no beliefs and is NOT an interpretation of the Buddha's teachings. Zen is only interested in pointing to what the Buddha discovered, so that anyone can discover what Gautama discovered. What is seen when seeing "what is?" It is impossible to state what is seen because anything stated is dualistic and "what is" is non-dual. One either sees and understands or one does not. I like to explain what's going on something like this: what we actually are is infinite, unified, whole, and incomprehensible to the intellect. What we are can only be realized to be what we are by what we are, because there is no "other." No person ever attains enlightenment because there is no person separate from Self/Source/THAT. Self runs the entire show. It is what pumps blood, moves nerve impulses, adjusts hormone levels, adjusts oxygen/carbon dioxide levels, grows teeth, hair, bones, and flesh, and moves every atom in the universe. It evolved humans to have an intellect, which is like a personal computer hooked to a graphics generator. The intellect allows humans to look at "what is" and imagine "what is" as the 10,000 things. All thingness, or separateness, is imaginary, including the idea that the one who sees things is a thing. Seeing through the illusion of separateness is what the path of non-duality is all about. When that illusion is seen through, Self realizes Itself. Any human who sees through the illusion of separateness becomes detached from that idea and lives much like a small child while retaining full adult intellectual capability. Many of us call that "the Natural State" and it is what Ramana referred to as "sahaja samadhi," although he also used a slightly more accurate phrase that I've momentarily forgotten. Really the teaching starts one back from that. The Buddhist position is that ultimately ignorance (avijja) is the root of all dukkha, as that is which underpins even the desire/aversion dichotomy. So, it is upon 'not knowing', or 'not seeing' (i.e. ignorance) that such circumstance arises. Naturally enough I suppose, in the course of events. Note, I decline to translate dukkha to suffering (as generally defined on the forum) …. Because dukkha is synonymous with samsara. Indeed. The condition that initiates desire is the ignorance of the true nature of Reality/Self. We all desire to be free of suffering. When suffering is transcended there is no more desire because you will have found what you were looking for.
|
|