|
Post by ouroboros on Sept 24, 2021 8:14:16 GMT -5
Okay, so the conditioned is not reality and just a concept, respectively. As I said before, it's mostly like passing ships in the night. I'll count you both out.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 24, 2021 8:27:23 GMT -5
Okay, so the conditioned is not reality and just a concept, respectively. As I said before, it's mostly like passing ships in the night. I'll count you both out. laughter and zd cut out the relative. OK. But that's where we live every minute of every day.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 24, 2021 8:57:02 GMT -5
Okay, so the conditioned is not reality and just a concept, respectively. As I said before, it's mostly like passing ships in the night. I'll count you both out. laughter and zd cut out the relative. OK. But that's where we live every minute of every day. There's no point in arguing with these people. They are stamped that way. It says so in their ola leaves.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Sept 24, 2021 9:34:28 GMT -5
laughter and zd cut out the relative. OK. But that's where we live every minute of every day. There's no point in arguing with these people. They are stamped that way. It says so in their ola leaves. Unless it says in your ola leaves you've gotta argue with these people I presume.
|
|
Xiao
Full Member
Posts: 184
|
Post by Xiao on Sept 24, 2021 9:59:50 GMT -5
Yes, it seems most of us agree there's a deterministic aspect to reality, but not whether that's all there is. Count me out of that "most". Determinism applies to the relative, to what appears to you, as does randomness. So, really nothing to do with what I consider "reality" to point to, at all. Is this the typical Vedanta argument of "everything arises to/in you, but you never arise or pass away"? If so, can you suggest a reason why that isn't simply conjecture? If we assume a physical world where consciousness is a byproduct of brain chemistry, things would seem exactly as they do now: we could look around and experience reality exactly as we do, and we could even say that “everything is experienced in awareness”. If we assume that consciousness is primary and everything exists within or as an emanation from that, then things would seem exactly as they do now: we could look around at experience and we could even make statements about how “perhaps consciousness comes from this brain that seems to be at the center of perception”. I can think of no possible way to actually verify such a thing so I stay out of the argument entirely, but I am puzzled by those (not referring to you specifically here) who claim to have conclusive knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 24, 2021 10:42:52 GMT -5
Okay, so the conditioned is not reality and just a concept, respectively. As I said before, it's mostly like passing ships in the night. I'll count you both out. laughter and zd cut out the relative. OK. But that's where we live every minute of every day. AAMOF, no one lives in the relative, ever. After the illusion of separateness is seen through, this becomes obvious. If I'm in a zoom satsang, and I ask someone, "What do you see?" That individual may say, "I see a computer sitting on a desk in front of me," I will respond, "No. That is NOT what you see; that's what you imagine that you see. Look again without imagining anything." If they then say, "Okay, I see images," I will respond, "No, that is NOT what you see; that's what you imagine you see." If that individual accepts that I'm pointing to something significant that is not obvious, and if that individual becomes curious about this issue, s/he may spend some time silently looking in a state of not-knowing. It might take a day, or a week, or a month, but if that individual keeps attention upon what the eyes see rather than what is imagined, a realization is likely to occur, and that realization may collapse the illusion of separateness. Norio Kushi became curious about the gap between thoughts. One day he realized that thoughts are linear and move past the mind's eye like a train, and he saw that there were tiny gaps of silence between the thoughts. Being curious, he began shifting attention away from the thoughts and toward the gaps between the thoughts. As he did this over a period of weeks (while driving a big rig across the country), the gaps of silence expanded. At a certain point the voice in his head suddenly stopped, and for the next two weeks he drove around the country making deliveries in total mental silence and in a state of silent awareness. After two weeks, he suddenly saw through the illusion of selfhood. The same thing happened to Terry Stephens, and you can watch his interview on bat gap.com. His situation was totally different, but after realizing that he had no power to extricate himself from what appeared to be a hopeless situation, he gave up all personal volition, and his mind suddenly stopped. He sat on a veranda for three months looking at the sky in total silence, and at the end of three months he woke up. Nisargadatta's guru said to him, "There is only the Ultimate. Stay in the "I AM," and you will discover this. It took Niz 3 years of shifting attention away from thoughts to the sense of being, and he woke up. The Infinite/Ultimate/Absolute/Source/Being is all there is, and that's what all sages are pointing to.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 24, 2021 10:49:50 GMT -5
Count me out of that "most". Determinism applies to the relative, to what appears to you, as does randomness. So, really nothing to do with what I consider "reality" to point to, at all. Is this the typical Vedanta argument of "everything arises to/in you, but you never arise or pass away"? If so, can you suggest a reason why that isn't simply conjecture? If we assume a physical world where consciousness is a byproduct of brain chemistry, things would seem exactly as they do now: we could look around and experience reality exactly as we do, and we could even say that “everything is experienced in awareness”. If we assume that consciousness is primary and everything exists within or as an emanation from that, then things would seem exactly as they do now: we could look around at experience and we could even make statements about how “perhaps consciousness comes from this brain that seems to be at the center of perception”.I can think of no possible way to actually verify such a thing so I stay out of the argument entirely, but I am puzzled by those (not referring to you specifically here) who claim to have conclusive knowledge. Both are true. By predilection I consider this to be true. However, this necessarily manifests through the brain. So it appears the brain is necessary for consciousness. Software is no good, essentially isn't, without hardware to manifest through. No? Then give me an instance where consciousness can manifest, make itself known, apart from a brain. It can be subjectively verified, but not objectively demonstrable to another.
|
|
Xiao
Full Member
Posts: 184
|
Post by Xiao on Sept 24, 2021 10:55:23 GMT -5
Is this the typical Vedanta argument of "everything arises to/in you, but you never arise or pass away"? If so, can you suggest a reason why that isn't simply conjecture? If we assume a physical world where consciousness is a byproduct of brain chemistry, things would seem exactly as they do now: we could look around and experience reality exactly as we do, and we could even say that “everything is experienced in awareness”. If we assume that consciousness is primary and everything exists within or as an emanation from that, then things would seem exactly as they do now: we could look around at experience and we could even make statements about how “perhaps consciousness comes from this brain that seems to be at the center of perception”.I can think of no possible way to actually verify such a thing so I stay out of the argument entirely, but I am puzzled by those (not referring to you specifically here) who claim to have conclusive knowledge. Both are true. By predilection I consider this to be true. However, this necessarily manifests through the brain. So it appears the brain is necessary for consciousness. Software is no good, essentially isn't, without hardware to manifest through. No? Then give me an instance where consciousness can manifest, make itself known, apart from a brain. It can be subjectively verified, but not objectively demonstrable to another. Personally, I have no belief in "absolute consciousness" or any such notion of awareness that can exist outside of or apart from a brain. In my eyes it is simply yet another comforting thought that many contemplate and use for purposes of coping. A more subtle and refined one than "Jesus loves me" or "Everything happens for a reason", but of a similar ilk nonetheless. While I feel it's likely true that consciousness is a byproduct of the brain, I must admit I am not really vested in it either way. I think the value of admitting one doesn't know and not needing an answer is much more rewarding than having stake in any metaphysical position.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 24, 2021 11:00:45 GMT -5
laughter and zd cut out the relative. OK. But that's where we live every minute of every day. AAMOF, no one lives in the relative, ever. After the illusion of separateness is seen through, this becomes obvious. If I'm in a zoom satsang, and I ask someone, "What do you see?" That individual may say, "I see a computer sitting on a desk in front of me," I will respond, "No. That is NOT what you see; that's what you imagine that you see. Look again without imagining anything." If they then say, "Okay, I see images," I will respond, "No, that is NOT what you see; that's what you imagine you see." If that individual accepts that I'm pointing to something significant that is not obvious, and if that individual becomes curious about this issue, s/he may spend some time silently looking in a state of not-knowing. It might take a day, or a week, or a month, but if that individual keeps attention upon what the eyes see rather than what is imagined, a realization is likely to occur, and that realization may collapse the illusion of separateness. Norio Kushi became curious about the gap between thoughts. One day he realized that thoughts are linear and move past the mind's eye like a train, and he saw that there were tiny gaps of silence between the thoughts. Being curious, he began shifting attention away from the thoughts and toward the gaps between the thoughts. As he did this over a period of weeks (while driving a big rig across the country), the gaps of silence expanded. At a certain point the voice in his head suddenly stopped, and for the next two weeks he drove around the country making deliveries in total mental silence and in a state of silent awareness. After two weeks, he suddenly saw through the illusion of selfhood. The same thing happened to Terry Stephens, and you can watch his interview on bat gap.com. His situation was totally different, but after realizing that he had no power to extricate himself from what appeared to be a hopeless situation, he gave up all personal volition, and his mind suddenly stopped. He sat on a veranda for three months looking at the sky in total silence, and at the end of three months he woke up. Nisargadatta's guru said to him, "There is only the Ultimate. Stay in the "I AM," and you will discover this. It took Niz 3 years of shifting attention away from thoughts to the sense of being, and he woke up. The Infinite/Ultimate/Absolute/Source/Being is all there is, and that's what all sages are pointing to. All I'm saying is you can't function in life without clocks and calendars and grocery stores or a garden and the electric grid and a well or community water, and gas stations...and a thousand etcs... You can't function in life without relative truth. If you think otherwise look at the end of the life of Richard Rose.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 24, 2021 11:14:30 GMT -5
AAMOF, no one lives in the relative, ever. After the illusion of separateness is seen through, this becomes obvious. If I'm in a zoom satsang, and I ask someone, "What do you see?" That individual may say, "I see a computer sitting on a desk in front of me," I will respond, "No. That is NOT what you see; that's what you imagine that you see. Look again without imagining anything." If they then say, "Okay, I see images," I will respond, "No, that is NOT what you see; that's what you imagine you see." If that individual accepts that I'm pointing to something significant that is not obvious, and if that individual becomes curious about this issue, s/he may spend some time silently looking in a state of not-knowing. It might take a day, or a week, or a month, but if that individual keeps attention upon what the eyes see rather than what is imagined, a realization is likely to occur, and that realization may collapse the illusion of separateness. Norio Kushi became curious about the gap between thoughts. One day he realized that thoughts are linear and move past the mind's eye like a train, and he saw that there were tiny gaps of silence between the thoughts. Being curious, he began shifting attention away from the thoughts and toward the gaps between the thoughts. As he did this over a period of weeks (while driving a big rig across the country), the gaps of silence expanded. At a certain point the voice in his head suddenly stopped, and for the next two weeks he drove around the country making deliveries in total mental silence and in a state of silent awareness. After two weeks, he suddenly saw through the illusion of selfhood. The same thing happened to Terry Stephens, and you can watch his interview on bat gap.com. His situation was totally different, but after realizing that he had no power to extricate himself from what appeared to be a hopeless situation, he gave up all personal volition, and his mind suddenly stopped. He sat on a veranda for three months looking at the sky in total silence, and at the end of three months he woke up. Nisargadatta's guru said to him, "There is only the Ultimate. Stay in the "I AM," and you will discover this. It took Niz 3 years of shifting attention away from thoughts to the sense of being, and he woke up. The Infinite/Ultimate/Absolute/Source/Being is all there is, and that's what all sages are pointing to. All I'm saying is you can't function in life without clocks and calendars and grocery stores or a garden and the electric grid and a well or community water, and gas stations...and a thousand etcs... You can't function in life without relative truth. If you think otherwise look at the end of the life of Richard Rose. Clearly this is not true. Numerous primitive tribes have nothing you mentioned, but have no problem functioning intelligently in the world. If your point only relates to people living in advanced societies, what does that have to do with what's being pointed to? What does that have to do with relative versus absolute truth? If someone wants to imagine that there's something called "relative truth," that's okay, but it's not at all necessary. Its just more imagining. I'm inviting people to leave imagination behind, or at least not get attached to the ideas that imagination dreams up. What we call "the consensus paradigm" is solely a result of getting attached to products of imagination.
|
|
Xiao
Full Member
Posts: 184
|
Post by Xiao on Sept 24, 2021 11:33:53 GMT -5
All I'm saying is you can't function in life without clocks and calendars and grocery stores or a garden and the electric grid and a well or community water, and gas stations...and a thousand etcs... You can't function in life without relative truth. If you think otherwise look at the end of the life of Richard Rose. Clearly this is not true. Numerous primitive tribes have nothing you mentioned, but have no problem functioning intelligently in the world. If your point only relates to people living in advanced societies, what does that have to do with what's being pointed to? What does that have to do with relative versus absolute truth? If someone wants to imagine that there's something called "relative truth," that's okay, but it's not at all necessary. Its just more imagining. I'm inviting people to leave imagination behind, or at least not get attached to the ideas that imagination dreams up. What we call "the consensus paradigm" is solely a result of getting attached to products of imagination. I feel it's important to add, though I'm sure you'll agree (as in some sense they imply each other): "absolute truth" is as imaginary as relative truth.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 24, 2021 11:45:03 GMT -5
Clearly this is not true. Numerous primitive tribes have nothing you mentioned, but have no problem functioning intelligently in the world. If your point only relates to people living in advanced societies, what does that have to do with what's being pointed to? What does that have to do with relative versus absolute truth? If someone wants to imagine that there's something called "relative truth," that's okay, but it's not at all necessary. Its just more imagining. I'm inviting people to leave imagination behind, or at least not get attached to the ideas that imagination dreams up. What we call "the consensus paradigm" is solely a result of getting attached to products of imagination. I feel it's important to add, though I'm sure you'll agree (as in some sense they imply each other): "absolute truth" is as imaginary as relative truth. Absolutely!
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 24, 2021 11:57:41 GMT -5
All I'm saying is you can't function in life without clocks and calendars and grocery stores or a garden and the electric grid and a well or community water, and gas stations...and a thousand etcs... You can't function in life without relative truth. If you think otherwise look at the end of the life of Richard Rose. Clearly this is not true. Numerous primitive tribes have nothing you mentioned, but have no problem functioning intelligently in the world. If your point only relates to people living in advanced societies, what does that have to do with what's being pointed to? What does that have to do with relative versus absolute truth? If someone wants to imagine that there's something called "relative truth," that's okay, but it's not at all necessary. Its just more imagining. I'm inviting people to leave imagination behind, or at least not get attached to the ideas that imagination dreams up. What we call "the consensus paradigm" is solely a result of getting attached to products of imagination. And yet, you're telling me this on a computer over the internet.
|
|
Xiao
Full Member
Posts: 184
|
Post by Xiao on Sept 24, 2021 12:13:11 GMT -5
Clearly this is not true. Numerous primitive tribes have nothing you mentioned, but have no problem functioning intelligently in the world. If your point only relates to people living in advanced societies, what does that have to do with what's being pointed to? What does that have to do with relative versus absolute truth? If someone wants to imagine that there's something called "relative truth," that's okay, but it's not at all necessary. Its just more imagining. I'm inviting people to leave imagination behind, or at least not get attached to the ideas that imagination dreams up. What we call "the consensus paradigm" is solely a result of getting attached to products of imagination. And yet, you're telling me this on a computer over the internet. That doesn't really say anything about his point, though. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 24, 2021 12:25:21 GMT -5
Clearly this is not true. Numerous primitive tribes have nothing you mentioned, but have no problem functioning intelligently in the world. If your point only relates to people living in advanced societies, what does that have to do with what's being pointed to? What does that have to do with relative versus absolute truth? If someone wants to imagine that there's something called "relative truth," that's okay, but it's not at all necessary. Its just more imagining. I'm inviting people to leave imagination behind, or at least not get attached to the ideas that imagination dreams up. What we call "the consensus paradigm" is solely a result of getting attached to products of imagination. And yet, you're telling me this on a computer over the internet. just trying to sort out the different contexts in the conversation.... would you also say a dog and a flower also spend every minute 'in the relative'? Or do you mean 'in the relative' in a different way?
|
|