|
Post by Reefs on Sept 24, 2021 12:34:39 GMT -5
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. That's the inevitable logical conclusion, yes.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 24, 2021 13:16:16 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. laughter and zd cut out the relative. OK. But that's where we live every minute of every day. Nah, that ain't true, I don't "cut out the relative", but "the relative" can't describe, much less define "reality". Reality is nonconceptual, neither subjective, nor objective, and cannot be modeled.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 24, 2021 13:17:11 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. (** muttley snicker **)
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 24, 2021 13:18:02 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. In our minds? Behind our senses? Behind our "screens"... in our vats ...
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 24, 2021 13:23:21 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. I agree, but I am not puzzled, but amused. Still, I need a model that gives me purpose. In is out; out is in.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 24, 2021 13:25:59 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.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 24, 2021 13:32:39 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. I think you have a mind that thinks, not a brain. You can't know you have a brain. Do you have a brain in your dream?
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 24, 2021 13:38:31 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. Not to argue, but to point that you're as sure of your perspective as he is of his ... You believe you can't live without those things, like in a dream when you believe you can't fly, then when you try you can.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 24, 2021 13:43:06 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. The "consensus paradigm" is a misnomer, because implies consensus, agreement. That isn't the case. Connectivity doesn't imply agreement. It doesn't imply distortionless communication either. But surely, I disagree with most of your interpretation of your perceptions.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 24, 2021 13:56:57 GMT -5
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? I believe a dog and a flower are more aware of their inner reality, and of their direct connectivity with everything, than most of modern humans are. I believe the primitive man had a less distorted view of reality, and that was more conducive to his evolvement. In this discussion "relative" kind of means "subjective", and "absolute" kind of means "objective". Everything you can know is what you perceive, hence subjective. Surely, not including zendancer .
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 24, 2021 13:58:10 GMT -5
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.That's where I would disagree. I can't see anything rewarding in either position. Because all 3 positions (knowing that scenario A is true, knowing that scenario B is true, knowing that you cannot know which scenario is true) are mental positions. And as such, there's no fundamental difference in how you would experience the world no matter what position you choose, because all 3 positions are the SVP perspective. So the reason why it's not worth investing much time and energy into such hypotheticals is not because you cannot know but because it doesn't address the fundamental issue of who needs to know, of who thinks he knows and of who thinks he doesn't know or cannot know. Nevertheless, I would agree that you can't reason your way out of this, so you better give it up. But retreating to a position of intellectual not-knowing, that doesn't make the issue go away. It just sanitizes the problem, it doesn't resolve it. Genuine peace of mind is something different.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 24, 2021 14:05:46 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. It's not an argument. It's not even a pointer. I certainly can't claim to be much of a Vedanta source, really. It's just commonsense: "appears to you" refers to what is undeniable: there are sensations, thoughts, emotions, other people communicating with you etc.. So .. something is appearing to you. Undeniably. Now, you've expressed an interest in some ideas about the way that things appear to you. One thing that occurred to me long before I read Tolle is that every single question science or philosophy answers gives rise to several additional questions. In terms of whether "physicality is primary and conscious arises from the brain", I'll say this much. In examining my own conditioning I discovered that I'd been conditioned - very deeply - to think of the world this way, in material realist terms. My undergrad education in QM called that into question, and that's another long story for another day. But also commonsense and bottom line, it would certainly seem to me that the living, breathing human experience of being conscious involves and requires a functioning brain - but .. don't read into that!
In terms of "consciousness is primary and physicality arises from consciousness", the questioning of material reality led eventually to exploring these ideas. But, I eventually came back to the Copenhagen Interpretation. My buddy and me, we hated the Copenhagen Interpretation back in the dorms. He was Italian, from Naples, had been in the U.S. for maybe a few years. He had this way of saying " bulllllsh!t!" in an Italian accent that was primo uno Aces. Much of what guys like Deepak Chopra say about consciousness relative to material realism is based on conjecture layered over a misinterpretation of QM. The Copenhagen Interpretation is a statement of an absence of knowledge, nothing more, nothing less. Anyways, long story short, this "mind/body problem", isn't really a problem: it's self-inquiry. This became very clear during an intense period of seeking that lasted maybe 9 months - perhaps a few years if you extend out into some informing of mind. Self-conscious seeking triggered by Tolle and Low. What you're really interested in when you're interested in the question of "what is primary, physicality or consciousness?", is the question: "what am I?" ... "what is my brain?" "what is my consciousness?" ... etc ... The end of this process of repetitive questioning was from deliberately, consciously quieting the mind - both by siting meditation and ongoing tantric practice (similar to ATA, but I only encountered that near the very tail end). What I eventually became conscious of was that mind kept re-asserting it's curiosity, months after I'd realized - and not just intellectually - that intellect could never reach self-inquiry. I'd actually encountered the philosophical limits of the mind and intellect in intellectual terms years earlier. So, that's the abridged short story of how I came to know the answer at the end of the self-inquiry textbook. Offered simply because I can relate to what you've asked me, and wanted to demonstrate that relation to you. What all of this appears to is a mystery - as in ineffable, indescribable and "vast" beyond comprehension - but I have no curiosity - no existential curiosity - left about it at this point. So no, I can't suggest a reason that it's not conjecture, but, it most definitely isn't. Once you're done with self-inquiry, what all of this is appearing to is anything but a conjecture. "consciousness is primary" is just a way of turning material realism inside out. That "consciousness", is the "consciousness" of the intellects imagination, not what some of the others who have found the answer to self-inquiry use the word "Consciousness" to point to. Some of them (like in that Spira vid, or enigma, for example) will engage on a consciousness-as-primary model, but if you listen to them closely (and hear everything they say, in context), you'll come to what E' called the "little greasy spot".
But (fwiw and not that you asked for it ) I'd actively advise against suppressing that movement of mind, that intellectual curiosity on topics existential. For me, personally, it took consciously witnessing the futility of the intellectual wheels spinning for an extended period for it to finally burn out. You seem to me to know already that you'll never find the answer to self-inquiry in terms of the way that things appear to you, after all.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 24, 2021 14:07:21 GMT -5
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.That's where I would disagree. I can't see anything rewarding in either position. Because all 3 positions (knowing that scenario A is true, knowing that scenario B is true, knowing that you cannot know which scenario is true) are mental positions. And as such, there's no fundamental difference in how you would experience the world no matter what position you choose, because all 3 positions are the SVP perspective. So the reason why it's not worth investing much time and energy into such hypotheticals is not because you cannot know but because it doesn't address the fundamental issue of who needs to know, of who thinks he knows and of who thinks he doesn't know or cannot know. Nevertheless, I would agree that you can't reason your way out of this, so you better give it up. But retreating to a position of intellectual not-knowing, that doesn't make the issue go away. It just sanitizes the problem, it doesn't resolve it. Genuine peace of mind is something different. So, it is more important to form a hypothesis about what to "do", what to intent. For that, you need to form a hypothesis about what / who you are, and why you are. Surely, a working hypothesis is fine. Being sure about those is counterproductive, and amusing.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 24, 2021 14:10:03 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. You, dear sir, are not a machine.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 24, 2021 14:21:53 GMT -5
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. In the existential truth there is most definitely an absence of any metaphysical position. But this can be very much more than skin deep ...
|
|