|
Post by zendancer on Sept 23, 2022 13:47:39 GMT -5
In many ways what you posted here is valid because there are two sides to every coin. Are there such things as individual human beings? Yes and no, but on a ND forum the writing is an attempt, via pointers, to deprogram peoples' attachment to the consensus paradigm. The most comprehensive writing with this objective is Chapter 26 of the Ribhu Gita, but most of us are pointing to the same thing in our own way. Are there such things as individual human beings? Yes, in the sense that separateness and boundaries can be imagined, but no from the standpoint of the living truth and what is actual. This is why many of us suggest that people search for actual boundaries. I agree with you about Krishnamurti, and that's why I quit recommending his books to people. I never met anyone who got free as a result of listening to him or reading his stuff. Be careful, however, about jumping to conclusions about someone who you don't personally know. You would need to spend time with someone, watch how they interact with people, listen to what they say in everyday situations, consider how they respond to probing questions, etc. to adequately discern what they've realized and whether or not they "walk the talk." What do you mean by "imagined"? Is the boundary separating me and the chair I am sitting on not actual? Is the chair an imagined object? What about me? Am I an imagined human being? Yes, the boundary separating you from the chair you're sitting on is totally imaginary, and who you think you are is also imaginary. Don't take my word for this (which is unlikely anyway); simply investigate what are commonly assumed to be the boundaries defining those "things." Begin by looking for the boundary that separates "your" hand from "your" wrist. Where is it, exactly? You won't find it because it only exists in the mind. Then, investigate the boundary of what you think is "your" body. Where is the boundary when you open your mouth between upper and lower lips? Or, drink a glass of water and investigate when the water becomes "you." How about the air "you" breathe? Does it become "you" after it enters the body and ceases to be "you" on an exhalation? Take some time to contemplate any set of boundaries, and see what you find. Report back if you ever find a single actual boundary, and we'll discuss.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 23, 2022 14:52:38 GMT -5
What do you mean by "imagined"? Is the boundary separating me and the chair I am sitting on not actual? Is the chair an imagined object? What about me? Am I an imagined human being? Yes, the boundary separating you from the chair you're sitting on is totally imaginary, and who you think you are is also imaginary. Don't take my word for this (which is unlikely anyway); simply investigate what are commonly assumed to be the boundaries defining those "things." Begin by looking for the boundary that separates "your" hand from "your" wrist. Where is it, exactly? You won't find it because it only exists in the mind. Then, investigate the boundary of what you think is "your" body. Where is the boundary when you open your mouth between upper and lower lips? Or, drink a glass of water and investigate when the water becomes "you." How about the air "you" breathe? Does it become "you" after it enters the body and ceases to be "you" on an exhalation? Take some time to contemplate any set of boundaries, and see what you find. Report back if you ever find a single actual boundary, and we'll discuss. For sree: Master Tung‑kuo asked Chuang Tzu, "This thing called the Way ‑ where does it exist?" Chuang Tzu said, "There's no place it doesn't exist." "Come," said Master Tung‑kuo, "you must be more specific!" "It is in the ant." "As low a thing as that?" "It is in the panic grass." "But that's lower still!" "It is in the tiles and shards." "How can it be so low?" "It is in the piss and shit!"Master Tung‑kuo made no reply. Chuang Tzu said, "Sir, your questions simply don't get at the substance of the matter. You must not expect to find the Way in any particular place ‑ there is no thing that escapes its presence! Such is the Perfect Way, and so too are the truly great words. 'Complete', 'universal', 'all‑inclusive' ‑ these three are different words with the same meaning. All point to a single reality."Why don't you try wandering with me to the Palace of Not‑Even‑Anything? Identity and concord will be the basis of our discussions and they will never come to an end, never reach exhaustion. Why not join with me in inaction, in tranquil quietude, in hushed purity, in harmony and leisure? "Already my will is vacant and blank. I go nowhere and don't know how far I've gone. I go and come and don't know where to stop. I've already been there and back, and I don't know when the journey is done. I ramble and relax in unbounded vastness. Great Knowledge enters in, and I don't know where it will ever end."
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 23, 2022 15:51:55 GMT -5
I really wish I can get you guys to answer my questions directly. You were an electrician and you know which wire is hot. Is it possible to speak in simple terms about nonduality? I don't think I replied to this. I'm not the one to reply. I picked my name over 20 years ago. I wanted an ~identifier~. pilgrim was pretty easy. I have encountered pilgrim probably over 20 times over the years. The first time was of course, the first Thanksgiving. One thing I recall from first grade, our teacher gave all the members of the class a single turkey feather just before going home for Thanksgiving holiday. A real turkey feather from a real turkey. The first thanksgiving, the Pilgrims and the Indians. Second time was about 5th grade. Our teacher read to us Pilgrim's Progress. This was before the Bible and prayer got kicked out of school. I didn't get a lot out of it, I just remember thinking, I have to read this again when I get a little older, this is significant. I won't go into all the other pilgrims. One was Billy Pilgrim from Slaughterhouse Five, and his time traveling. I am basically a pilgrim, or I like Gopal's: pilgrims. But pilgrim wasn't enough. I didn't want to be pilgrim369. So I needed another word for a unique combination. I began looking around at books. And it popped out at me, a book named Stardust. I knew that was it immediately, stardustpilgrim. I knew all the implications of stardust. I could take a complete single typed page explaining all the implications of stardust alone. But, basically, secondarily, every atom of your body was forged either in a star or by the explosion of a star. So you are literally stardust. Everything that exists is literally stardust. But that still doesn't speak directly to what ZD is saying, stardust is still a metaphor. Everything began out-of Oneness. Oneness is the Origin. Nondual does not exactly mean One, oneness. Nondual means not-two. We live in a world of duality, twoness, minimum twoness. You know something about Indian philosophy. This world is in some sense imaginary, it's called Maya, illusory. Imaginary in the sense of not-real, but not imaginary in the sense of not... ZD is pointing to living in a not-imaginary world, pointing to living in the nondual. That's what he means by no boundary. I've kind of plowed the field... Try to live in the present moment. Just a tiny fraction of a second. That's beginning to touch nonduality. Try to live in the ~space~ before the ordinary mind can jump in and take over. The real sree lives in the present moment, now. From ~my~ people, these words are used: Try to get in front of yourself. Picture your mind like a wheels and gears and pulleys mechanism. When you look out at the world, or another person, this activates the gears and pulleys of the mind, and out spurts words. Try to enter the ~space~ of the present moment, before the activation of the ordinary mind, the abstracting, conceptualizing mind. ~My people~ have a name for this ~space~, self-remembering. For me, that is what nondual means. The ordinary mind is a kind of copy machine. You see a tree, it takes less than a second for the mind to copy-what-is-seen, and say the word tree. But attention and or awareness are quicker than the conceptualizing mind, vastly quicker. Now, words are somewhat necessary to communicate, especially here on an internet forum. But just explore the present moment. The boatman lives through the wheels and gears and pulleys mechanism, that's what-it-is. Living in the present moment is the empty boat. Nondual means, don't make a copy (which is imaginary). That's about as direct as I can be.
|
|
|
Post by sree on Sept 23, 2022 16:28:20 GMT -5
What do you mean by "imagined"? Is the boundary separating me and the chair I am sitting on not actual? Is the chair an imagined object? What about me? Am I an imagined human being? Yes, the boundary separating you from the chair you're sitting on is totally imaginary, and who you think you are is also imaginary. Don't take my word for this (which is unlikely anyway); simply investigate what are commonly assumed to be the boundaries defining those "things." Begin by looking for the boundary that separates "your" hand from "your" wrist. Where is it, exactly? You won't find it because it only exists in the mind. Then, investigate the boundary of what you think is "your" body. Where is the boundary when you open your mouth between upper and lower lips? Or, drink a glass of water and investigate when the water becomes "you." How about the air "you" breathe? Does it become "you" after it enters the body and ceases to be "you" on an exhalation? Take some time to contemplate any set of boundaries, and see what you find. Report back if you ever find a single actual boundary, and we'll discuss. I am reporting back now. There are no boundaries. I have no issue with your assertion. It is your lack of explanation that is problematic. Also, your usage of words is not helpful. The word "imagine" has a specific meaning and your use of it is confusing. Krishnamurti was incapable of explaining. I gave him a break because he was a flunkie at school. You are a scientist for crying out loud. Why can't you explain the nature of perception that creates the illusion of separation? I am not dismissing your assertion because it is correct and consistent with my realization of the truth about our mistaken view of reality.
Are you willing to discuss now? I am talking about the nature of perception, not when the mind is silent and empty of thought. I am talking about the nature of perception created by thought in cognitive mode. The action of thought in "imagine" mode is something else. I can imagine I am Superman. This is not the mode of thought in recognizing my wrist which is a real thing that can be slit to commit suicide.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2022 16:44:34 GMT -5
I really wish I can get you guys to answer my questions directly. You were an electrician and you know which wire is hot. Is it possible to speak in simple terms about nonduality? I don't think I replied to this. I'm not the one to reply. I picked my name over 20 years ago. I wanted an ~identifier~. pilgrim was pretty easy. I have encountered pilgrim probably over 20 times over the years. The first time was of course, the first Thanksgiving. One thing I recall from first grade, our teacher gave all the members of the class a single turkey feather just before going home for Thanksgiving holiday. A real turkey feather from a real turkey. The first thanksgiving, the Pilgrims and the Indians. Second time was about 5th grade. Our teacher read to us Pilgrim's Progress. This was before the Bible and prayer got kicked out of school. I didn't get a lot out of it, I just remember thinking, I have to read this again when I get a little older, this is significant. I won't go into all the other pilgrims. One was Billy Pilgrim from Slaughterhouse Five, and his time traveling. I am basically a pilgrim, or I like Gopal's: pilgrims. But pilgrim wasn't enough. I didn't want to be pilgrim369. So I needed another word for a unique combination. I began looking around at books. And it popped out at me, a book named Stardust. I knew that was it immediately, stardustpilgrim. I knew all the implications of stardust. I could take a complete single typed page explaining all the implications of stardust alone. But, basically, secondarily, every atom of your body was forged either in a star or by the explosion of a star. So you are literally stardust. Everything that exists is literally stardust. But that still doesn't speak directly to what ZD is saying, stardust is still a metaphor. Everything began out-of Oneness. Oneness is the Origin. Nondual does not exactly mean One, oneness. Nondual means not-two. We live in a world of duality, twoness, minimum twoness. You know something about Indian philosophy. This world is in some sense imaginary, it's called Maya, illusory. Imaginary in the sense of not-real, but not imaginary in the sense of not... ZD is pointing to living in a not-imaginary world, pointing to living in the nondual. That's what he means by no boundary. I've kind of plowed the field... Try to live in the present moment. Just a tiny fraction of a second. That's beginning to touch nonduality. Try to live in the ~space~ before the ordinary mind can jump in and take over. The real sree lives in the present moment, now. From ~my~ people, these words are used: Try to get in front of yourself. Picture your mind like a wheels and gears and pulleys mechanism. When you look out at the world, or another person, this activates the gears and pulleys of the mind, and out spurts words. Try to enter the ~space~ of the present moment, before the activation of the ordinary mind, the abstracting, conceptualizing mind. ~My people~ have a name for this ~space~, self-remembering. For me, that is what nondual means. The ordinary mind is a kind of copy machine. You see a tree, it takes less than a second for the mind to copy-what-is-seen, and say the word tree. But attention and or awareness are quicker than the conceptualizing mind, vastly quicker.
Now, words are somewhat necessary to communicate, especially here on an internet forum. But just explore the present moment. The boatman lives through the wheels and gears and pulleys mechanism, that's what-it-is. Living in the present moment is the empty boat. Nondual means, don't make a copy (which is imaginary). That's about as direct as I can be. I wouldn't agree that they are quicker. Quicker implies that they are in motion and they are not, they're present, which means that they are always in Reality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2022 16:46:50 GMT -5
How can you be certain that going deeply into the stillness of your own being isn't necessary? You impress me, abscissa. I thought this post had sailed over the lot of you folks here. I am not sure if you had gotten the message even though I had spelled it out directly in plain English.
Life is a mystery. I don't think I can ever figure it out. But bs spirituality and science can be taken apart and seen for what they are.
Reason is the only tool at our disposal to cut through the illusion of fuzzy perception. And you can do it bit by bit as you would diligently untangle a tangled up string of knots. So your Dad was right then?
|
|
|
Post by sree on Sept 23, 2022 16:57:34 GMT -5
I really wish I can get you guys to answer my questions directly. You were an electrician and you know which wire is hot. Is it possible to speak in simple terms about nonduality? I don't think I replied to this. I'm not the one to reply. I picked my name over 20 years ago. I wanted an ~identifier~. pilgrim was pretty easy. I have encountered pilgrim probably over 20 times over the years. The first time was of course, the first Thanksgiving. One thing I recall from first grade, our teacher gave all the members of the class a single turkey feather just before going home for Thanksgiving holiday. A real turkey feather from a real turkey. The first thanksgiving, the Pilgrims and the Indians. Second time was about 5th grade. Our teacher read to us Pilgrim's Progress. This was before the Bible and prayer got kicked out of school. I didn't get a lot out of it, I just remember thinking, I have to read this again when I get a little older, this is significant. I won't go into all the other pilgrims. One was Billy Pilgrim from Slaughterhouse Five, and his time traveling. I am basically a pilgrim, or I like Gopal's: pilgrims. But pilgrim wasn't enough. I didn't want to be pilgrim369. So I needed another word for a unique combination. I began looking around at books. And it popped out at me, a book named Stardust. I knew that was it immediately, stardustpilgrim. I knew all the implications of stardust. I could take a complete single typed page explaining all the implications of stardust alone. But, basically, secondarily, every atom of your body was forged either in a star or by the explosion of a star. So you are literally stardust. Everything that exists is literally stardust. But that still doesn't speak directly to what ZD is saying, stardust is still a metaphor. Everything began out-of Oneness. Oneness is the Origin. Nondual does not exactly mean One, oneness. Nondual means not-two. We live in a world of duality, twoness, minimum twoness. You know something about Indian philosophy. This world is in some sense imaginary, it's called Maya, illusory. Imaginary in the sense of not-real, but not imaginary in the sense of not... ZD is pointing to living in a not-imaginary world, pointing to living in the nondual. That's what he means by no boundary. I've kind of plowed the field... Try to live in the present moment. Just a tiny fraction of a second. That's beginning to touch nonduality. Try to live in the ~space~ before the ordinary mind can jump in and take over. The real sree lives in the present moment, now. From ~my~ people, these words are used: Try to get in front of yourself. Picture your mind like a wheels and gears and pulleys mechanism. When you look out at the world, or another person, this activates the gears and pulleys of the mind, and out spurts words. Try to enter the ~space~ of the present moment, before the activation of the ordinary mind, the abstracting, conceptualizing mind. ~My people~ have a name for this ~space~, self-remembering. For me, that is what nondual means. The ordinary mind is a kind of copy machine. You see a tree, it takes less than a second for the mind to copy-what-is-seen, and say the word tree. But attention and or awareness are quicker than the conceptualizing mind, vastly quicker. Now, words are somewhat necessary to communicate, especially here on an internet forum. But just explore the present moment. The boatman lives through the wheels and gears and pulleys mechanism, that's what-it-is. Living in the present moment is the empty boat. Nondual means, don't make a copy (which is imaginary). That's about as direct as I can be. Thank you for a thoughtful post. I can relate with everything you explained. It's a pity that there is a "boundary" between us. We are both pointing to the same thing but not perceiving it in the same way.
We both are asserting the same thing: reality is nondual and all separation is illusory. Can you live that way in daily life? I can. What about you?
Assertion is one thing. Action that is consistent with assertion is quite another. I don't have personal relationships because I can't. To get personal is to live in a state of duality which defines relationship between two people. Two begets three or more when you have children. Yes and no (zendancer) doesn't cut it for a life lived with integrity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2022 17:04:13 GMT -5
I don't think I replied to this. I'm not the one to reply. I picked my name over 20 years ago. I wanted an ~identifier~. pilgrim was pretty easy. I have encountered pilgrim probably over 20 times over the years. The first time was of course, the first Thanksgiving. One thing I recall from first grade, our teacher gave all the members of the class a single turkey feather just before going home for Thanksgiving holiday. A real turkey feather from a real turkey. The first thanksgiving, the Pilgrims and the Indians. Second time was about 5th grade. Our teacher read to us Pilgrim's Progress. This was before the Bible and prayer got kicked out of school. I didn't get a lot out of it, I just remember thinking, I have to read this again when I get a little older, this is significant. I won't go into all the other pilgrims. One was Billy Pilgrim from Slaughterhouse Five, and his time traveling. I am basically a pilgrim, or I like Gopal's: pilgrims. But pilgrim wasn't enough. I didn't want to be pilgrim369. So I needed another word for a unique combination. I began looking around at books. And it popped out at me, a book named Stardust. I knew that was it immediately, stardustpilgrim. I knew all the implications of stardust. I could take a complete single typed page explaining all the implications of stardust alone. But, basically, secondarily, every atom of your body was forged either in a star or by the explosion of a star. So you are literally stardust. Everything that exists is literally stardust. But that still doesn't speak directly to what ZD is saying, stardust is still a metaphor. Everything began out-of Oneness. Oneness is the Origin. Nondual does not exactly mean One, oneness. Nondual means not-two. We live in a world of duality, twoness, minimum twoness. You know something about Indian philosophy. This world is in some sense imaginary, it's called Maya, illusory. Imaginary in the sense of not-real, but not imaginary in the sense of not... ZD is pointing to living in a not-imaginary world, pointing to living in the nondual. That's what he means by no boundary. I've kind of plowed the field... Try to live in the present moment. Just a tiny fraction of a second. That's beginning to touch nonduality. Try to live in the ~space~ before the ordinary mind can jump in and take over. The real sree lives in the present moment, now. From ~my~ people, these words are used: Try to get in front of yourself. Picture your mind like a wheels and gears and pulleys mechanism. When you look out at the world, or another person, this activates the gears and pulleys of the mind, and out spurts words. Try to enter the ~space~ of the present moment, before the activation of the ordinary mind, the abstracting, conceptualizing mind. ~My people~ have a name for this ~space~, self-remembering. For me, that is what nondual means. The ordinary mind is a kind of copy machine. You see a tree, it takes less than a second for the mind to copy-what-is-seen, and say the word tree. But attention and or awareness are quicker than the conceptualizing mind, vastly quicker. Now, words are somewhat necessary to communicate, especially here on an internet forum. But just explore the present moment. The boatman lives through the wheels and gears and pulleys mechanism, that's what-it-is. Living in the present moment is the empty boat. Nondual means, don't make a copy (which is imaginary). That's about as direct as I can be. Thank you for a thoughtful post. I can relate with everything you explained. It's a pity that there is a "boundary" between us. We are both pointing to the same thing but not perceiving it in the same way.
We both are asserting the same thing: reality is nondual and all separation is illusory. Can you live that way in daily life? I can. What about you?
Assertion is one thing. Action that is consistent with assertion is quite another. I don't have personal relationships because I can't. To get personal is to live in a state of duality which defines relationship between two people. Two begets three or more when you have children. Yes and no (zendancer) doesn't cut it for a life lived with integrity.
"We shall not cease from exploration And the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started And know the place for the first time." T.S. Eliot ~ 1942.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2022 17:10:33 GMT -5
I don't think I replied to this. I'm not the one to reply. I picked my name over 20 years ago. I wanted an ~identifier~. pilgrim was pretty easy. I have encountered pilgrim probably over 20 times over the years. The first time was of course, the first Thanksgiving. One thing I recall from first grade, our teacher gave all the members of the class a single turkey feather just before going home for Thanksgiving holiday. A real turkey feather from a real turkey. The first thanksgiving, the Pilgrims and the Indians. Second time was about 5th grade. Our teacher read to us Pilgrim's Progress. This was before the Bible and prayer got kicked out of school. I didn't get a lot out of it, I just remember thinking, I have to read this again when I get a little older, this is significant. I won't go into all the other pilgrims. One was Billy Pilgrim from Slaughterhouse Five, and his time traveling. I am basically a pilgrim, or I like Gopal's: pilgrims. But pilgrim wasn't enough. I didn't want to be pilgrim369. So I needed another word for a unique combination. I began looking around at books. And it popped out at me, a book named Stardust. I knew that was it immediately, stardustpilgrim. I knew all the implications of stardust. I could take a complete single typed page explaining all the implications of stardust alone. But, basically, secondarily, every atom of your body was forged either in a star or by the explosion of a star. So you are literally stardust. Everything that exists is literally stardust. But that still doesn't speak directly to what ZD is saying, stardust is still a metaphor. Everything began out-of Oneness. Oneness is the Origin. Nondual does not exactly mean One, oneness. Nondual means not-two. We live in a world of duality, twoness, minimum twoness. You know something about Indian philosophy. This world is in some sense imaginary, it's called Maya, illusory. Imaginary in the sense of not-real, but not imaginary in the sense of not... ZD is pointing to living in a not-imaginary world, pointing to living in the nondual. That's what he means by no boundary. I've kind of plowed the field... Try to live in the present moment. Just a tiny fraction of a second. That's beginning to touch nonduality. Try to live in the ~space~ before the ordinary mind can jump in and take over. The real sree lives in the present moment, now. From ~my~ people, these words are used: Try to get in front of yourself. Picture your mind like a wheels and gears and pulleys mechanism. When you look out at the world, or another person, this activates the gears and pulleys of the mind, and out spurts words. Try to enter the ~space~ of the present moment, before the activation of the ordinary mind, the abstracting, conceptualizing mind. ~My people~ have a name for this ~space~, self-remembering. For me, that is what nondual means. The ordinary mind is a kind of copy machine. You see a tree, it takes less than a second for the mind to copy-what-is-seen, and say the word tree. But attention and or awareness are quicker than the conceptualizing mind, vastly quicker. Now, words are somewhat necessary to communicate, especially here on an internet forum. But just explore the present moment. The boatman lives through the wheels and gears and pulleys mechanism, that's what-it-is. Living in the present moment is the empty boat. Nondual means, don't make a copy (which is imaginary). That's about as direct as I can be. Thank you for a thoughtful post. I can relate with everything you explained. It's a pity that there is a "boundary" between us. We are both pointing to the same thing but not perceiving it in the same way.
We both are asserting the same thing: reality is nondual and all separation is illusory. Can you live that way in daily life? I can. What about you?
Assertion is one thing. Action that is consistent with assertion is quite another. I don't have personal relationships because I can't. To get personal is to live in a state of duality which defines relationship between two people. Two begets three or more when you have children. Yes and no (zendancer) doesn't cut it for a life lived with integrity.
Can you remember ever being shown how to let the needs of another be more important than your own?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 23, 2022 17:20:38 GMT -5
Yes, the boundary separating you from the chair you're sitting on is totally imaginary, and who you think you are is also imaginary. Don't take my word for this (which is unlikely anyway); simply investigate what are commonly assumed to be the boundaries defining those "things." Begin by looking for the boundary that separates "your" hand from "your" wrist. Where is it, exactly? You won't find it because it only exists in the mind. Then, investigate the boundary of what you think is "your" body. Where is the boundary when you open your mouth between upper and lower lips? Or, drink a glass of water and investigate when the water becomes "you." How about the air "you" breathe? Does it become "you" after it enters the body and ceases to be "you" on an exhalation? Take some time to contemplate any set of boundaries, and see what you find. Report back if you ever find a single actual boundary, and we'll discuss. I am reporting back now. There are no boundaries. I have no issue with your assertion. It is your lack of explanation that is problematic. Also, your usage of words is not helpful. The word "imagine" has a specific meaning and your use of it is confusing. Krishnamurti was incapable of explaining. I gave him a break because he was a flunkie at school. You are a scientist for crying out loud. Why can't you explain the nature of perception that creates the illusion of separation? I am not dismissing your assertion because it is correct and consistent with my realization of the truth about our mistaken view of reality.
Are you willing to discuss now? I am talking about the nature of perception, not when the mind is silent and empty of thought. I am talking about the nature of perception created by thought in cognitive mode. The action of thought in "imagine" mode is something else. I can imagine I am Superman. This is not the mode of thought in recognizing my wrist which is a real thing that can be slit to commit suicide.
Sure. I wrote an entire book about this but never got it published and forgot that I had written it until a friend gave me a copy that I had given him many years ago. Gestalt psychology pretty well explains what happens, and everything that happens is based upon the idea of making distinctions. There's even a book titled "Laws of Form" by G. Spencer Brown that deals with the laws that precede arithmetic and spell out the process of making and manipulating distinctions in graphic terms. You probably know this already, but if we make a single distinction, say a line in the sand, we abstractly divide reality into two separate but artificial states. Every distinction is like this. If we cognize any particular thing, perhaps a chair, we psychologically divide the infinite field of reality into two abstract states--a chair and everything that is not a chair. I tend to use the word "imagine" but perhaps "cognize" is more appropriate. The human intellect is an evolutionary development that allows humans to grasp/capture/project/cognize/imagine mental images of what they see. That same ability allows the grasping/cognizing of ideas, qualities, relationships, etc. As the intellect develops, the ability to abstract more and more complex relationships continues, and symbols can be cognized that are used to represent the "concrete" images and "fluid" relationships. When that happens, we are cognizing a symbol that can represent a cognized image or idea. Eventually, via language and math, the symbolic representations (that are like a virtual reality) in the form of words, numbers, and letters are manipulated mentally, and adults live in a meta-reality created by all of those distinctions/abstractions. With algebra we have letters that represent numbers that represent images that represent what the images attempt to capture-- aspects of the infinite field of being that is seen, and directional/manipulative symbols (+, -,=, >,^,~,etc) point to how all of those abstract representations can be mentally manipulated. The average adult might as well be wearing a set of VR goggles because s/he has no awareness of the difference between what is actual and what has been cognized. The real world, the world of the actual, is non-dual, but adults do not know this because no one has ever told them about it, and they don't know how to take off the VR goggles that they're wearing. Nisargadatta once told a seeker, "You didn't get into this mess overnight." What did he mean? He meant that the process of cultural conditioning was so gradual and so unconscious that the average adult has no idea what happened on the way from childhood to adulthood until they're stuck in the "mess" of thinking that they're separate from the rest of the universe. He was also implying that it's not easy to reverse the process, but that's what meditative activities like ATA-T eventually do. Ironically, it doesn't much matter what kind of meditative activity one pursues, the key seems to be shifting attention away from thoughts, again and again, until one can look at the world and see without naming what's seen and without thinking about what's seen. As the mind becomes increasingly silent, realizations begin to occur, and those realizations inform the mind that various ideas about reality are false. In fact, the path to sagehood is a path of subtraction during which one becomes increasingly detached from thoughts. Eventually, via grace, a human realizes that who s/he thought s/he was is NOT what s/he is. I say that this happens by "grace" because whether this happens or not has nothing to do with who one thinks s/he is. The cosmic joke is that no Tom, Dick, or Harry will ever get enlightened because those seemingly separate volitional entities are a product of cognition rather than anything actual. IOW, the "me" is imaginary, and whether this is ever realized depends upon how THIS--the infinite field of all being--unfolds. Some people get free of their unique meta-reality in one big blast, but that's pretty rare. Usually, freedom and understanding occur gradually and involve sequential realizations that culminate in the realization that there is only THIS. After THIS is discovered, it no longer matters whether there is thinking or silence because it's then understood that whatever is happening is an unfolding of THIS. Zen people refer to life after SR as "non-abidance in mind" because the mind is no longer dominant in the same way as in the past. That's a short version of what's going on, but if you're mathematically inclined, you might be interested in reading "Laws of Form" or some books about gestalt psychology that would throw more light on the subject.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2022 17:29:10 GMT -5
Yes, the boundary separating you from the chair you're sitting on is totally imaginary, and who you think you are is also imaginary. Don't take my word for this (which is unlikely anyway); simply investigate what are commonly assumed to be the boundaries defining those "things." Begin by looking for the boundary that separates "your" hand from "your" wrist. Where is it, exactly? You won't find it because it only exists in the mind. Then, investigate the boundary of what you think is "your" body. Where is the boundary when you open your mouth between upper and lower lips? Or, drink a glass of water and investigate when the water becomes "you." How about the air "you" breathe? Does it become "you" after it enters the body and ceases to be "you" on an exhalation? Take some time to contemplate any set of boundaries, and see what you find. Report back if you ever find a single actual boundary, and we'll discuss. I am reporting back now. There are no boundaries. I have no issue with your assertion. It is your lack of explanation that is problematic. Also, your usage of words is not helpful. The word "imagine" has a specific meaning and your use of it is confusing. Krishnamurti was incapable of explaining. I gave him a break because he was a flunkie at school. You are a scientist for crying out loud. Why can't you explain the nature of perception that creates the illusion of separation? I am not dismissing your assertion because it is correct and consistent with my realization of the truth about our mistaken view of reality.
Are you willing to discuss now? I am talking about the nature of perception, not when the mind is silent and empty of thought. I am talking about the nature of perception created by thought in cognitive mode. The action of thought in "imagine" mode is something else. I can imagine I am Superman. This is not the mode of thought in recognizing my wrist which is a real thing that can be slit to commit suicide.
Believing that there is anything happening outside of yourself while simultaneously accepting that all of your senses are inside of you is a primary opportunity for observation and investigation.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 23, 2022 18:02:38 GMT -5
Thank you for a thoughtful post. I can relate with everything you explained. It's a pity that there is a "boundary" between us. We are both pointing to the same thing but not perceiving it in the same way.
We both are asserting the same thing: reality is nondual and all separation is illusory. Can you live that way in daily life? I can. What about you?
Assertion is one thing. Action that is consistent with assertion is quite another. I don't have personal relationships because I can't. To get personal is to live in a state of duality which defines relationship between two people. Two begets three or more when you have children. Yes and no (zendancer) doesn't cut it for a life lived with integrity.
Can you remember ever being shown how to let the needs of another be more important than your own? I saw an absolutely gut wrenching movie this afternoon. It was called Going Home, 1971. I missed the first part. Robert Mitchum played a guy who killed his wife and spent 13 years in prison, and was then paroled. He has 17 more years on parole until he is completely free. He has skills as a mechanic. He gets a girlfriend, Brenda Viccaro. He finds his son who saw him kill his Mother as a kid, Jan Michael-Vincent, now 19. He tries to make a new life with son and girlfriend, but son has ulterior motives, he wants to know why his Mother was killed, and there is a hidden undercurrent of revenge. Mitchum wants to get married, but he has to have permission of the parole board, not very likely. Mitchum and Viccaro look at buying a home to have son move in, to be one happy family. On a kind of country shopping spree to buy house plants, Viccaro finds the son upstairs looking at the chickens and roosters. Son gets his hand pecked sticking it through the chicken-wire. We see he makes a decision to rape Viccaro. She can't believe what is about to happen, but he very violently rapes her. She goes back home, a mobile home. Mitchum comes in all happy, he has the envelop with permission to marry Viccaro. He is in his own little happy world, she is still visibly shaken, cannot share in his happiness. She has to go into the bathroom to hide her state of mind. Mitchum doesn't know what's wrong, he tries all manner of words to bring Viccaro out of the bathroom and recognize that yes, they are going to get married. She pulls it all together, comes out, begins planning the night of celebration, sends him out to buy food for a party with friends. She gives no hint of a problem. Mitchum wonders where son is. Mitchum comes back with beer and grocery bags. A friend tells him he has a phone call, collect, in the nearby phone booth. It's his son, he has gone back to their old home, which has become a whore house. The son tries to say he's sorry, but they get disconnected. Mitchum doesn't know what has happened. Mitchum goes to get son. We see son living in the very active whore house, in remorse, deeply. Mitchum shows up, says let's go home. Son says, I raped Viccaro, he has to tell Father because he also has to tell him he's deeply sorry. Mitchum is instantly in a rage, chases son, who runs for his life. He catches him, has his hands around his throat. He could have easily killed him, but I knew he wouldn't, he had 13 years in prison to consider the murder of the wife-Mother. He lets him go, goes back to his truck. He would have left but somebody parked behind him. Son comes back, they are forced into a conversation. Son shows his skills, and hot wires the car, and moves, it. Mitchum is leaving. Son asks, what are you going to tell Viccaro? Mitchum says, I'm going to tell her I missed you by ten minutes. Son asks: Why did you kill Mother? Mitchum just says, I was drunk, I killed her. And Mitchum again moves to leave. They each understand they are done with each other, each understand why. Son understands Father understands, you raped her, it happened (just like, I was drunk, I killed her). But the son shouts, what happens next? Mitchum tells him, next you turn 20. Movie ends there, Mitchum driving home. But the son understands, Mitchum chose not to kill him, but maybe it was not exactly forgiveness. Mitchum had pondered for 13 years in prison the killing of his wife. He had told Viccaro he kept the complete transcript of the trial under his bed in prison, over 1,000 pages. He told her she did not have to be afraid of him. He finally understood, he was just drunk, he just killed her. But that was a huge lesson. I would like to end there. But we know, surmise, that Viccaro will never tell Mitchum that son raped her, and Mitchum will never tell Viccaro that he knows his son raped her. To really love, you have to be vulnerable, and you have to love the other more than you love yourself. sree, you are avoiding the very purpose of life. Sometimes, life is just s**t, life just hurts. But you will have another birthday.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 23, 2022 18:32:24 GMT -5
That's a wonderful reply to sree ZD.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 23, 2022 19:54:31 GMT -5
I haven't quite grasped the meaning of allignment, but I suspect I might be talking the function (how) whereas Reefs is talking the form (what).
Alignment is all about the vibe, man. ... when there is resonance instead of dissonance there is an absence of reactivity. By my understanding of reefs alignment, the "form" in question here is dynamic, best understood in a "Zen sense" as a verb rather than a noun, and certainly not conceived in terms of an object, nor a subject. The question of method, I'll leave to you and him, as I'm an interloper here. What you write about meditation is always worth reading, as is what he writes about alignment. I guess it's a matter of cause. What causes dissonance? I'd posit dissonance is caused by reactivity or what is called 'craving' in Buddhism. They have been discussing 'what craving is' for thousands of years, and many pose as if they have the true answer, but it doesn't work like that. It works when you define 'craving' as the cause of suffering, and especially during meditation, you notice 'this is suffering', and ideally, the way in which you are generating it.
Along the way you start to notice, it's caused because I react to everything. A bit of discomfort and the mind goes wild, while at the same time I'm craving 'something else'. The aversion will resist and avoid whilst the desire will chase an cling (I'm assuming that is antithetical to resonance, alighnment aka flow). I can't see how SR as reefs defines it could occur in that condition of mind, which is the essence of our disagreement, because the reactive tendency I describe is the same thing the ego needs to both perpetuate itself and keep you distracted.
That's where meditation becomes a specific thing and not 'anything' as ZD seems to think. Not that I admonish mantras and all that rubbish - I agree it's all beneficial - just that to meditate you have have to stop doing the things. Then you will notice that you do a great many things unintentionally and are utterly compelled by craving into volition - as ego is doing everything in its power to keep you from noticing itself because it can't retain the status of Me if you become aware of it.
Meditation then is reverse engineering that. If meditation isn't understood in that way, then it's fair to say it can't bring about SR, but if you apply analysis to what I just said, you can join the dots rationally and understand at an intellectual level how my method exposes the ego. That's an event that occurs, and I think it's a significant marker, but the work isn't done.
This last bit in this last paragraph is not something that you get by continuing the work as far as I know. The one I already mentioned is like 'hey, that's not me', but there is another one which is more like "I am that". The latter is a more obscure and might happen anytime, but it's always behind you, so you can't look for it, but, you notice it spontaneously and suddenly much like Tolle describes his void inTPoN. I'm not sure if there is anything one can do or not-do to bring about noticing it, but the SR reefs defines as seeing that self which is false does occur via the method I describe...
I just have to say, I'm only addressing the self related aspects here and not trying to make an impression that meditation is for the purpose. There is much more involved with the purification and equanimity and all that stuff... but I'd nutshell it by saying equanimity is the middle way.
|
|
|
Post by sree on Sept 23, 2022 21:13:47 GMT -5
You impress me, abscissa. I thought this post had sailed over the lot of you folks here. I am not sure if you had gotten the message even though I had spelled it out directly in plain English.
Life is a mystery. I don't think I can ever figure it out. But bs spirituality and science can be taken apart and seen for what they are.
Reason is the only tool at our disposal to cut through the illusion of fuzzy perception. And you can do it bit by bit as you would diligently untangle a tangled up string of knots. So your Dad was right then? No, he wasn't right, morally-speaking. If he didn't know what life was all about, he had no business bringing me into this world. It was careless, irresponsible, and cruel. He was a successful guy and he felt he had me and my mom covered and we would be financially secure for the rest of our lives.
Security, and I mean absolute security of the kind Krishnamurti was talking about, is vital for living in this world. My father was no better than a dumb buffalo that brought this calf into this world.
|
|