|
Post by sree on Sept 24, 2022 19:45:24 GMT -5
What does Bohm say the solution is? Bohm was a dud as far as Krishnamurti was concerned. Bohm could not get it, nobody could, said Krishnamurti.
All those Bohm utterances that abscissa posted are the assertions of the nonduality crowd. They are no better than prayers and chants of traditional religion.
Krishnamurti was not helpful and reinforced the conditioning of science when he said that thought came from the brain cells. This is not true. Consciousness has nothing to do with the human brain.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 24, 2022 19:51:49 GMT -5
What does Bohm say the solution is? Bohm was a dud as far as Krishnamurti was concerned. Bohm could not get it, nobody could, said Krishnamurti. All those Bohm utterances that abscissa posted are the assertions of the nonduality crowd. They are no better than prayers and chants of traditional religion.
Krishnamurti was not helpful and reinforced the conditioning of science when he said that thought came from the brain cells. This is not true. Consciousness has nothing to do with the human brain.
Respond to this post without using your brain.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 24, 2022 19:56:50 GMT -5
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.
Sudden realization of what is observing can lead to a permanent dissolution of entire tangled masses of reactive-self patterns. The nature of causation becomes quite clear, in that light. The dissolution isn't necessarily as sudden as the realization, but it's essentially a foregone conclusion over time.
|
|
|
Post by sree on Sept 24, 2022 21:37:49 GMT -5
Bohm was a dud as far as Krishnamurti was concerned. Bohm could not get it, nobody could, said Krishnamurti. All those Bohm utterances that abscissa posted are the assertions of the nonduality crowd. They are no better than prayers and chants of traditional religion.
Krishnamurti was not helpful and reinforced the conditioning of science when he said that thought came from the brain cells. This is not true. Consciousness has nothing to do with the human brain.
Respond to this post without using your brain. My brain? What the hell is that? You guys talk up a storm about nonduality as though it is actual and real. But when I point to a state beyond conceptualization of reality as depicted by science (neuroscience, to be exact), you jump on me for being irrational.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 24, 2022 23:59:47 GMT -5
It's just that the 3 part ontological model should be imagined as 3 general aspects rather than 3 chronological steps, because during the same time as the teacher speaks or Tolle is read or whatever, all 3 aspects can occur concurrently. At times you hear bits and they don't 'fit in' so those bits remain at step 1. Other bits are heard and you see how they 'join the dots', yet they have no subjective reference and remain at step 2. Other parts are seen like, 'Yup, that happens to me,' and immediately hit step 3. Over time the aspects that remained at step one start to fall into place. You have some insight, and realise, that thing Tolle said fits in with this, so it moves within reason step two, and might soon be seen - where it falls into step 3. There is no set way the ontology plays out, so best imagine it as a single thing what has been broken into general categories for the sake of philosophical explanation. When I was taught this ontological model it came with the following parable: A mother loved her son and made his favorite rice pudding, but the child was wailing, 'It has black stones in it,' and wouldn't eat it. The mother explained, 'It's not stones. They are cardamon seeds that give the pudding a great flavour'. The child didn't understand and kept crying 'black stones black stones'. The mother figured the kid doesn't understand cardamon, so she picked them out and the child ate up the rest. Of course there came a time when the child grew older and understood cardamon, and was glad the little black seeds were included in his pudding. We were told the 'dhamma' is like that. There are bits you don't like and don't understand and don't make sense, so push them to the side and enjoy the rest. Later on you'll see the side bits are good, and then you can accept them too. If not, don't accept it.
Thanks for taking the time to write that. I can imagine it happening for millions of people in the past, it it's really quite remarkable. Now, I'll point out that to me you keep on morphing away from this first base you started on, which seemed to me to imply a process of analyzing intellectual abstractions, or, more generally, simply a way that people learn and refine their knowledge over time. In context, I'd describe your process as one that can lead to a quieter mind, a healthier body. It might lead to a person more present, less reactive, less lost in the weeds of their thinking and emoting processes. It can lead to better relationships and a more stable, centered way of life, and a lifestyle that would enhance one's ability to function, perform and produce. My value system would regard this as a better way to live than if someone were to instead never go through some sort of similar process. What seems to me to happen in the general populace is that common cultural influences lead to states and habits that are the exact opposite of a quiet mind, and rather than equanimity, cultivates impulse and conditioned response. But this issue of self-consistency sheds light on the distinction between a sudden shift in perspective as opposed to a gradual process of change over time. Seems to me your process involves, to some degree, suspension of doubt. A trust in what is yet to be revealed. So, to some degree what's happening here is an internalization of a belief system, and the kind of belief system that becomes self-reinforcing and eventually not even noticed for what it is. It's quite possible to suddenly see any and all systems of value and belief for what they are, just as it's possible to actively question any and every notion one currently would agree with as true. In this seeing it becomes quite clear that self-consistency is only ever provisional, and contextual. Not to mention, being a poor measure of reason. Consistency is the only viable assessment of reason in the step 2 category, and contradiction is it breakdown (it's basically an if-then thing), but since that pertains only to intellectual analysis, the step 3 of see for yourself is necessary for a complete ontology. I think you're preaching to the choir there.
Say you hear someone like Ramana, Nis or Tolle tell you about something, and they same the same sorts of things, so you figure, Meh, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. Then you actually undertake a practice of self-inquiry. They wouldn't start the inquiry unless they first heard (1), and thought it through (2), and based on their intellectual understanding of it, did the inquiry to find out for themselves. Not that there's a necessary chronology per se. Just that categorising it this way provides a complete ontological model. It means you can't just read 'I am That' and presto. You can't debate, discuss and understand and hey-presto. You can do that to form a 'roadmap', buy unless to go have a look... you're kinda like Mary's Room. I have had experiences no one has written down or talked about, so then it goes in reverse. I'm like, Whoa, what's that (3) then rationalise a format (2) in which I say it (1).
I can't seem to illustrate it better than that ^
Yes constant or at least consistent meditation makes life a little bit better, and has a process I just call 'purification'. SR='that's not me' and SR='I am that' are not processes as such. Of course you can see more and more clearly the futility and fallacy of ego-manic tendencies as progressive, but insight is sudden by nature. It's just the former one will be revealed by the means I suggest, The latter one, I don't think so. The main thing is the balance point which is perceived as becoming increasingly refined. I like that it comes with a paradox as well, the more refined and delicate it is, the stronger it is as well.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 25, 2022 0:06:19 GMT -5
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.
Sudden realization of what is observing can lead to a permanent dissolution of entire tangled masses of reactive-self patterns. The nature of causation becomes quite clear, in that light. The dissolution isn't necessarily as sudden as the realization, but it's essentially a foregone conclusion over time.Yes. This is the main point. We tend to find the mind and body can't take it all without flipping out, so it's a little bit involved, more about the purification story... but a forgone conclusion... well said!
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 25, 2022 7:11:48 GMT -5
Alignment might also occur at any time, spontaneously, because it is your default state after all. As you say, all you need to do is 'stop doing that' which keeps you out of alignment and immediately you'll be back into your default state, alignment. The floating cork analogy comes to mind here. Now, here's the difference to SR. SR basically just means seeing things as they are, i.e. seeing what is false as false and what is real as real. So when the false self disappears in deep alignment, then the false self just disappears, but it isn't recognized as false when it reappears. But in SR the false self is recognized as false. Which means the false self reappearing or disappearing forever makes no difference. The mirage metaphor comes to mind here. This is in reply to you last post, replied to here to keep my main point, the fulcrum. My main point wasn't the valley or the marketplace, it was the bold: "Which means the false self reappearing or disappearing forever makes no difference". But I do keep forgetting if CC supersedes SR or if SR supersedes CC.This gets closer to my point, will you grant this, the following? You say, it doesn't matter if the false self doesn't disappear forever. Would you say that if the false self is present, that meaning, one is functioning through the false self, that meaning, one is operating through (the self-circuits)-conditioning, then one is not in flow or not in alignment? But TBC means I wasn't finished... TBC...but that answer will help. In my model, SR = kensho (looking into you true nature, 見性) + satori (seeing thru the SVP, 悟). So it's more like two sides of the same coin than one superseding the other. This has nothing to do with alignment. Alignment refers to the relative realm of appearances. SR refers to the absolute realm of the actual. Just go with what Ramana said, the jnani says "I am the body" and the ajnani also says "I am the body". The difference is that to the jnani "I am the body" is only a description of what he is, but to the ajnani it is the very definition of what he is. The ajnani is limited by it, the jnani is not.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 25, 2022 7:16:45 GMT -5
This is in reply to you last post, replied to here to keep my main point, the fulcrum. My main point wasn't the valley or the marketplace, it was the bold: "Which means the false self reappearing or disappearing forever makes no difference". But I do keep forgetting if CC supersedes SR or if SR supersedes CC. But TBC means I wasn't finished... TBC... Scott Kiloby stated the situation fairly well in the quote I posted some time ago. I can't remember the exact wording, but it was something like, "even if the thought of selfhood arises after realization, it is empty because it's no longer understood as something actual." Right, even if the mirage of an oasis keeps appearing on the horizon, you are not going to head out there to fill your canteen with water.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 25, 2022 7:34:01 GMT -5
Scott Kiloby stated the situation fairly well in the quote I posted some time ago. I can't remember the exact wording, but it was something like, "even if the thought of selfhood arises after realization, it is empty because it's no longer understood as something actual." Thanks. After you started your reply here I edited and added to my post. Your reply speaks somewhat to that, but I don't just mean just a thought of selfhood. If the self-circuits-of-conditioning still exist after SR, and everything you and Reefs have said seem to indicate they still exist, Reefs said it doesn't matter if they completely disappear or not, does the mind-body-person-aspect of the Whole ever function through those self-circuits? (I'm making the distinction Gary Weber makes, self-conditioning and ordinary information conditioning, AKA learning). If you answered the edited post above, no need to reply again, but you may not have seen the edited version. An answer on this, and from Reefs also, would be majorly appreciated, would be most helpful. That's why I differentiate between the individual and the person. The person is 100% fiction. It is acquired some time after birth, via the process of socialization. After all, the SVP only makes sense in a social/societal setting anyway. But the individual actually has a biological, psychological and even spiritual component to it, just think of it in terms of temperament which determines your body shape, metabolism and mental and psychological disposition, and even the types of religion or spiritual practice you will be drawn to. You've got that from birth. And that doesn't change thru-out your life, even post-SR it will remain the same. You are not going to change from let's say a choleric pre-SR to a phlegmatic post SR. The person that you still need to use in social settings may change significantly though, usually only the mere basics remain. So you will remember your name, your marital status, your entire CV etc. But now it is seen for what it is, abstract data points that have been weaved into a more or less coherent story so that you as an individual can be quantified in a society that needs to quantify everything in order to manage it. But you are not that abstraction, that story, even though you could and maybe even do tell a very good and convincing story. This is very similar to human being vs. legal person in law.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 25, 2022 7:47:22 GMT -5
Thanks. After you started your reply here I edited and added to my post. Your reply speaks somewhat to that, but I don't just mean just a thought of selfhood. If the self-circuits-of-conditioning still exist after SR, and everything you and Reefs have said seem to indicate they still exist, Reefs said it doesn't matter if they completely disappear or not, does the mind-body-person-aspect of the Whole ever function through those self-circuits? (I'm making the distinction Gary Weber makes, self-conditioning and ordinary information conditioning, AKA learning). If you answered the edited post above, no need to reply again, but you may not have seen the edited version. An answer on this, and from Reefs also, would be majorly appreciated, would be most helpful. Sages certainly respond to their names when called, and their preferences, tastes, skillsets, general knowledge, and personalities also generally remain the same. All of the usual distinctions that humans make between childhood and adulthood are all internalized in the subconscious, so that's why mental chatter is unnecessary, but this applies to any adult and not just sages. The main differences I can see are (1) a primary focus on what's happening in the present moment (very little, if any, self-referential reflection about the past or fantasization about the future), (2) detachment from judgmental thinking, (3) a sense of flow or oneness with whatever is happening, (4) a sense of emotional freedom, (5) no roller coaster of good and bad experiences (more like a steady state of equanimity), (6) a sense of psychological unity, (7) no second-guessing of oneself, (8) acceptance of reality as it is without thinking it ought to be different than it is, (9) flexibility and looseness (a willingness to go with the flow and change direction if circumstances change), (10 independence (they don't care what other people think because they know what they are in an absolute sense), and (11) a desire to share what's been discovered with others. Reefs might want to add to this list. I guess the primary difference between sages and most adults is that they don't live in their heads because their realizations and understanding have become embodied. Yes, that would be the main indicator, IMO. A lot of your points actually also apply to alignment, which I think is the reason why some people may confuse alignment and SR. But what people are usually plagued with and what alignment can't fundamentally resolve (only temporarily) is existential questions and fear of death. And both will be totally gone post-SR.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 25, 2022 8:32:21 GMT -5
Thanks. After you started your reply here I edited and added to my post. Your reply speaks somewhat to that, but I don't just mean just a thought of selfhood. If the self-circuits-of-conditioning still exist after SR, and everything you and Reefs have said seem to indicate they still exist, Reefs said it doesn't matter if they completely disappear or not, does the mind-body-person-aspect of the Whole ever function through those self-circuits? (I'm making the distinction Gary Weber makes, self-conditioning and ordinary information conditioning, AKA learning). If you answered the edited post above, no need to reply again, but you may not have seen the edited version. An answer on this, and from Reefs also, would be majorly appreciated, would be most helpful. That's why I differentiate between the individual and the person. The person is 100% fiction. It is acquired some time after birth, via the process of socialization. After all, the SVP only makes sense in a social/societal setting anyway. But the individual actually has a biological, psychological and even spiritual component to it, just think of it in terms of temperament which determines your body shape, metabolism and mental and psychological disposition, and even the types of religion or spiritual practice you will be drawn to. You've got that from birth. And that doesn't change thru-out your life, even post-SR it will remain the same. You are not going to change from let's say a choleric pre-SR to a phlegmatic post SR. The person that you still need to use in social settings may change significantly though, usually only the mere basics remain. So you will remember your name, your marital status, your entire CV etc. But now it is seen for what it is, abstract data points that have been weaved into a more or less coherent story so that you as an individual can be quantified in a society that needs to quantify everything in order to manage it. But you are not that abstraction, that story, even though you could and maybe even do tell a very good and convincing story. This is very similar to human being vs. legal person in law. Thanks. individual = essence; person = personality(Understand ZD?) And self-remembering, is "remembering" your essence. (The words and *~It~* [ __ ] have no relationship. The words, are words, like y-e-l-l-o-w has nothing to do with " yellow").
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 25, 2022 11:13:47 GMT -5
That's why I differentiate between the individual and the person. The person is 100% fiction. It is acquired some time after birth, via the process of socialization. After all, the SVP only makes sense in a social/societal setting anyway. But the individual actually has a biological, psychological and even spiritual component to it, just think of it in terms of temperament which determines your body shape, metabolism and mental and psychological disposition, and even the types of religion or spiritual practice you will be drawn to. You've got that from birth. And that doesn't change thru-out your life, even post-SR it will remain the same. You are not going to change from let's say a choleric pre-SR to a phlegmatic post SR. The person that you still need to use in social settings may change significantly though, usually only the mere basics remain. So you will remember your name, your marital status, your entire CV etc. But now it is seen for what it is, abstract data points that have been weaved into a more or less coherent story so that you as an individual can be quantified in a society that needs to quantify everything in order to manage it. But you are not that abstraction, that story, even though you could and maybe even do tell a very good and convincing story. This is very similar to human being vs. legal person in law. Thanks. individual = essence; person = personality(Understand ZD?) And self-remembering, is "remembering" your essence. (The words and *~It~* [ __ ] have no relationship. The words, are words, like y-e-l-l-o-w has nothing to do with " yellow"). If that's what you mean by "essence," then yes, although I don't think of person as equivalent to personality. The idea of being a separate volitional person seems to go far beyond personality, and personality, as a group of behavioral characteristics (optimistic, outgoing, gregarious, etc. versus pessimistic, introverted,, etc) doesn't necessarily change with SR. The "little guy/gal in the head" can disappear, and the individual's personality can remain the same as before.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 25, 2022 11:21:11 GMT -5
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.
Just curious what this sentence is referring to. What's the difference between shifting attention away from thoughts to the breath, or shifting attention away from thoughts to direct sensory perception (looking, listening, feeling, etc. in mental silence), or shifting attention away from thoughts to the sense of 'I am,' or shifting attention away from thoughts to the body via tai chi, yoga, etc? Isn't the basic function in all of these meditative activities the shifting of attention away from thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 25, 2022 22:22:34 GMT -5
Thanks for taking the time to write that. I can imagine it happening for millions of people in the past, it it's really quite remarkable. Now, I'll point out that to me you keep on morphing away from this first base you started on, which seemed to me to imply a process of analyzing intellectual abstractions, or, more generally, simply a way that people learn and refine their knowledge over time. In context, I'd describe your process as one that can lead to a quieter mind, a healthier body. It might lead to a person more present, less reactive, less lost in the weeds of their thinking and emoting processes. It can lead to better relationships and a more stable, centered way of life, and a lifestyle that would enhance one's ability to function, perform and produce. My value system would regard this as a better way to live than if someone were to instead never go through some sort of similar process. What seems to me to happen in the general populace is that common cultural influences lead to states and habits that are the exact opposite of a quiet mind, and rather than equanimity, cultivates impulse and conditioned response. But this issue of self-consistency sheds light on the distinction between a sudden shift in perspective as opposed to a gradual process of change over time. Seems to me your process involves, to some degree, suspension of doubt. A trust in what is yet to be revealed. So, to some degree what's happening here is an internalization of a belief system, and the kind of belief system that becomes self-reinforcing and eventually not even noticed for what it is. It's quite possible to suddenly see any and all systems of value and belief for what they are, just as it's possible to actively question any and every notion one currently would agree with as true. In this seeing it becomes quite clear that self-consistency is only ever provisional, and contextual. Not to mention, being a poor measure of reason. Consistency is the only viable assessment of reason in the step 2 category, and contradiction is it breakdown (it's basically an if-then thing), but since that pertains only to intellectual analysis, the step 3 of see for yourself is necessary for a complete ontology. I think you're preaching to the choir there. Say you hear someone like Ramana, Nis or Tolle tell you about something, and they same the same sorts of things, so you figure, Meh, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. Then you actually undertake a practice of self-inquiry. They wouldn't start the inquiry unless they first heard (1), and thought it through (2), and based on their intellectual understanding of it, did the inquiry to find out for themselves. Not that there's a necessary chronology per se. Just that categorising it this way provides a complete ontological model. It means you can't just read 'I am That' and presto. You can't debate, discuss and understand and hey-presto. You can do that to form a 'roadmap', buy unless to go have a look... you're kinda like Mary's Room. I have had experiences no one has written down or talked about, so then it goes in reverse. I'm like, Whoa, what's that (3) then rationalise a format (2) in which I say it (1). I can't seem to illustrate it better than that ^
Yes constant or at least consistent meditation makes life a little bit better, and has a process I just call 'purification'. SR='that's not me' and SR='I am that' are not processes as such. Of course you can see more and more clearly the futility and fallacy of ego-manic tendencies as progressive, but insight is sudden by nature. It's just the former one will be revealed by the means I suggest, The latter one, I don't think so. The main thing is the balance point which is perceived as becoming increasingly refined. I like that it comes with a paradox as well, the more refined and delicate it is, the stronger it is as well.
Everything you say about self-consistency with respect to the Buddhist process you've described is valid, but it's valid in the context of the person in the world. Realization of nonduality has no reasonable self-consistency. Now, both the person and the world can benefit from your process, but the flip side of the coin is that the resulting self-consistent set of beliefs can form the center of a sense of identity. The realization reveals any and all sense of objectified, limited identity to be false. Some of the Zen koans seem to me to have come down to us through that culture precisely because they expose the one contemplating to the absence of any and all reason, much less consistency. I understand that one of the steps in the eightfold path is to seek refuge in the sangha. heh heh, I don't think those Zen guys are offering much existential shelter. To anyone.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 25, 2022 22:33:48 GMT -5
Sudden realization of what is observing can lead to a permanent dissolution of entire tangled masses of reactive-self patterns. The nature of causation becomes quite clear, in that light. The dissolution isn't necessarily as sudden as the realization, but it's essentially a foregone conclusion over time.Yes. This is the main point. We tend to find the mind and body can't take it all without flipping out, so it's a little bit involved, more about the purification story... but a forgone conclusion... well said! And everyone is different, and the exact set of conditions and conditioning present at the instant prior-to the realization are the same as the instant after. If someone is still practicing non-reactivity after such a realization then they come face to face with one of the many opportunities presented by the existential question. We can ask ourselves, in all self honesty, what is it that we've realized? The answer is either crystal clear or it isn't, and there is always the potential for self-deception until the realization is genuine. Afterwards, neither certainty nor doubt can explain any outward displays of confidence.
|
|