|
Post by zendancer on Apr 26, 2023 10:45:21 GMT -5
All your questions are gibberish! Actually, I considered the question he posed to be as thought-provoking as it is absurd and amusing. It's a taxing question but perhaps not to confuse with merely gibberish. I will explain. To recap, in the discussion between you and I, we got to the point (in your not-knowing paradigm) where we have agreed that in the case of both reefs and rock, the fact of conscious cannot be known. So cannot be known equally, because they are appearance only. Agreed? … otherwise the reason has to be given why they would be treated differently. It should perhaps be noted here that there are actually two contexts which this can all be approached in. For arguments sake we can call them the relative and the absolute contexts. In the relative (not-knowing) context, neither rock nor reefs as conscious can be known with certainty. In the absolute (gnosis) context, the question is misconceived, but equally so for both. So the point is that there is consistency, logic. What you can't have is, in the relative context, the answer yes for one but not the other. Otherwise a reason must be specified why they are being treated differently (and it would almost certainly come down to a case of context-mixing). So putting that aside for the moment. Now Andrew comes along and is using the strategy known as 'reductio ad absurdum' to take the question to an extreme in order to really stress test the position. He does this by posing the question, does this not-knowing also apply to a triangle? To be clear, he is specifically referring to the relative (not-knowing) position here, because in the absolute context the question can be considered as misconceived to rock, reefs and triangle equally. So that is 'squared off'. But when in the relative context we are saying conscious cannot be known of both rock and reefs equally, then it is reasonable to ask, then why not triangle? I mean they are all merely appearance, so again, why would we treat them differently. Of course the question applied to a triangle is quite absurd and amusing at the same time, but it has a purpose. And that purpose is that Andrew still senses something amiss with the not-knowing position, and so wants to drill down a little further. At this stage I am moved to state my position, which is that triangles cannot in anyway be said to 'be conscious'. Talking generally, on the one hand the question isn't so much of an issue for me as it perhaps is for Gopal because I don't actually subscribe the not-knowing position which I see as merely mentation. So I don't have to explain why I would treat rock and reefs one way and triangle another. Really, anyone who subscribes to that position does have to explain why. But if we go back to the niz quote again, I do have a bit of an issue as well. Because when niz says this I'm pretty confident he is applying it to rock and reefs but not triangle, much as I would tend to too! To be clear, my issue is different from Gopal's issue, but it is quite a doozy. The best reason I can come up with to explain this potential discrepancy in my position is that triangles are entirely abstract whereas rock and reefs are not. Actually, this situation reminds me of some of the positions zd takes form time to time which I have queried. For me zd tends to be a bit heavy handed with what he categorises as merely abstraction, especially when talking in terms of THIS. Some may recall that this has led to some of my unconscious tree-thwacking type queries. For me, there has always been a distinction to be made between that which could be said to fall under 'contact' with sense spheres other than merely mind, and that which is merely [mental] abstract-ion. This current scenario perhaps highlights and ties in with that. Anyway, all said and done. This new scenario poses a particular and for me, rather interesting question. And that is to do with the nature of abstract-ion. The question Andrew has posed can be rephrased as … is triangle'ness somehow more abstract than rock'ness, (and reefs'ness for that matter). I say it is, but open it up for general forum consideration. Re the bolded lines: I'm in your camp because one of my main distinctions is between the "actual" which I'd define as anything in contact with direct sensory perception and the "imaginary" which would involve ideation (thoughts, triangles, etc). Most sages use the word "illusion" to refer to the conventional attachment to images, ideas, and symbols that only represent what is actual. If I hold up my hand, point to it, and say, "This is a hand," that statement is both true and false at the same time. It's true in the sense that it can be imagined as a separate thing labeled "hand" but false in the sense that that's what it IS. The idea that a hand exists as an object separate from all else is an idea, only. What a hand IS is different than how that particular aspect of reality can be distinguished/imagined/abstracted/divided from all else. If I point to a hand and ask, "What is this, really (in actuality)?" I'm not asking in what way can it be distinguished; I'm asking what it IS. If someone replied, "It's a hand," I'd have to say, "No, that's how it can be distinguished and labeled, but my question was asking something more fundamental." This question is a Zen koan, and it is cannot be answered correctly with words. Ramana has a quote somewhere that goes something like this, "If one dismisses the world as illusion because everything is constantly changing, and eventually discovers the unchanging Self, everything that was previously dismissed as an illusion is then seen to be equally the Self." IOW, the observer and the observed are not two. The idea of "appearances" is an idea, and that's why Zen Masters almost never use that word. They're primarily interested in pointing to non-abidance in mind so that mind becomes a servant rather than a master and life becomes simple and direct, free from TMT.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Apr 26, 2023 13:06:19 GMT -5
Actually, I considered the question he posed to be as thought-provoking as it is absurd and amusing. It's a taxing question but perhaps not to confuse with merely gibberish. I will explain. To recap, in the discussion between you and I, we got to the point (in your not-knowing paradigm) where we have agreed that in the case of both reefs and rock, the fact of conscious cannot be known. So cannot be known equally, because they are appearance only. Agreed? … otherwise the reason has to be given why they would be treated differently. It should perhaps be noted here that there are actually two contexts which this can all be approached in. For arguments sake we can call them the relative and the absolute contexts. In the relative (not-knowing) context, neither rock nor reefs as conscious can be known with certainty. In the absolute (gnosis) context, the question is misconceived, but equally so for both. So the point is that there is consistency, logic. What you can't have is, in the relative context, the answer yes for one but not the other. Otherwise a reason must be specified why they are being treated differently (and it would almost certainly come down to a case of context-mixing). So putting that aside for the moment. Now Andrew comes along and is using the strategy known as 'reductio ad absurdum' to take the question to an extreme in order to really stress test the position. He does this by posing the question, does this not-knowing also apply to a triangle? To be clear, he is specifically referring to the relative (not-knowing) position here, because in the absolute context the question can be considered as misconceived to rock, reefs and triangle equally. So that is 'squared off'. But when in the relative context we are saying conscious cannot be known of both rock and reefs equally, then it is reasonable to ask, then why not triangle? I mean they are all merely appearance, so again, why would we treat them differently. Of course the question applied to a triangle is quite absurd and amusing at the same time, but it has a purpose. And that purpose is that Andrew still senses something amiss with the not-knowing position, and so wants to drill down a little further. At this stage I am moved to state my position, which is that triangles cannot in anyway be said to 'be conscious'. Talking generally, on the one hand the question isn't so much of an issue for me as it perhaps is for Gopal because I don't actually subscribe the not-knowing position which I see as merely mentation. So I don't have to explain why I would treat rock and reefs one way and triangle another. Really, anyone who subscribes to that position does have to explain why. But if we go back to the niz quote again, I do have a bit of an issue as well. Because when niz says this I'm pretty confident he is applying it to rock and reefs but not triangle, much as I would tend to too! To be clear, my issue is different from Gopal's issue, but it is quite a doozy. The best reason I can come up with to explain this potential discrepancy in my position is that triangles are entirely abstract whereas rock and reefs are not. Actually, this situation reminds me of some of the positions zd takes form time to time which I have queried. For me zd tends to be a bit heavy handed with what he categorises as merely abstraction, especially when talking in terms of THIS. Some may recall that this has led to some of my unconscious tree-thwacking type queries. For me, there has always been a distinction to be made between that which could be said to fall under 'contact' with sense spheres other than merely mind, and that which is merely [mental] abstract-ion. This current scenario perhaps highlights and ties in with that. Anyway, all said and done. This new scenario poses a particular and for me, rather interesting question. And that is to do with the nature of abstract-ion. The question Andrew has posed can be rephrased as … is triangle'ness somehow more abstract than rock'ness, (and reefs'ness for that matter). I say it is, but open it up for general forum consideration. Re the bolded lines: I'm in your camp because one of my main distinctions is between the "actual" which I'd define as anything in contact with direct sensory perception and the "imaginary" which would involve ideation (thoughts, triangles, etc). Most sages use the word "illusion" to refer to the conventional attachment to images, ideas, and symbols that only represent what is actual. If I hold up my hand, point to it, and say, "This is a hand," that statement is both true and false at the same time. It's true in the sense that it can be imagined as a separate thing labeled "hand" but false in the sense that that's what it IS. The idea that a hand exists as an object separate from all else is an idea, only. What a hand IS is different than how that particular aspect of reality can be distinguished/imagined/abstracted/divided from all else. If I point to a hand and ask, "What is this, really (in actuality)?" I'm not asking in what way can it be distinguished; I'm asking what it IS. If someone replied, "It's a hand," I'd have to say, "No, that's how it can be distinguished and labeled, but my question was asking something more fundamental." This question is a Zen koan, and it is cannot be answered correctly with words. Ramana has a quote somewhere that goes something like this, "If one dismisses the world as illusion because everything is constantly changing, and eventually discovers the unchanging Self, everything that was previously dismissed as an illusion is then seen to be equally the Self." IOW, the observer and the observed are not two. The idea of "appearances" is an idea, and that's why Zen Masters almost never use that word. They're primarily interested in pointing to non-abidance in mind so that mind becomes a servant rather than a master and life becomes simple and direct, free from TMT. Okay, thank you for clarifying. Whilst I tend not to work in terms of IS'ness, because as I've mentioned previously, there are certain instances where I feel it actually runs the danger of over-concretising appearance/negating emptiness. (At least the way I use appearance, which is not entirely unproblematic and perhaps for reasons you have emphasised). I can in fact relate to everything you say here, especially the distinction and the koan-like 'answer' to the question posed. I'm content It works fine in the absolute (gnosis) context as applied to the niz quote, where what he is looking to express is akin to that koan-like answer and so naturally the words fall short. And in the face of any considerations about triangles or thoughts into the mix, bearing in mind the criteria of the distinction we are making. Perhaps just worth mentioning that, that 'answer' will never be particularly satisfying to mind in the absence of the requisite realisation/surrender.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 26, 2023 13:17:10 GMT -5
It is foolish to assume that because you possess a head, all humans possess a head. You can't know this. You usually are pertinent. I don't know where you're going with this one. By definition, all humans have heads. If you don't have a head, you're dead. (Or a ghost). OK, never mind.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 26, 2023 13:25:09 GMT -5
Re the bolded lines: I'm in your camp because one of my main distinctions is between the "actual" which I'd define as anything in contact with direct sensory perception and the "imaginary" which would involve ideation (thoughts, triangles, etc). Most sages use the word "illusion" to refer to the conventional attachment to images, ideas, and symbols that only represent what is actual. If I hold up my hand, point to it, and say, "This is a hand," that statement is both true and false at the same time. It's true in the sense that it can be imagined as a separate thing labeled "hand" but false in the sense that that's what it IS. The idea that a hand exists as an object separate from all else is an idea, only. What a hand IS is different than how that particular aspect of reality can be distinguished/imagined/abstracted/divided from all else. If I point to a hand and ask, "What is this, really (in actuality)?" I'm not asking in what way can it be distinguished; I'm asking what it IS. If someone replied, "It's a hand," I'd have to say, "No, that's how it can be distinguished and labeled, but my question was asking something more fundamental." This question is a Zen koan, and it is cannot be answered correctly with words. Ramana has a quote somewhere that goes something like this, "If one dismisses the world as illusion because everything is constantly changing, and eventually discovers the unchanging Self, everything that was previously dismissed as an illusion is then seen to be equally the Self." IOW, the observer and the observed are not two. The idea of "appearances" is an idea, and that's why Zen Masters almost never use that word. They're primarily interested in pointing to non-abidance in mind so that mind becomes a servant rather than a master and life becomes simple and direct, free from TMT. Okay, thank you for clarifying. Whilst I tend not to work in terms of IS'ness, because as I've mentioned previously, there are certain instances where I feel it actually runs the danger of over-concretising appearance/negating emptiness. (At least the way I use appearance, which is not entirely unproblematic and perhaps for reasons you have emphasised). I can in fact relate to everything you say here, especially the distinction and the koan-like 'answer' to the question posed. I'm content It works fine in the absolute (gnosis) context as applied to the niz quote, where what he is looking to express is akin to that koan-like answer and so naturally the words fall short. And in the face of any considerations about triangles or thoughts into the mix, bearing in mind the criteria of the distinction we are making. Perhaps just worth mentioning that, that 'answer' will never be particularly satisfying to mind in the absence of the requisite realisation/surrender. Yes, so if someone points to her hand and asks "What is this, beyond language?" or "What is this, actually?" A 100% response would be to silently hold up a hand or point to her hand. No words are necessary. The actuality cannot be captured in words, but it can be silently communicated. FWIW, at least a third of all Zen koans are not answered with words. The answers require some sort of physical response.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 26, 2023 14:11:02 GMT -5
That was absorbing reading thanks, I enjoyed the clarity of your thinking there. And yes, I offered the 'triangle' specifically because it is an abstraction. I also offered an option which is slightly less abstract....'a thought', but is still relatively abstract when compared to a rock. As you say though, in the not-knowing whether appearances are conscious, how would Gopal form a relative comparison? Isn't it all equally 'not-known'? If it's all equally 'not-known', what is the basis for a belief that indicates likelihood or probability? For me too, all these issues, questions and answers are contextual, and as you indicate, I'm interested in how...and whether....Gopal achieves contextual consistency within his model, and I prod and probe at that sometimes (not too sure it's welcome right now!) Yes, I hadn't considered whether thought might be considered somehow less abstract than a triangle. If so it gives me a bit of a dilemma really. In my own paradigm I can make a distinction between there being the potential for unconscious tree-thwacking, but not for unconscious triangle thwacking, (which is how I categorise triangles as being somehow more abstract than rocks). Accordingly, I suppose thought would fall in the triangle category as well. But perhaps this is more an issue of relative ethereality. In any event, I'm happy to state that I consider neither triangles or thoughts as having the potential to be conscious, in the absolute (gnosis) context within which I would tend to work. I.e. the context which pertains to the niz quote. I won't try to speak for the other camp on this issue. I read this a couple of hours ago and it triggered a prodding and probing of my thoughts. The result was a thought pretzel Certainly in the context you are offering there, the rock is more abstract than the triangle. Initially I had conceived of a 'thought' as somewhere between the two, on the basis that a triangle is conceived 'in' thought, or is 'thought content', but a rock is not. But then I considered that a rock could also be said to be 'thought content' too. But in that scenario, the only 'thing' left is thought itself, and that's really not where I wanted to end up in this context. Conclusion...it's contextually messy, a bit of a tar baby in my mind, so I'm going to have a cup of tea instead! Anyway, thanks, I actually enjoy sorting this stuff through.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 26, 2023 14:12:30 GMT -5
It is foolish to assume that because you possess a head, all humans possess a head. You can't know this. You usually are pertinent. I don't know where you're going with this one. By definition, all humans have heads. If you don't have a head, you're dead. (Or a ghost). OK, never mind. Yes. Could be wrong, but I think that's sort of where Zaz was going with that, just in a bit of sassy way I trust he'll correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Apr 26, 2023 15:35:28 GMT -5
The important talk about not being able to put your knowledge into words reminds of: - Why are dogs and engineers alike?
They both have intelligent eyes, but neither can express themselves in words.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Apr 26, 2023 15:50:22 GMT -5
Yes, I hadn't considered whether thought might be considered somehow less abstract than a triangle. If so it gives me a bit of a dilemma really. In my own paradigm I can make a distinction between there being the potential for unconscious tree-thwacking, but not for unconscious triangle thwacking, (which is how I categorise triangles as being somehow more abstract than rocks). Accordingly, I suppose thought would fall in the triangle category as well. But perhaps this is more an issue of relative ethereality. In any event, I'm happy to state that I consider neither triangles or thoughts as having the potential to be conscious, in the absolute (gnosis) context within which I would tend to work. I.e. the context which pertains to the niz quote. I won't try to speak for the other camp on this issue. I read this a couple of hours ago and it triggered a prodding and probing of my thoughts. The result was a thought pretzel Certainly in the context you are offering there, the rock is more abstract than the triangle. Initially I had conceived of a 'thought' as somewhere between the two, on the basis that a triangle is conceived 'in' thought, or is 'thought content', but a rock is not. But then I considered that a rock could also be said to be 'thought content' too. But in that scenario, the only 'thing' left is thought itself, and that's really not where I wanted to end up in this context. Conclusion...it's contextually messy, a bit of a tar baby in my mind, so I'm going to have a cup of tea instead! Anyway, thanks, I actually enjoy sorting this stuff through. Hopefully you meant to say that a rock is less abstract than a triangle, (or we're starting to talk at crossed purposes there). I can certainly see how the question, 'is thought somehow less abstract than a triangle' might end up as a bit of a thought pretzel though. I can see where you're coming from with all that. Initially I had the same ratings- rock, thought and then triangle in that order. As rock is material and triangle is a subset of thought. But then I considered that rock and thought can both be considered in terms of energetic movement so talked about relative ethereality, but if triangle is a subset of that … well it gets messy fast. For my purposes, triangle and thought can be categorised equivalently, as merely mind, and therefore as distinct from rock. But then if all creation is considered as energetic movement, i.e. matter as merely course mind (and perhaps vice versa), well then it becomes problematic again. Honestly, I'm not sure how much we managed to sort through, hehe
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 26, 2023 15:58:51 GMT -5
I read this a couple of hours ago and it triggered a prodding and probing of my thoughts. The result was a thought pretzel Certainly in the context you are offering there, the rock is more abstract than the triangle. Initially I had conceived of a 'thought' as somewhere between the two, on the basis that a triangle is conceived 'in' thought, or is 'thought content', but a rock is not. But then I considered that a rock could also be said to be 'thought content' too. But in that scenario, the only 'thing' left is thought itself, and that's really not where I wanted to end up in this context. Conclusion...it's contextually messy, a bit of a tar baby in my mind, so I'm going to have a cup of tea instead! Anyway, thanks, I actually enjoy sorting this stuff through. H opefully you meant to say that a rock is less abstract than a triangle, (or we're starting to talk at crossed purposes there). I can certainly see how the question, 'is thought somehow less abstract than a triangle' might end up as a bit of a thought pretzel though. I can see where you're coming from with all that. Initially I had the same ratings- rock, thought and then triangle in that order. As rock is material and triangle is a subset of thought. But then I considered that rock and thought can both be considered in terms of energetic movement so talked about relative ethereality, but if triangle is a subset of that … well it gets messy fast. For my purposes, triangle and thought can be categorised equivalently, as merely mind, and therefore as distinct from rock. But then if all creation is considered as energetic movement, i.e. matter as merely course mind (and perhaps vice versa), well then it becomes problematic again. Honestly, I'm not sure how much we managed to sort through, hehe haha yes, I meant to say a rock is LESS abstract. That mistake probably illustrates that it was time for me to put it down! You navigated the contexts excellently there, you unpretzeled the pretzel, cheers.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Apr 26, 2023 17:04:09 GMT -5
H opefully you meant to say that a rock is less abstract than a triangle, ...haha yes, I meant to say a rock is LESS abstract. That mistake probably illustrates that it was time for me to put it down! ... The way I look at this ... I'm playing a game on my computer, and get immersed in it enough to forget that I am not the character in the game. Rock, reef, triangle, ... all are game-objects, "appearances" in my game's virtual-space; "appearances" because they appear to me; I perceive them. Call them "perceptions" if you will; I actually think that this is a more accurate designator. Based on my experience of playing that game I can make some assumptions about each object. The probabilities about my assumptions being correct are purely subjective, and only for my game playing benefit. The mind who plays the game isn't the character's mind, but the player's mind, even if his immersion in the game is total. To play the game best, sometimes the player needs to be more immersed, to react more promptly, while other times it is better to make a step back and analyze, use his experience from other games he played, look farther to other areas of the screen, check some of the gauges the game offers (what's coming, state of resources, time, logistics, tools, ...). As it is a multi-player game, it is possible that some of the game-objects are backed by other players, and other game-objects are not. Normally, I can't differentiate between them, and it doesn't even matter for the game. The game-character's mind is a subset of the player's mind, restricted by the player's state of consciousness, and his focus, to better perform while gaming.
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Apr 26, 2023 22:41:38 GMT -5
It is foolish to assume that because you possess a head, all humans possess a head. You can't know this. You usually are pertinent. I don't know where you're going with this one. By definition, all humans have heads. If you don't have a head, you're dead. (Or a ghost). OK, never mind. Because I am human and have a head, I can infer that if sdp is human, he has a head. Also, because I'm human and am conscious, I can infer that sdp is conscious. But I can't do the same for rocks.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 27, 2023 2:45:17 GMT -5
haha yes, I meant to say a rock is LESS abstract. That mistake probably illustrates that it was time for me to put it down! ... The way I look at this ... I'm playing a game on my computer, and get immersed in it enough to forget that I am not the character in the game. Rock, reef, triangle, ... all are game-objects, "appearances" in my game's virtual-space; "appearances" because they appear to me; I perceive them. Call them "perceptions" if you will; I actually think that this is a more accurate designator. Based on my experience of playing that game I can make some assumptions about each object. The probabilities about my assumptions being correct are purely subjective, and only for my game playing benefit. The mind who plays the game isn't the character's mind, but the player's mind, even if his immersion in the game is total. To play the game best, sometimes the player needs to be more immersed, to react more promptly, while other times it is better to make a step back and analyze, use his experience from other games he played, look farther to other areas of the screen, check some of the gauges the game offers (what's coming, state of resources, time, logistics, tools, ...). As it is a multi-player game, it is possible that some of the game-objects are backed by other players, and other game-objects are not. Normally, I can't differentiate between them, and it doesn't even matter for the game. The game-character's mind is a subset of the player's mind, restricted by the player's state of consciousness, and his focus, to better perform while gaming. It's a good analogy, the way I see it is similar but different. The slight difference for me is that 'knowing' is built into the perception. For example, if I perceive a 'cat', then built into that perception is a 'knowing' that the cat is everything that defines it to be a 'cat'. Which is why perception is so effortless. We 'know' all the time what we are perceiving, except on rare occasions when we have reason to question. Essentially, Perceiving = meaning = knowing. But ultimately, this 'knowing' is built on assumption (because 'meaning' is subjective)....I would say that EVERY knowing is founded on an assumption. In non-duality, some folks like to speak of there being one 'true' knowing, and while I do resonate with that, and I lean very much on that assumption, I do still consider it to be assumptive at its root. To express that another way, I belief that life (experiencing, perceiving, knowing) is all a leap of faith. Every moment of every day is a leap of faith. This is also why I don't believe non-duality is more 'true' than religions, it's on the same level, it's just the one that speaks to me the most, and it is unusual in the WAY that it can be experienced as true (i.e it's a very direct knowing). So when it comes to these kinds of questions of being conscious, and humans, and rocks, and socks and thoughts, my main priority is that my contexts make sense. I like contextual consistency. And at the foundation of that consistency is a non-dual assumption of oneness. Out of that primary assumption, all my other contexts line up. For example, if someone says...well 'consciousness' is foundational in contrast to other 'stuff', then I'll say....'fine...then consciousness has to be foundational across the board'. That's why I appreciate the way you talk about gestalts...it makes some sense too me. If someone says, 'I exist, and that existence is foundational' then I'll say....'fine, in which case it must be the case that you exist'. So when I question Gopal, I am questioning his contextual consistency. I am looking at the way he 'chunks' his contexts, and whether it makes sense, and whether it lines up. And I assume that as a programmer, that he might appreciate that, but I think the appreciation is a bit hit and miss
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Apr 27, 2023 9:36:05 GMT -5
This context thing is troubling to me. I kind of understand it, but when folks talk about an absolute context, I get nervous. After all, we're talking concepts. There are no absolute concepts. Are there? Things like there's only ONE consciousness is an idea, a pointer, a means to an end. Or the same for the "world is an appearance". This is very different from "there are many persons on this forum."
The problems start when pointers, a means to an end, become edicts. Then the weirdness starts. In other words, the peace that surpasses all understanding, surpasses all understanding. That's why it's so fuzzy when we talk about IT. Gateless gate. Effortless effort. That's the finger pointing, not the actual thing. The actual thing defies conceptualization.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 27, 2023 10:04:01 GMT -5
This context thing is troubling to me. I kind of understand it, but when folks talk about an absolute context, I get nervous. After all, we're talking concepts. There are no absolute concepts. Are there? Things like there's only ONE consciousness is an idea, a pointer, a means to an end. Or the same for the "world is an appearance". This is very different from "there are many persons on this forum." The problems start when pointers, a means to an end, become edicts. Then the weirdness starts. In other words, the peace that surpasses all understanding, surpasses all understanding. That's why it's so fuzzy when we talk about IT. Gateless gate. Effortless effort. That's the finger pointing, not the actual thing. The actual thing defies conceptualization. I'd say 'actual thing' is part of the religion of non-duality. The pointers are part of the religion (I'm using the word 'religion' very loosely). I'm fine with them, I find value in them, and I believe fully in the experience of 'direct knowing'. But I'd say 'direct knowing' is still a leap of faith i.e we cannot remove our subjectivity (or illusion of), in order to have absolute knowledge of 'The Truth', if there is such a thing. Only in the total absence of form could we have that absolute knowledge. Until then, the experience of direct knowing is enough for me to be working on. I want to put that another way, maybe a little softer. I'd say that if all experience is a 'play' then 'direct knowing' is an experience, or way of experiencing, that is happening as part of that play. Maybe a relevant question is....can we remove the illusion of boundary? It seems like we can sometimes, but even if you are experiencing samadhi, am I necessarily experiencing that too? Maybe another relevant question.....can one realize Oneness to be the case, and STILL believe in fundamental separation? I'd say 'No', by definition of the realization. But I'd say that a belief structure will still express this realization, by talking about the illusion of separation, or the imaginary nature of boundaries etc. The belief structure is born out of the realization, it's just not experienced as a 'belief structure in the way that other individuals may experience belief structure.
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Apr 27, 2023 12:20:27 GMT -5
This context thing is troubling to me. I kind of understand it, but when folks talk about an absolute context, I get nervous. After all, we're talking concepts. There are no absolute concepts. Are there? Things like there's only ONE consciousness is an idea, a pointer, a means to an end. Or the same for the "world is an appearance". This is very different from "there are many persons on this forum." The problems start when pointers, a means to an end, become edicts. Then the weirdness starts. In other words, the peace that surpasses all understanding, surpasses all understanding. That's why it's so fuzzy when we talk about IT. Gateless gate. Effortless effort. That's the finger pointing, not the actual thing. The actual thing defies conceptualization. I'd say 'actual thing' is part of the religion of non-duality. The pointers are part of the religion (I'm using the word 'religion' very loosely). I'm fine with them, I find value in them, and I believe fully in the experience of 'direct knowing'. But I'd say 'direct knowing' is still a leap of faith i.e we cannot remove our subjectivity (or illusion of), in order to have absolute knowledge of 'The Truth', if there is such a thing. Only in the total absence of form could we have that absolute knowledge. Until then, the experience of direct knowing is enough for me to be working on. I want to put that another way, maybe a little softer. I'd say that if all experience is a 'play' then 'direct knowing' is an experience, or way of experiencing, that is happening as part of that play. Maybe a relevant question is....can we remove the illusion of boundary? It seems like we can sometimes, but even if you are experiencing samadhi, am I necessarily experiencing that too? Maybe another relevant question.....can one realize Oneness to be the case, and STILL believe in fundamental separation? I'd say 'No', by definition of the realization. But I'd say that a belief structure will still express this realization, by talking about the illusion of separation, or the imaginary nature of boundaries etc. The belief structure is born out of the realization, it's just not experienced as a 'belief structure in the way that other individuals may experience belief structure. "Ars Poetica" by Archibald MacLeish has a line in it that " a poem should not mean, but be." Reminds me of what RM said to a follower when the latter exclaimed that he wanted to "know" God. "You cannot know God, you can only BE God." "Direct knowing" describes a method. You are never not God, but for thinking otherwise. It's difficult to speak about things like removing boundaries because it is misinterpreted. There are no boundaries doesn't mean you can levitate or that you can manifest a Porshe. It's a dangerous thing in the wrong hands. The notion of boundaries or lack thereof is only relevant in time and space. Do you experience time and space in deep sleep? The other weird thing I hear is if the mind rests, I won't do anything. It seems to me when depressed the mind is very active. I have to constantly rein in mine else I start to flail and flounder. Coming here is a symptom of it. The nonduality religion, cool. I like the sound of it. First an industry. Now a religion.
|
|