|
|
Post by andrew on May 9, 2023 10:46:03 GMT -5
It seems to me that what Francis Sanzaro is doing is getting deeper into duality. Here is a link to the articleHe began connecting more with the natural world which is dualistic. He's not concluding the world is an illusion, quite the opposite. For him it's absolutely real. It's more real for him since he removed his concepts and expectations about what to feel or expect. If his heightened experience of duality is not what you refer to as the deadness of the consensus paradigm then what is because you didn't really define it. Without repeating past postings about this, Adya and many other sages have noted that there are two types of SR. Some people have an identity shift from the CP to pure awareness, as if they are ONLY the audience watching a movie. Other people have an identity shift from the CP to THIS, and THIS, using the movie metaphor, includes the audience, the projector, the images on the screen, etc. For the latter group of sages all-that-is is what they are, so nothing is discarded or ignored. Apparently it doesn't matter which shift occurs because both groups attain freedom, peace, and equanimity. Ramana has a great quotation about this, and I'll post it when I find it. In short, it goes something like this: "Seekers reject everything that changes as illusion, but after they discover the Self, they discover that everything that was rejected is then seen to be included in the Self." FWIW, I wasn't claiming that Sanzaro is enlightened. I was more interested in his description about how the world "came alive" when he stopped thinking about what he was looking at. Many people who go on solo retreats during which they shift attention away from thoughts report the same sort of thing happening along with a sense of unity and communion with "what is." Some of them even wake up fully, and I can think of specific examples of that. Maybe it's not directly the concepts that are the problem, as the sense of familiarity that seems to be loaded, or imbued, within concepts. It seems to me that concepts can create a false impression of 'knowing' or 'familiarity' or 'time' i.e 'I know this city, I've been here many times' I suspect that shifting towards sensory input is a first shift away from that knowing/familiarity. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2023 10:59:56 GMT -5
Without repeating past postings about this, Adya and many other sages have noted that there are two types of SR. Some people have an identity shift from the CP to pure awareness, as if they are ONLY the audience watching a movie. Other people have an identity shift from the CP to THIS, and THIS, using the movie metaphor, includes the audience, the projector, the images on the screen, etc. For the latter group of sages all-that-is is what they are, so nothing is discarded or ignored. You didn't answer my question about what is the consensus paradigm but never mind. I suppose I would really like to know what you don't like about duality. Apart from the fact that I don't recognize Adya as a spiritual authority, I do not agree that there are two types of SR. I have no idea why you have reached this conclusion. What you describe are two steps to the one realization. Essentially the shift to awareness is second mountain which is not SR and that is followed by Unity or This as you put it and that is third mountain which is SR. In fact Ramana described it perfectly in the quote you alluded to. Question: “Brahman (the Supreme Spirit) is real. The world is illusion” is the stock phrase of Sri Sankaracharya. Yet others say, “The world is reality.” Which is true? Sri Ramana Maharshi: Both statements are true. They refer to different stages of development and are spoken from different points of view. The (spiritual) aspirant starts with the definition, that which is real exists always. Then he eliminates the world as unreal because it is changing. The seeker ultimately reaches the Self and there finds unity as the prevailing note. Then, that which was originally rejected as being unreal is found to be a part of the unity. Being absorbed in the reality, the world also is real. There is only being in Self-realisation, and nothing but being. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 9, 2023 11:11:49 GMT -5
Without repeating past postings about this, Adya and many other sages have noted that there are two types of SR. Some people have an identity shift from the CP to pure awareness, as if they are ONLY the audience watching a movie. Other people have an identity shift from the CP to THIS, and THIS, using the movie metaphor, includes the audience, the projector, the images on the screen, etc. For the latter group of sages all-that-is is what they are, so nothing is discarded or ignored. Apparently it doesn't matter which shift occurs because both groups attain freedom, peace, and equanimity. Ramana has a great quotation about this, and I'll post it when I find it. In short, it goes something like this: "Seekers reject everything that changes as illusion, but after they discover the Self, they discover that everything that was rejected is then seen to be included in the Self." FWIW, I wasn't claiming that Sanzaro is enlightened. I was more interested in his description about how the world "came alive" when he stopped thinking about what he was looking at. Many people who go on solo retreats during which they shift attention away from thoughts report the same sort of thing happening along with a sense of unity and communion with "what is." Some of them even wake up fully, and I can think of specific examples of that. Maybe it's not directly the concepts that are the problem, as the sense of familiarity that seems to be loaded, or imbued, within concepts. It seems to me that concepts can create a false impression of 'knowing' or 'familiarity' or 'time' i.e 'I know this city, I've been here many times' I suspect that shifting towards sensory input is a first shift away from that knowing/familiarity. Yes. I just read the article (the link by satch). It sounds like you read the article. I'll post a key definition he gives in the article. He basically says we live from assumption. This is true. Neuroscientists know today that the brain is a prediction machine, it is always trying to predict what's going to happen next. This is how it evolved to survive in the wild. But, today, there isn't a lion in the bushes that might eat us any moment, so there isn't this edge of alertness, which he describes. So we live from assumptions, instead of in the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 9, 2023 11:15:17 GMT -5
Maybe it's not directly the concepts that are the problem, as the sense of familiarity that seems to be loaded, or imbued, within concepts. It seems to me that concepts can create a false impression of 'knowing' or 'familiarity' or 'time' i.e 'I know this city, I've been here many times' I suspect that shifting towards sensory input is a first shift away from that knowing/familiarity. Yes. I just read the article (the link by satch). It sounds like you read the article. I'll post a key definition he gives in the article. He basically says we live from assumption. This is true. Neuroscientists know today that the brain is a prediction machine, it is always trying to predict what's going to happen next. This is how it evolved to survive in the wild. But, today, there isn't a lion in the bushes that might eat us any moment, so there isn't this edge of alertness, which he describes. So we live from assumptions, instead of in the moment. Ah that's interesting, especially as I hadn't read the article. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 9, 2023 11:36:38 GMT -5
Yes. I just read the article (the link by satch). It sounds like you read the article. I'll post a key definition he gives in the article. He basically says we live from assumption. This is true. Neuroscientists know today that the brain is a prediction machine, it is always trying to predict what's going to happen next. This is how it evolved to survive in the wild. But, today, there isn't a lion in the bushes that might eat us any moment, so there isn't this edge of alertness, which he describes. So we live from assumptions, instead of in the moment. Ah that's interesting, especially as I hadn't read the article. When I first went to it it said you have used up your free reading articles, so I just gave up. I moved on, new page. Then when I came back to the article X-ing out the new pages, there it was. it's pretty good, shorter than I expected. There is a book listed which doesn't exist (Zen of the Wild). One link I read said: Which he is now writing. Another link listed another book which was supposed to come out March 15. 2022, it didn't. Book, same title is to come out in August 2023, The Zen of Climbing. I also found a TED talk, it's interesting, but is mostly a different subject. But the beginning is interesting, how he almost killed himself climbing at age 14. He had a transcendental experience of dying, he had made a stupid mistake that left him at deaths door. He left himself in an impossible situation. I'd say watch just through that. The rest is about how law suits and authority are trying to make the wild, safe, which would defeat the whole purpose of being in the wild. Risk, should always be assumed. (I guess that's a paradox). We go into the wild, so as not to assume, but before we do we have to assume risk. (It actually pretty funny in places, there is a sign somewhere that says, don't hike in high heels). He doesn't say how he got out of his impossible situation, except to say his death "vision" (my word) gave him extreme clarity. This is the first few minutes of the talk. www.ted.com/talks/francis_sanzaro_the_case_for_keeping_the_wilderness_wild |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 9, 2023 12:05:21 GMT -5
Without repeating past postings about this, Adya and many other sages have noted that there are two types of SR. Some people have an identity shift from the CP to pure awareness, as if they are ONLY the audience watching a movie. Other people have an identity shift from the CP to THIS, and THIS, using the movie metaphor, includes the audience, the projector, the images on the screen, etc. For the latter group of sages all-that-is is what they are, so nothing is discarded or ignored. You didn't answer my question about what is the consensus paradigm but never mind. I suppose I would really like to know what you don't like about duality. Apart from the fact that I don't recognize Adya as a spiritual authority, I do not agree that there are two types of SR. I have no idea why you have reached this conclusion. What you describe are two steps to the one realization. Essentially the shift to awareness is second mountain which is not SR and that is followed by Unity or This as you put it and that is third mountain which is SR. In fact Ramana described it perfectly in the quote you alluded to. Question: “Brahman (the Supreme Spirit) is real. The world is illusion” is the stock phrase of Sri Sankaracharya. Yet others say, “The world is reality.” Which is true? Sri Ramana Maharshi: Both statements are true. They refer to different stages of development and are spoken from different points of view. The (spiritual) aspirant starts with the definition, that which is real exists always. Then he eliminates the world as unreal because it is changing. The seeker ultimately reaches the Self and there finds unity as the prevailing note. Then, that which was originally rejected as being unreal is found to be a part of the unity. Being absorbed in the reality, the world also is real. There is only being in Self-realisation, and nothing but being. Yes, that's the quote by Ramana that I was going to search for. Thanks. I have no problem with the conventional definition of "duality," but my point is that it's a creation of the intellect, and it's no more actual than the idea of being a SVP. Using language we can only point to the truth using a word like "THIS," or "Tao," or "the Infinite." I prefer to call SR "THIS-realization" rather than "Self-realization" simply because many westerners don't resonate with the word "Self" with a capital "S." What many of us call "the concensus paradigm" is the common set of beliefs that reality is composed of separately-existing things that are seen by a separately-existing thing called "me." Charles Tart, the psychologist, called it "a consensus trance state" created by cultural conditioning. The illusion of separately-existing things can be realized as an illusion by simply searching for actual boundaries. The common example I use is asking people to use a pen or magic marker and draw a line where the boundary lies between a hand and a wrist or a wrist and an arm. For most people it only takes a moment or two to realize that there is no actual boundary (except in imagination) and that a hand, wrist, and arm are inseparably one. ITSW, all other boundaries are exactly the same as lines of latitude and longitude. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on May 9, 2023 12:07:54 GMT -5
You didn't answer my question about what is the consensus paradigm but never mind. I suppose I would really like to know what you don't like about duality. Apart from the fact that I don't recognize Adya as a spiritual authority, I do not agree that there are two types of SR. I have no idea why you have reached this conclusion. What you describe are two steps to the one realization. Essentially the shift to awareness is second mountain which is not SR and that is followed by Unity or This as you put it and that is third mountain which is SR. In fact Ramana described it perfectly in the quote you alluded to. Question: “Brahman (the Supreme Spirit) is real. The world is illusion” is the stock phrase of Sri Sankaracharya. Yet others say, “The world is reality.” Which is true? Sri Ramana Maharshi: Both statements are true. They refer to different stages of development and are spoken from different points of view. The (spiritual) aspirant starts with the definition, that which is real exists always. Then he eliminates the world as unreal because it is changing. The seeker ultimately reaches the Self and there finds unity as the prevailing note. Then, that which was originally rejected as being unreal is found to be a part of the unity. Being absorbed in the reality, the world also is real. There is only being in Self-realisation, and nothing but being. . ZD is stuck on second mountain, I think that's also called Zen sickness. (?) I keep offering him a loophole, but he just keeps doubling down. . Explain real and unreal in non-duality. Chatgpt: “ In non-duality, the term "real" refers to the unchanging, timeless, and ever-present nature of ultimate reality or absolute truth. It points to the underlying essence that permeates all phenomena, beyond their transient and changing forms. This reality is often described as pure awareness, consciousness, or the ground of being. It is considered to be the foundation upon which all appearances arise. On the other hand, the term "unreal" is used to describe the illusory nature of phenomena when seen as separate and independently existing entities. It implies that the world of appearances, including thoughts, emotions, and physical objects, lacks inherent, permanent substance or separate existence. It does not mean that these phenomena do not have relative existence or practical utility within the realm of dualistic experience. Rather, they are recognized as temporary and ever-changing expressions of the underlying reality.” |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 9, 2023 12:57:41 GMT -5
Yes, exactly. ZD is stuck on second mountain, I think that's also called Zen sickness. (?) I keep offering him a loophole, but he just keeps doubling down. . Explain real and unreal in non-duality. Chatgpt: “ In non-duality, the term "real" refers to the unchanging, timeless, and ever-present nature of ultimate reality or absolute truth. It points to the underlying essence that permeates all phenomena, beyond their transient and changing forms. This reality is often described as pure awareness, consciousness, or the ground of being. It is considered to be the foundation upon which all appearances arise. On the other hand, the term "unreal" is used to describe the illusory nature of phenomena when seen as separate and independently existing entities. It implies that the world of appearances, including thoughts, emotions, and physical objects, lacks inherent, permanent substance or separate existence. It does not mean that these phenomena do not have relative existence or practical utility within the realm of dualistic experience. Rather, they are recognized as temporary and ever-changing expressions of the underlying reality.” Yea, I know he knows all that. Who knew? It's a problem of semantics.  Who would have figured? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 9, 2023 13:00:54 GMT -5
You didn't answer my question about what is the consensus paradigm but never mind. I suppose I would really like to know what you don't like about duality. Apart from the fact that I don't recognize Adya as a spiritual authority, I do not agree that there are two types of SR. I have no idea why you have reached this conclusion. What you describe are two steps to the one realization. Essentially the shift to awareness is second mountain which is not SR and that is followed by Unity or This as you put it and that is third mountain which is SR. In fact Ramana described it perfectly in the quote you alluded to. Question: “Brahman (the Supreme Spirit) is real. The world is illusion” is the stock phrase of Sri Sankaracharya. Yet others say, “The world is reality.” Which is true? Sri Ramana Maharshi: Both statements are true. They refer to different stages of development and are spoken from different points of view. The (spiritual) aspirant starts with the definition, that which is real exists always. Then he eliminates the world as unreal because it is changing. The seeker ultimately reaches the Self and there finds unity as the prevailing note. Then, that which was originally rejected as being unreal is found to be a part of the unity. Being absorbed in the reality, the world also is real. There is only being in Self-realisation, and nothing but being. Yes, that's the quote by Ramana that I was going to search for. Thanks. I have no problem with the conventional definition of "duality," but my point is that it's a creation of the intellect, and it's no more actual than the idea of being a SVP. Using language we can only point to the truth using a word like "THIS," or "Tao," or "the Infinite." I prefer to call SR "THIS-realization" rather than "Self-realization" simply because many westerners don't resonate with the word "Self" with a capital "S." What many of us call "the concensus paradigm" is the common set of beliefs that reality is composed of separately-existing things that are seen by a separately-existing thing called "me." Charles Tart, the psychologist, called it "a consensus trance state" created by cultural conditioning. The illusion of separately-existing things can be realized as an illusion by simply searching for actual boundaries. The common example I use is asking people to use a pen or magic marker and draw a line where the boundary lies between a hand and a wrist or a wrist and an arm. For most people it only takes a moment or two to realize that there is no actual boundary (except in imagination) and that a hand, wrist, and arm are inseparably one. ITSW, all other boundaries are exactly the same as lines of latitude and longitude. I have a question for satch. In what sense does satch know there is a satch? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 9, 2023 13:40:27 GMT -5
Yes, exactly. ZD is stuck on second mountain, I think that's also called Zen sickness. (?) I keep offering him a loophole, but he just keeps doubling down. . Explain real and unreal in non-duality. Chatgpt: “ In non-duality, the term "real" refers to the unchanging, timeless, and ever-present nature of ultimate reality or absolute truth. It points to the underlying essence that permeates all phenomena, beyond their transient and changing forms. This reality is often described as pure awareness, consciousness, or the ground of being. It is considered to be the foundation upon which all appearances arise. On the other hand, the term "unreal" is used to describe the illusory nature of phenomena when seen as separate and independently existing entities. It implies that the world of appearances, including thoughts, emotions, and physical objects, lacks inherent, permanent substance or separate existence. It does not mean that these phenomena do not have relative existence or practical utility within the realm of dualistic experience. Rather, they are recognized as temporary and ever-changing expressions of the underlying reality.” That's actually a very good explanation. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 9, 2023 13:53:19 GMT -5
Just a reminder that posters should avoid the pitfall of ad hominem comments. People are free to think that other posters are ignorant, misguided, stupid, crazy, etc, but posting such opinions about other posters is against the forum rules and can lead to suspension or banishment to Ignoristan. Keep the focus on whatever ideas or pointers are expressed.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 9, 2023 15:40:29 GMT -5
Under ordinary circumstances, everything we experience is mediated through the body (even for Gopal). So everything is in a very real sense, unreal. When you perceive a tree, you don't perceive the tree. Your eyes capture an image of the tree. That image is coded electrically and chemically down the neural pathway to the brain. No *treeness* whatsoever is perceived, only coded signals. So we are never in direct contact with "reality". Algorithms and digital signals are what we experience, all we experience. So a discussion about boundaries is kind of moot anyway, everything is coded, anyway. Now, do we have a nonmaterial aspect to our being? Yes, probably. I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours. Until then, everything is mediated. IOW, EVERYTHING is an abstraction, FAPP.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2023 16:27:43 GMT -5
Under ordinary circumstances, everything we experience is mediated through the body (even for Gopal). So everything is in a very real sense, unreal. When you perceive a tree, you don't perceive the tree. Your eyes capture an image of the tree. That image is coded electrically and chemically down the neural pathway to the brain. No *treeness* whatsoever is perceived, only coded signals. So we are never in direct contact with "reality". Algorithms and digital signals are what we experience, all we experience. So a discussion about boundaries is kind of moot anyway, everything is coded, anyway. Now, do we have a nonmaterial aspect to our being? Yes, probably. I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours. Until then, everything is mediated. IOW, EVERYTHING is an abstraction, FAPP. Reminds me of Kant's "Thing in Itself" [1], or noumena vs phenomena. I remember Zendancer saying he asked a physics professor, "but what is an electron, really?". I'd like to know. I think I use the word "abstraction" differently than you do here. That word is used a lot in computer science and would probably not apply to raw perception, but that I think what you're pointing to is that the raw perception (even if not accompanied by excessive "thinking") is still "represented" or "observed", and not the thing-in-itself... if there is such a thing. [1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing-in-itself |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 9, 2023 17:32:09 GMT -5
Under ordinary circumstances, everything we experience is mediated through the body (even for Gopal). So everything is in a very real sense, unreal. When you perceive a tree, you don't perceive the tree. Your eyes capture an image of the tree. That image is coded electrically and chemically down the neural pathway to the brain. No *treeness* whatsoever is perceived, only coded signals. So we are never in direct contact with "reality". Algorithms and digital signals are what we experience, all we experience. So a discussion about boundaries is kind of moot anyway, everything is coded, anyway. Now, do we have a nonmaterial aspect to our being? Yes, probably. I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours. Until then, everything is mediated. IOW, EVERYTHING is an abstraction, FAPP. Reminds me of Kant's "Thing in Itself" [1], or noumena vs phenomena. I remember Zendancer saying he asked a physics professor, "but what is an electron, really?". I'd like to know. I think I use the word "abstraction" differently than you do here. That word is used a lot in computer science and would probably not apply to raw perception, but that I think what you're pointing to is that the raw perception (even if not accompanied by excessive "thinking") is still "represented" or "observed", and not the thing-in-itself... if there is such a thing. [1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing-in-itselfBingo! |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 9, 2023 19:02:36 GMT -5
Under ordinary circumstances, everything we experience is mediated through the body (even for Gopal). So everything is in a very real sense, unreal. When you perceive a tree, you don't perceive the tree. Your eyes capture an image of the tree. That image is coded electrically and chemically down the neural pathway to the brain. No *treeness* whatsoever is perceived, only coded signals. So we are never in direct contact with "reality". Algorithms and digital signals are what we experience, all we experience. So a discussion about boundaries is kind of moot anyway, everything is coded, anyway. Now, do we have a nonmaterial aspect to our being? Yes, probably. I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours. Until then, everything is mediated. IOW, EVERYTHING is an abstraction, FAPP. Reminds me of Kant's "Thing in Itself" [1], or noumena vs phenomena. I remember Zendancer saying he asked a physics professor, "but what is an electron, really?". I'd like to know. I think I use the word "abstraction" differently than you do here. That word is used a lot in computer science and would probably not apply to raw perception, but that I think what you're pointing to is that the raw perception (even if not accompanied by excessive "thinking") is still "represented" or "observed", and not the thing-in-itself... if there is such a thing. [1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing-in-itselfMy first Bing chat question: Can we experience reality directly or is experience always mediated through the senses and the human nervous system? Sent message. Can we experience reality directly or is experience always mediated through the senses and the human nervous system? Searching for: Can we experience reality directly or is experience always mediated through the senses and the human nervous system? Searching for: Can we experience reality directly or is experience always mediated through the senses and the human nervous system? Generating answers for you… Generating answers for you… According to an article from Stanford University1, our brains construct our perception of reality based on the information we receive from our senses. However, our brains also unconsciously bend our perception of reality to meet our desires or expectations. And they fill in gaps using our past experiences. All of this can bias us. So, it seems that experience is always mediated through the senses and the human nervous system. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ And that's why Imagination is our greatest enemy. "If ands and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas". |
|
Who would have figured?