|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 23, 2023 16:05:41 GMT -5
 .. reads again.. Right. Undivided, abiding Awareness, is not a perceivable...not 'content.' The moment there is something though that can BE "unified" it's crystal clear a distinction has arisen within/to that which is abiding/unchanging/unmoving.
So yeah, that perceiving of "a unified field" is a good example of what I mean by "content/perceivable."
How did you get to the words, abiding, unchanging and unmoving? Did you have to make a distinction to get to those words? |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 23, 2023 16:21:30 GMT -5
What do you mean by the word content? Perceivables. If we're talking about an Absolute knowing that perception is happening re: a particular body/character, then by virtue of that, you'd also know the specific perceiv_ABLES...the content of perception, being perceived.
To "perceive" = the arising of some sort of content....even if it is a minute, nuanced arising 'sense,' that = content of perception.
Your question was formed around this conclusion, .."you will also then by virtue of that, have imminent, direct knowing of content of all those points of perception.." Can you know what all the points of perception are experiencing? I don't know. That would probably be system overload. Can you just glimpse that they are perceiving simultaneously with your own ability to see? Then to that I would say yes. |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 23, 2023 16:25:16 GMT -5
The seemingly teensy ledge/precipice between the abiding ground that never changes, and the tiniest, most minute of arising distinctions, and the conflating/mixing up of 'those,' is I would say the fodder for the most intense dharma battles when it comes to Nonduality. And the thing is, to even have reference for the argument, means there is quite a depth of (at the very least least) strong conceptual understanding about Nonduality already in play.
What's essentially so...what constitutes Truth vs. what arises/appears within/to the abiding ground, AS expression...AS appearance, is easy peasy to determine when we're talking abject things/objects that are obviously temporal/changing, vs. the unchanging. But things get so much more nuanced and subtle as we start to talk bout mind's "informing" post realization.
It's apparently far too easy to mistake a facet of that mind-informing FOR the realization/seeing through/Truth itself.
It's more important than ever as this seeming "precipice" enters into conversation for cool heads to prevail...this is the point where the most sacred of ideas also enter in.
uh-oh.  (** tsk, tsk tsk, tsk tsk **)  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 23, 2023 21:43:21 GMT -5
Yeah, I understand that perspective, because I'm not unwilling to consider it, and for some folks that's the way life is going to play out, and perfectly so. The refusal to consider the converse, that practice - even as you conceive of it - has the potential to be an obstacle in and of itself, simply is what it is. It's not a refusal to consider, it's just understanding the plain truth. I could give you a dozen quotes from Ramana that show that your suggestion is absurd. Well, I'm sure that's the way you'd interpret them, but the one that's most relevant is the one about the thief pretending to be a cop trying to catch a thief. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 23, 2023 21:46:41 GMT -5
(** tsk, tsk tsk, tsk tsk **)  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 23, 2023 21:56:12 GMT -5
Correct. I like the monkey trainer story. Perfectly describes the nature of our perpetual discussions here on the forum. Yes. No, don't like 3 in the morning and 2 in the afternoon, but 2 in the morning and 3 in the afternoon is OK. 朝三暮四（zhao san mu si) 3 in the morning, 4 in the evening It's a Chinese idiom, actually. You may hear people using that sometimes. But the meaning may vary. I am reading an interesting book about Zhuangzi at the moment, An Introduction to Daoist Thought Action, Language, and Ethics in Zhuangzi. It goes into wu-wei and stuff and you can see quite clearly the connection to the Abe teachings. I may go into more details after I've finished the book. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 23, 2023 22:16:41 GMT -5
Question: Is it possible to polish a brick into a mirror? ChatGPT: It is theoretically possible to polish a brick into a mirror, but it would be a very difficult and time-consuming task. Bricks are not made of a reflective material, so it would take a lot of effort to create a surface that is smooth and shiny enough to act as a mirror. Additionally, bricks are porous, which would make it even harder to get a smooth finish. If you are looking for a mirror, it would be much easier and cost-effective to purchase one rather than trying to make one from a brick. (** chatbot snicker **)  Can chatbot solve koans? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 23, 2023 22:19:55 GMT -5
The seemingly teensy ledge/precipice between the abiding ground that never changes, and the tiniest, most minute of arising distinctions, and the conflating/mixing up of 'those,' is I would say the fodder for the most intense dharma battles when it comes to Nonduality. And the thing is, to even have reference for the argument, means there is quite a depth of (at the very least least) strong conceptual understanding about Nonduality already in play.
What's essentially so...what constitutes Truth vs. what arises/appears within/to the abiding ground, AS expression...AS appearance, is easy peasy to determine when we're talking abject things/objects that are obviously temporal/changing, vs. the unchanging. But things get so much more nuanced and subtle as we start to talk bout mind's "informing" post realization.
It's apparently far too easy to mistake a facet of that mind-informing FOR the realization/seeing through/Truth itself.
It's more important than ever as this seeming "precipice" enters into conversation for cool heads to prevail...this is the point where the most sacred of ideas also enter in.
uh-oh. The harder she tries the worse it gets. Verbosity is a bad substitute for actual clarity. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 23, 2023 23:44:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 24, 2023 8:09:07 GMT -5
Honestly, you'd be amazed at how little I actually know! I actually quite like the God has fallen into Her own dream metaphor. I'm not sure what the problem is. OK, metaphor. I know I can't go back to believing in Santa Claus. "God" falling into Her dream would be like "God" believing in Santa Claus. What anyone else considers is real, no problem for me. I just give my view. I'm a very poor Socrates. I give my view as an invitation, not an argument. I agree whenever and wherever I can. Sure that's fine. Really, it's just a poetic way of saying Consciousness has come to identify with its own [dream-like] creation. In that sense it ties in with the (fairly prevalent) CT perspective which generally involves mind-body identification, and fairly narrow conceptions of ones being. And there's an argument to be made that, that scenario is a bit like G-d believing in Santa! … although not a very good one, and you'll appreciate why as it tracks back to our stance on the whole imagination thing. But more broadly, the metaphor could perhaps be viewed as a poetic take on the path the very arising of experientiality takes, i.e how Impersonal expression 'descends' to individuated expression. And in that sense might even be said to apply to all creatures, or sentient expression. So, I'm not opposed to it, but just shootin the breeze. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 24, 2023 8:52:31 GMT -5
If you say so.
In that case I'm happy to state for the record that it's actually True/true that volitioning happens.
(capital Truth can only be pointed to, right) Ultimately, yeah, but in pointing, we still use words and terms that make sense to mind, within the story. But sure, one who wants to dismiss everything said by falling back on that, ultimately would not be wrong.
Actually, they would! (and I sensed reefs might have done it yesterday with his LOA stuff). Coz that would be form of second mountaineering and brown-bearing. I should probably say that I'm a proponent of the two truths doctrine, which means I see truth is an expression of Truth, albeit within the relative context (appearance). The truth I'm talking about is dhamma - Truth/truth which transcends different times, languages and cultures. Which means it holds true regardless of those. dhamma is the relative expression of 'the living Truth', and I consider, 'that volitioning is the case', to be an example of this, of dhamma. Therefore, I don't align with this inference that ultimately it's all only so much hot air. To give an example you more likely will relate to, 'that oneness is the case' is another example of what I mean by dhamma. I mean what it points to in terms of the living Truth. It's truth which transcends time language and culture. truth is an extension of Truth, or is conditioned by it, ... precisely because non-separation and Oneness is the case. I can understand your concerns with all that, and maintain that what's being pointed to is a bit more subtle, and ultimately empty and verb-like. You're positing an extreme first mountain perspective and then rightly shooting it down based on that conception. And in doing so you're merely offering the opposite extreme - the second mountain perspective, which implies that ultimately it's all baloney. It needs to be approached from a third mountain perspective, which is somewhere above and between the first two. Otherwise you just end up chucking the bathwater out with the baby and missing the dhamma. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 24, 2023 9:06:58 GMT -5
Correct. When I talk about LOA it is similar to ZD when he talks about science. In the practical everyday life, relative truth context, it is useful, but in the absolute truth context, it is meaningless.But life post SR is not lived in two divided contexts like that. The continued practice of deliberate creation post SR would have to mean a sort of lying to yourself...at least a temporary 'unseeing' of 'One singular movement,.....no causation within the dream.....absence of personal volition....no separation.'
There are indeed certain facets of experience, that even after mind's informing post SR, continue to appear and as an appearance, continue to be engaged, at least on the face of things, similar to how they were engaged in the past, but when it comes to supposed "laws" that govern what appears/arises in experience, surely the seeing through of any and all such laws, would have a depth of carry-over into day to day life, such that the person simply cannot muster up an interest to engage in what he knows to ultimately be, delusion..?
I think there is a very important distinction to be made between an appearance that continues to appear and thus be engaged with in SR, vs. the continuation of engagement of a practice that invokes an Absolute Law that governs 'how/why' stuff manifests.
If there really has been a seeing through of/an absence of the SVP...of ALL separation, then by what means does an interest in practicing LOA/deliberate creation arise? Isn't there a huge sense that "I am kidding myself," happening alongside that?
Problem is, there's not enough dhamma in his life! Or whatever the pronoun is these days. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 24, 2023 9:24:29 GMT -5
Yeah, I understand that perspective, because I'm not unwilling to consider it, and for some folks that's the way life is going to play out, and perfectly so. The refusal to consider the converse, that practice - even as you conceive of it - has the potential to be an obstacle in and of itself, simply is what it is. It's not a refusal to consider, it's just understanding the plain truth. I could give you a dozen quotes from Ramana that show that your suggestion is absurd. Without getting too far into it ... I'm pro practice, but it's easy to see how practice itself can become a form of avoidance. In fact, that's what practice for practice sake sounds like to me. What I would say though is that practice can take many forms, and I think much of the jabbering on the forums could be viewed as a form of perhaps unwitting paractice in so far as we are mostly teaching what we need to learn. I guess that is to say the jabbering could be viewed in terms of the process of purification. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 24, 2023 9:27:28 GMT -5
Question: Is it possible to polish a brick into a mirror? ChatGPT: ... A more interesting question: Is it possible to polish a brick in a mirror?
Ask it if there's any point polishing a turd, coz a lot of that seems to go on as well, hehe |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 24, 2023 9:51:14 GMT -5
It's not a refusal to consider, it's just understanding the plain truth. I could give you a dozen quotes from Ramana that show that your suggestion is absurd. Without getting too far into it ... I'm pro practice, but it's easy to see how practice itself can become a form of avoidance. In fact, that's what practice for practice sake sounds like to me. What I would say though is that practice can take many forms, and I think much of the jabbering on the forums could be viewed as a form of perhaps unwitting paractice in so far as we are mostly teaching what we need to learn. I guess that is to say the jabbering could be viewed in terms of the process of purification. This is why I try to qualify what I mean by practice, often. For me it's interior using attention and/or awareness, seeing, observing. Anything ego does is by definition not practice. Interior practice and ego are diametrically opposed. And this is primarily why I'm not ND, except with qualification (ATST, nothing exists outside the Whole). Attention-awareness precedes all formation of ego, and is the way of separation from ego. So for sdp there isn't a unity or oneness of practice and self. Ego is the subject of study, that means thinking, feelings/emotions and learned bodily actions. That's why a distinction between essence and personality is obligatory, True Self attends-to and observes false self. Attention-awareness is a finer vibration, ego is a coarser vibration, this is separating the fine from the coarse. If I can see something, I'm not-that. So a lot of ND expressed here just does not compute for sdp. If there were not "divisions" and "distinctions", there would be no movement whatsoever, and so no manifest world. For most people (say 98%+) their attention and awareness are captured and held by thoughts, feelings-emotions, actions, events, people, places, things. That's a form of bondage, that is bondage. So, yes, I am also a proponent of the Two Truths. |
|
.. reads again..
