|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 24, 2023 9:52:47 GMT -5
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. That's a good way to state it. Clearly, THIS, in the form of humans, becomes culturally conditioned to imagine separateness, and in that sense THIS, in the form of humans, has misidentified with a body and the idea that the body/mind organism is a SVP. When THIS, via a human, sees through the illusion that IT, ITSELF, in the form of that human, has mistakenly imagined SVP-ness, THIS, in effect, wakes up from the dream of separateness. I'm not sure why SDP would have any disagreement with E's metaphor unless he imagines that there is some fundamental God-like entity separate from humans, and never the twain shall meet. SDP? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 24, 2023 9:59:48 GMT -5
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 Chapter 22 Chuang Tzu Tung Kuo Tzu asked Chuang Tzu, saying, 'What you call Tao, where is it?' 'There is nowhere', replied Chuang Tzu, 'where it is not'. 'Tell me one place at any rate where it is', said Tung Kuo Tzu. 'It is in the ant', replied Chuang Tzu. 'Why go so low down?' asked Tung Kuo Tzu. 'It is in a tare', said Chuang Tzu. 'Still lower', objected Tung Kuo Tzu. 'It is in a potsherd', said Chuang Tzu. 'Worse still!' cried Tung Kuo Tzu. 'It is in a turd', said Chuang Tzu. And Tung Kuo Tzu made no reply. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 24, 2023 10:06:23 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. FWIW, as time when by, I stopped using the word "practice" and started using the word "activity" when discussing meditation precisely because the idea of practice is often misconstrued as an attempt to get from one point to another when its impossible to practice becoming what you already are. The result of meditative activities, generally speaking, is to get out of one's head (stop imagining separation) and discover what's always here and now. That's why many sages say that "practice is empty" or that meditation should be pursued "with no gaining idea." Dogen was essentially telling his followers, "What you are is already what you're looking for, so sitting in meditation is being what you are as much as doing anything else." That's why Soto people refer to their meditative activity as "just sitting" rather than "sitting in order to get somewhere." |
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 24, 2023 10:08:30 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. Is the belief in Santa Claus though, and the me character who holds the belief, somehow "not" God/Godding?
The metaphor as i see it, is a way to indicate and include the fact that delusion/obscuring of Truth happens, arises/appears as a facet of experience, and that even that cannot fall outside of "God."
|
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 24, 2023 10:14:35 GMT -5
I guess the flak I got for using "she" instead of "he" was still a little fresh. Perhaps the energy of the intent behind your usage and the energy behind the intent of zaz's usage was of a different quality, which resulted in a different quality of kamma. Oh yeah...for sure. Zaz was light-hearted, making a bit of joke. I wasn't 'intending' anything at all in particular....the pronoun used there, wasn't even thought about... was the natural outflow of something that had been taken for granted at 'the case' for some time now. I am now making a point when addressing Reefs to pay attention to that correction. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 24, 2023 10:17:48 GMT -5
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. That's a good way to state it. Clearly, THIS, in the form of humans, becomes culturally conditioned to imagine separateness, and in that sense THIS, in the form of humans, has misidentified with a body and the idea that the body/mind organism is a SVP. When THIS, via a human, sees through the illusion that IT, ITSELF, in the form of that human, has mistakenly imagined, THIS, in effect, wakes up from the dream of separateness. I'm not sure why SDP would have any disagreement with E's metaphor unless he imagines that there is some fundamental God-like entity separate from humans, and never the twain shall meet. SDP? It has to do, yes, with origins. I take Consciousness as the origin or everything. (consciousness didn't arise from some complicated "self"-manipulation of the 100 some-odd elements, IOW, dirt, and then you would have to ask where did the elements come from in the first place). I see intelligence operating everywhere in the universe. Is there an intelligence greater than the intelligence manifest in human consciousness? Yes, obviously for sdp. You write of it often, could you pump your own blood? Scientists don't even know how life came to be. So I don't see how this vast field of Intelligent Consciousness could ever go unconscious in the first place. It's that simple. At what point would the vast Intelligence go to sleep, to make man, asleep? It seems if that vast Intelligence went to sleep, it would become inoperable and everything would just disintegrate. The metaphor just doesn't compute for sdp. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 24, 2023 10:25:45 GMT -5
That's a good way to state it. Clearly, THIS, in the form of humans, becomes culturally conditioned to imagine separateness, and in that sense THIS, in the form of humans, has misidentified with a body and the idea that the body/mind organism is a SVP. When THIS, via a human, sees through the illusion that IT, ITSELF, in the form of that human, has mistakenly imagined, THIS, in effect, wakes up from the dream of separateness. I'm not sure why SDP would have any disagreement with E's metaphor unless he imagines that there is some fundamental God-like entity separate from humans, and never the twain shall meet. SDP? It has to do, yes, with origins. I take Consciousness as the origin or everything. (consciousness didn't arise from some complicated "self"-manipulation of the 100 some-odd elements, IOW, dirt, and then you would have to ask where did the elements come from in the first place). I see intelligence operating everywhere in the universe. Is there an intelligence greater than the intelligence manifest in human consciousness? Yes, obviously for sdp. You write of it often, could you pump your own blood? Scientists don't even know how life came to be. So I don't see how this vast field of Intelligent Consciousness could ever go unconscious in the first place. It's that simple. At what point would the vast Intelligence go to sleep, to make man, asleep? It seems if that vast Intelligence went to sleep, it would become inoperable and everything would just disintegrate. The metaphor just doesn't compute for sdp. The vast intelligence that you refer to, and which we all agree on, only goes to sleep in the form of humans who have developed an intellect and imagine separation, so it's not like the entire universe goes to sleep, whatever that would mean. It just means that THIS, in the form of humans, falls into the dream of separateness. THIS and humans are not two separate things. |
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 24, 2023 10:26:38 GMT -5
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?
Huge BINGO! That's something I've tried to point out for over ten years here, what I don't get about how SR & how life works, together. It's like, OK, I see the oasis is a mirage, but then get comfortable living with the mirage. It all doesn't compute for sdp. Well, glad it resonated, but keep in mind, it can get complicated because realization/seeing through does not mean the dissolving/end of the appearance itself....just the erroneous beliefs/ideas about it that hinged on the mistake of separation.
But LOA....any theory that tries to explain the 'hows/whys' of experience, any theory/supposed spiritual explanation that involves 'causality'....'volition'...separation itself, never does really appear.....all spiritual theories that address the 'hows/whys' of what's going on here, are 'inferred' based upon the sequentially unfolding nature of the story, the experience of 'this preceding that,' and 'this act seemingly being inextricably tied to 'that' happening.'
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 24, 2023 10:28:09 GMT -5
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. Is the belief in Santa Claus though, and the me character who holds the belief, somehow "not" God/Godding?
The metaphor as i see it, is a way to indicate and include the fact that delusion/obscuring of Truth happens, arises/appears as a facet of experience, and that even that cannot fall outside of "God."
I'm not a pantheist, period. That would be pantheism. Compartmentalization, quantization, is how everything is structured. { [ ( ) ] } {This is everything, the Whole} (This is man) They are not symmetrical. ( ) can't encompass the Whole or is not equal to the Whole, which would be pantheism. But no, nothing can fall outside "God". { } |
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 24, 2023 10:38:06 GMT -5
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? Ultimately, yes! The moment we start talking about, writing about "Truth" we enter into conceptualizing....distinction...appearance. The terms we use are not "IT." We can get around that by acknowledging the pointers/metaphors for what they are.
To say that 'the ground remains unchanging as temporal, changing content comes and goes,' is though, far more of an accurate capture than an assertion that says 'the ground also changes as temporal content changes...there is no abiding awareness.....it's all transient.'
Neither fully, completely captures what is referenced by "abiding ground." But I'm guessing anyone with even a modicum of grasp on Nonduality would agree that the former is a more "accurate" pointer than the latter.
The thing with this "unified field," though is it's continually been asserted as something more than a non-conceptual "pointer/metaphor." It's been asserted as a some-thing seen/known that goes hand in hand with the supposed, Absolute, realized knowing that appearing people and all things/objects, are actual "perceivers/experiencers."
|
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 24, 2023 10:48:57 GMT -5
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. Take a close look at what it means to 'know' perception as it happens. The knowing of 'it,' is inextricably tied to the knowing of 'what' is the content of that perception.
Absent the knowing/seeing of the content, how is it/can it be known there IS perception in play?
I think this is so much more readily seen when there is direct reference for the ground of awareness ABSENT perception. Those who have no reference claim that "IF" there is reference for that ground, then there "had to be" mind's perception in play in order to 'know it.'
I cannot explain how or why that is false, but I assure anyone who believes that, that it is. Unbounded Awareness, absent any limited arising window of perception, is/can be known and once 'it' has been apprehended, and wakefulness abides, it abides, unchanging as the foundation of every moment of arising, temporal, perception and content/perceivables.
That does not mean though that it gets 'infused' into each appearing object/thing, like toothpaste gets squeezed/infused into tubes, thereby making the object/thing itself, "an aware, perceiver/experiencer."
That whole argument of "I do know via realization," is a conflation of "experiencing/perceiving," with "Abiding Awareness."
To realize Abiding Awareness, absent any content at all, is to also realize "experiencing/perceiving," to be an arising within to that unbounded ground.
"Experience/perception" requires a sort of 'pinching off'....a 'distinction' within/to that abiding ground.....to see that is to also see/know that although there is experiencing/perception arising, it's arising to no-one...no-thing. THAT is the realization/seeing through of 'the perceiver, the experiencer, the doer, the thinker, the actor, the intender.'
In short, perceiving/experience-ing, and all the inherent content of such = temporal/changing/transient/ephemeral, and Unbounded Awareness = unchanging, unmoving.
|
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 24, 2023 10:56:39 GMT -5
The harder she tries the worse it gets. Verbosity is a bad substitute for actual clarity. If I wrote that or some similar insult about the 'way' you engage, I'd likely receive an admonition...yes, or no? |
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 24, 2023 10:58:40 GMT -5
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.
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. I very much agree with what you're saying there. What I was aiming for there was an acknowledgement that ultimately, words will never fully capture "It."
Again, you've put that really well......nice explanation.
Re: the second paragraph; If you were at all interested in a deep-dive into the archives...there were several years of discussion where I argued your point....that volition was nothing more than the experience of being able to freely choose. E and Reefs weren't buying it, even a little.
It really does come to down to specifically how 'volition' is defined. Somewhere along the way I added "actual/Absolute/Truth" to my definition.
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 24, 2023 11:06:02 GMT -5
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. Take a close look at what it means to 'know' perception as it happens. The knowing of 'it,' is inextricably tied to the knowing of 'what' is the content of that perception.
Absent the knowing/seeing of the content, how is it/can it be known there IS perception in play?
I think this is so much more readily seen when there is direct reference for the ground of awareness ABSENT perception. Those who have no reference claim that "IF" there is reference for that ground, then there "had to be" mind's perception in play in order to 'know it.'
[div ]I cannot explain how or why that is false, but I assure anyone who believes that, that it is. Unbounded Awareness, absent any limited arising window of perception, is/can be known and once 'it' has been apprehended, and wakefulness abides, it abides, Yes. I have a reference for pure awareness without content (nivikalpa samadhi), but I can't explain it either except to speculate that what the Buddhists call "Big Mind," or the intelligence of THIS, is one-with whatever is happening, so memory of a direct apprehension of pure awareness (beyond thought) remains after perceptual content returns. |
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 24, 2023 11:07:12 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. Again, all depends on the definition of "practice." For some, intrinsic to that term is the sense of "engaging in an act to get somewhere/attain something." But what you're saying there supports the term as something more inclusive...less specific. Makes sense then that yeah, this jabbering/yammering on we do on these forums, while engaged in for the sheer enjoyment of the act, if indeed it does have the secondary sort of 'benefit' of purification, could indeed, very much be looked at as a practice/process of sorts. |
|
