|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 4, 2023 10:37:46 GMT -5
But this, incidentally, also proves it isn't true that only now exists. Ten seconds later your toe still hurts, a minute later your toe still hurts. A day later it has turned blue, and it still hurts. A week later it still hurts. I actually broke my little toe on my right foot, like this. It healed and I didn't know it was broken. Years later, it no longer hurts, but I can pull the top, and it moves in a way your toe will not move, and you can see where the break occurred. When I was a kid the pastor of our church shot his big toe off (accidentally, hunting). He kept it in a quart jar of formaldehyde. It was a treat, sometimes visiting his home, if begged to do so, he'd bring out the toe. Long dead, it just occurred to me, I wonder if they buried the toe with him. Though it still hurts a few seconds later, it's not the same feeling. However, I believe in time, because when I remember, I know I stubbed my toe. If I say 'I will in the future', it remains unknown until it actually happens - and is then remembered. Thus the past has a different quality to the future; therefore time. At the same time, life doesn't exist in the past or future. You can only actually experience this moment. Past, present and future come and go. Experiences come and go. And what does come and go is not real. But Being, is. The Eternal Now, is. And only what does not come and go is real. That's why we are pointing to the Now and not the present, to Being and not experiences. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 4, 2023 11:54:05 GMT -5
I don't think that analogy is going to work with him, because a person can spin out of it with ideas like, well, you can be dreaming that you stubbed your toe, or "stubbing toe" is a overlaid interpretation on raw sensory experience, which in a way is unreal – dream experience. But I think Inavalan wrote before that there are a couple things that aren't beliefs - like your bare sense of being. That's what Niz said : the only thing that can't be doubted is the bare "I Am", so it can be a doorway. Perhaps that's the way for Inavalan. That's the way I see it too. However, there seems to be no interest in going thru that door. Instead, Inavalan turns around and goes right back into imagination. As I understand these, I am oriented toward the expansion of consciousness, as opposed to regressing to a more primary level of consciousness, as the cellular consciousness is, from where, under LSD and other pracrices, the body is perceived as an universe. This happens because of the increased suggestibility in a thoughtless state. Surely this state appears to the seeker as an ultimate, but it is an ultimate dead end. I am interested in the expansion of the consciousness, and in expanding my consciousness. Imagination isn't a bad thing, as it is a tool of creation. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 4, 2023 12:22:24 GMT -5
Though it still hurts a few seconds later, it's not the same feeling. However, I believe in time, because when I remember, I know I stubbed my toe. If I say 'I will in the future', it remains unknown until it actually happens - and is then remembered. Thus the past has a different quality to the future; therefore time. At the same time, life doesn't exist in the past or future. You can only actually experience this moment. Past, present and future come and go. Experiences come and go. And what does come and go is not real. But Being, is. The Eternal Now, is. And only what does not come and go is real. That's why we are pointing to the Now and not the present, to Being and not experiences. I think that everything changes endlessly. The physical time is one dimension of the physical hyperspace. It is like the time of a story in a book you read, in a videogame you play. It isn't related to the time in the reader, or player's own reality. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 4, 2023 13:32:15 GMT -5
Isn't it curious, ~GM~ would not know Being, without the *you*, ~GM~ says "is not real"? So it seems this "not real" something is pretty important.
|
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 4, 2023 14:14:39 GMT -5
I think that everything changes endlessly. The physical time is one dimension of the physical hyperspace. It is like the time of a story in a book you read, in a videogame you play. It isn't related to the time in the reader, or player's own reality. Isn't it curious, inavalan, ~GM~ would not know Being, without the *you*, ~GM~ says "is not real"? So it seems this "not real" something is pretty important. To me, it only matters what I intuitively interpret from whatever he and others describe to have experienced, not their interpretations but why they may have interpreted that way. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 4, 2023 14:17:29 GMT -5
I understand that you "know" differently, but I stick to what I wrote. You have the right to believe you are at #4, and I have the right to believe that you are at #1. There is nothing to argue here, just expressing points of view. Problem though is that I don't actually believe that and wouldn't actually say that. It's an odd statement. So thanks for the strawman. But I have to decline. That wasn't a strawman. It was my understanding of the changes you made to what I posted. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 4, 2023 15:39:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 4, 2023 18:49:01 GMT -5
It's not that complex. You know it 'as it is' in the way it's being experienced by you.
|
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 4, 2023 21:43:44 GMT -5
It's not that complex. You know it 'as it is' in the way it's being experienced by you. I believe the point is that what you experience isn't 'as it is'; that all experience is subjective; even more, that there is no objective reality as a reference, just an endless number of subjective realities experienced by each identity / essence / point of awareness, at all levels of evolvement, which communicate with each other. These connections aren't confined to the physical reality. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 4, 2023 23:49:34 GMT -5
It's not that complex. You know it 'as it is' in the way it's being experienced by you. I believe the point is that what you experience isn't 'as it is'; that all experience is subjective; even more, that there is no objective reality as a reference, just an endless number of subjective realities experienced by each identity / essence / point of awareness, at all levels of evolvement, which communicate with each other. These connections aren't confined to the physical reality. Regardless of there being or not being an objective reality, when you are aware of what's going on with the senses there's no shred of doubt that 'this is what it's like'. That's not intellectual knowledge, it's direct in the sense if a man is in front of me, I know if he's holding a cup of coffee or not. All the people who see him agree on the fact. Thus there is crossover between what is known subjectively and what is a fact intellectually. That's how science works not by discovering an objective reality in itself (a thing in itself), but by understanding the way in which things that we experience are predictable and true for all observers regardless of their position in time and location in space. Hencewhy even if there are no simultaneous events per-se, the subjective worlds of different observers relate in a uniform way.
The Buddhist ontology takes all that into consideration. You first hear the teaching and maybe at best give it the benefit of the doubt; then you analyse it, join the dots, see if it adds up, and develop a deeper intellectual understanding. Lastly you undertake an investigation for yourself to find out the ways in which it is true. Therefore, the highest order of knowledge, wisdom, is derived from subjectivity (direct experience) and can't be cultivated any other way, but isn't exclusive of the other two ontological components.
In the Western mind we are trained in linear thinking so we might take Buddhist ontology to mean there three separate steps, 1,2 and 3, but the Eastern mind thinks in circles that encompass three inseparable things. Hence, self-discovery complements the other two factors and vise versa. Non dualists tend to poo-poo intellectualism, but I think that's misguided, because just hearing of and ensuring whatever said is reasonable is crucial for individuals to undertake a self-determined investigation.
|
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 5, 2023 0:27:00 GMT -5
I believe the point is that what you experience isn't 'as it is'; that all experience is subjective; even more, that there is no objective reality as a reference, just an endless number of subjective realities experienced by each identity / essence / point of awareness, at all levels of evolvement, which communicate with each other. These connections aren't confined to the physical reality. Regardless of there being or not being an objective reality, when you are aware of what's going on with the senses there's no shred of doubt that 'this is what it's like'. That's not intellectual knowledge, it's direct in the sense if something is in front of me, I know if he's holding a cup of coffee or not, and all the people who see him agree on the fact. Thus there is crossover between what is known subjectively and what is a fact intellectually. That's how science works not by discovering an objective reality in itself, but by understanding the way in which things that we experience are predictable and true for all people regardless of their position in time and location in space.
The Buddhist ontology takes all that into consideration. You first hear the teaching and maybe at best give it the benefit of the doubt; then you analyse it, join the dots and develop a deeper intellectual understanding. Lastly you undertake an investigation for yourself to find out the ways in which it is true. Therefore, the higher order of knowledge, wisdom, is derives from subjectivity and can't be cultivated any other way.
In the Western mind we are trained in linear thinking so we might take Buddhist ontology to mean there three separate steps, but the Eastern mind things in circles that encompass three inseparable things together. Hence the self-discover complements the other two factors and vise versa. Non dualists tend to poo-poo intellectualism, but I think that's terribly misguided, because just hearing of and ensuring whatever said is reasonable and makes sense is actually crucial for the individual to undertake a self-determined investigation, as opposed to becoming a docile, obedient follower.
I am of a different opinion. Hypnosis throws doubt on all sensual perception. If you can be hypnotized into looking for your shoe while holding it in your hand, or develop burns and blisters with no exposure to a burning agent, or forget your own name, or develop fears, likes and dislikes, and so on, then you obviously can't trust what you experience to be so. The intellectual understanding is based on the five senses perception, and it is distorted by your beliefs. You can't develop a higher order of knowledge intellectually. You need intuition. Reason and sense depend on the quality of the input data, and on the ability to reason. I think too that the Eastern ways are more conducive to approaching the truths, but I am not aware of any actual way that really accomplishes that. All use some kind of hypnosis on the followers, as all other religions, philosophies, practices do, leaving the seeker exposed to gurus and dogmas' suggestions, all of them based on distorted interpretations of individual experiences. I believe that the only way to remove some of the distortions is to intuitively interpret everything. EDIT: I see that you edited your post, and reformulated in a few places, but I don't think that it makes a difference to my reply. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 5, 2023 1:17:15 GMT -5
Regardless of there being or not being an objective reality, when you are aware of what's going on with the senses there's no shred of doubt that 'this is what it's like'. That's not intellectual knowledge, it's direct in the sense if something is in front of me, I know if he's holding a cup of coffee or not, and all the people who see him agree on the fact. Thus there is crossover between what is known subjectively and what is a fact intellectually. That's how science works not by discovering an objective reality in itself, but by understanding the way in which things that we experience are predictable and true for all people regardless of their position in time and location in space.
The Buddhist ontology takes all that into consideration. You first hear the teaching and maybe at best give it the benefit of the doubt; then you analyse it, join the dots and develop a deeper intellectual understanding. Lastly you undertake an investigation for yourself to find out the ways in which it is true. Therefore, the higher order of knowledge, wisdom, is derives from subjectivity and can't be cultivated any other way.
In the Western mind we are trained in linear thinking so we might take Buddhist ontology to mean there three separate steps, but the Eastern mind things in circles that encompass three inseparable things together. Hence the self-discover complements the other two factors and vise versa. Non dualists tend to poo-poo intellectualism, but I think that's terribly misguided, because just hearing of and ensuring whatever said is reasonable and makes sense is actually crucial for the individual to undertake a self-determined investigation, as opposed to becoming a docile, obedient follower.
I am of a different opinion. Hypnosis throws doubt on all sensual perception. If you can be hypnotized into looking for your shoe while holding it in your hand, or develop burns and blisters with no exposure to a burning agent, or forget your own name, or develop fears, likes and dislikes, and so on, then you obviously can't trust what you experience to be so. The intellectual understanding is based on the five senses perception, and it is distorted by your beliefs. You can't develop a higher order of knowledge intellectually. You need intuition. Reason and sense depend on the quality of the input data, and on the ability to reason. I think too that the Eastern ways are more conducive to approaching the truths, but I am not aware of any actual way that really accomplishes that. All use some kind of hypnosis on the followers, as all other religions, philosophies, practices do, leaving the seeker exposed to gurus and dogmas' suggestions, all of them based on distorted interpretations of individual experiences. I believe that the only way to remove some of the distortions is to intuitively interpret everything. EDIT: I see that you edited your post, and reformulated in a few places, but I don't think that it makes a difference to my reply. No different in edit. Just a bit tidier. I have no idea what intuition is, but my guess is it'll just go with preexisting bias.
Lets say a guy is hypnotised and eats an onion believing it's an apple. He has no doubt, but everyone who see him knows it's an onion. If we reverse that to say everyone is hypnotised but the man eating, who sees it is an onion, then who's right and who's wrong?
It's easy to determine as we can test the molecules by how they react to other chemicals. The molecules will react in the way they do regardless of who perceives what. The scientist will say, despite all appearances, this is not an apple. He gets a reality check. We can think one thing with a high degree of certainty, and even have a consensus on it, but we turn out to be wrong. It even happened to me (but it was only that one time and it was a very long time ago)  . |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 5, 2023 5:41:55 GMT -5
Regardless of there being or not being an objective reality, when you are aware of what's going on with the senses there's no shred of doubt that 'this is what it's like'. That's not intellectual knowledge, it's direct in the sense if something is in front of me, I know if he's holding a cup of coffee or not, and all the people who see him agree on the fact. Thus there is crossover between what is known subjectively and what is a fact intellectually. That's how science works not by discovering an objective reality in itself, but by understanding the way in which things that we experience are predictable and true for all people regardless of their position in time and location in space.
The Buddhist ontology takes all that into consideration. You first hear the teaching and maybe at best give it the benefit of the doubt; then you analyse it, join the dots and develop a deeper intellectual understanding. Lastly you undertake an investigation for yourself to find out the ways in which it is true. Therefore, the higher order of knowledge, wisdom, is derives from subjectivity and can't be cultivated any other way. In the Western mind we are trained in linear thinking so we might take Buddhist ontology to mean there three separate steps, but the Eastern mind things in circles that encompass three inseparable things together. Hence the self-discover complements the other two factors and vise versa. Non dualists tend to poo-poo intellectualism, but I think that's terribly misguided, because just hearing of and ensuring whatever said is reasonable and makes sense is actually crucial for the individual to undertake a self-determined investigation, as opposed to becoming a docile, obedient follower.
I am of a different opinion. Hypnosis throws doubt on all sensual perception. If you can be hypnotized into looking for your shoe while holding it in your hand, or develop burns and blisters with no exposure to a burning agent, or forget your own name, or develop fears, likes and dislikes, and so on, then you obviously can't trust what you experience to be so. The intellectual understanding is based on the five senses perception, and it is distorted by your beliefs. You can't develop a higher order of knowledge intellectually. You need intuition. Reason and sense depend on the quality of the input data, and on the ability to reason. I think too that the Eastern ways are more conducive to approaching the truths, but I am not aware of any actual way that really accomplishes that. All use some kind of hypnosis on the followers, as all other religions, philosophies, practices do, leaving the seeker exposed to gurus and dogmas' suggestions, all of them based on distorted interpretations of individual experiences. I believe that the only way to remove some of the distortions is to intuitively interpret everything. EDIT: I see that you edited your post, and reformulated in a few places, but I don't think that it makes a difference to my reply. What is intuition for unless it guides one to a more-objective reality? |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Sept 5, 2023 7:33:45 GMT -5
I am of a different opinion. Hypnosis throws doubt on all sensual perception. If you can be hypnotized into looking for your shoe while holding it in your hand, or develop burns and blisters with no exposure to a burning agent, or forget your own name, or develop fears, likes and dislikes, and so on, then you obviously can't trust what you experience to be so. The intellectual understanding is based on the five senses perception, and it is distorted by your beliefs. You can't develop a higher order of knowledge intellectually. You need intuition. Reason and sense depend on the quality of the input data, and on the ability to reason. I think too that the Eastern ways are more conducive to approaching the truths, but I am not aware of any actual way that really accomplishes that. All use some kind of hypnosis on the followers, as all other religions, philosophies, practices do, leaving the seeker exposed to gurus and dogmas' suggestions, all of them based on distorted interpretations of individual experiences. I believe that the only way to remove some of the distortions is to intuitively interpret everything. EDIT: I see that you edited your post, and reformulated in a few places, but I don't think that it makes a difference to my reply. No different in edit. Just a bit tidier. I have no idea what intuition is, but my guess is it'll just go with preexisting bias. Lets say a guy is hypnotised and eats an onion believing it's an apple. He has no doubt, but everyone who see him knows it's an onion. If we reverse that to say everyone is hypnotised but the man eating, who sees it is an onion, then who's right and who's wrong?
It's easy to determine as we can test the molecules by how they react to other chemicals. The molecules will react in the way they do regardless of who perceives what. The scientist will say, despite all appearances, this is not an apple. He gets a reality check. We can think one thing with a high degree of certainty, and even have a consensus on it, but we turn out to be wrong. It even happened to me (but it was only that one time and it was a very long time ago) . From what I gathered in reading Inavalan, s/he's big into gestalt psychology, at least theoretically. It's a pretty cool model, based on the bit I understand about it. The basic structure of that school of thought seems to be based on an I-It duality. When looked at from an existential perspective, that theoretical fundamental could be applied to intuiting/resolving/realizing the split between I (as a separate self) and IT (existence ITself); whereas, a lot of the field of psychology is more aligned with creating a healthier sense of self. So yeah, it could offer a few insights into the dialectic here in the cyber-sanatorium. The duality it utilizes is similar to the Taoists' ying-yang, the Hindu's Shiva/Shakti, personal/impersonal, or mind-based conclusions versus realization, or whatevs. Preaching to the choir, we all know language is a dualistic tool used in contexts, so in a way, we are linguistically poking around on the edges of where and when mind's interpreted, limited contexts could collapse, giving rise to a more expanded awareness of infinite potential. Even then, mind is engaged thereafter to interact in the world, which is what gives rise to the need to work through the implications of (a/the) realization that seems to defy the mind's previous conceptualizations, cause-effect interpretations, ideas on locus of control, etc. Intuition, in how I use the word, has always referred to something that has one's experiential learning at play (including both -but not explicitly/structurally- theoretical ideas and concepts, as well as a sense of the interaction of various aspects of a given context) and a greater sense of the dynamics of change at play. Some of the intuitive interpretations may/may not play out in the immediate context. Afterall, how many times has one said, "I knew that was gonna happen!", and maybe we were off by a day-week-month, depending on the situation. So, perhaps intuition is more like a movement of mind that is more aware of and that allows some peripheral potentials to come into consideration. I have A LOT of memories of people giving me the look of "WTF are you on about, mate?"  But the fact remains that once one starts to interact in the dualistic world of thought, contexts, and appearing existence, one is playing, wading out into, and swimming in some degree of uncertainty, where there is always a bit of doubt mixed in as things unfold. That's something of a gist of what I refer to as Truth Realization, which is same-same but different than SR, and neither of which is provable beyond the shadow of doubt to others. The idea of TR is what I've referred to as the re-write, when mind is being informed by IT/THAT which has been realized, while previous conditioned beliefs continue to arise and distort the view of a context and/or pull one's attention back into the personal/self-centric/ego-centric worldview. Even logically (with an intuition of the trans-rational), the I or the WE are conceptualizations appearing in mind. It's easy to fall back into the 'truth' of mind's conditioned dream, and that's natural. But, it's also nice to KNOW mind's 'truth' is neti neti...in Truth. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Sept 5, 2023 7:58:05 GMT -5
I am of a different opinion. Hypnosis throws doubt on all sensual perception. If you can be hypnotized into looking for your shoe while holding it in your hand, or develop burns and blisters with no exposure to a burning agent, or forget your own name, or develop fears, likes and dislikes, and so on, then you obviously can't trust what you experience to be so. The intellectual understanding is based on the five senses perception, and it is distorted by your beliefs. You can't develop a higher order of knowledge intellectually. You need intuition. Reason and sense depend on the quality of the input data, and on the ability to reason. I think too that the Eastern ways are more conducive to approaching the truths, but I am not aware of any actual way that really accomplishes that. All use some kind of hypnosis on the followers, as all other religions, philosophies, practices do, leaving the seeker exposed to gurus and dogmas' suggestions, all of them based on distorted interpretations of individual experiences. I believe that the only way to remove some of the distortions is to intuitively interpret everything. EDIT: I see that you edited your post, and reformulated in a few places, but I don't think that it makes a difference to my reply. What is intuition for unless it guides one to a more-objective reality? The sense of intuition you seem to like to use for understanding a more-objective reality is likely related to your apparent desire for a more all-encompassing map for understanding how/why things happen. I wager that you are a great and dependable electrician, and deeply respectful of and fascinated by the cause-effect relationships of electricity and/or energy. The pragmatics are aligned with such specific contexts, and not so interested in collapsing the boundaries of existential contexts. In the former contexts on electricity, any disrespect for the boundaries of physics brings on calamities, even life-threatening. Mayhaps you relate such danger with where your mind was at the edge of sanity back pre-1975. That's why I suggested the exploration of an emotional block, which could also be related to some childhood trauma, dunno. I've always been more curious about what you consider to be the cause-effect of how/why your mind was pulled away from that potential, fateful decision. There's someNothing there worth some present gratitude that might offer some intuitive appreciation for a conscious psychological death and conscious rebirth of something of an individuated eternity. |
|
.
