|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 16, 2023 21:14:20 GMT -5
I'm trying to explore contexts shifts with ZGM-Reefs. I'm basically asking him how All That Is gets ~packed~ into a particular mind-body. ZGM talks all the time about 2 contexts. I'm trying to ask him, what is it that functions in the "personal" context AND the impersonal context. ZGM makes all kinds of claims about how the personal context can ~manipulate~ its world. That's what I would like an account about. How the personal can manipulate All That Is, or even just "what to do on a Wednesday afternoon". If you want to get in on this, great. I don't think ZD's view can help ZGM out. ZGM's view is the tail wagging the dog. There isn't a view without a ~you~. Or maybe you can help. ZD goes to a restaurant. You decide on steak or chicken or fish or a vegetable plate. No, not a good example. Say ZD gets a $100,000.00 windfall from an old forgotten issue, a forgotten loan to someone or some such. How...? No, that's not a good example either. The beginning and the end of this 7 minute video on memories make the point that nobody could function in-the-world without memories. Sensations alone would mean nothing without memories. Memories from the self, that form the self. So, any particular brain-body could not function in-the-world without memories that constitute the self that ZD says is illusory. Memories give the necessary context to sensations to be able to operate in-the-world. To laughter: I'm up early to watch England vs Australia. As I woke up my mea culpa bothered me. So I had to come back and check. I don't find a contradiction in what I said. What I recalled, this morning is that I said we need self-memories to make sense of the world. That, I didn't say we couldn't have sensations apart from self-memories, which, as far as I can decipher was your point of my contradiction. (I have made and explored the differences and distinctions between sensations, thoughts, feelings/emotions and body-actions, for 47 years. That's why it bothered me that I could have made a mistake). What I wrote is above: Nobody could function in the world without memories, I still agree that this is true. Sensations alone without memory, just reiterates that. No, the contradiction was between the statement that memory is necessary to make meaning of sensation with the statement that the chain of physical causation that flows from a punch in the nose is real. Surely, reality is meaningful, and memory is secondary to sensation. There is a potential segue from there to the nature of meaning. For instance, in relative, personal terms, I don't disagree with your point about function and memory, although perhaps you might be surprised at how little memory is actually needed to function with a still mind. The conditioning operates, but most memory is irrelevant to that operation. And all of this meaning is a focus on the trivial, on the clockwork. Every instant, each sensation, even the most prosaic, fleeting or mundane, is full of meaning, but it is of such a profundity that the thinking, emoting mind has no chance of ever grasping it except by the most indirect hint. And the analytic mind dulls any capacity even to perceive the hint. The analytic mind is a dead landscape of cardboard cut-outs, flavorless food and stifled air where nothing is felt. Turn away from the analytic mind. Especially if your interest is in "purification". |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 16, 2023 21:30:54 GMT -5
Thanks for the effort, but ... "one" does the same in establishing beliefs about the physical reality as it is overwhelmingly accepted by the masses ... You described a process of establishing beliefs. You see, from my perspective, I know that your beliefs as stated are distortions, without claiming that I know the whole truth, just better. This is not an intellectual perspective, but an intuitive one. An important difference is that my current set of beliefs is open, while yours is closed. Surely, I accept that you, as we all, believe only what your current individual level of evolvement allows. As intuition allows to overcome the limitations of intellect, as gestalt structures overcome the limitations of deterministic ones, putting aside your current beliefs and expectations, is essential to more deeply understand reality. I found your use of language here to be excellent. Not saying i agree, just saying I appreciate the expression. There is no such thing as a belief that does not establish a limitation. Nonduality is used to point sideways to limitation. That includes the stories ZD is fond of. Analyzing them in terms of belief is completely missing the point.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 16, 2023 21:36:34 GMT -5
the twingle twangle thoughts they tangle
in constricted time
a focus tight and rigid true
shall always fail to rhyme
the globe it spins and winds emerge
chaotic patterns swirl
see the beauty in the mist, the watery, ephemeral curls
the weatherman points at his map
he speaks of this tomorrow
from analytic mind you'll get, nothing but more sorrow
step outside
feel the wind
stand still then and know
release the focus understand
this, is where you must go
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 16, 2023 23:28:44 GMT -5
I found your use of language here to be excellent. Not saying i agree, just saying I appreciate the expression. There is no such thing as a belief that does not establish a limitation. Nonduality is used to point sideways to limitation. That includes the stories ZD is fond of. Analyzing them in terms of belief is completely missing the point. I know. I know. What I could simply agree with is that there's no way of following a pointer while holding onto any beliefs. Taking this one step past 'belief', I've had the experience of what seems like a total loss of mind. As if the mind has totally and utterly gone. But I wouldn't actually say that it was gone, it was just gone in comparison to what I had experienced 'mind' to be before. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 16, 2023 23:33:57 GMT -5
To laughter: I'm up early to watch England vs Australia. As I woke up my mea culpa bothered me. So I had to come back and check. I don't find a contradiction in what I said. What I recalled, this morning is that I said we need self-memories to make sense of the world. That, I didn't say we couldn't have sensations apart from self-memories, which, as far as I can decipher was your point of my contradiction. (I have made and explored the differences and distinctions between sensations, thoughts, feelings/emotions and body-actions, for 47 years. That's why it bothered me that I could have made a mistake). What I wrote is above: Nobody could function in the world without memories, I still agree that this is true. Sensations alone without memory, just reiterates that. No, the contradiction was between the statement that memory is necessary to make meaning of sensation with the statement that the chain of physical causation that flows from a punch in the nose is real. Surely, reality is meaningful, and memory is secondary to sensation. There is a potential segue from there to the nature of meaning. For instance, in relative, personal terms, I don't disagree with your point about function and memory, although perhaps you might be surprised at how little memory is actually needed to function with a still mind. The conditioning operates, but most memory is irrelevant to that operation. And all of this meaning is a focus on the trivial, on the clockwork. Every instant, each sensation, even the most prosaic, fleeting or mundane, is full of meaning, but it is of such a profundity that the thinking, emoting mind has no chance of ever grasping it except by the most indirect hint. And the analytic mind dulls any capacity even to perceive the hint. The analytic mind is a dead landscape of cardboard cut-outs, flavorless food and stifled air where nothing is felt. Turn away from the analytic mind. Especially if your interest is in "purification". Read this after my reply....what you said here relates to what I just said. When the analyzing aspect of mind is strong, and then it's gone, it really seems like the mind itself has gone. But I'd say the 'reality' is that the analytic aspect specifically has lost its dominance. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Aug 17, 2023 0:37:19 GMT -5
There is no such thing as a belief that does not establish a limitation. Nonduality is used to point sideways to limitation. That includes the stories ZD is fond of. Analyzing them in terms of belief is completely missing the point. I know. I know. What I could simply agree with is that there's no way of following a pointer while holding onto any beliefs. Taking this one step past 'belief', I've had the experience of what seems like a total loss of mind. As if the mind has totally and utterly gone. But I wouldn't actually say that it was gone, it was just gone in comparison to what I had experienced 'mind' to be before. In the interview posted by stardustpilgrim Lilly describes a similar state (probably in last part) and its significance (in his opinion). Full transcript: intuition.org/txt/lilly.htmEDIT: |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 17, 2023 6:01:19 GMT -5
I found your use of language here to be excellent. Not saying i agree, just saying I appreciate the expression. There is no such thing as a belief that does not establish a limitation. Nonduality is used to point sideways to limitation. That includes the stories ZD is fond of. Analyzing them in terms of belief is completely missing the point. So true. Nothing to do with beliefs, but I doubt that this will be believed.  |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 17, 2023 6:16:29 GMT -5
No, the contradiction was between the statement that memory is necessary to make meaning of sensation with the statement that the chain of physical causation that flows from a punch in the nose is real. Surely, reality is meaningful, and memory is secondary to sensation. There is a potential segue from there to the nature of meaning. For instance, in relative, personal terms, I don't disagree with your point about function and memory, although perhaps you might be surprised at how little memory is actually needed to function with a still mind. The conditioning operates, but most memory is irrelevant to that operation. And all of this meaning is a focus on the trivial, on the clockwork. Every instant, each sensation, even the most prosaic, fleeting or mundane, is full of meaning, but it is of such a profundity that the thinking, emoting mind has no chance of ever grasping it except by the most indirect hint. And the analytic mind dulls any capacity even to perceive the hint. The analytic mind is a dead landscape of cardboard cut-outs, flavorless food and stifled air where nothing is felt. Turn away from the analytic mind. Especially if your interest is in "purification". Read this after my reply....what you said here relates to what I just said. When the analyzing aspect of mind is strong, and then it's gone, it really seems like the mind itself has gone. But I'd say the 'reality' is that the analytic aspect specifically has lost its dominance. Yes, that's a great way to put it. Most people are jerked around by their thoughts concerning the future, the past, comparing themselves to others, seeking admiration or respect, wanting to be special, acquiring stuff, analyzing, calculating, hoping, wishing, needing, wanting, expecting, ad infinitum, but when the analytical desiring aspect of mind ceases to be dominant, life becomes simple, direct, and down-to-earth. Nothing mystical and yet pretty magical. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 17, 2023 11:01:37 GMT -5
There is no such thing as a belief that does not establish a limitation. Nonduality is used to point sideways to limitation. That includes the stories ZD is fond of. Analyzing them in terms of belief is completely missing the point. So true. Nothing to do with beliefs, but I doubt that this will be believed.  |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Aug 17, 2023 11:55:44 GMT -5
I found your use of language here to be excellent. Not saying i agree, just saying I appreciate the expression. Nonduality is used to point sideways to limitation. That includes the stories ZD is fond of. Analyzing them in terms of belief is completely missing the point. not the point. The point is: if you don't see a limitation, it doesn't mean there isn't one. So, by default all your truths are beliefs. You don't start by assuming that everything is true until proven it was just a belief, but vice versa: everything is belief until proven unchallengeable. There are very few apparently unchallengeable truths, and only when completely unqualified: one's own existence, change. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 17, 2023 12:48:00 GMT -5
There is no such thing as a belief that does not establish a limitation. Nonduality is used to point sideways to limitation. That includes the stories ZD is fond of. Analyzing them in terms of belief is completely missing the point. not the point. The point is: if you don't see a limitation, it doesn't mean there isn't one. So, by default all your truths are beliefs. You don't start by assuming that everything is true until proven it was just a belief, but vice versa: everything is belief until proven unchallengeable. There are very few apparently unchallengeable truths, and only when completely unqualified: one's own existence, change. I'd also add 'oneness' to the list, on the basis that if your existence is a truth, it means that there's no 'place' else for your existence to go i.e there's no existence outside or beyond of existence. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Aug 17, 2023 14:57:47 GMT -5
That's not the point. The point is: if you don't see a limitation, it doesn't mean there isn't one. So, by default all your truths are beliefs. You don't start by assuming that everything is true until proven it was just a belief, but vice versa: everything is belief until proven unchallengeable. There are very few apparently unchallengeable truths, and only when completely unqualified: one's own existence, change. I'd also add 'oneness' to the list, on the basis that if your existence is a truth, it means that there's no 'place' else for your existence to go i.e there's no existence outside or beyond of existence. It seems that 'oneness' requires an explanation, a deduction, an interpretation. "I exist", "change" are directly known. They are even difficult to explain or justify. Maybe this is the origin of the preoccupation with "I AM", and its various (mis)interpretations. A symbol can be, and is differently interpreted, according to your current needs and abilities. When you try to explain "I exist", you introduce distortions caused by your limitations due to your level of evolvement, beliefs, intellect. That's why I wrote " apparently unchallengeable truths, and only when completely unqualified". If you ask "who/what am I" you already induced distortions. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 17, 2023 15:11:35 GMT -5
I'd also add 'oneness' to the list, on the basis that if your existence is a truth, it means that there's no 'place' else for your existence to go i.e there's no existence outside or beyond of existence. It seems that 'oneness' requires an explanation, a deduction, an interpretation. "I exist", "change" are directly known. They are even difficult to explain or justify. Maybe this is the origin of the preoccupation with "I AM", and its various (mis)interpretations. A symbol can be, and is differently interpreted, according to your current needs and abilities. When you try to explain "I exist", you introduce distortions caused by your limitations due to your level of evolvement, beliefs, intellect. That's why I wrote " apparently unchallengeable truths, and only when completely unqualified". If you ask "who/what am I" you already induced distortions. yep I understand, and it can be said that 'oneness' is directly known....I'm sure some folks here would say that, and I'd happily say it too. But sometimes I feel that offering something with reasoning is better. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Aug 17, 2023 15:41:16 GMT -5
It seems that 'oneness' requires an explanation, a deduction, an interpretation. "I exist", "change" are directly known. They are even difficult to explain or justify. Maybe this is the origin of the preoccupation with "I AM", and its various (mis)interpretations. A symbol can be, and is differently interpreted, according to your current needs and abilities. When you try to explain "I exist", you introduce distortions caused by your limitations due to your level of evolvement, beliefs, intellect. That's why I wrote " apparently unchallengeable truths, and only when completely unqualified". If you ask "who/what am I" you already induced distortions. yep I understand, and it can be said that 'oneness' is directly known....I'm sure some folks here would say that, and I'd happily say it too. But sometimes I feel that offering something with reasoning is better. If only "some folks", or only in some state (e.g. of consciousness) ... then "oneness" is a belief; it isn't a truth. Surely, you may define the qualifiers 'truth' and 'belief' differently. To me, the difference and the clarity are important because you can't go beyond a 'truth'. Putting aside (all) your beliefs, expectations, emotions allows you to explore further, deeper. You can't put aside 'truth'. This reminds of the discussion about '1+1=2' being a truth. It isn't. In a synergistic system it is more, in a neutralizing system it is less. So, it is an assumption valid in certain existence-systems, but not in all. To me, the 'truth' we're discussing here is only unbounded, unqualified ( Not modified by conditions or reservations; absolute.). Regarding 'oneness' ... I believe there is a oneness in terms of connectivity between everything (not only humans), without any loss of individual identity or of free-will. But this implies so many beliefs ... There is no oneness in terms of belonging to a source. There is no purpose in aligning with a source. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 17, 2023 16:52:01 GMT -5
yep I understand, and it can be said that 'oneness' is directly known....I'm sure some folks here would say that, and I'd happily say it too. But sometimes I feel that offering something with reasoning is better. If only "some folks", or only in some state (e.g. of consciousness) ... then "oneness" is a belief; it isn't a truth. Surely, you may define the qualifiers 'truth' and 'belief' differently. To me, the difference and the clarity are important because you can't go beyond a 'truth'. Putting aside (all) your beliefs, expectations, emotions allows you to explore further, deeper. You can't put aside 'truth'. This reminds of the discussion about '1+1=2' being a truth. It isn't. In a synergistic system it is more, in a neutralizing system it is less. So, it is an assumption valid in certain existence-systems, but not in all. To me, the 'truth' we're discussing here is only unbounded, unqualified ( Not modified by conditions or reservations; absolute.). Regarding 'oneness' ... I believe there is a oneness in terms of connectivity between everything (not only humans), without any loss of individual identity or of free-will. But this implies so many beliefs ... There is no oneness in terms of belonging to a source. There is no purpose in aligning with a source. In my view, a 'truth' can be discovered, but I'd also say that this particular human earth experience is highly unusual in that this 'truth' does have to be discovered. It's somewhat of an anomaly for creatures of our intelligence to have to discover this truth. I'd say '1+1=2' is a fact, not a truth. A fact is strictly contextual, whereas a truth transcends context i.e it is true in context and also goes beyond context. To clarify a bit further, connectivity is a product of oneness, but 'oneness' itself indicates that everything is an expression of the same 'thing'....we could call this Consciousness, but there are other applicable words. And I'd say there's also a truth about 'Love' that can be discovered. |
|
