|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 13, 2024 9:04:03 GMT -5
It's not about the space between your eyes. Correct, its not about the space between your eyes. Its about the space between your physical eyes and the object they are observing. Have you ever consciously looked at space? Everyone sees the stars, but how many see the space in which they sit. That vital no-thingness called space in which every thing else arises and has being. I mean, where would anything be without the space to put it? You seem to only pluck out a tiny bit of my posts when the rest of my post actually explains what I am referring to. I am not making a point about looking into space or the space between my eyes and a object as the rest of my post explained, what I have said is Then when you have understood the conceptual belief. Then burn it, not be an advocate for it.
This is what I am trying to put forth.
I have the comparison for mind and beyond. I don't need with all respect some moment to notice the space between my eyes.
What is absent, isn't the notion or the belief that is absent. No good pointing to what is space or what is absent from a mindful position.
The belief is present in order for you to even mention your conceptual understanding of what even space means. What beliefs you hold of what everything means to you in reflection of what you believe yourself to be results in what you say about space, about the weather, about what I am saying etc. Do you understand how this works? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 13, 2024 9:25:00 GMT -5
I also disagree about his idea regarding beliefs. If I stub my toe on a rock, I directly "know" (gnosis) that I stubbed my toe, and any belief about that is secondary and unnecessary. .. You're changing context here. In the context of stubbing your toe, it happens, but one will believe that it happened based upon a belief had in 'what they are' that can stub their toe in the first place. Like said a thousand times, this is integrated within our belief system, just like the floor will be beneath my feet when I roll out of bed is. My thoughts were aimed towards realisations had and 100% knowings or existential beliefs that are devoid from having a belief in what they conceptually mean in the first place and what is said thereafter in reflection of them. It's a language thing. Most of us consider a belief to be conceptual/ideational in nature, and E used to define a belief as "a strong attachment to an idea." For someone who interacts with the world directly and without reflective thoughts the idea of beliefs is a non-starter. You see it differently and that's perfectly okay. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jan 13, 2024 9:43:09 GMT -5
The belief is present in order for you to even mention your conceptual understanding of what even space means. No, that us not the definition of "belief". That is the definition of remembrance/recall. Beliefs are things held to be true without evidence or direct experience. Recollections are stories told about actual events or realizations after the fact. Big difference. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 13, 2024 13:19:25 GMT -5
Yeah, it's imaginary/hypothetical. But given your spiritual approach/goal, you must have a pretty clear idea of what a 'pure individuation' is like...? The kind of thoughts/feelings, experiential qualities, behaviors? And I see 2 different contexts for the question I'm asking. There's a pure individuation is this world. And then there's pure individuation in a pure world. In THIS world, are there are spiritual teachers that you see as 'pure individuation'? The way is straight up, vertical, it need not have anything to do with this world (look around). I'm going to reply to sN of a couple of days ago concerning this. It's on the quotes thread. Looks like sN has departed. He'll be back in 4-5 weeks. But if the wounds and hurts we receive as small children are a big part of what leads to identification with a false/imaginary self, then the world is 'involved' in the process...? So I'm asking how it would be for those kids if they had never had those wounds i.e what would it be like to be 'pure individuation'? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 13, 2024 13:25:45 GMT -5
yes agree. I'd say that 'following the pointer' or a 'realization of what is ineffable' takes us out of conditioned mind/beliefs, but not out of mind itself. .. Let's get back to basics here. What is ineffable? A mindful concept to explain the unexplained. You can't have a realisation of what is ineffable. You can transcend mind and then associate a concept to it. Do you see a difference? Well it depends on the definition of 'realization' I guess. 'The ineffable' is a mindful concept to 'point' to what is 'ineffable (or unexplainable)'. But it's important to understand what is meant by 'pointer' there. Because 'the ineffable' is 'ineffable' (by definition), then resting on the idea of 'ineffable', won't give us the direct experience of 'ineffable'. We have to 'go there' to directly experience it. i.e because it is 'ineffable', it requires us to go there without the concept in mind. It's not like tasting an orange, as in that situation, the concept can accompany us as we 'go there'. So from within the context of 'mind' as being about 'concepts', and attachment to 'concepts', there is a transcending of mind. But as I said, I don't define 'mind' as being solely about concepts, and so in my broader sense of mind (which is similar to yours)....all of that is still happening in mind. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 13, 2024 13:29:51 GMT -5
As I haven't had the kind of realization/experience that you had, can you explain why you would say 'mind' was gone? Perhaps it would be useful if you clarified exactly where mind begins and ends...? Everything experienced through self awareness is of the mind. As Niz or Ramana said, where there is the lighter's flame, here I am, here is the world. All thoughts, feelings, experiences, notions that pertain to what you are that has awareness of I am or self are no longer when there has been transcendence of the mind. So to answer question mind begins with self and ends with no self. Some will say that in deep sleep or the void reflects the same, it depends on their beliefs in this regard, all these means and terms for states or non states will have us all tied up forevermore. I don't think anyone has the monopoly on any of this. For myself, the moment I gained self awareness I believe mind was present. I was present in reflection of it. Of course mind is the foundational environment for self awareness within experience. Here is the world, Here I am. Okay, cheers. So then in deepest sleep, would you say that you are 'not present in reflection of it'? If so, how would you distinguish your realization from deep sleep? How do you know you didn't fall asleep? (I'm sure you know it wasn't that, but I'm interested in how you know). |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 13, 2024 13:55:23 GMT -5
I'd say an oversimplified version of what he wrote (or my understanding of it) would be: "I disagree with the idea of 'no person gets enlightened', or 'if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him'". Thanks. If that's what he meant, then we definitely disagree about that. From my POV THIS, in the form of an individual body/mind organism, is what discovers what's going on (the "living truth" in the words of Jesus and others). We use the word "person" to refer to people/individuals who have not yet seen through the illusion of the SVP. I also disagree about his idea regarding beliefs. If I stub my toe on a rock, I directly "know" (gnosis) that I stubbed my toe, and any belief about that is secondary and unnecessary. However, in both cases I think it's just a language/definition issue and Tenka's "there is only what you are" is the same thingless thing that many of us are pointing to. We simply make a distinction between the meaning of "person" and "individual." I think Tenka's primary argument is with posters who would claim that the individual is unreal or "a point of perception" only. Perhaps it goes deeper than just language, but even then, the significance (or lack thereof) of any potential attachment to an idea or ideas is a personal matter for tenka. I tried pointing to the relative perspective of personality with a Sun(THIS)/Moon(Individual) metaphor. "Consciousness" would be the light of the Sun. "consciousness" would be the individuated body/mind. I don't recall reading any direct engagement with that in the dialog. As far as the "belief" spur of it goes, "Truth" is a barb to many a mind hook.  Personally, I recall hyperminding on both words quite energetically at the start of the time with the head in the tiger's mouth. Tolle explains very early on in Now that he's not offering any sort of theory that he can prove. This opened my mind to his pointing (and opened that mouth). And that's the crux of it: when is an idea a pointer, and when does it become entangled with other notions that aren't? And some pointers can have dual interpretations. Some of those alternative interpretations of mind are downright silly and antagonistic, but not all. The mind makes the "oneness blob", and it seems to me that for most people, Oneness translates into "every thing, is interconnected". I've had dialogs with several members here that I perceive have a great depth of understanding, and yet, there can be some confusion of mind as to where intellect/heart starts and ends. But that's all just various insight about the structure and content of mind. As you point out, noone needs any such insight to pull their hand away from a hot stove. .. but even that was fodder for pages and pages of megathread, back in the day.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 13, 2024 14:14:00 GMT -5
I also disagree about his idea regarding beliefs. If I stub my toe on a rock, I directly "know" (gnosis) that I stubbed my toe, and any belief about that is secondary and unnecessary. .. You're changing context here. In the context of stubbing your toe, it happens, but one will believe that it happened based upon a belief had in 'what they are' that can stub their toe in the first place. Like said a thousand times, this is integrated within our belief system, just like the floor will be beneath my feet when I roll out of bed is. My thoughts were aimed towards realisations had and 100% knowings or existential beliefs that are devoid from having a belief in what they conceptually mean in the first place and what is said thereafter in reflection of them. But another way to look at it is that toe stubbing can just happen dude. Ain't nothin' personal 'bout it.  Self-referential thought is always optional, and never happens quite the same way again after realizing the existential truth of the matter. You wrote that you "didn't believe that you were some sort of separate entity prior to", your realization. But I can predict that you'll respond to what I just wrote with a question that is essentially a form of self-inquiry" "what stubs their toe?" And you have an interest in arguing about this that recurs, seemingly, indefinitely. That leads me to question whether or not you really understand what I mean by that difference in the way self-reference happens before and after that realization. And notice that the point here was that belief happens after-the-fact. Did you notice how you used the past tense? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 13, 2024 14:16:38 GMT -5
The belief is present in order for you to even mention your conceptual understanding of what even space means. No, that us not the definition of "belief". That is the definition of remembrance/recall. Beliefs are things held to be true without evidence or direct experience. Recollections are stories told about actual events or realizations after the fact. Big difference. The problem with any definition of belief is that the mind makes a ham sandwich out of it. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 13, 2024 14:18:19 GMT -5
I also disagree about his idea regarding beliefs. If I stub my toe on a rock, I directly "know" (gnosis) that I stubbed my toe, and any belief about that is secondary and unnecessary. .. You're changing context here. There's a difference between changing existential context deliberately and purposely, vs. unconsciously and in confusion. It's important to be able to differentiate between the two different scenarios. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 13, 2024 14:21:36 GMT -5
The way is straight up, vertical, it need not have anything to do with this world (look around). I'm going to reply to sN of a couple of days ago concerning this. It's on the quotes thread. Looks like sN has departed. He'll be back in 4-5 weeks. But if the wounds and hurts we receive as small children are a big part of what leads to identification with a false/imaginary self, then the world is 'involved' in the process...? So I'm asking how it would be for those kids if they had never had those wounds i.e what would it be like to be 'pure individuation'? The story of the Buddha is that he was deliberately insulated from all pain and ugliness for his entire life. Still, he had to nearly starve himself to death along the way. There is no good nor bad but that thinking makes it so. The false self can form up around any sort of history, good, or bad. Not to say I don't appreciate your intent here, but the answer to your question might not be what you think it is. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 13, 2024 14:32:26 GMT -5
The way is straight up, vertical, it need not have anything to do with this world (look around). I'm going to reply to sN of a couple of days ago concerning this. It's on the quotes thread. Looks like sN has departed. He'll be back in 4-5 weeks. But if the wounds and hurts we receive as small children are a big part of what leads to identification with a false/imaginary self, then the world is 'involved' in the process...? So I'm asking how it would be for those kids if they had never had those wounds i.e what would it be like to be 'pure individuation'? Everybody has to form a cultural self, as stated before, it's our link to the world (as stated before, if you don't form a cultural self, you are basically autistic, cut-off, to one extent or another). The ideal would be for the cultural self to be formed with not-so-tight a grip. So that way essence is very close underneath the cultural self. This is generally how-it-is with people who begin the spiritual journey. The ideal is to once again live through one's essence, this is like becoming like a little child. Jesus understood the whole journey, from the inside out. The ideal is to not have the wounds. The wounds cause a very dense and hard-shell cultural self. Blatant child abuse, hitting, by a parent, is the worst. The most crucial period is from birth to about age six. The language of a baby and a small child, is attention. You can't give a baby too much attention. Joseph Chilton Pearce in Magical Child has a very good explanation of how-things-should-be. At first, the Mother (or primary caregiver) is the matrix for the baby. As baby gets older, it's matrix expands, Father gets included. Then childhood friends...then society...eventually the whole universe becomes the matrix. This is the best case scenario. Most people get stuck somewhere on the way, a lesser matrix, they get stuck in. For some very nasty dudes, ISIS became their matrix. Some, Hamas. For pure individuation, the universe becomes your matrix. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 13, 2024 14:40:54 GMT -5
But if the wounds and hurts we receive as small children are a big part of what leads to identification with a false/imaginary self, then the world is 'involved' in the process...? So I'm asking how it would be for those kids if they had never had those wounds i.e what would it be like to be 'pure individuation'? The story of the Buddha is that he was deliberately insulated from all pain and ugliness for his entire life. Still, he had to nearly starve himself to death along the way. There is no good nor bad but that thinking makes it so. The false self can form up around any sort of history, good, or bad. Not to say I don't appreciate your intent here, but the answer to your question might not be what you think it is. He was materially insulated, but whether he was unconditionally loved by parents that had unconditionally accepted themselves....I doubt it. I think the false self develops for very particular reasons, but in the world we live today....even with Tolle and Kim Eng as parents, I suspect that a false self would still develop, because the structures and institutions of our world express that falsity. But my questions for sdp are hypothetical. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 13, 2024 14:45:58 GMT -5
But if the wounds and hurts we receive as small children are a big part of what leads to identification with a false/imaginary self, then the world is 'involved' in the process...? So I'm asking how it would be for those kids if they had never had those wounds i.e what would it be like to be 'pure individuation'? Everybody has to form a cultural self, as stated before, it's our link to the world (as stated before, if you don't form a cultural self, you are basically autistic, cut-off, to one extent or another). The ideal would be for the cultural self to be formed with not-so-tight a grip. So that way essence is very close underneath the cultural self. This is generally how-it-is with people who begin the spiritual journey. The ideal is to once again live through one's essence, this is like becoming like a little child. Jesus understood the whole journey, from the inside out. The ideal is to not have the wounds. The wounds cause a very dense and hard-shell cultural self. Blatant child abuse, hitting, by a parent, is the worst. The most crucial period is from birth to about age six. The language of a baby and a small child, is attention. You can't give a baby too much attention. Joseph Chilton Pearce in Magical Child has a very good explanation of how-things-should-be. At first, the Mother (or primary caregiver) is the matrix for the baby. As baby gets older, it's matrix expands, Father gets included. Then childhood friends...then society...eventually the whole universe becomes the matrix. This is the best case scenario. Most people get stuck somewhere on the way, a lesser matrix, they get stuck in. For some very nasty dudes, ISIS became their matrix. Some, Hamas. For pure individuation, the universe becomes your matrix. Yeah understand and pretty much agree. But that's why I have invited the scenario of a 'pure world', in which there's no cultural (false self). I'm really just trying to understand what it means to you, for an individual to be 'pure essence'. And the simplest way of finding that out, is for me to ask you to consider a hypothetical 'pure world'. Bashar often talks about his world, if you believe in channelings of that sort. This is Darryl talking here. Bashar here |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 13, 2024 14:50:31 GMT -5
But if the wounds and hurts we receive as small children are a big part of what leads to identification with a false/imaginary self, then the world is 'involved' in the process...? So I'm asking how it would be for those kids if they had never had those wounds i.e what would it be like to be 'pure individuation'? The story of the Buddha is that he was deliberately insulated from all pain and ugliness for his entire life. Still, he had to nearly starve himself to death along the way. There is no good nor bad but that thinking makes it so. The false self can form up around any sort of history, good, or bad. Not to say I don't appreciate your intent here, but the answer to your question might not be what you think it is. I started learning about The Buddha probably in 1970 in an Eastern Religions course. I saw immediately that the father, in trying to keep Gautama away from the spiritual life, was in fact setting up propelling him into it. Instead of Gautama being gradually desensitized to old age, sickness and death, he got it in a couple of trips, like being hit in the face with a 2 x 4. So this propelled him into the spiritual journey, the exact opposite of his father's intention. ...He started out following the accepted path. He eventually figured out that was not such a good way. What we ended up with was a 'Princess and the pea' scenario. After Enlightenment Buddha wondered if he would ever be able to *pass on* what he had found, wondered whether to teach, or not. Reminds me of a conversation of Jesus with his disciples. After a particularly thorny reply to a prospective disciple, who had been told he had to give up everything to follow Jesus, the disciples asked: If the way is so hard, how can anyone be saved? |
|
Personally, I recall hyperminding on both words quite energetically at the start of the time with the head in the tiger's mouth. Tolle explains very early on in Now that he's not offering any sort of theory that he can prove. This opened my mind to his pointing (and opened that mouth).
Self-referential thought is always optional, and never happens quite the same way again after realizing the existential truth of the matter. You