|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 19, 2024 14:11:06 GMT -5
I understand, but from this POV awareness is always present. Sometimes there's awareness of thoughts and at other times there's awareness of what can be called "the actual"--the world directly experienced through sensory perception. The character called "ZD" is sometimes engaged in silent awareness and at other times it thinks about ways of pointing other people to THIS. It no longer matters where attention is directed or focused because there's no felt sense of a "me" controlling or directing anything. There's acceptance and equanimity regarding whatever is happening because it became obvious that THIS is what does everything. There was concerted practice for 15 years, but after it was seen that THIS is what does everything, there was no longer the illusion of a "me" that needed to practice anything. ATST, THIS, in the form of this character, often sits in silence listening to universal sound or watching the breathing process, and it routinely does ATA-T because those activities became a habit. I've had people tell me that I was a very disciplined driven meditator, but that's because they don't understand what's going on. In retrospect it became obvious that no effort was ever involved even though it seemed like it at the time. THIS, as this character, simply did what it thought it had to do in order to resolve or find answers to the existential questions that it was curious about. I've had people say to me, "You were willing to meditate like crazy for years in order to discover what you wanted to discover, but I don't have that same kind of willpower." I usually respond by saying something like, "Willpower is an illusion and has nothing to do with this. You have everything I have right now. There is nothing to get. There's no need to make any kind of effort. You are already THIS. This is IT. You effortlessly see what is in front of you; you effortlessly hear these words, and everything else that's happening is equally effortless. This would become obvious if the illusion of a "me" collapsed. Who you think you are will never be free, at peace, or do anything because who you think you are is imaginary. Who you really are, right now, is already free and at peace. All that's necessary is discovering what is hearing these words, and what that IS cannot be imagined. It can only be what it IS." I tried to emphasize earlier, did you read the last paragraph? An earlier post. Self-reflexive thinking, is memory. We're on the same page, there. But aware of awareness has nothing to do with thinking or self-reflexive thought. Yes, you write about awareness and how we are always aware, of something. I don't care about that. What it is "that is unable to explain what he himself really is" (more easily referred to as sdp), is interested in awareness of awareness. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ {[(For sdp, this is the meaning of ~consciousness~. What most people are referring to as consciousness, is merely the 3 functions, thinking, emotions/feeling, and bodily-sensing and bodily-actions)]}. OK. Sure, there can be awareness of awareness, and in NS that's all there is. In the state of NS there is nothing other than awareness of awareness, a state that some of us call "pure awareness."It's an extremely blissful state, and apparently Ramana spent several years in that state. Fortunately, after discovering what's going on, there's no necessity to spend any time doing that. FWIW, no one can ever "explain what he himself is" because what one IS is beyond conception or explanation. One can only BE what one IS. Attempting to stay aware of awareness is simply another meditative activity. There's nothing special about it, and many meditators have pursued that activity. How THIS, in the form of any particular human, wakes up to ITSELF is a total mystery, and if attempting to stay aware of awareness resonates with someone, then that's just how THIS is unfolding in the form of that human. Other humans resonate with shikan taza (being aware without any focus of attention), or ATA-T, or "staying in the I am," etc. It's all part of the play of being THIS in the form of being a human animal.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 19, 2024 14:17:43 GMT -5
Very much agree with the bolded. Do you experience a 'knowing' that you exist without looking for it, or when you look for it? Or given your analogy of the processor, is it that you accept 'existence' to be an unquestionable self-evident fact, rather than something that you experience a 'knowing' of? I am not specifically looking for it. This is is more of an exercise now, that is mostly intellectual. My existence is more primary than my experience, and my knowing anything. If I didn't exist, I wouldn't experience. Existence doesn't require memory; experience and knowing do. I was saying that this discussion goes in the wrong direction, because it is an intellectual effort (no matter what someone would believe to experience as a realization or such) to find a basis to build on. I think that such an approach is doomed to fail due to inherently faulty assumptions. I think that a better way is to turn 180 degrees from looking for a basis, an origin, and rely on intuition to move from here forward. Intuition functions like a gestalt: gives you the result you need, not relying on elements that might be faulty, as intellect works. But where does intuition arise from? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 19, 2024 14:51:56 GMT -5
Very much agree with the bolded. Do you experience a 'knowing' that you exist without looking for it, or when you look for it? Or given your analogy of the processor, is it that you accept 'existence' to be an unquestionable self-evident fact, rather than something that you experience a 'knowing' of? I am not specifically looking for it. This is is more of an exercise now, that is mostly intellectual. My existence is more primary than my experience, and my knowing anything. If I didn't exist, I wouldn't experience. Existence doesn't require memory; experience and knowing do.
I was saying that this discussion goes in the wrong direction, because it is an intellectual effort (no matter what someone would believe to experience as a realization or such) to find a basis to build on. I think that such an approach is doomed to fail due to inherently faulty assumptions. I think that a better way is to turn 180 degrees from looking for a basis, an origin, and rely on intuition to move from here forward. Intuition functions like a gestalt: gives you the result you need, not relying on elements that might be faulty, as intellect works. So it sounds like you accept 'existence' as a sort of unquestionable logical truth/fact, which I find perfectly reasonable. I believe that to say that 'I' exist, is reasonably questionable. And I agree that experience/knowing requires memory faculties (relates to what I said about contrast/comparison). I live far more intuitively than I do rationally. I believe intuition approximates far more closely to the nature of life, than rationalization does. Do you have assumptions about the nature of existence? For example, do you assume that existence is finite or infinite? |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 19, 2024 15:46:04 GMT -5
I am not specifically looking for it. This is is more of an exercise now, that is mostly intellectual. My existence is more primary than my experience, and my knowing anything. If I didn't exist, I wouldn't experience. Existence doesn't require memory; experience and knowing do. I was saying that this discussion goes in the wrong direction, because it is an intellectual effort (no matter what someone would believe to experience as a realization or such) to find a basis to build on. I think that such an approach is doomed to fail due to inherently faulty assumptions. I think that a better way is to turn 180 degrees from looking for a basis, an origin, and rely on intuition to move from here forward. Intuition functions like a gestalt: gives you the result you need, not relying on elements that might be faulty, as intellect works. But where does intuition arise from? Instincts, emotions, intellect, intuition are routines that the gestalt of consciousness, ultimately the logic unit, executes in response to inner and outer stimuli. They are accessed from memory, and continuously debugged and improved. "Arise" isn't an appropriate word for intuition. "Accessed" is the word I prefer. The most elementary forms of consciousness lack even instincts. Humans are dominantly using emotions, develop intellect, and have rudimentary intuition. The level of development for each kingdom, group, subgroup, is distributed on a bell curve (remember Bentov?). |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 19, 2024 16:04:01 GMT -5
I am not specifically looking for it. This is is more of an exercise now, that is mostly intellectual. My existence is more primary than my experience, and my knowing anything. If I didn't exist, I wouldn't experience. Existence doesn't require memory; experience and knowing do.
I was saying that this discussion goes in the wrong direction, because it is an intellectual effort (no matter what someone would believe to experience as a realization or such) to find a basis to build on. I think that such an approach is doomed to fail due to inherently faulty assumptions. I think that a better way is to turn 180 degrees from looking for a basis, an origin, and rely on intuition to move from here forward. Intuition functions like a gestalt: gives you the result you need, not relying on elements that might be faulty, as intellect works. So it sounds like you accept 'existence' as a sort of unquestionable logical truth/fact, which I find perfectly reasonable. I believe that to say that 'I' exist, is reasonably questionable. And I agree that experience/knowing requires memory faculties (relates to what I said about contrast/comparison). I live far more intuitively than I do rationally. I believe intuition approximates far more closely to the nature of life, than rationalization does. Do you have assumptions about the nature of existence? For example, do you assume that existence is finite or infinite? I still think that we use "exist" differently. To me it is a binary thing: I exist and I am aware of it, or I don't and there is no I. "Existence" would be a concept about that binary thing, so I don't think it can have a size. I know I exist. If you mean "reality", or "evolvement", I think they are infinite.in a structure of gestalts of gestalts of ... manner. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 19, 2024 16:22:58 GMT -5
So it sounds like you accept 'existence' as a sort of unquestionable logical truth/fact, which I find perfectly reasonable. I believe that to say that 'I' exist, is reasonably questionable. And I agree that experience/knowing requires memory faculties (relates to what I said about contrast/comparison). I live far more intuitively than I do rationally. I believe intuition approximates far more closely to the nature of life, than rationalization does. Do you have assumptions about the nature of existence? For example, do you assume that existence is finite or infinite? I still think that we use "exist" differently. To me it is a binary thing: I exist and I am aware of it, or I don't and there is no I. "Existence" would be a concept about that binary thing, so I don't think it can have a size. I know I exist. If you mean "reality", or "evolvement", I think they are infinite.in a structure of gestalts of gestalts of ... manner. ah okay, yes for me, 'existence' and 'reality' can often be used interchangeably. I wouldn't say, 'I real' in place of 'I exist' because it's not conventional, but I could do. There's a bunch of questions that occur to me, but as you said, this is all more intellect than intuition, so I'll let them go...thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 19, 2024 17:37:52 GMT -5
I still think that we use "exist" differently. To me it is a binary thing: I exist and I am aware of it, or I don't and there is no I. "Existence" would be a concept about that binary thing, so I don't think it can have a size. I know I exist. If you mean "reality", or "evolvement", I think they are infinite.in a structure of gestalts of gestalts of ... manner. ah okay, yes for me, 'existence' and 'reality' can often be used interchangeably. I wouldn't say, 'I real' in place of 'I exist' because it's not conventional, but I could do. There's a bunch of questions that occur to me, but as you said, this is all more intellect than intuition, so I'll let them go...thanks. I think about this-myself as a state of consciousness of something, an entity (of consciousness), on the lines of a student in the 1st grade of a certain school. This will always exist in a memory (entity's other entities', ...), as now I recall about myself when I was a schoolboy in the 1st grade. Can I say that that schoolboy's existence will last at least as long as I recall it? Longer? Probably this is a pale analogy to the wider-reality. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 19, 2024 19:42:55 GMT -5
But where does intuition arise from? Instincts, emotions, intellect, intuition are routines that the gestalt of consciousness, ultimately the logic unit, executes in response to inner and outer stimuli. They are accessed from memory, and continuously debugged and improved. "Arise" isn't an appropriate word for intuition. "Accessed" is the word I prefer. The most elementary forms of consciousness lack even instincts. Humans are dominantly using emotions, develop intellect, and have rudimentary intuition. The level of development for each kingdom, group, subgroup, is distributed on a bell curve (remember Bentov?). I'm glad I asked, I should have asked sooner. Yes, I remember Bentov. I don't think his view of intuition would fit your view. Starting minute 5:10 the pertinent point. But this guy spends a lot of time on the necessity of purification. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 19, 2024 20:01:01 GMT -5
But where does intuition arise from? Instincts, emotions, intellect, intuition are routines that the gestalt of consciousness, ultimately the logic unit, executes in response to inner and outer stimuli. They are accessed from memory, and continuously debugged and improved. "Arise" isn't an appropriate word for intuition. "Accessed" is the word I prefer. The most elementary forms of consciousness lack even instincts. Humans are dominantly using emotions, develop intellect, and have rudimentary intuition. The level of development for each kingdom, group, subgroup, is distributed on a bell curve (remember Bentov?). |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 19, 2024 22:28:14 GMT -5
Instincts, emotions, intellect, intuition are routines that the gestalt of consciousness, ultimately the logic unit, executes in response to inner and outer stimuli. They are accessed from memory, and continuously debugged and improved. "Arise" isn't an appropriate word for intuition. "Accessed" is the word I prefer. The most elementary forms of consciousness lack even instincts. Humans are dominantly using emotions, develop intellect, and have rudimentary intuition. The level of development for each kingdom, group, subgroup, is distributed on a bell curve (remember Bentov?). I'm glad I asked, I should have asked sooner. Yes, I remember Bentov. I don't think his view of intuition would fit your view. Starting minute 5:10 the pertinent point. But this guy spends a lot of time on the necessity of purification. video linkI was thinking about this other video: Bentov has some interesting insights, but I don't subscribe to his models. I liked the guy (the nut-house). |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 20, 2024 0:04:33 GMT -5
ah okay, yes for me, 'existence' and 'reality' can often be used interchangeably. I wouldn't say, 'I real' in place of 'I exist' because it's not conventional, but I could do. There's a bunch of questions that occur to me, but as you said, this is all more intellect than intuition, so I'll let them go...thanks. I think about this-myself as a state of consciousness of something, an entity (of consciousness), on the lines of a student in the 1st grade of a certain school. This will always exist in a memory (entity's other entities', ...), as now I recall about myself when I was a schoolboy in the 1st grade. Can I say that that schoolboy's existence will last at least as long as I recall it? Longer? Probably this is a pale analogy to the wider-reality. I think the school analogy is a good one, though my truth is that I'm just not very interested in the process/experience of learning. I'm not sure I ever have been. Actually, that's not quite true. My university education grabbed me. It REALLY challenged my thinking. I'm a 'doer' by nature though. I like to be active. I like to play and create. I like to be in the ocean. Or walking up a big hill. I like to connect with animals and people (which I guess is a form of learning, but I don't experience it that way). So while I 'get' the school analogy, and I don't dismiss it, I just don't really want to experience myself as being part of a learning process. One thing I HAVE learned in the last 5-10 years, is just how different we all are as individuals/souls. Sometimes me and Jenn watch 'Married At First Sight', which has particular relevance for us, because it's pretty much what we did (I knew we would be married before we had even physically met. It's a show that really drives home the importance of honoring each other's differences, their way of processing and understanding the world, their values and beliefs) |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Feb 1, 2024 23:46:52 GMT -5
- Angry residents met with community leaders [...] for a panel to discuss the rise of violent crime in the city, specifically among juveniles [...].
As residents voiced their concerns and frustrations, [...] suggested that if district residents want to be "safer in the long run," they must take preventative measures rather than arrest and prosecute violent criminals.
"We as a city and a community need to be much more focused on prevention and surrounding young people and their families with resources if we want to be safer in the long run," [...] "We cannot prosecute and arrest our way out of it."
This is the same way of thinking that is the basis of the insurance industry, and of the preventive medicine (tests, vaccines, preventive medications, diets, ...). It is fear and peddling fear, and results in attracting into your life what you are afraid of. [...] correctly suggests that you can't get safe only by arresting and prosecuting the violent criminals, but firstly he makes the error suggesting not to address the problem at hand. Secondly, without details about any proposals, I doubt that his preventive measures will lessen the crime problems, because most likely he wants to address economical and social issues instead of addressing the cultural, emotional, spiritual shortcomings. I blotted out the details, because this isn't about who, where, what. EDIT: This is an example of creating reality at group-gestalt level. Each element of the group will experience according to his individual beliefs, including the apparent change of the group's characteristics, which actually is the associating to the probable group-gestalt that resonates the closest with the element's psychological makeup. This could also manifest as moving away from that group. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 2, 2024 6:59:56 GMT -5
Instincts, emotions, intellect, intuition are routines that the gestalt of consciousness, ultimately the logic unit, executes in response to inner and outer stimuli. They are accessed from memory, and continuously debugged and improved. "Arise" isn't an appropriate word for intuition. "Accessed" is the word I prefer. The most elementary forms of consciousness lack even instincts. Humans are dominantly using emotions, develop intellect, and have rudimentary intuition. The level of development for each kingdom, group, subgroup, is distributed on a bell curve (remember Bentov?). I'm glad I asked, I should have asked sooner. Yes, I remember Bentov. I don't think his view of intuition would fit your view. Starting minute 5:10 the pertinent point. But this guy spends a lot of time on the necessity of purification. I think it's strange to consider purification necessary. To be necessary, it has to be necessary for something. My view is it is not necessary for realising the truth because what's true is just the way as it is now and this is the way you are.
In the kandalini context he talks about it makes more sense, and he has a point about accumulative stress. He seems to define 'scientific' very loosely and seems to suggest that kandalini is good, so you have to purify the body so the kandalini can happen. I think the narrative implies craving, which impels you to 'do something' to make the blocks go away. An aversion toward the blocks arising from the desire for kundalini. To me, that sets up a cycle of desire, aversion and volition when you could just be there knowing 'this' is what it's like.
I think it's better to just be there, let the process unfold by itself and look and learn. There's some rewards, like my sinus opened up and my posture straightened out.
|
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Feb 23, 2024 12:23:59 GMT -5
I think that placebo discussion might be off-topic on the karma thread ... - “It’s not what patients think will happen [that influences outcomes], it’s what the nonconscious mind anticipates despite any conscious thoughts,” said Ted Kaptchuk, HMS associate professor of medicine and director of PiPs
--- hms.harvard.edu/news/placebo-goes-beyond-consciousness
|
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Feb 23, 2024 12:44:06 GMT -5
- A study in the September 2021 issue of the journal Pain explored open-label placebos in treating people with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).
Approximately 250 people with moderately severe IBS symptoms were randomly divided into two groups. One followed a traditional placebo-controlled format, where half received either a pill containing peppermint oil or a placebo. They were not told which one they took. (Peppermint oil may help with IBS symptoms like cramping and bloating.) The other group took only the placebo but was told it was fake medication (open-label placebo). Participants took the pills three times daily, 30 minutes before meals, for six weeks. Afterward, a majority of both the placebo-controlled and the open-label groups reported similar reductions in their IBS symptoms.
This was only one study, but other studies using open-label placebos have shown similar results for low back pain, cancer-related fatigue, migraines, and knee osteoarthritis.
"This is a major shift in how placebos were believed to work," says Kaptchuk. "Many doctors thought placebos needed deception to work, but these findings suggest that may not be true."
....
"You probably can't take Tic Tacs on your own and convince yourself it will help your back pain."
Still, it's conceivable to tap into the placebo effect's benefits by adopting rituals of healthy living and self-help, such as healthy eating, exercising, and meditating, Kaptchuk adds.
"While these activities are positive interventions in their own right, the level of attention you give them can enhance their benefits, which in some ways is similar to a placebo effect," he says. "If you expect these activities to help you get better, it's quite possible you will."
--- www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/the-real-power-of-placebos
All these seem to be explainable by the hypotheses of the inner-reality interconnection between everything, the nature of time, the gestalt structure of consciousness (the gestalt properties aren't derived from the properties of its elements). |
|
