|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 12, 2023 14:17:57 GMT -5
What do you mean by this question? It may just be the multiple negatives throwing me off. Not sure. But, based on what you have shared in the past, it suggests a mixing of the physical/consensual with the metaphysical and/or missing the understanding of transcend and include, which can require integration in the mind. After all, as for flatland, does one really see 2D as 'only 2D' after stepping back up into and/or realizing 3D? I obviously have not gotten back to this. Coming back to 2D after experiencing 3D, is like eating cardboard. I will get back to this, later today, a few hours. (As I haven't eaten anything yet, today, it's 2:15 PM). I understand the use of the word real, in comparison to the Ground-Source, ND. But we're here, in the 'unreal' world. I understand you say the unreal world is superfluous in relation to the ND Realization. But we live here. I don't really understand the blasting of the higher dimensions. What I was asking, as this world is considered unreal, why does that negate the existence of higher dimensions? Could not the higher dimensions be as equally unreal as this world is unreal? Does that make sense? It seems to me the ND view is saying everything in this world, as far as the view the world evolving (I don't know why that's a bad word), is just meaningless, superfluous. That's my objection, my question. Sure, there is a Ground, Source, like the alphabet, simplicity. I'll be back. (To try to explain further, now 2:24). It's like the ND view always says One-D (which would actually be Zero-D) supersedes 2D, 3D, 4D, 5D, 6D and 7D, that nothing means anything in relation to ND. The point of the thread, if I ever get back to it.......is....... I usually follow what you write, but not so much with this post. 1. Why do you say that this world is unreal? What do you mean by "unreal?" A ZM might ask a student, "Is this stick I'm holding real or unreal?" If a student understands the issue, s/he will not answer with words; a different kind of answer is required so that the ZM will know that the student understands. "Real" and "unreal" are concepts. What is the truth beyond concepts? 2. The word "evolving" is fine when used in a relative conventional sense, but from an ND perspective is does not apply because there are not separate states; it's all one. Evolution is an idea, and the reality is beyond ideation. 3. Why do you think that an ND sage would say that the world is meaningless? Again, a sage sees THIS as beyond either the idea or meaningful or the idea of meaningless, so in a conversation a sage would always be pointing beyond these ideas to the field of being that underlies ideas. 4. What's with all the dimensional speculation, and why would you think that nothing means anything in relation to ND? Just curious. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Dec 12, 2023 14:24:01 GMT -5
Then what can 3D say to 2D when it cries out to understand higher dimensions? These are interesting questions ... I didn't follow the whole discussion. The 3D is a third-grader, who's answering to the 2D, who's a second-grader: "you'll see in a year, when you'll grow up a little". A second-grader can't suddenly 'realize' what a third-grader knows, but he might be able to some degree to 'realize' why, and what that means in a bigger scheme of things. This doesn't mean that a second-grader will ever know what a third-grader knows, but that whatever is now a second-grader will evolve through a process into a third-grader. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Dec 12, 2023 14:42:43 GMT -5
Joke: ND is a noD 'knowing' to be an oneD, like a kindergartener believing he is a first-grader and that everybody around (adults included) are imaginary characters believing they are in a kindergarten  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 12, 2023 18:21:04 GMT -5
No, that's the whole point. Then what can 3D say to 2D when it cries out to understand higher dimensions? By it I presume you mean 2D. 2D only knows itself, doesn't care about anything further, doesn't think there is anything further. ZD just told me "3D" is conceptual, imaginary, that makes my point. (I will get back to your post ZD). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 12, 2023 18:23:41 GMT -5
But the dimensions are not conceptual-mind-based. (That's the whole point). Could just be a 2D hungry ghost checking out the menu items and travel brochures. Could just be a way of pointing out or talking about a higher order, metaphysical point of view than simply personal/physical. Could just be a way of talking about experiential stuff. I think it was you talking about Plotinus? You do know Plotinus was writing about dimensions (?) |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 12, 2023 18:35:16 GMT -5
Then what can 3D say to 2D when it cries out to understand higher dimensions? These are interesting questions ... I didn't follow the whole discussion. The 3D is a third-grader, who's answering to the 2D, who's a second-grader: "you'll see in a year, when you'll grow up a little". A second-grader can't suddenly 'realize' what a third-grader knows, but he might be able to some degree to 'realize' why, and what that means in a bigger scheme of things. Not a good analogy. A 2nd grader can see older kids and can see there is a 3rd grade classroom. I will link a very good short video, Carl Sagan, about dimensions. As far as 2nd grade knows, his world is the whole world, there isn't anything else, nothing *higher*. Flatland by Abbott is a very excellent book that Sagan shortly describes. But this is still a kind of analogy, mathematicians deal with mathematical dimensions every day. My meaning is more than mathematical dimensions. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 12, 2023 19:00:45 GMT -5
I obviously have not gotten back to this. Coming back to 2D after experiencing 3D, is like eating cardboard. I will get back to this, later today, a few hours. (As I haven't eaten anything yet, today, it's 2:15 PM). I understand the use of the word real, in comparison to the Ground-Source, ND. But we're here, in the 'unreal' world. I understand you say the unreal world is superfluous in relation to the ND Realization. But we live here. I don't really understand the blasting of the higher dimensions. What I was asking, as this world is considered unreal, why does that negate the existence of higher dimensions? Could not the higher dimensions be as equally unreal as this world is unreal? Does that make sense? It seems to me the ND view is saying everything in this world, as far as the view the world evolving (I don't know why that's a bad word), is just meaningless, superfluous. That's my objection, my question. Sure, there is a Ground, Source, like the alphabet, simplicity. I'll be back. (To try to explain further, now 2:24). It's like the ND view always says One-D (which would actually be Zero-D) supersedes 2D, 3D, 4D, 5D, 6D and 7D, that nothing means anything in relation to ND. The point of the thread, if I ever get back to it.......is....... I usually follow what you write, but not so much with this post. 1. Why do you say that this world is unreal? What do you mean by "unreal?" A ZM might ask a student, "Is this stick I'm holding real or unreal?" If a student understands the issue, s/he will not answer with words; a different kind of answer is required so that the ZM will know that the student understands. "Real" and "unreal" are concepts. What is the truth beyond concepts? 2. The word "evolving" is fine when used in a relative conventional sense, but from an ND perspective is does not apply because there are not separate states; it's all one. Evolution is an idea, and the reality is beyond ideation. 3. Why do you think that an ND sage would say that the world is meaningless? Again, a sage sees THIS as beyond either the idea or meaningful or the idea of meaningless, so in a conversation a sage would always be pointing beyond these ideas to the field of being that underlies ideas. 4. What's with all the dimensional speculation, and why would you think that nothing means anything in relation to ND? Just curious. 1. I was just speaking the ND lingo. I've read here probably at least 500 times that this world is not real, only Oneness is real. I've tried to address my view in dialogue with you, previously, stretching to admit (the Buddhist) view of the two truths, there is the Absolute Truth, and there is the relative truth of the world we live in here and experience (red light means stop, green light means go). You replied back to me directly, there are NOT two truths, there is only One Truth. I do not consider this world unreal. I understand the Zen answer. 2. Understand your view. 3. I'll come back to this, maybe I can come at it in a way I haven't before, maybe not. But I mean meaning other than the ordinary one-dimensional meaning of obvious-ordinary. (I love my wife, my kids, my career, my country, etc.). 4. It's not speculation. I never discuss this, my rule. But it's all about energy. And to be about energy there must necessarily be a distinction between *inside* and *outside*. You disregard that, so [that would be] end of conversation, anyway. (If there were no distinction, [organic] life couldn't exist. There has to be a *flesh-bag* distinction). The Carl Sagan video says about everything. People would just call it Woo Woo anyway. I rather be ~abused~ for not speaking than ~abused~ for speaking. (And same as 3.). |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 12, 2023 21:41:13 GMT -5
Then what can 3D say to 2D when it cries out to understand higher dimensions? By it I presume you mean 2D. 2D only knows itself, doesn't care about anything further, doesn't think there is anything further. ZD just told me "3D" is conceptual, imaginary, that makes my point. (I will get back to your post ZD). Yes, what's being pointed to is non-conceptual, while the various Ds in the example context are. How would a conceptual other-dimensional self exist, much less seemingly present one, without thought? |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 12, 2023 21:49:50 GMT -5
Could just be a 2D hungry ghost checking out the menu items and travel brochures. Could just be a way of pointing out or talking about a higher order, metaphysical point of view than simply personal/physical. Could just be a way of talking about experiential stuff. I think it was you talking about Plotinus? You do know Plotinus was writing about dimensions (?) Maybe in his metaphysical conceptual stuff he used to represent the transcendent "direction", at least in how I'm interpreting the concepts. Is that how you use 'dimensions'? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 13, 2023 7:58:58 GMT -5
I think it was you talking about Plotinus? You do know Plotinus was writing about dimensions (?) Maybe in his metaphysical conceptual stuff he used to represent the transcendent "direction", at least in how I'm interpreting the concepts. Is that how you use 'dimensions'? I will look at your video later. The ancients had the view of the Great Chain of Being. Plotinus had one such view. Kabbalists had one such view. If you even consider Seth/Jane Roberts to be true, Seth lives/comes from somewhere. Throughout the Bible we have examples of a higher realm. I'll give one example. Jesus on the mount of transfiguration is pretty well known. Years ago considering this I saw it wasn't Jesus who was transfigured. Jesus was his normal self, it was Peter, James and John who had changed. They got a peek into the deeper reality, saw Jesus talking to, I think it was Moses and Elijah. You either accept the stories as accurate, or made up. If the story is accurate, Moses and Elijah came from and lived somewhere. Peter, James and John got a peek into that realm. If I write a story about going to Florida to see my daughter, and taking my granddaughter to the butterfly museum, yes, those are just words, but they are a report of an actual occurrence. See the difference? Moses and the burning bush, a peek into a higher realm. Saul, who became Paul, on the road to Damascus, got a peek into a higher realm, he was firmly convinced he encountered Jesus (the "dead" Jesus), it changed the whole direction of his life, a complete flip-flop. Not all conceptual representations are empty words. (NACRAEW). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 13, 2023 8:12:13 GMT -5
By it I presume you mean 2D. 2D only knows itself, doesn't care about anything further, doesn't think there is anything further. ZD just told me "3D" is conceptual, imaginary, that makes my point. (I will get back to your post ZD). Yes, what's being pointed to is non-conceptual, while the various Ds in the example context are. How would a conceptual other-dimensional self exist, much less seemingly present one, without thought? Niz was steeped in this. In his writings which were records of the words of his teacher, he writes about the 3 higher subtle bodies, the highest is called the causal body. Did the tradition just keep a record of myths? These realms were tangible for the teacher of Niz. NACRAEW (not all conceptual representations are empty words). Buddhism in Yogacara *reverse engineered* the body of a higher realm ( alaya-vijnana, storehouse consciousness) to account for karma and reincarnation. Upon enlightenment Buddha is said to have seen all his past lives. Is all that just a fabricated story? A verbal-conceptual description of the higher dimensions does not mean they don't exit. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 13, 2023 8:53:40 GMT -5
Maybe in his metaphysical conceptual stuff he used to represent the transcendent "direction", at least in how I'm interpreting the concepts. Is that how you use 'dimensions'? I will look at your video later. The ancients had the view of the Great Chain of Being. Plotinus had one such view. Kabbalists had one such view. If you even consider Seth/Jane Roberts to be true, Seth lives/comes from somewhere. Throughout the Bible we have examples of a higher realm. I'll give one example. Jesus on the mount of transfiguration is pretty well known. Years ago considering this I saw it wasn't Jesus who was transfigured. Jesus was his normal self, it was Peter, James and John who had changed. They got a peek into the deeper reality, saw Jesus talking to, I think it was Moses and Elijah. You either accept the stories as accurate, or made up. If the story is accurate, Moses and Elijah came from and lived somewhere. Peter, James and John got a peek into that realm. If I write a story about going to Florida to see my daughter, and taking my granddaughter to the butterfly museum, yes, those are just words, but they are a report of an actual occurrence. See the difference? Moses and the burning bush, a peek into a higher realm. Saul, who became Paul, on the road to Damascus, got a peek into a higher realm, he was firmly convinced he encountered Jesus (the "dead" Jesus), it changed the whole direction of his life, a complete flip-flop. Not all conceptual representations are empty words. (NACRAEW). Yes, lots of beliefs, stories, models, stories of people peeps with beliefs, and stories of people peeps following models. It goes on and on and on.... What do they point to and have you realized THAT. There may be value in the stories, at least to some extent. So, what is in the way of realizing THAT which is innately potential? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 13, 2023 8:54:42 GMT -5
I usually follow what you write, but not so much with this post. 1. Why do you say that this world is unreal? What do you mean by "unreal?" A ZM might ask a student, "Is this stick I'm holding real or unreal?" If a student understands the issue, s/he will not answer with words; a different kind of answer is required so that the ZM will know that the student understands. "Real" and "unreal" are concepts. What is the truth beyond concepts? 2. The word "evolving" is fine when used in a relative conventional sense, but from an ND perspective is does not apply because there are not separate states; it's all one. Evolution is an idea, and the reality is beyond ideation. 3. Why do you think that an ND sage would say that the world is meaningless? Again, a sage sees THIS as beyond either the idea or meaningful or the idea of meaningless, so in a conversation a sage would always be pointing beyond these ideas to the field of being that underlies ideas. 4. What's with all the dimensional speculation, and why would you think that nothing means anything in relation to ND? Just curious. 1. I was just speaking the ND lingo. I've read here probably at least 500 times that this world is not real, only Oneness is real. I've tried to address my view in dialogue with you, previously, stretching to admit (the Buddhist) view of the two truths, there is the Absolute Truth, and there is the relative truth of the world we live in here and experience (red light means stop, green light means go). You replied back to me directly, there are NOT two truths, there is only One Truth. I do not consider this world unreal. I understand the Zen answer. 2. Understand your view. 3. I'll come back to this, maybe I can come at it in a way I haven't before, maybe not. But I mean meaning other than the ordinary one-dimensional meaning of obvious-ordinary. (I love my wife, my kids, my career, my country, etc.). 4. It's not speculation. I never discuss this, my rule. But it's all about energy. And to be about energy there must necessarily be a distinction between *inside* and *outside*. You disregard that, so [that would be] end of conversation, anyway. (If there were no distinction, [organic] life couldn't exist. There has to be a *flesh-bag* distinction). The Carl Sagan video says about everything. People would just call it Woo Woo anyway. I rather be ~abused~ for not speaking than ~abused~ for speaking. (And same as 3.). Okay. That helps. My only comments: 1. Oneness and what we call "the world" are one and the same, and I'm not sure who on the forum ever claimed that the world is not real. I prefer the term "actual" because most people equate the word "real" with "existent," and the idea of existing is usually applied to the idea that things exist separately from one another. Most adults do not realize that separateness is a culturally-indoctrinated idea. Absolute truth includes red and green traffic lights, but it's understood that images, ideas, and symbols, such as "red and green traffic lights," are abstractions (the map) that artificially divide oneness (the territory) into imaginary states. If the mind is quiescent and particular realizations have occurred, one lives in a state of oneness without reflective thoughts about oneness. 3. Obvious/ordinary meaning is included in Oneness, and if people search for anything deeper than the obvious/ordinary sense of meaning, it usually means (haha) that they're attached to an abstraction that represents an abstraction. I'm reminded of the humorous story of the psychology professor going to class when a student says, "Good morning," and the professor continues walking while thinking, "I wonder what he meant by that?" Obviously "good morning" means "good morning," but the professor was living in his head and overlooking the obvious. FWIW, I've never met a ND sage who would claim that the world is meaningless. A sage would simply say, "It is what it is," more like a verb than a noun. 4. The claim that "organic life couldn't exist if there were no distinctions" is clearly erroneous because bacteria exist and I doubt that they make distinctions. Distinctions are abstractions that seem to occur only in animals with an intellect capable of imagining separate states. The problem for humans is that it's difficult to detach from distinctions and see the unified field of oneness that gives rise to distinctions of separate states. When I first looked at the title of this thread, these words of Lao Tau came to mind: "Students learn by daily gain, The Way is found by daily loss, Loss after loss until finally there is peace. By letting go, everything gets done; The world is won by those who give it up. For those who try unceasingly, The world remains forever out of reach." IOW, I would title such a thread, "Moving from complexity to simplicity."  |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 13, 2023 8:57:59 GMT -5
Yes, what's being pointed to is non-conceptual, while the various Ds in the example context are. How would a conceptual other-dimensional self exist, much less seemingly present one, without thought? Niz was steeped in this. In his writings which were records of the words of his teacher, he writes about the 3 higher subtle bodies, the highest is called the causal body. Did the tradition just keep a record of myths? These realms were tangible for the teacher of Niz. NACRAEW (not all conceptual representations are empty words). Buddhism in Yogacara *reverse engineered* the body of a higher realm ( alaya-vijnana, storehouse consciousness) to account for karma and reincarnation. Upon enlightenment Buddha is said to have seen all his past lives. Is all that just a fabricated story? A verbal-conceptual description of the higher dimensions does not mean they don't exit. Pointers in the direction of integration, perhaps. If it has value for you, OK. If trying to connect all the dots is confusing, the confusion might be the hint to simplify. YOU are already Free, so it's your call. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 13, 2023 11:18:41 GMT -5
1. I was just speaking the ND lingo. I've read here probably at least 500 times that this world is not real, only Oneness is real. I've tried to address my view in dialogue with you, previously, stretching to admit (the Buddhist) view of the two truths, there is the Absolute Truth, and there is the relative truth of the world we live in here and experience (red light means stop, green light means go). You replied back to me directly, there are NOT two truths, there is only One Truth. I do not consider this world unreal. I understand the Zen answer. 2. Understand your view. 3. I'll come back to this, maybe I can come at it in a way I haven't before, maybe not. But I mean meaning other than the ordinary one-dimensional meaning of obvious-ordinary. (I love my wife, my kids, my career, my country, etc.). 4. It's not speculation. I never discuss this, my rule. But it's all about energy. And to be about energy there must necessarily be a distinction between *inside* and *outside*. You disregard that, so [that would be] end of conversation, anyway. (If there were no distinction, [organic] life couldn't exist. There has to be a *flesh-bag* distinction). The Carl Sagan video says about everything. People would just call it Woo Woo anyway. I rather be ~abused~ for not speaking than ~abused~ for speaking. (And same as 3.). Okay. That helps. My only comments: 1. Oneness and what we call "the world" are one and the same, and I'm not sure who on the forum ever claimed that the world is not real. I prefer the term "actual" because most people equate the word "real" with "existent," and the idea of existing is usually applied to the idea that things exist separately from one another. Most adults do not realize that separateness is a culturally-indoctrinated idea. Absolute truth includes red and green traffic lights, but it's understood that images, ideas, and symbols, such as "red and green traffic lights," are abstractions (the map) that artificially divide oneness (the territory) into imaginary states. If the mind is quiescent and particular realizations have occurred, one lives in a state of oneness without reflective thoughts about oneness. 3. Obvious/ordinary meaning is included in Oneness, and if people search for anything deeper than the obvious/ordinary sense of meaning, it usually means (haha) that they're attached to an abstraction that represents an abstraction. I'm reminded of the humorous story of the psychology professor going to class when a student says, "Good morning," and the professor continues walking while thinking, "I wonder what he meant by that?" Obviously "good morning" means "good morning," but the professor was living in his head and overlooking the obvious. FWIW, I've never met a ND sage who would claim that the world is meaningless. A sage would simply say, "It is what it is," more like a verb than a noun. 4. The claim that "organic life couldn't exist if there were no distinctions" is clearly erroneous because bacteria exist and I doubt that they make distinctions. Distinctions are abstractions that seem to occur only in animals with an intellect capable of imagining separate states. The problem for humans is that it's difficult to detach from distinctions and see the unified field of oneness that gives rise to distinctions of separate states. When I first looked at the title of this thread, these words of Lao Tau came to mind: "Students learn by daily gain, The Way is found by daily loss, Loss after loss until finally there is peace. By letting go, everything gets done; The world is won by those who give it up. For those who try unceasingly, The world remains forever out of reach." IOW, I would title such a thread, "Moving from complexity to simplicity." You insist that distinctions are limited to conceptual distinctions. If there were not a distinction between bacteria, and what it eats, it would not seek to eat (it would already have-be what it needs). There would be no movement toward what it needs, or no reason to take-in what it needs. Bacteria recognizes something that isn't-it, to make it into itself. I don't know how that's not clear. Plants recognize something (make a distinction) that isn't-it, photons (from the Sun), and turn them into itself. And so they turn photons into sugar, a source of food for everything else living. IOW, if bacteria or an amoeba or plant or animal didn't make a distinction between what-it-is and what it is not, they would die. |
|
