|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 8, 2024 22:25:04 GMT -5
Notice how a quiet mind, a mediator's mind, never would have created the reality of shouting at the farmer in delusion. From direct experience, I can say that the formula of ( quiescent mind ) + ( not knowing ) leads to some of the most delightful and innocent synchronicity. The less likely the coincidence, the more convincing such an occurrence becomes. The not-knowing, has to be what I suspect for most people, of a heightened intensity. It was for me. The dream/dreamer metaphor relates quite precisely to the writer's observations about people's varying mind-based interpretations of events. LOA, if considered in the impersonal, nondual context, is what it is. There's no topping ZD's pointing to "THIS", so I'm not going to try, nor is it necessary to repeat it on this forum where anyone can read it. But notice that the writer here doesn't write from that context. An information bubble is a duality, defining a boundary. The model implies an objective, base reality. There's no way to state that reality is subjective without doing that. This is the nature of duality. The following pointing, with one exception, is not for intellect to ponder: reality, is neither subjective, nor objective. The question of causality is the existential question. One particular form of it. To say that the primary cause of what we experience is our beliefs is ultimately just as flawed as to say that the cause is the laws of Physics, or to say that the primary cause is a personified version of the "God" concept. Insight demands a complete renunciation of any such place for mind to rest. "Afterwards", of course, life goes on.  I'm not sure what your point is. Brofman does not teach non-duality. I thought that was a given. So he obviously speaks from the relative context and for the relative context. And once you play the "THIS" card, the discussion is essentially over. Because it's a context flip. And the objective, base reality that is assumed here is LOA, obviously. And in the relative context LOA trumps the laws of physics or any other 'laws'. My point there is the limits of "your beliefs create your reality". I related to what Brofman wrote on two levels. One is superficial, and is the difference between monkey mind (guy with the flat tire), and quiescent mind - Tzu's still minded clarity. The deeper level are the synchronicities (my direct experiences) that corroborate Brofman's interest in challenging the paradigm of objective reality ("does eating grapefruit make you gain or lose weight?"). Brofman replaces an objective machine with a subjective machine. The THIS card trumps the subjective reality card. These mechanistic and dualistic blueprints, like the one Brofman describes (subjective machine), or that the physical sciences describe (objective machine), are all shadows and hints of the existential truth (all is One, neither subjective, nor objective), which is why context dogma also has it's limitations. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 9, 2024 9:08:36 GMT -5
Agreed, except for that last paragraph. That seems to contradict everything that you said before that. Maybe you can clarify? I intended to say that the health of the biological body, as a materialization of a gestalt of consciousness, can't generally be asserted from the observed health of its cells and organs, which are materializations of the elements of the gestalt of consciousness. In other words, medical tests, at cell and organ level, don't reflect the health of the body, nor the actual cause for the symptoms observed and felt at the body level. There isn't a deterministic relation between life at cell or organ levels, and life at body level. An illness observed at cell or organ levels disappears spontaneously in a healthy body, while an unhealthy body may not show any abnormality at cell or organ levels, at any given moment. Health, as well as placebo / nocebo effects observed at cell level are firstly the result of non-physical connectivity at that level, in and beyond that body, in a proximity of focus. That condition doesn't affect the biological body they are elements of, and they may further align, or not, with the body condition. If they don't fully align, they still won't affect that body. Okay, then I understood you correctly and I have to disagree. Because from my perspective, fundamentally, all those boundaries (cellular level, body level, gestalt level) are imaginary. Therefore it would be illogical to conclude that abnormality on the gestalt level would not also show up on the cellular level, or that abnormality on a cellular level would not be found on the gestalt level as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 9, 2024 9:24:28 GMT -5
That's because you are confusing SR with alignment. And that's actually very common. In yoga, they have essentially the same perspective. However, SR is acausal because it is the absolute realm, never the relative realm. Alignment though, can be both causal and acausal, i.e. causal in the relative context (aka flow), but acausal in the absolute context (aka natural state). . I am speaking of the unrealised to the realised. A point between the two. I didn't make that clear to be fair. So Self Realisation endures a process to that point from the unrealised to the realised. Alignments come and go. One minute you are the bliss bunny the next you are Mr. Angry and it really depends on what S.R. constitutes as there are many understandings of what it means and entails. At the point of S.R. one reaches that point because one reaches that point, just like the ripe apple will fall from the tree. This is the science I am talking about. These are the conditions that encompass a process, a process that is a science in motion and in of itself. If the same conditions are present time and time again then it is a process. The thing is that peeps don't ordinarily know where they are at when they are at a certain point and then something happens which is unexpected and seems random or spontaneous. Peeps don't remember a thousand lifetimes of inner workings of the spirit. If we were to refer to S.R. as beyond the self and beyond the mind as I do then nothing that relates to a scientific process exists. So in a way everything we speak about pertaining to the journey, and the process up until a point of S.R is a science. I don't normally talk in such terms butt it was an extension of my thoughts along the same lines as if a peep eats well and goes to the gym then the body will reflect such actions. Okay, I understand your point, it's a fairly standard argument, actually. It's the ripe mango model, or the accident prone model. But no matter how you look at it, in the end, it is just that, a mental model. So when it comes to SR (beyond self and mind), it will suffer the fate as all other mental models, i.e. it answers some questions that arise at a certain level of understanding, but in the end it is rather meaningless and cannot be relied upon. So it has to be discarded. So we have to make clear in what context we are speaking. If we are speaking in the relative context (self and mind), those models can be useful. But if we are speaking in the absolute context (beyond self and mind), these models are useless. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 9, 2024 9:31:39 GMT -5
Also, if you look at the statistics, there's no proof for your claim in real life. And the gym analogy is the relative context. But SR is the absolute context. So that's apples and oranges. .. That's cos peeps don't know the whole picture behind the scenes. They can only relate to what happens in the moment with no background memory of what led one to that moment. How many peeps on this forum have memory of lifetimes had that have led one to a realisation in this life time. Stats don't mean much if a peep kant remember. I don't think you can actually resolve this issue, certainly not on an intellectual, statistical level. Because, how can you prove that your memory of your past lives is actually your memory and those past lives are actually your past lives? Once it's a memory, it's just data and you can't tell anymore how that data came to be, based on an actual event or based on an imaginary event. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 9, 2024 9:38:24 GMT -5
So when I see people talking about SR as a process, they are actually talking about alignment, not SR. And they do that because they can't tell the difference. And they can't tell the difference because they approach this topic from the SVP perspective. And the SVP does not grok SR. By definition, the SVP cannot grok SR. So the SVP has no understanding of nor interest in SR. The SVP only has an interest in alignment, and that's also what the SVP can understand. .. So what is one aligned with or too when not realising what they are? When I speak about these subjects I am not coming from A SVP position, so where does that leave things in the grand scheme of things. I speak often about throwing out the SVP because it's not essential for one's beliefs to reflect them as such. It's toadally possible for the SVP mind set to not be present and yet maintain an understanding of what I speak about. Another word for alignment, depending on context, is blending or connection. It's the personal perspective dissolving into the impersonal perspective, in a sense, like a river or stream merging with the ocean. Because alignment basically means the 'extensions of Source' perspective, seeing the world thru the eyes of Source. And SVP and beliefs go together. So you are certainly approaching this from the SVP level if you give any importance to beliefs. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 9, 2024 9:56:58 GMT -5
I'm not sure what your point is. Brofman does not teach non-duality. I thought that was a given. So he obviously speaks from the relative context and for the relative context. And once you play the "THIS" card, the discussion is essentially over. Because it's a context flip. And the objective, base reality that is assumed here is LOA, obviously. And in the relative context LOA trumps the laws of physics or any other 'laws'. My point there is the limits of "your beliefs create your reality". I related to what Brofman wrote on two levels. One is superficial, and is the difference between monkey mind (guy with the flat tire), and quiescent mind - Tzu's still minded clarity. The deeper level are the synchronicities (my direct experiences) that corroborate Brofman's interest in challenging the paradigm of objective reality ("does eating grapefruit make you gain or lose weight?"). Brofman replaces an objective machine with a subjective machine. The THIS card trumps the subjective reality card. These mechanistic and dualistic blueprints, like the one Brofman describes (subjective machine), or that the physical sciences describe (objective machine), are all shadows and hints of the existential truth (all is One, neither subjective, nor objective), which is why context dogma also has it's limitations. Yes, the Brofman model is also just one of those provisional truths, a bridge. Because state of being trumps beliefs. Even desire can trump beliefs. And in the end, the THIS card is also just a contextual device, which means the THIS card also has its limits. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Mar 9, 2024 13:20:49 GMT -5
I intended to say that the health of the biological body, as a materialization of a gestalt of consciousness, can't generally be asserted from the observed health of its cells and organs, which are materializations of the elements of the gestalt of consciousness. In other words, medical tests, at cell and organ level, don't reflect the health of the body, nor the actual cause for the symptoms observed and felt at the body level. There isn't a deterministic relation between life at cell or organ levels, and life at body level. An illness observed at cell or organ levels disappears spontaneously in a healthy body, while an unhealthy body may not show any abnormality at cell or organ levels, at any given moment. Health, as well as placebo / nocebo effects observed at cell level are firstly the result of non-physical connectivity at that level, in and beyond that body, in a proximity of focus. That condition doesn't affect the biological body they are elements of, and they may further align, or not, with the body condition. If they don't fully align, they still won't affect that body. Okay, then I understood you correctly and I have to disagree. Because from my perspective, fundamentally, all those boundaries (cellular level, body level, gestalt level) are imaginary. Therefore it would be illogical to conclude that abnormality on the gestalt level would not also show up on the cellular level, or that abnormality on a cellular level would not be found on the gestalt level as well. By definition, the properties of a gestalt aren't derived from the properties of its elements, and it doesn't impose its properties on its elements. The gestalt isn't a deterministic relation. You may not agree that reality is a structure of gestalts of gestalts of consciousness, and that it is a duality consciousness - awareness, as I do. This is okay too. It can't be solved by arguing it. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Mar 9, 2024 14:25:05 GMT -5
. I am speaking of the unrealised to the realised. A point between the two. I didn't make that clear to be fair. So Self Realisation endures a process to that point from the unrealised to the realised. Alignments come and go. One minute you are the bliss bunny the next you are Mr. Angry and it really depends on what S.R. constitutes as there are many understandings of what it means and entails. At the point of S.R. one reaches that point because one reaches that point, just like the ripe apple will fall from the tree. This is the science I am talking about. These are the conditions that encompass a process, a process that is a science in motion and in of itself. If the same conditions are present time and time again then it is a process. The thing is that peeps don't ordinarily know where they are at when they are at a certain point and then something happens which is unexpected and seems random or spontaneous. Peeps don't remember a thousand lifetimes of inner workings of the spirit. If we were to refer to S.R. as beyond the self and beyond the mind as I do then nothing that relates to a scientific process exists. So in a way everything we speak about pertaining to the journey, and the process up until a point of S.R is a science. I don't normally talk in such terms butt it was an extension of my thoughts along the same lines as if a peep eats well and goes to the gym then the body will reflect such actions. Okay, I understand your point, it's a fairly standard argument, actually. It's the ripe mango model, or the accident prone model. But no matter how you look at it, in the end, it is just that, a mental model. So when it comes to SR (beyond self and mind), it will suffer the fate as all other mental models, i.e. it answers some questions that arise at a certain level of understanding, but in the end it is rather meaningless and cannot be relied upon. So it has to be discarded. So we have to make clear in what context we are speaking. If we are speaking in the relative context (self and mind), those models can be useful. But if we are speaking in the absolute context (beyond self and mind), these models are useless. Yep I would agree that in the end it's just a mental model in some shape or form butt some mental models make more sense than others and ring more true than others. My context pertaining to S.R. is beyond mind and self and perhaps only a few would agree, so the science of S.R. based upon that context wouldn't entertain a process, it would be everything leading up to that point of transcendence that is. (I think we are both clear and in agreement with that). Some say S.R. is of the mind and it's a constant state for use of a better word when experiencing life, so that would entertain a process. As Satch might say, SS is SR, so we are in a way transforming from one mindful state to another which would fall under a process of sorts. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Mar 9, 2024 14:32:09 GMT -5
.. That's cos peeps don't know the whole picture behind the scenes. They can only relate to what happens in the moment with no background memory of what led one to that moment. How many peeps on this forum have memory of lifetimes had that have led one to a realisation in this life time. Stats don't mean much if a peep kant remember. I don't think you can actually resolve this issue, certainly not on an intellectual, statistical level. Because, how can you prove that your memory of your past lives is actually your memory and those past lives are actually your past lives? Once it's a memory, it's just data and you can't tell anymore how that data came to be, based on an actual event or based on an imaginary event. For sure, I wouldn't be able to prove anything butt one has to have faith in that what unfolds in such a manner results directly in your own interest. I have had confirmations over the years in many shapes and forms relating to my past lives. If we base statistics only on what one is immediately conscious of in the moment then those stats would only reflect that. Our multidimensional aspects of what we are as individuals won't be reflected in those stats, so wouldn't really hold much weight in the grand scheme of things. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Mar 9, 2024 14:34:22 GMT -5
.. That's cos peeps don't know the whole picture behind the scenes. They can only relate to what happens in the moment with no background memory of what led one to that moment. How many peeps on this forum have memory of lifetimes had that have led one to a realisation in this life time. Stats don't mean much if a peep kant remember. I don't think you can actually resolve this issue, certainly not on an intellectual, statistical level. Because, how can you prove that your memory of your past lives is actually your memory and those past lives are actually your past lives? Once it's a memory, it's just data and you can't tell anymore how that data came to be, based on an actual event or based on an imaginary event. Actually, "past lives" is a misunderstood concept, as far as I believe, both because the historical-past is just one possible perspective drawn from the present (there is an infinite number of others), and because what we recall as past-lives is observing other (many) materializations that the entity sprung initially or that branched from choices made by personalities. The past-lives aren't over and done, as future-lives already exist. On the other hand, all these lives synergistically work together to accomplish whatever the entity'a goals are. Again, all the relationships are of gestalt nature, and imply free-will at all levels, but there is a bias, and a guidance toward accomplishing the goals, and not devolving in chaos. The same in the relation between the biological body and its organs and cells, as materializations of non-physical awarenesses, at their individual levels of evolvement. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Mar 9, 2024 14:42:29 GMT -5
.. So what is one aligned with or too when not realising what they are? When I speak about these subjects I am not coming from A SVP position, so where does that leave things in the grand scheme of things. I speak often about throwing out the SVP because it's not essential for one's beliefs to reflect them as such. It's toadally possible for the SVP mind set to not be present and yet maintain an understanding of what I speak about. Another word for alignment, depending on context, is blending or connection. It's the personal perspective dissolving into the impersonal perspective, in a sense, like a river or stream merging with the ocean. Because alignment basically means the 'extensions of Source' perspective, seeing the world thru the eyes of Source. And SVP and beliefs go together. So you are certainly approaching this from the SVP level if you give any importance to beliefs. I don't know why peeps only relate the personal level to a SVP. It makes no sense to me. I believe I am an individual that isn't separate from anything. That's part of my understanding had from my transcendence. Alignment, merging or whatever word suits only reflects something that can merge, or align, so all of the above can only relate to the person. If the person only refers to a SVP and the SVP is illusory then as said before to a few members here, what is left? LOA, Karma, and processes that reflect one state over another have to have at the centre point someone that can entertain them. Kan't an individual that isn't separate from everything else hold a belief that doesn't reflect a SVP? The answer is obviously yes, but it seems that some Non Dualists can only see the person one way. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Mar 9, 2024 16:07:30 GMT -5
... but it seems that some Non Dualists can only see the person one way. A non-dualist, by name, is someone who denies a duality, similarly to believing that light has only a wave-nature, and denying light's dual particle-nature. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 9, 2024 21:38:31 GMT -5
Okay, then I understood you correctly and I have to disagree. Because from my perspective, fundamentally, all those boundaries (cellular level, body level, gestalt level) are imaginary. Therefore it would be illogical to conclude that abnormality on the gestalt level would not also show up on the cellular level, or that abnormality on a cellular level would not be found on the gestalt level as well. By definition, the properties of a gestalt aren't derived from the properties of its elements, and it doesn't impose its properties on its elements. The gestalt isn't a deterministic relation. You may not agree that reality is a structure of gestalts of gestalts of consciousness, and that it is a duality consciousness - awareness, as I do. This is okay too. It can't be solved by arguing it. Gestalt is a German term, which basically just means form or shape. So in that sense I have no issue with your "reality is a structure of gestalts of gestalts of consciousness" model, since by "reality" you mean the relative realm. I am just pointing out that the conclusion you've reached, given your premise and the way you usually argue, is illogical. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 9, 2024 22:00:56 GMT -5
Okay, I understand your point, it's a fairly standard argument, actually. It's the ripe mango model, or the accident prone model. But no matter how you look at it, in the end, it is just that, a mental model. So when it comes to SR (beyond self and mind), it will suffer the fate as all other mental models, i.e. it answers some questions that arise at a certain level of understanding, but in the end it is rather meaningless and cannot be relied upon. So it has to be discarded. So we have to make clear in what context we are speaking. If we are speaking in the relative context (self and mind), those models can be useful. But if we are speaking in the absolute context (beyond self and mind), these models are useless. Yep I would agree that in the end it's just a mental model in some shape or form butt some mental models make more sense than others and ring more true than others. My context pertaining to S.R. is beyond mind and self and perhaps only a few would agree, so the science of S.R. based upon that context wouldn't entertain a process, it would be everything leading up to that point of transcendence that is. (I think we are both clear and in agreement with that). Some say S.R. is of the mind and it's a constant state for use of a better word when experiencing life, so that would entertain a process. As Satch might say, SS is SR, so we are in a way transforming from one mindful state to another which would fall under a process of sorts. Exactly, some models make more sense than others because they explain more than other models. That's why LOA trumps LOK. This doesn't mean that LOK is wrong per se, it just means that, when it comes to explaining creation and experience, LOK has more limits than LOA. I can agree with the "up to a certain point" argument, because that's basically what the gateless gate argument is that I often use, i.e. there's a process that can get you to the gateless gate, but there's no process that can get you thru to the other side. To explain how to pass thru the gateless gate you have to use yet another model, the grace model. SR certainly has an affect on the mind and experience, and there's been a lot of discussion about that, especially in terms of peace of mind. But, if we argue that SR causes peace of mind, then we are speaking about a conditional kind of peace of mind again. So, SR in a sense of a transformation will always limit you to the relative, cause and effect realm, and that is just not what we mean by SR, nor what Niz or RM mean by liberation or the natural state. SR is not a radical transformation, SR is a radical shift in perspective. That's why SR is unconditional and acausal and why there cannot be a path to SR. That's also why SR as well as the natural state cannot be an achievement. Papaji always used the coming home analogy. SR is realizing that you are already home. Being a seeker is not realizing that you are already home. Now, if you are already home, what kind of action or transformation can get you closer to home? None. All it takes is a realization that you are already home, which means there has to be a radical shift in perspective. RM argued exactly the same way, that there is no such things as SR or liberation in the sense of a transformation, and that as long as one sees it in those terms, one will remain in bondage. You cannot become what you already are. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Mar 9, 2024 22:36:04 GMT -5
By definition, the properties of a gestalt aren't derived from the properties of its elements, and it doesn't impose its properties on its elements. The gestalt isn't a deterministic relation. You may not agree that reality is a structure of gestalts of gestalts of consciousness, and that it is a duality consciousness - awareness, as I do. This is okay too. It can't be solved by arguing it. Gestalt is a German term, which basically just means form or shape. So in that sense I have no issue with your "reality is a structure of gestalts of gestalts of consciousness" model, since by "reality" you mean the relative realm. I am just pointing out that the conclusion you've reached, given your premise and the way you usually argue, is illogical. - gestalt: something such as a structure or experience that, when considered as a whole, has qualities that are more than the total of all its parts
This is pretty much what I understand by gestalt. You (as most people) interpret what I say through the filter of your beliefs, so it is possible that you might misunderstand what I say. On the other hand, for you, it doesn't matter what I say, but only what you understand, which means that if my assertion is incorrect, or limited, it is actually up to you to understand, or be pointed to something better, more accurate, ... Also, we aren't here looking for "logical" arguments, or shouldn't, as we aren't looking for instinctual reactions, nor emotional arguments either. Intuition could be useful to some degree, but it is extremely rare. Still, in my opinion, only your inner guidance could bring you more accurate and clearer knowledge, and only if you make the effort to leave aside all your beliefs, which most people don't do. I don't use the concept of "relative realm". It doesn't make sense to me. Also, I understand that you make a difference between personal and impersonal contexts, but I don't subscribe to that point of view; I think it is a crutch. My opinions aren't conclusions, but direct knowledge that I formulate, put it in words, being aware that I might distort it somewhat, although I don't know how. When something doesn't make sense to me, I ask for clarifications, until I get it, or I'm suggested to leave it aside for the time being. |
|
