|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 13, 2024 17:12:20 GMT -5
How is it that these bodies have the same bloodline, and I experience via the senses of this body, an identity thing? Isn't is just true that we have the same ancestors, and each body its own sense organs, and each individual personality is formed by the sum of their past (including ancestral past)? Identify - to establish or indicate who or what (someone or something) is. In my eyes it is true regarding what you say about ancestry, but one still identifies one's sister as one's sister and not a melon. We could say by design an orange is an orange and that is a fact, but you know an orange from a banana because you can identify them both. Recognition - Identification of someone or something or person from previous encounters or knowledge. Now with all your biological facts revealed, doesn't that reflect someone being present? Bloodlines and ancestry apply to someone correct? And what you declare about ancestry and facts therefore must constitute a plausible premise regarding someone being here right? What else can be biologically factual that doesn't refer to someone? Bloodlines apply to a body. I question the assumption that a body implies 'someone'. I claim we assume 'someone', me, because we think the senses must belong to an experiencer, but it's possible that experience just is, and the experiencer just isn't. Then we can argue about personality, which I claim is formed by the experience of the past, and not the expression of 'somebody'.
We find everything is the sameas is there was 'someone', and not different, with the exception that no assumption is made, and we're just left with there are unique experiences and personalities, as well as facts like who is related to whom.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Sept 13, 2024 22:07:36 GMT -5
Channeling Phil.   |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Sept 14, 2024 2:34:53 GMT -5
Identify - to establish or indicate who or what (someone or something) is. In my eyes it is true regarding what you say about ancestry, but one still identifies one's sister as one's sister and not a melon. We could say by design an orange is an orange and that is a fact, but you know an orange from a banana because you can identify them both. Recognition - Identification of someone or something or person from previous encounters or knowledge. Now with all your biological facts revealed, doesn't that reflect someone being present? Bloodlines and ancestry apply to someone correct? And what you declare about ancestry and facts therefore must constitute a plausible premise regarding someone being here right? What else can be biologically factual that doesn't refer to someone? Bloodlines apply to a body. I question the assumption that a body implies 'someone'. I claim we assume 'someone', me, because we think the senses must belong to an experiencer, but it's possible that experience just is, and the experiencer just isn't. Then we can argue about personality, which I claim is formed by the experience of the past, and not the expression of 'somebody'.
We find everything is the sameas is there was 'someone', and not different, with the exception that no assumption is made, and we're just left with there are unique experiences and personalities, as well as facts like who is related to whom.
Well the interesting part in all this, is the understanding of what constitutes someone. It's not just about there being a body present. And the body isn't separate from what you are that is saying what is a biological fact. Niz put it across where consciousness becomes awareness in the presence of an object. (The person)(someone). And the person isn't an issue, it's the separate person that is. Some might refer to a mind - body - spirit - soul combo like I do. Peeps can take their pick. What I see often in non duality circles is they put a divide of sorts in-between the body and what you are, be it awareness or the witness etc when it's a package deal. What is a body that has biological facts pertaining to it without the package deal combo in effect? Can a body alone with all the bloodlines of one's ancestors talk and mow the lawn? Of course not. What would be the point in backing up biological facts regarding an ancestral line, when ancestors don't reflect someone present that can pass down their genes. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 14, 2024 3:29:52 GMT -5
There are things that are observable, bodies and things. Things that are not, like 'somebody', are not observable, but you can see how imaginary they are. Since people find it hard to discertn between what is the actuality of their real-lived experience and what they fabricate with imagination, you can insist that 'someone is here' or that a 'man' is born in the wrong body or 'I'm a Christian, Buddhist Jew etc' without once recognising that everything identity depends on to be 'me' also mentally fabricated. The difficulty is realising that most of our core motifs are fabricated, and as such, we barely even notice the actuality that is our real-life. That why I take a good hard look at myself, and apart from a psychological profile and personality tendencies that formed over time, no one is the owner of all that. All this, which people take to be 'myself' and live as someone they are not. This is not different to the normal way I just described above. It is that way, but whereas many do not discern and see it for what it is, I can't help but distinguish between the actuality of the senses and the fabrications of the mind. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Sept 14, 2024 4:28:10 GMT -5
There are things that are observable, bodies and things. Things that are not, like 'somebody', are not observable, but you can see how imaginary they are. 'Somebody' is just a reference for what is observed and experienced as a peep like your sister for example. There isn't a bodily sister thing that is observable and somebody who isn't. It's a red herring if it's put across like you have. Same could apply to Consciousness if one associates Consciousness as being something or someone or not be it the case. People say the same about looking for self as if self is something that stands alone to be found when it's right here, right now being an integral part of doing the looking for it. It's a package deal like said, but if peeps start to divide bits and pieces up into categories then it will have the same effect as neti neti does. When you spoke about biological facts, that can't just be associated to the body can it? Your grandparents, and your parents whatever you wish to call them pass down their genes to you and your sister. Can a body alone do that? The answer is no so there has to be something that is of the body that is part of the parcel. So what is it that can do that? Do you see how biological facts have to reflect in someone-thing that can be apart of that foundational premise.Can a cartoon character like Mother Bear pass down genes to Baby Bear? The answer is no, so there is something about the human foundation that can support someone rather than not. Not being able to observe the soul or the spirit for example doesn't mean that it isn't an integral part of what constitutes the individual does it. It's just that peeps at times only believe what they can see, so renounce understandings of what they can't see. It's understandable. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Sept 14, 2024 4:41:14 GMT -5
That why I take a good hard look at myself, and apart from a psychological profile and personality tendencies that formed over time, no one is the owner of all that. All this, which people take to be 'myself' and live as someone they are not. This is not different to the normal way I just described above. It is that way, but whereas many do not discern and see it for what it is, I can't help but distinguish between the actuality of the senses and the fabrications of the mind. It's a good thing in my eyes to look at oneself. It's a good thing to question one's thoughts and actions as to why I thought that or why I did that. Of course if we peel away the onion layers at some point there is nothing left to un-peel. This is why when there is transcendence of self and mind there isn't anyone there per se. The problem with this though as I see it is that peeps at times mix platforms so there is the notion had that there is nobody here even though there is awareness of oneself being here. Same applies to no-one is responsible or the owner of anything said or done. We spoke about the magnet analogy the other day about returning back to a reality lived despite putting self and the world aside temporarily while entertaining certain states of awareness. The Masters who spent days in deep sleep always return to a reality lived. The peep that dreams at night always returns to a reality lived. Of course if it's one's time to no longer experience the physical world then one will experience another world. Fabrications of the mind if understood in a specific way can be similar to neti neti or integrated into the experience itself. The whole foundation of mind probably differs for many a folk. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 14, 2024 6:21:40 GMT -5
There are things that are observable, bodies and things. Things that are not, like 'somebody', are not observable, but you can see how imaginary they are. 'Somebody' is just a reference for what is observed and experienced as a peep like your sister for example. There isn't a bodily sister thing that is observable and somebody who isn't. It's a red herring if it's put across like you have. Same could apply to Consciousness if one associates Consciousness as being something or someone or not be it the case. People say the same about looking for self as if self is something that stands alone to be found when it's right here, right now being an integral part of doing the looking for it. It's a package deal like said, but if peeps start to divide bits and pieces up into categories then it will have the same effect as neti neti does. When you spoke about biological facts, that can't just be associated to the body can it? Your grandparents, and your parents whatever you wish to call them pass down their genes to you and your sister. Can a body alone do that? The answer is no so there has to be something that is of the body that is part of the parcel. So what is it that can do that? Do you see how biological facts have to reflect in someone-thing that can be apart of that foundational premise.Can a cartoon character like Mother Bear pass down genes to Baby Bear? The answer is no, so there is something about the human foundation that can support someone rather than not. Not being able to observe the soul or the spirit for example doesn't mean that it isn't an integral part of what constitutes the individual does it. It's just that peeps at times only believe what they can see, so renounce understandings of what they can't see. It's understandable. The problem for most people tenka is that when you get past thinking and feeling and sensing, anything deeper becomes merely theoretical. And then you can get into the imaginary. I don't get into describing experience much, but I know there is a something that is aware of all my surrounding activities, and this something has a guiding and protecting role, influence. I know this something can extend into the future for hours, even days. Sometimes it can act in a split second, communicate to 'me'. I suspect the influence can extend to even months and years, maybe even a whole lifetime. And I can be in sync with this something, or out of sync, or even way out of sync. I, meaning my ordinary self, the self typing these words right now. I first experienced this something, as extra-ordinary (beyond the ordinary me) as a teenager, and then periodically. Part of my spiritual journey has been to find out just what this something is. I choose not to put a name on it, but I've recognized in many places where other people have written about similar. So I am cognizant to be wary of imagination slipping in. I did tree work for 4 years. You climb to the top of a tree and tie in with a rope and saddle (it's very like rappelling, except the rope moves. The rope forms a loop around a limb, and you tie a special knot to one side of the rope-loop by which you control your descent. A climbing rope is 150 feet long, so the loop can extend to 75 feet (anywhere from one foot to 75 feet). If you are in a taller tree, you have to tie in again before you reach the ground, very easy to do). At that point, tied in, you basically can't fall. So climbing up is the dangerous part. There is a rule called having a secondary hold. That means, at all times, either two feet and one hand in contact with the tree, or one foot and two hands (I never fell, never came close to falling). If you follow this rule climbing up to tie in, you are very safe. Once you are tied in, you have two hands free to work, the rope holds you. I moved on from tree work because it is f-king hard work, even for a foreman. Another way to say it, staying safe, is don't get out in front of your skis. So I basically move from the known, into the unknown, which becomes the known, repeat. The leading edge is awareness. lolly describes this demarcation from imagination very well. So you have to keep one foot in the everyday-real-world, like having a secondary hold. You can't venture out into the completely-imaginary, the completely-theoretical. Ultimately, I highly suspect the goal of incarnation is to merge together this something and the ordinary self. The ordinary self is a kind of placeholder. It gets complicated here, as everybody has their own little theory as to what is going on in life. ZD has view that there isn't a (psychological) self in any sense. You (tenka) continually point out this is very problematic. It is problematic. My view is pretty simple. Yes, the me typing these word right now, IS imaginary, is a kind of complicated "AI", I've gone into this extensively here, the self we think we are, is a collection of memories, copies, and copies of copies. I settled on the term self-avatar. This something else is the real me. The path from here to there, is via attention and awareness. Basically, the ordinary self-(avatar) eventually ceases to be, ~you~ become the real I. If this doesn't occur in any one lifetime, 'You' incarnate again, and you have to start all over forming a new self-avatar, a new cultural self is formed. Of course there is much more to it, that's a bare bones version. But here's the glitch tenka, all the things you write about may be completely accurate, but nobody else can know you, from the inside, like tenka knows tenka. So everything you write about is imaginary, for everybody else, it's all theoretical, for everybody else. A way has to be found to bridge the gap from the theoretical, to the actual. ZD says it's all just imaginary, there isn't a self in any sense. He's wrong. But the real I cannot be described in any words whatsoever. Everything written is a kind of map, at best. So, we just keep posting our view, like Johnny Appleseed sowing apple tree seeds. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Sept 14, 2024 7:15:07 GMT -5
'Somebody' is just a reference for what is observed and experienced as a peep like your sister for example. There isn't a bodily sister thing that is observable and somebody who isn't. It's a red herring if it's put across like you have. Same could apply to Consciousness if one associates Consciousness as being something or someone or not be it the case. People say the same about looking for self as if self is something that stands alone to be found when it's right here, right now being an integral part of doing the looking for it. It's a package deal like said, but if peeps start to divide bits and pieces up into categories then it will have the same effect as neti neti does. When you spoke about biological facts, that can't just be associated to the body can it? Your grandparents, and your parents whatever you wish to call them pass down their genes to you and your sister. Can a body alone do that? The answer is no so there has to be something that is of the body that is part of the parcel. So what is it that can do that? Do you see how biological facts have to reflect in someone-thing that can be apart of that foundational premise.Can a cartoon character like Mother Bear pass down genes to Baby Bear? The answer is no, so there is something about the human foundation that can support someone rather than not. Not being able to observe the soul or the spirit for example doesn't mean that it isn't an integral part of what constitutes the individual does it. It's just that peeps at times only believe what they can see, so renounce understandings of what they can't see. It's understandable. The problem for most people tenka is that when you get past thinking and feeling and sensing, anything deeper becomes merely theoretical. And then you can get into the imaginary. .. Well I certainly don't speak in absolutes and peeps have their unique experiences for sure, that's if we entertain a context where there is someone that can have unique experiences. Imagination is a slippery fish and this is why speaking about the nature of appearances was always a topic that needed understandings had. This is why speaking with Lolly doesn't sit right with me where there are biological facts in play that are only associated with the body and yet the body alone cannot pass down genes from one generation to the other. The body alone cannot do anything without the life-force or the spirit that is entwined with it. We can call these references different names it matters not, but most have seen a lifeless body before whether it's in human form or a bird or whatever. So we know from experience the body is embodied, or infused, entwined with something. Without that something there is no human experience had. I put forward questions that should put aside certain things that don't add up in a premise. In a way it's a process of elimination. One of my points is that you don't have to see what this 'something' is for it to be present. It doesn't however make any difference of what constitutes a 'someone' that is in experience. I understand a peeps premise who want to dress everything up as illusory in some way where no one is here, but the definition of a person who is someone here present as a human being regarded as an individual must contain certain elements for that to be so. Especially when the premise entertains biological facts. So there is the body. There is the Life that is within and of the body. There is awareness of this in a multitude of ways. Like said there are many combo's to float a peeps boat but as always foundations are key. If we start off with a foundation of biological facts and ancestry then one identifies with that even though one doesn't have to identify what it is that you actually are. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 14, 2024 7:52:09 GMT -5
The problem for most people tenka is that when you get past thinking and feeling and sensing, anything deeper becomes merely theoretical. And then you can get into the imaginary. .. Well I certainly don't speak in absolutes and peeps have their unique experiences for sure, that's if we entertain a context where there is someone that can have unique experiences. Imagination is a slippery fish and this is why speaking about the nature of appearances was always a topic that needed understandings had. This is why speaking with Lolly doesn't sit right with me where there are biological facts in play that are only associated with the body and yet the body alone cannot pass down genes from one generation to the other. The body alone cannot do anything without the life-force or the spirit that is entwined with it. We can call these references different names it matters not, but most have seen a lifeless body before whether it's in human form or a bird or whatever. So we know from experience the body is embodied, or infused, entwined with something. Without that something there is no human experience had. I put forward questions that should put aside certain things that don't add up in a premise. In a way it's a process of elimination. One of my points is that you don't have to see what this 'something' is for it to be present.It doesn't however make any difference of what constitutes a 'someone' that is in experience. I understand a peeps premise who want to dress everything up as illusory in some way where no one is here, but the definition of a person who is someone here present as a human being regarded as an individual must contain certain elements for that to be so. Especially when the premise entertains biological facts. So there is the body. There is the Life that is within and of the body. There is awareness of this in a multitude of ways. Like said there are many combo's to float a peeps boat but as always foundations are key. If we start off with a foundation of biological facts and ancestry then one identifies with that even though one doesn't have to identify what it is that you actually are. Gurdjieff is very complicated, the teaching. In Beelzebub's Tales he even created a new language that made the teaching even more complicated (but part of the reason is so the reader will not make [wrong] associations with what he or she already knows, or thinks he or she knows). I got into semiotics a little, mostly by way of Walker Percy, (later a little CS Peirce) who was a novelist, but a philosopher pretending to be a writer. His model was Kierkegaard, who he read because of being bedridden having graduated from medical school but chose research instead of doctoring, and he contracted TB via his research. So being necessarily bedridden for over a year (this was maybe the '40s), all he did was read philosophy, and so he decided to be a philosopher instead of being a doctor. His Uncle Will was rich, it's easy to become a philosopher when you're rich. He wrote popular novels to disguise his philosophizing, like Kierkegaard. In his nonfiction work Message in a Bottle (all we really do, writing, is like putting a message in a bottle, and launching it into the ocean), he writes about Helen Keller. Language needs three things, not two. You have water, the word water indicates the wet stuff you can drink and bath in. That's what we consider as language. Percy was a semiotician. He said that isn't language. Now, Helen Keller wasn't born deaf and dumb, so she had a little head start, later loosing hearing and sight at a very early age. But Percy describes the 3rd thing, what happens inside a head, what happened to Helen Keller when she learned language. In the film this is very dramatically shown. Annie Sullivan had one day left to show progress or the parents were going to thrown her out. She had signed letters into Helen's had over and over, but nothing ever clicked. Then Annie took Helen to the well, and pumped water out over Helen's hands as she signed the letters for water simultaneously, water and letters for water over Helen's hands. Those are the two things we think language is. But, suddenly, Helen understood, the letters in the hand meant, water. Her face just lit up. She signed the letters back into Annie's hands. And Annie gave her the up and down head nod meaning yes. And then Helen was a whirlwind, asking the letters for other things. Helen learned language that day. She learned meaning. In the beginning of Beelzebub's Tales Gurdjieff writes about heredity. (This is a kind of test, for tenka, and everybody). So early on I asked my teacher what Gurdjieff meant by heredity, there. He answered immediately, heredity is what you are born with. Such a simple answer, but the meaning exploded in my head, IOW, I understood so much more. Why is this important? Because Gurdjieff taught that we are not born with a soul. Most everybody else says either yes, we have a soul, or no, we do not have a soul. Gurdjieff taught that we merely have the soul in embryo, as a seed, we have merely the potential for a soul. So, my question, above, was my first real lesson in understanding Gurdjieff. Language is not just two things, language is three things. The 3rd thing is not directly transferable, it's subjectively objective. "Transmission outside the scriptures". |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Sept 14, 2024 13:36:21 GMT -5
.. Well I certainly don't speak in absolutes and peeps have their unique experiences for sure, that's if we entertain a context where there is someone that can have unique experiences. Imagination is a slippery fish and this is why speaking about the nature of appearances was always a topic that needed understandings had. This is why speaking with Lolly doesn't sit right with me where there are biological facts in play that are only associated with the body and yet the body alone cannot pass down genes from one generation to the other. The body alone cannot do anything without the life-force or the spirit that is entwined with it. We can call these references different names it matters not, but most have seen a lifeless body before whether it's in human form or a bird or whatever. So we know from experience the body is embodied, or infused, entwined with something. Without that something there is no human experience had. I put forward questions that should put aside certain things that don't add up in a premise. In a way it's a process of elimination. One of my points is that you don't have to see what this 'something' is for it to be present.It doesn't however make any difference of what constitutes a 'someone' that is in experience. I understand a peeps premise who want to dress everything up as illusory in some way where no one is here, but the definition of a person who is someone here present as a human being regarded as an individual must contain certain elements for that to be so. Especially when the premise entertains biological facts. So there is the body. There is the Life that is within and of the body. There is awareness of this in a multitude of ways. Like said there are many combo's to float a peeps boat but as always foundations are key. If we start off with a foundation of biological facts and ancestry then one identifies with that even though one doesn't have to identify what it is that you actually are. Gurdjieff is very complicated, the teaching. In Beelzebub's Tales he even created a new language that made the teaching even more complicated (but part of the reason is so the reader will not make [wrong] associations with what he or she already knows, or thinks he or she knows). I got into semiotics a little, mostly by way of Walker Percy, (later a little CS Peirce) who was a novelist, but a philosopher pretending to be a writer. His model was Kierkegaard, who he read because of being bedridden having graduated from medical school but chose research instead of doctoring, and he contracted TB via his research. So being necessarily bedridden for over a year (this was maybe the '40s), all he did was read philosophy, and so he decided to be a philosopher instead of being a doctor. His Uncle Will was rich, it's easy to become a philosopher when you're rich. He wrote popular novels to disguise his philosophizing, like Kierkegaard. In his nonfiction work Message in a Bottle (all we really do, writing, is like putting a message in a bottle, and launching it into the ocean), he writes about Helen Keller. Language needs three things, not two. You have water, the word water indicates the wet stuff you can drink and bath in. That's what we consider as language. Percy was a semiotician. He said that isn't language. Now, Helen Keller wasn't born deaf and dumb, so she had a little head start, later loosing hearing and sight at a very early age. But Percy describes the 3rd thing, what happens inside a head, what happened to Helen Keller when she learned language. In the film this is very dramatically shown. Annie Sullivan had one day left to show progress or the parents were going to thrown her out. She had signed letters into Helen's had over and over, but nothing ever clicked. Then Annie took Helen to the well, and pumped water out over Helen's hands as she signed the letters for water simultaneously, water and letters for water over Helen's hands. Those are the two things we think language is. But, suddenly, Helen understood, the letters in the hand meant, water. Her face just lit up. She signed the letters back into Annie's hands. And Annie gave her the up and down head nod meaning yes. And then Helen was a whirlwind, asking the letters for other things. Helen learned language that day. She learned meaning. In the beginning of Beelzebub's Tales Gurdjieff writes about heredity. (This is a kind of test, for tenka, and everybody). So early on I asked my teacher what Gurdjieff meant by heredity, there. He answered immediately, heredity is what you are born with. Such a simple answer, but the meaning exploded in my head, IOW, I understood so much more. Why is this important? Because Gurdjieff taught that we are not born with a soul. Most everybody else says either yes, we have a soul, or no, we do not have a soul. Gurdjieff taught that we merely have the soul in embryo, as a seed, we have merely the potential for a soul. So, my question, above, was my first real lesson in understanding Gurdjieff. Language is not just two things, language is three things. The 3rd thing is not directly transferable, it's subjectively objective. "Transmission outside the scriptures". Ah! Helen Keller and Anne Sullivan. Peeps who visit me every now and then from spirit, only last week to be honest. I have always admired that chosen lifetime. I tip my hat each time to her. There is a lot to your post pilgrim and I understand there is a heightened sense for peeps who have these so called disabilities for use of better words, but senses are senses and not everyone trusts them as a self measure for the reality experienced. This is the problem depending on one's beliefs. Conceptual knowings can muddy the waters for sure and if you have none and experience something then in a way there is a clearer interpretation of that something I would say. However I used to do a lot of tree hugging and I obviously know what trees look like and what they refer too intellectually prior to hugging them. A cool workshop had with a shaman some years ago was to connect with a tree or bush and feel the tree rather than what you know of it or by what it looks like. I didn't know half of the trees names or what one bush was over another but one prickly bugger full of thorns felt like to me the highest of vibrations despite what it looked like. The Shaman did confirm that it was a very high vibrational energy, so sometimes if one can clear preconceptions one can get a similar feel to lets say Helen Kellers experience of things without having preconceptions. My understandings of the Soul or Spirit is that the second that there is conception there is a Spirit/Soul assigned to that bodily creation. As peeps may of heard of the Silver Chord, it is a connection had to the Mind-Body. Only at the time of birth into this world reality is there permanence for the duration of the life experience. Prior to that one can come and go. Experience the feutus stage and then return to the spirit world for different periods in time similar to what happens when one returns to the spirit world when one leaves the body each night. This is the combo I have been trying to put forward regarding the body and the spirit. Which in my eyes go hand in hand when somebody is present. It's not just the physical body but the etheric and causal bodies, all with Spirit / Soul embodied. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 14, 2024 13:47:05 GMT -5
I am using 'my computer' to interact, get knowledge, get guidance, grow.
Is 'my computer' the device I am typing in?
Is 'my computer' the device's hardware, while its software is an illusion? Or the other way around? Or, maybe just the apps are an illusion?
Is 'my computer' the processor, the memory, the keyboard, the screen? Or are they illusions of separation, all being 'one' 'my computer'? Are they individual components?
Is 'my computer' this tablet, or my desktop, or my laptop, or my cell phone? Are all of them 'one' 'my computer'? Are they separated or not? What about my wife's computer when I use it? Any others of hers, or of others'?
Is 'my computer' all the computers connected to the internet, with no separation? Are those illusory? Are all 'one'?
Do any of the above act on their own, or not at all? Are they fulfilling their creators' purposes, or act erratically, defectively, mishandled? Under whose will?
Which of these and other possible questions need to be answered to meet my stated purpose of using 'my computer' to interact, get knowledge, get guidance, grow?
|
|
roscod
Junior Member
Posts: 53
|
Post by roscod on Sept 15, 2024 8:55:39 GMT -5
Gosh. This is all very intellectual
|
|
|
|
Post by melvin on Sept 15, 2024 9:30:15 GMT -5
Gosh. This is all very intellectual Yes, Ross. People here are very intellectual. They don't use AI. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 15, 2024 10:40:06 GMT -5
Gosh. This is all very intellectual Yes it is, but some of us point beyond the intellect. Every important existential realization occurs beyond the intellect, so the intellect is the last to understand. Phil used to say that realizations "inform the mind/intellect" by revealing what is not true. A CC event reveals that reality is NOT what one imagined, and SR reveals that what one IS is NOT what one imagined. Other realizations reveal that awareness is primordial, that all there is is THIS, that time and space are imaginary cognitive grids, that there is only NOW, that the intellect is useless for discovering anything important about life, etc. etc. Zen people theorize that a sense impression, which they call "a nen," is primary. A second level nen reflects upon sense impressions, and a third level nen reflects upon reflections. IOW, a human thinks a thought, such as "It's a beautiful day," based upon a second-level nen, and knows that s/he had the thought as a consequence of a third level nen (I know that I know that I had a thought). This tertiary reflecting function of mind is what generates the idea of a "me" at the center of whatever is happening. This is why Zen people point to "one-eon nen" (what might be called "timeless being"). If one keeps shifting attention away from thoughts to the direct perception of "what is," realizations begin to occur, and the falseness of imaginary thoughts are penetrated. The bottom line is that everyday life lived without imaginary reflection is "The Way." |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 16, 2024 5:43:03 GMT -5
Gosh. This is all very intellectual Yes it is, but some of us point beyond the intellect. Every important existential realization occurs beyond the intellect, so the intellect is the last to understand. Phil used to say that realizations "inform the mind/intellect" by revealing what is not true. A CC event reveals that reality is NOT what one imagined, and SR reveals that what one IS is NOT what one imagined. Other realizations reveal that awareness is primordial, that all there is is THIS, that time and space are imaginary cognitive grids, that there is only NOW, that the intellect is useless for discovering anything important about life, etc. etc. Zen people theorize that a sense impression, which they call "a nen," is primary. A second level nen reflects upon sense impressions, and a third level nen reflects upon reflections. IOW, a human thinks a thought, such as "It's a beautiful day," based upon a second-level nen, and knows that s/he had the thought as a consequence of a third level nen (I know that I know that I had a thought). This tertiary reflecting function of mind is what generates the idea of a "me" at the center of whatever is happening. This is why Zen people point to "one-eon nen" (what might be called "timeless being"). If one keeps shifting attention away from thoughts to the direct perception of "what is," realizations begin to occur, and the falseness of imaginary thoughts are penetrated. The bottom line is that everyday life lived without imaginary reflection is "The Way." And I'd say that even prior to realization, the intellectual understandings can be described as the shadows on the wall of Plat's cave. Hints, of a sort. |
|
