|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 27, 2024 10:50:54 GMT -5
From the Chasing thread, page 4
11 hours ago Gopal said:
Rollercoaster depth is defined by the illusion we have. When one believes in control, it goes to more depth. Likewise, all other illusion defines the depth of the rollercoaster, when we remove illusion after illusion, the depth of the rollercoaster gets normalized.
7 hours ago zazeniac said: In the Zendo there was a constant refrain:"no expectations, no illusions." Similar to what you say about chasing. My wife always talks about closure and resolution. She has these media inspired expectations about life events that never match reality. It never matches the actual. I forewarn her to no avail.
We realize that the words aren't enough. The minds propensity for grasping requires retraining it. Why we sit for no reason, just to sit. No expectation about it. It's not easy to let go of this tendency. We are thoroughly conditioned by it. Once you become aware of it. You begin to notice it everywhere. It hard to let go of this pattern. The mind is the consummate bullshit artist. 🙂
sdp said: I came here to post this, start a new thread. I think some instructions got lost somewhere along the line, in zazen. What is the minimum necessary to acknowledge existence? Descartes got close, the cogito. ZD says the self is illusory, yes, the so-called SVP is illusory. Niz was told by his teacher to acknowledge I Am, in the sense of being. Gurdjieff said, life is real only then, when I am. So, basically, what I'm asking is, what does ZD acknowledge, as the minimum to be able to say the Whole, is? This is what got lost in the zazen instructions. (And no, I will neither affirm a correct answer nor deny an incorrect answer. A correct answer is self-validating).
IOW...unsaid...and, where does the imaginary, begin?
|
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jul 30, 2024 10:40:56 GMT -5
"Descartes said, 'I think, therefore I am.' I say, 'I do not think, that is why I exist.'" Taisen Deshimaru
Funny stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 30, 2024 11:15:29 GMT -5
"Descartes said, 'I think, therefore I am.' I say, 'I do not think, that is why I exist.'" Taisen Deshimaru Funny stuff. Yes, ZM Seung Sahn used to say, "Descartes said, 'I think, therefore I am,' but what if we do not think? Too funny! |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 30, 2024 11:15:31 GMT -5
Is your question the same as asking, 'what is the minimum requirement to know existence'? Is 'acknowledge' and 'know' the same meaning?
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 30, 2024 12:22:55 GMT -5
From the Chasing thread, page 4 11 hours ago Gopal said: Rollercoaster depth is defined by the illusion we have. When one believes in control, it goes to more depth. Likewise, all other illusion defines the depth of the rollercoaster, when we remove illusion after illusion, the depth of the rollercoaster gets normalized. 7 hours ago zazeniac said: In the Zendo there was a constant refrain:"no expectations, no illusions." Similar to what you say about chasing. My wife always talks about closure and resolution. She has these media inspired expectations about life events that never match reality. It never matches the actual. I forewarn her to no avail. We realize that the words aren't enough. The minds propensity for grasping requires retraining it. Why we sit for no reason, just to sit. No expectation about it. It's not easy to let go of this tendency. We are thoroughly conditioned by it. Once you become aware of it. You begin to notice it everywhere. It hard to let go of this pattern. The mind is the consummate bullshit artist. 🙂 sdp said: I came here to post this, start a new thread. I think some instructions got lost somewhere along the line, in zazen. What is the minimum necessary to acknowledge existence? Descartes got close, the cogito. ZD says the self is illusory, yes, the so-called SVP is illusory. Niz was told by his teacher to acknowledge I Am, in the sense of being. Gurdjieff said, life is real only then, when I am. So, basically, what I'm asking is, what does ZD acknowledge, as the minimum to be able to say the Whole, is? This is what got lost in the zazen instructions. (And no, I will neither affirm a correct answer nor deny an incorrect answer. A correct answer is self-validating). IOW...unsaid...and, where does the imaginary, begin? It's impossible to say what the Whole is because it's beyond human comprehension and language. It can be directly apprehended by Itself in some unfathomable way, but when that happens, the mind is rendered awestruck and mute. All that a human, as THIS, can do is point to THIS and say to other humans, "What we are is undivided and incomprehensible to the human mind." Or, as Krishna did with Arjuna, one can walk around, point to various seemingly separate things and say, "Thou are THAT." The imaginary begins as soon as one makes a cognitive distinction because all distinctions are imaginary. Again, one has to understand what the word "exist" means. To "ex-ist" (the Latin means "come forth from what is") something (some thing) must be imaginatively brought forth from that which is undivided. What a tree IS is actual; the idea of a tree is imaginary, as is the idea that there is a SVP looking at a tree. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 30, 2024 14:34:04 GMT -5
Is your question the same as asking, 'what is the minimum requirement to know existence'? Is 'ac knowledge' and ' know' the same meaning? Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 31, 2024 5:58:50 GMT -5
"Descartes said, 'I think, therefore I am.' I say, 'I do not think, that is why I exist.'" Taisen Deshimaru Funny stuff. Yes, ZM Seung Sahn used to say, "Descartes said, 'I think, therefore I am,' but what if we do not think? Too funny!  A deeper dive into Renee's life and what he wrote up to that conclusion sheds a potentially different light. It seems to me that post-19th century culture largely misinterprets what he meant by that. He also wrote: “There comes a time in every serious seeker of truth when he must acknowledge that he has been in error and that he has to begin again from the very beginning.” "The seeker after truth must once in his lifetime doubt everything that is doubtful." At the outset, the scientific method is a form of neti-neti. This all strikes me as related to "not-knowing". An invitation, a sort of gateway-state-of-mind that can lead to Zen as you describe it .. also Descartes: "I will then suppose that everything I see is spurious; I will believe that I have no senses; that body, shape, and motion, are nothing but fictions; and that what I think of is a mere illusion." .. (lolz once quoted me that years ago) .. so his "I AM" is not necessarily the product of thought, but a reference to a process. A current-day translation might be : "Awareness. Therefore. AM.". Descartes cannot be mistaken for a solipsist, because a key step to the Cogito is his realization that God would not set out to deceive him. ===== At one point I had the references of those quotes to his specific works. Never kept track of it. Went looking for it in the archives, and stumbled on this gem.  "I AM" is "I AM" and nothing more. If we think about it, we can make it much more than that. Sure. All expressions are expressions of mind (Ideas, concepts) but what it refers to is a sense of existing that needs no words. That sense doesn't say anything about itself. It doesn't say 'I implies other' or 'Am implies am-not'. In that implying, 'I am' becomes a seed of separation and delusion, but that doesn't make the sense something that has to be transcended. What has to be transcended is all the thoughts about that sense. Consciousness allows for the opportunity for existence to know itself, and so it is already the knower, the knowing and the known. The idea that there is somewhere to get to beyond that is part of the minding that 'I am' is pointing away from. It's too simple so mind has to pack it's bags and go in search of something more ambiguous and paradoxical. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jul 31, 2024 8:19:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 31, 2024 9:27:05 GMT -5
Is your question the same as asking, 'what is the minimum requirement to know existence'? Is 'ac knowledge' and ' know' the same meaning? Yes. Okay, so I see 2 ways to answer the question. The first is from a more Tenka vantage point (please correct me if I'm wrong T). In this case, every expression, every form, every atom 'knows' of its existence. I recall a Mooji quote saying roughly the same thing, he talked about how a mosquito or fly knows that it is. So the minimum requirement is just 'existing'. The second is to say that some forms have that capacity, and some don't e.g humans do, but metal doesn't. Biological forms do, and AI forms do not. Some might say this is for biological reasons e.g the brain, I guess others may relate it to whether something has a higher self, or inner being, atman or 'soul'. I would say that all expressions are 'Consciousness', and at a foundational level, there is a knowing of existence in all forms. But 'Consciousness' expresses itself as different 'kinds' of consciousness. Human consciousness, animal consciousness, plant consciousness, AI consciousness....they are all different. I'd say humans have a relatively 'individualized' consciousness, and so have strong capacity for intuition, inspiration, imagination (I don't see imagination as intrinsically negative, to be clear). And so also have an intensified knowing of their existence. Different animals have different intensities of knowing, but are often more a 'collective' consciousness....less individualized. Metal...I don't know, I can't easily relate to it. But from a new age perspective, I can say that it is speculated that in higher dimensions, all forms are in open communication i.e there are no 'inert' objects. A 'spaceship' is an alive form, and responsive to its crew. I like all that stuff as you know. The downsides of having a strongly individualized consciousness is that we have the capacity to experience ourselves as quite strongly separate from existence. Which is a very strange thing really. Our blessing and our curse. I notice Inavalan floating around. Wondering if he has anything to contribute here too. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jul 31, 2024 16:42:13 GMT -5
Okay, so I see 2 ways to answer the question. ... I notice Inavalan floating around. Wondering if he has anything to contribute here too. To me, perception is primary to the acknowledgment of existence. I just know that I perceive. - "When the members of the Frontiers of Science discussed physics, they often used the abbreviation “SF.” They didn’t mean “science fiction,” but the two words “shooter” and “farmer.” This was a reference to two hypotheses, both involving the fundamental nature of the laws of the universe.
In the shooter hypothesis, a good marksman shoots at a target, creating a hole every ten centimeters. Now suppose the surface of the target is inhabited by intelligent, two-dimensional creatures. Their scientists, after observing the universe, discover a great law: “There exists a hole in the universe every ten centimeters.” They have mistaken the result of the marksman’s momentary whim for an unalterable law of the universe.
The farmer hypothesis, on the other hand, has the flavor of a horror story: Every morning on a turkey farm, the farmer comes to feed the turkeys. A scientist turkey, having observed this pattern to hold without change for almost a year, makes the following discovery: “Every morning at eleven, food arrives.” On the morning of Thanksgiving, the scientist announces this law to the other turkeys. But that morning at eleven, food doesn’t arrive; instead, the farmer comes and kills the entire flock."
--- "The Three-Body Problem Trilogy: Remembrance of Earth's Past" by Cixin Liu - www.imdb.com/title/tt20242042/
- zoboko.com/book/8ng5w442/the-three-body-problem-trilogy-remembrance-of-earths-past
|
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jul 31, 2024 19:19:04 GMT -5
Further ... - Now, may I please return to our discussion of matter, since the matter matters so strongly. Almost every child suspects that at one time or another when his eyes are closed his immediate surroundings have disappeared. He supposes that when he does not see a chair the chair does not exist; and my dear friends, the boy in this case is smarter than the man.
(“What if the boy closes his eyes but touches the chair?”)
When his senses, his outer senses, do not perceive a physical object in his self-perspective (and hyphenate that please), in his self-perspective, the object simply does not exist. If the object is touched and not seen or otherwise perceived, then in his self-perspective it exists only in the realm of his sensual perception of it. It does not exist to be seen if he does not see it. If his father, for example, sees the chair that the boy does not see, then the object exists as a thing to be seen in the father’s self-perspective. Each individual himself creates a portion or a whole physical object. Many people appear to see an object, but the object that they see is not the same object, but only approximates an object.
This almost automatic construction of energy-idea (hyphen), into a material object is carried on subconsciously through the methods which I have earlier explained to you, regarding the innate capsule comprehension and capacities existing in the individual atoms and molecules, and is formed by this gestalt of which I have spoken.
[... 7 paragraphs ...]
Nevertheless, the objects are simply not the same objects. You do not see, feel, smell or touch the same object. I will shock you further by stating that, in your terms, the objects do not even exist in the same space, but in the personal self-perspective space, formed and created by any given individual.
(Now Jane picked up a book of paper matches and held it up before John and me as she paced back and forth.)
This can easily be proven by a simple experiment with any small object, such as a book of matches. No one of you can see a book of matches from exactly the same perspective, for the simple reason that it does not exist for you except in the self-perspective in which you create it.
--- Session #63 (TES2m Seth)
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 31, 2024 20:41:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Aug 2, 2024 14:52:28 GMT -5
Okay, so I see 2 ways to answer the question. The first is from a more Tenka vantage point (please correct me if I'm wrong T). In this case, every expression, every form, every atom 'knows' of its existence. I recall a Mooji quote saying roughly the same thing, he talked about how a mosquito or fly knows that it is. Christ my ears were well burning . The issue is, is that peeps use their own self awareness as a measure for existing. It's understandable isn't it. Let's say that as an individual or a collective there was an experience of a planet, or a tree, or a mountain. How can the tree, express itself here and now regarding its awareness of existence. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Aug 10, 2024 10:53:30 GMT -5
We start our journey believing ourselves to be individuals. This perception arises naturally because it seems like we are looking through our own eyes, seeing a tree over there and another person over here. However, we soon realize that our understanding is flawed; everything moves as one. At that moment, we understand that we are all interconnected. Initially, I thought there was a super consciousness linking all individual minds, orchestrating everything. But when I saw the truth—that the mind, informed by truth, changes reality—I understood that ‘All That Is’ is looking through our eyes. There is no separation like conscious, subconscious, or super consciousness. There is only ‘All That Is,’ perceiving through all points of view.
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 10, 2024 12:33:51 GMT -5
We start our journey believing ourselves to be individuals. This perception arises naturally because it seems like we are looking through our own eyes, seeing a tree over there and another person over here. However, we soon realize that our understanding is flawed; everything moves as one. At that moment, we understand that we are all interconnected. Initially, I thought there was a super consciousness linking all individual minds, orchestrating everything. But when I saw the truth—that the mind, informed by truth, changes reality—I understood that ‘All That Is’ is looking through our eyes. There is no separation like conscious, subconscious, or super consciousness. There is only ‘All That Is,’ perceiving through all points of view. Totally agree. |
|
A deeper dive into Renee's life and what he wrote up to that conclusion sheds a potentially different light. It seems to me that post-19th century culture largely misinterprets what he meant by that.
