|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 20, 2024 9:31:16 GMT -5
This is mostly for tenka. I think maybe I've finally found a way to frame the question. I have no problem with, we are not what we think we are, but what does it actually mean that the self is imaginary? You've heard the expression, if it quacks like a duck, if it waddles like a duck, if it looks like a duck, it's a duck. Except this doesn't work in discussing self. This morning I boiled it down to this.
The so-called self has certain attributes. I have a history, I remember a few things pre-school, more things as I grow older. I might like music, or sports, or art. I might be shy, an introvert, or outgoing. I might like school, I might hate school. I might decide to go to college, be a doctor or lawyer. I might decide to be a soldier. A slight few have the skills and drive to be a pro athlete. Some go into the trades, become an electrician or plumber or carpenter or builder. Some get married, have kids. You pay your bills, go shopping, go on vacation. Don't all these things indicate a self in the middle of the doing? A self doing? tenka doesn't understand how self is imaginary, what we think of as self. Please don't tell me all these doings and attributes don't exist. All the quacking and waddling and appearing, exists. Yes? No? But do all the attributes and doings constitute a self? They constitute an imaginary self. So what's imaginary about the imaginary self? But all the doings and attributes don't add up to the existence of a self. This is not so easy to see. It's like a magic trick. I have no problem with any of that. The world exists, the world is the basis of the body, which exists. The imaginary self comes-to-be as the mind-body experiences the world, and forms memories from the experience. The memories exist as connections between the neurons in the brain. So the imaginary self exists as copies of stuff, and copies of copies, and copies of copies of copies. The imaginary self, is imaginary, because it just consists of copies. Something else is the leading cutting edge, into experience of the world, and it's always new, newly new, now. This is what Zen understands, the cutting edge of the newly new now. The newly new is only new, now. The imaginary self consists of only-copies, memories. The imaginary self is like a reflection in a mirror. Memory is necessary to be functional in-the-world, but memory does not constitute True Self, which is always and only newly new, now. Any Zen story or any Zen koan, is about newly new now, being present to now. The so-called self, the imaginary self, is NEVER newly new, it's always merely a copy, or a reflection. A reflection narrows down 3D and 4D, to 2D.
Yes? No?
But here I depart with some of the others here. Is there anything ~behind~ all the doings and attributes? ~What~ is behind the imaginary self? The prominent view here is that the so-called self is the movement of All That Is. The doings, are, the attributes exist, but they merely conjure the appearance of self, it's an imaginary self. But there is an in-between, a between between All That Is and the attributes and doings. The principle is from the Law of 3, the higher blends with the lower to actualize the middle. This means levels, exist. The Tao Te Ching says One became two, two became three, and the three became the ten thousand things. So Lao Tzu understood the Law of 3. But it means that the middle doesn't exist, now. The middle only exists as potential. To actualize means to actualize potential, it means it doesn't exist now, and not necessarily ever. The True Self doesn't exist, now, it exists as the possible-middle. So it exists for some people, not for others. It comes-into-being through conscious efforts and letting suffering just be, and observing it. The True Self comes-into-being, germinates, via always and everywhere living in and as the newly new. Maybe practice is not the best word to use, but Dogen put it this way: "Practice is enlightenment, enlightenment is practice". Why is it put that way? Because you are reverse engineering, the result.
So there isn't just duality, all the manifest world has as its basis, the trinity, or a series of triads. And as as above so below, self arises from the same Law of 3.
|
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Oct 20, 2024 12:22:14 GMT -5
- In the "It's all a dream" video by Alan Watts , he explores the idea of deliberately creating vivid and immersive dreams, where one fully engages in the experience and forgets they are dreaming. Watts suggests challenging oneself to experience extreme situations in dreams, such as poverty or disease, only to be surprised upon waking up to find it was all a dream. He raises the question of whether our current reality, with its problems and complications, might also be just a dream, and encourages viewers to ponder this possibility with curiosity and excitement.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 20, 2024 12:58:07 GMT -5
- In the "It's all a dream" video by Alan Watts , he explores the idea of deliberately creating vivid and immersive dreams, where one fully engages in the experience and forgets they are dreaming. Watts suggests challenging oneself to experience extreme situations in dreams, such as poverty or disease, only to be surprised upon waking up to find it was all a dream. He raises the question of whether our current reality, with its problems and complications, might also be just a dream, and encourages viewers to ponder this possibility with curiosity and excitement.
Yes, we are asleep and dreaming, but there is a difference. When you're asleep, unconscious for about 8 hours, and dream, you're late for work, in a never-ending traffic jam, and you play Mad Max, and you run over people just to get them out of the way, when you wake up, nobody is dead. In the waking dream of life, when you get "American Beautied", or "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nested", people are actually dead. So ordinary is more of a nightmare. When you wake up, s**t still happens. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Oct 20, 2024 13:43:01 GMT -5
- In the "It's all a dream" video by Alan Watts , he explores the idea of deliberately creating vivid and immersive dreams, where one fully engages in the experience and forgets they are dreaming. Watts suggests challenging oneself to experience extreme situations in dreams, such as poverty or disease, only to be surprised upon waking up to find it was all a dream. He raises the question of whether our current reality, with its problems and complications, might also be just a dream, and encourages viewers to ponder this possibility with curiosity and excitement.
Yes, we are asleep and dreaming, but there is a difference. When you're asleep, unconscious for about 8 hours, and dream, you're late for work, in a never-ending traffic jam, and you play Mad Max, and you run over people just to get them out of the way, when you wake up, nobody is dead. In the waking dream of life, when you get "American Beautied", or "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nested", people are actually dead. So ordinary is more of a nightmare. When you wake up, s**t still happens. In your waking dream, that's what you believe, so that's what you expect, hence that's what you experience. Watts' example isn't an analogy, but an example of your misjudging of your experience, being sure of something that it isn't so when judged from another perspective. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 20, 2024 14:38:52 GMT -5
This is mostly for tenka. I think maybe I've finally found a way to frame the question. I have no problem with, we are not what we think we are, but what does it actually mean that the self is imaginary? You've heard the expression, if it quacks like a duck, if it waddles like a duck, if it looks like a duck, it's a duck. Except this doesn't work in discussing self. This morning I boiled it down to this. The so-called self has certain attributes. I have a history, I remember a few things pre-school, more things as I grow older. I might like music, or sports, or art. I might be shy, an introvert, or outgoing. I might like school, I might hate school. I might decide to go to college, be a doctor or lawyer. I might decide to be a soldier. A slight few have the skills and drive to be a pro athlete. Some go into the trades, become an electrician or plumber or carpenter or builder. Some get married, have kids. You pay your bills, go shopping, go on vacation. Don't all these things indicate a self in the middle of the doing? A self doing? tenka doesn't understand how self is imaginary, what we think of as self. Please don't tell me all these doings and attributes don't exist. All the quacking and waddling and appearing, exists. Yes? No? But do all the attributes and doings constitute a self? They constitute an imaginary self. So what's imaginary about the imaginary self? But all the doings and attributes don't add up to the existence of a self. This is not so easy to see. It's like a magic trick. I have no problem with any of that. The world exists, the world is the basis of the body, which exists. The imaginary self comes-to-be as the mind-body experiences the world, and forms memories from the experience. The memories exist as connections between the neurons in the brain. So the imaginary self exists as copies of stuff, and copies of copies, and copies of copies of copies. The imaginary self, is imaginary, because it just consists of copies. Something else is the leading cutting edge, into experience of the world, and it's always new, newly new, now. This is what Zen understands, the cutting edge of the newly new now. The newly new is only new, now. The imaginary self consists of only-copies, memories. The imaginary self is like a reflection in a mirror. Memory is necessary to be functional in-the-world, but memory does not constitute True Self, which is always and only newly new, now. Any Zen story or any Zen koan, is about newly new now, being present to now. The so-called self, the imaginary self, is NEVER newly new, it's always merely a copy, or a reflection. A reflection narrows down 3D and 4D, to 2D. Yes? No? But here I depart with some of the others here. Is there anything ~behind~ all the doings and attributes? ~What~ is behind the imaginary self? The prominent view here is that the so-called self is the movement of All That Is. The doings, are, the attributes exist, but they merely conjure the appearance of self, it's an imaginary self. But there is an in-between, a between between All That Is and the attributes and doings. The principle is from the Law of 3, the higher blends with the lower to actualize the middle. This means levels, exist. The Tao Te Ching says One became two, two became three, and the three became the ten thousand things. So Lao Tzu understood the Law of 3. But it means that the middle doesn't exist, now. The middle only exists as potential. To actualize means to actualize potential, it means it doesn't exist now, and not necessarily ever. The True Self doesn't exist, now, it exists as the possible-middle. So it exists for some people, not for others. It comes-into-being through conscious efforts and letting suffering just be, and observing it. The True Self comes-into-being, germinates, via always and everywhere living in and as the newly new. Maybe practice is not the best word to use, but Dogen put it this way: "Practice is enlightenment, enlightenment is practice". Why is it put that way? Because you are reverse engineering, the result. So there isn't just duality, all the manifest world has as its basis, the trinity, or a series of triads. And as as above so below, self arises from the same Law of 3. That was good. It really got me thinking for a few minutes. So I don't disagree but I'm also gonna offer an alternative way of seeing it. And that is, that there are only ever imaginary selves (as long as there is experience), but that these imaginary selves 'exist' (or are 'imagined') at different ('imagined') levels of consciousness. So it's not that we discover a true self, it's that we continually upgrade to a higher (or more expanded) imaginary self. And with that said, I'm also really okay for one of the non-dualists to pull that apart and point to foundational 'Reality' instead (no levels) And let's see what Tenka says too (might have to wait a few days) |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 20, 2024 14:48:55 GMT -5
Levels are an idea. The truth is beyond all ideas. Check out Morcheeba's song and video "Enjoy the Ride." Pick the YouTube version that looks purple/violet. The comments are interesting because many people claim that that video changed their lives. It's one of the most ND-oriented songs on the web. Pay attention to the words.
"Stop chasing shadows, just enjoy the ride."
"The day that you stop running is the day that you'll arrive."
That particular video features a lot of national parks.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 20, 2024 16:32:47 GMT -5
Levels are an idea. The truth is beyond all ideas. Check out Morcheeba's song and video "Enjoy the Ride." Pick the YouTube version that looks purple/violet. The comments are interesting because many people claim that that video changed their lives. It's one of the most ND-oriented songs on the web. Pay attention to the words. "Stop chasing shadows, just enjoy the ride." "The day that you stop running is the day that you'll arrive." That particular video features a lot of national parks. So with one stroke of the pen you do away with Seth and Abraham-(Hicks) and Bashar and karma and reincarnation and Buddha (who said he remembered all his past lives) and Jesus (who said he came down from above), and Plato and Socrates, and I could go on and on and on and on, The Dalai Lama, all the Tulkus? That's a pretty bold statement. "Tulkus are Tibetan Buddhist lamas who reincarnate. They have achieved the ability to consciously determine to be reborn in order to continue their Bodhisattva vow. Tulkus leave instructions on how to find them in their new births". The Dalai Lama has said he's not sure he will come back, reincarnate. No Tibet, he thinks maybe The Dalai Lama is no longer necessary. You're calling all these, liars. What if you are misleading all the people who read you and listen to you? That's some heavy duty karma. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 20, 2024 17:04:28 GMT -5
Levels are an idea. The truth is beyond all ideas. Check out Morcheeba's song and video "Enjoy the Ride." Pick the YouTube version that looks purple/violet. The comments are interesting because many people claim that that video changed their lives. It's one of the most ND-oriented songs on the web. Pay attention to the words. "Stop chasing shadows, just enjoy the ride." "The day that you stop running is the day that you'll arrive." That particular video features a lot of national parks. So with one stroke of the pen you do away with Seth and Abraham-(Hicks) and karma and reincarnation and Buddha (who said he remembered all his past lives) and Jesus (who said he came down from above), and Plato and Socrates, and I could go on and on and on and on, The Dalai Lama, all the Tulkus? That's a pretty bold statement. "Tulkus are Tibetan Buddhist lamas who reincarnate. They have achieved the ability to consciously determine to be reborn in order to continue their Bodhisattva vow. Tulkus leave instructions on how to find them in their new births". The Dalai Lama has said he's not sure he will come back, reincarnate. No Tibet, he thinks maybe The Dalai Lama is no longer necessary. You're calling all these, liars. What if you are misleading all the people who read you and listen to you? That's some heavy duty karma. To be fair, I did invite a non-dualist to pull about the levels haha. I used to listen to a lot of Morcheeba (around the year 2000....nice songs). I don't think there's any resolution to the difference in yours and ZD's view. They are like totally different snapshots of the same thing....like the rabbit and the duck. Both valid when seen in a certain way. Both relevant for (*apparent) individuals at different times. And yet there are times when you both find significant commonality too. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 20, 2024 17:32:27 GMT -5
So with one stroke of the pen you do away with Seth and Abraham-(Hicks) and karma and reincarnation and Buddha (who said he remembered all his past lives) and Jesus (who said he came down from above), and Plato and Socrates, and I could go on and on and on and on, The Dalai Lama, all the Tulkus? That's a pretty bold statement. "Tulkus are Tibetan Buddhist lamas who reincarnate. They have achieved the ability to consciously determine to be reborn in order to continue their Bodhisattva vow. Tulkus leave instructions on how to find them in their new births". The Dalai Lama has said he's not sure he will come back, reincarnate. No Tibet, he thinks maybe The Dalai Lama is no longer necessary. You're calling all these, liars. What if you are misleading all the people who read you and listen to you? That's some heavy duty karma. To be fair, I did invite a non-dualist to pull about the levels haha. I used to listen to a lot of Morcheeba (around the year 2000....nice songs). I don't think there's any resolution to the difference in yours and ZD's view. They are like totally different snapshots of the same thing....like the rabbit and the duck. Both valid when seen in a certain way. Both relevant for (*apparent) individuals at different times. And yet there are times when you both find significant commonality too. He can't possibly know 100% sure he's correct, on that. He may be, is, 100% sure with what he is correct about. I have no problem with that. "Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world." Arthur Schopenhauer (who was very familiar with Buddhism). |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 20, 2024 18:19:25 GMT -5
To be fair, I did invite a non-dualist to pull about the levels haha. I used to listen to a lot of Morcheeba (around the year 2000....nice songs). I don't think there's any resolution to the difference in yours and ZD's view. They are like totally different snapshots of the same thing....like the rabbit and the duck. Both valid when seen in a certain way. Both relevant for (*apparent) individuals at different times. And yet there are times when you both find significant commonality too.
"Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world." Arthur Schopenhauer (who was very familiar with Buddhism).
It's a tricky one. When we talk about 'levels' we are talking about content and form, and I agree that ZD can't say for sure that there are no 'levels' of experience and perception (multi-dimensionality). But in terms of spiritual focus, and non-dual realization, ZD would correctly say that 'levels' are irrelevant...what is 'realized' is beyond levels. These 'levels' aren't even something that can be ATA'd....there's no smell, or taste, or touch. My personal experience is that there are 'levels' of experience/perception. I experience different levels of clarity, different levels of peace and love. And each of these levels I find to be compelling in their own ways. So I believe that 'levels' are a thing. But I can also see that from a non-dual 'level' of experience/perception (which I do find to be compelling), that there are no levels. So my spirituality is messy, except when it's not. Maybe that will change one day, I don't know. Good quote. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 21, 2024 6:52:21 GMT -5
Levels are an idea. The truth is beyond all ideas. Check out Morcheeba's song and video "Enjoy the Ride." Pick the YouTube version that looks purple/violet. The comments are interesting because many people claim that that video changed their lives. It's one of the most ND-oriented songs on the web. Pay attention to the words. "Stop chasing shadows, just enjoy the ride." "The day that you stop running is the day that you'll arrive." That particular video features a lot of national parks. So with one stroke of the pen you do away with Seth and Abraham-(Hicks) and Bashar and karma and reincarnation and Buddha (who said he remembered all his past lives) and Jesus (who said he came down from above), and Plato and Socrates, and I could go on and on and on and on, The Dalai Lama, all the Tulkus? That's a pretty bold statement. "Tulkus are Tibetan Buddhist lamas who reincarnate. They have achieved the ability to consciously determine to be reborn in order to continue their Bodhisattva vow. Tulkus leave instructions on how to find them in their new births". The Dalai Lama has said he's not sure he will come back, reincarnate. No Tibet, he thinks maybe The Dalai Lama is no longer necessary. You're calling all these, liars. What if you are misleading all the people who read you and listen to you? That's some heavy duty karma. My comment didn't do away with anything. The idea of levels is confined to the world of distinction, duality, and imagination. THIS is not imaginary, but it can't be defined or separated into parts except via imagination. There are no actual parts or pieces because reality in a unified field of being. We can't even say that everything is connected because there would have to be separate parts to connect, and there are no such things in actuality. Not a single boundary can be found; boundaries only exist in imagination. Humans use language to communicate. To do so they must imagine separateness and represent their abstractions with symbols. Sages, who have discovered THIS use language to point to that which cannot be separated and therefore can't be talked about. THIS is what everyone and everything IS. When THIS is realized, it is realized by THIS because there is no "other." That's the cosmic joke. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 21, 2024 6:59:31 GMT -5
He can't possibly know 100% sure he's correct, on that[/b]. He may be, is, 100% sure with what he is correct about. I have no problem with that.
"Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world." Arthur Schopenhauer (who was very familiar with Buddhism).
It's a tricky one. When we talk about 'levels' we are talking about content and form, and I agree that ZD can't say for sure that there are no 'levels' of experience and perception (multi-dimensionality). But in terms of spiritual focus, and non-dual realization, ZD would correctly say that 'levels' are irrelevant...what is 'realized' is beyond levels. These 'levels' aren't even something that can be ATA'd....there's no smell, or taste, or touch. My personal experience is that there are 'levels' of experience/perception. I experience different levels of clarity, different levels of peace and love. And each of these levels I find to be compelling in their own ways. So I believe that 'levels' are a thing. But I can also see that from a non-dual 'level' of experience/perception (which I do find to be compelling), that there are no levels. So my spirituality is messy, except when it's not. Maybe that will change one day, I don't know. Good quote. Sure, relatively and dualistically we can talk about levels or any other kinds of "things" that we want to imagine, but thingness is an imaginary idea even though useful. Reality, or THIS, is the underlying and indivisible ground of being. After discovering that level of unity, one literally feels one with whatever is happening because what one IS IS what's happening. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 21, 2024 7:04:39 GMT -5
To be fair, I did invite a non-dualist to pull about the levels haha. I used to listen to a lot of Morcheeba (around the year 2000....nice songs). I don't think there's any resolution to the difference in yours and ZD's view. They are like totally different snapshots of the same thing....like the rabbit and the duck. Both valid when seen in a certain way. Both relevant for (*apparent) individuals at different times. And yet there are times when you both find significant commonality too. He can't possibly know 100% sure he's correct, on that. He may be, is, 100% sure with what he is correct about. I have no problem with that. "Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world." Arthur Schopenhauer (who was very familiar with Buddhism). Any human who discovers THIS will know, without any doubt, that the idea of separateness, levels, or thingness is an idea, only. That can be known 100% but not via the intellect. The intellect can only function by dividing reality into imaginary parts. A particular realization is required, and that realization does not occur via the intellect. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 21, 2024 8:17:33 GMT -5
He can't possibly know 100% sure he's correct, on that. He may be, is, 100% sure with what he is correct about. I have no problem with that. "Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world." Arthur Schopenhauer (who was very familiar with Buddhism). Any human who discovers THIS will know, without any doubt, that the idea of separateness, levels, or thingness is an idea, only. That can be known 100% but not via the intellect. The intellect can only function by dividing reality into imaginary parts. A particular realization is required, and that realization does not occur via the intellect. Does the unmanifest, exist? (Any-no-thing which you cannot perceive, at least at present. Example. Bohm says that everything is One Undivided Whole, but there is the Explicate world, our manifest universe, and the Implicate world, the unmanifest, out of which the Explicate world unfolds. IOW, the Implicate "contains" the Explicated world, which is folded into the Implicate world. Example, just take a tablecloth. Spread it out, it's the Explicate world. Fold it seven times, it's still the same tablecloth, but folded). The Implicate world and the Explicate world are not divided, that's Bohm's whole point. Yin and yang are not divided, they are the swirly mix of the Tao. I started the Macrocosm Microcosm thread with a quote by Gurdjieff saying All is One, nine years ago. I have never said anything exists outside of All That Is. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I know you understand about the unity of the laws governing the universe, but this understanding is speculative--or rather is theoretical. It is not enough to understand with the mind, it is necessary to feel with your being the absolute truth and immutability of this fact; only then you will be able, consciously and with conviction, to say 'I know'. ....We started with man, and where is he? But great, and all-embracing is the law of unity. Everything in the universe is one, the difference is only one of scale; in the infinity small we shall find the same laws as in the infinitely great. As above, so below. ...Again I repeat, all in the world is one; and since reason is also one, human reason forms a powerful instrument for investigation. ... Gurdjieff, from the OP (link, above, thread) |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 21, 2024 8:28:04 GMT -5
It's a tricky one. When we talk about 'levels' we are talking about content and form, and I agree that ZD can't say for sure that there are no 'levels' of experience and perception (multi-dimensionality). But in terms of spiritual focus, and non-dual realization, ZD would correctly say that 'levels' are irrelevant...what is 'realized' is beyond levels. These 'levels' aren't even something that can be ATA'd....there's no smell, or taste, or touch. My personal experience is that there are 'levels' of experience/perception. I experience different levels of clarity, different levels of peace and love. And each of these levels I find to be compelling in their own ways. So I believe that 'levels' are a thing. But I can also see that from a non-dual 'level' of experience/perception (which I do find to be compelling), that there are no levels. So my spirituality is messy, except when it's not. Maybe that will change one day, I don't know. Good quote. Sure, relatively and dualistically we can talk about levels or any other kinds of "things" that we want to imagine, but thingness is an imaginary idea even though useful. Reality, or THIS, is the underlying and indivisible ground of being. After discovering that level of unity, one literally feels one with whatever is happening because what one IS IS what's happening. Yep I'm on board with folks saying that all experience/perception/duality/thingness etc is imagined. I'm quite practical natured in some regards so I deal with what I'm being experientially given, even though it is imagined. In a sense, we've all been given what we could call 'human nature', and as part of that, I deal with preferences, inclinations, movements. I deal with different emotions/states, practical problems to consider etc. And yet....yeah....it's all being imagined, a 'play' of form. Though I also don't wish to diminish the challenging nature of 'suffering' within that play. |
|
