muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Jan 6, 2019 16:16:41 GMT
Please! Some kind thoughts for the new guy! (etolle). And, Gary Weber, is, indeed, a neuroscientist. ZD says he's not. o.k., technically, I'll have to give this one to Bob. My first introduction to Gary was about his work with brain MRI's done on meditators, like he presents here:
... and I knew from his enlightenment story that, at the time, he was a director of a research organization. Turns out his training and credentials are in materials science, and like zd says, he only got interested in neuroscience after the fact.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 6, 2019 19:12:39 GMT
Yeah, me too. If there is crystal clarity regarding that larger focus, it's hard to fathom that a deep interest in neuroscience could somehow survive that. It's a bit like realizing there is no separate volitional person but still peddling teachings about how to become a better person.
The larger focus means seeing through cause/effect....seeing through the idea of brain, neurons, all that stuff apparently taking place in yer noodle, as a 'cause/catalyst' to anything else happening in the dream/awakening to the dream.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Jan 7, 2019 0:41:19 GMT
Yeah, me too. If there is crystal clarity regarding that larger focus, it's hard to fathom that a deep interest in neuroscience could somehow survive that. It's a bit like realizing there is no separate volitional person but still peddling teachings about how to become a better person. The larger focus means seeing through cause/effect....seeing through the idea of brain, neurons, all that stuff apparently taking place in yer noodle, as a 'cause/catalyst' to anything else happening in the dream/awakening to the dream. Yeah. Apparently his focus is more on building bridges between science and spirituality, and in actuality no such bridge exists. ZD's interest in that is... interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 7, 2019 16:12:28 GMT
Brain functions make perfect sense within the context of experience. There is however a seeing that transcends that and thus, illuminates brain function as an appearance within Consciousness, thus, not Truthy. Which means, you can gather all the proof within experience, you can find, scientific or otherwise, and none of it speaks to the actuality of things.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 7, 2019 16:28:50 GMT
Still 'in the dream,' vs. awake...but in looking 'at' personality/character in that detached way, perhaps an auspicious place for realizing that you are neither an actor, nor a character and that ultimately, there is no one 'choosing' how to behave...all that stuff is indeed experienced, but what you really are is not an arising within experience, but rather, that which lies fundamental.
Interesting to note, the old Reefs would have been one of the first to point out that choosing to behave differently, choosing to adopt a different character, choosing to behave in ways different than what we previously deemed to be our personality, is ultimately just another form of 'identity poker.'
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 13, 2019 1:20:48 GMT
An extremely important point you are making here E.....the bolded...? Just might make it the forum motto here. Perfectly said.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 23, 2019 18:42:59 GMT
The adopting of a firm Advaita 'stance' as demonstrated in the Jeff Foster brown bear vid, IS putting the cart before the horse, IF actual realization of Oneness hasn't happened. And if it has, one is not going to use the concept of 'there is no this, there is no that,' as a means to circumvent participation in and engagement with life.
There's a bit of a debate going on over there on ST following this post I see, as to whether or not there actually are lots of folks afflicted with this ASS you describe, and I can only surmise that you are referencing folks you encounter through spiritual discussion or debate of some kind, and you are not referencing the folks you encounter in general, on a day to day basis...?
I too have (on spiritual forums or in spiritual talk/debate) encountered folks whom I thought were clinging to 2nd mountain position, (there is no mountain)as a means of dismissing experience, but I've also learned that it can be hard to tell for sure. The words themselves after all, are never going to accurately capture what is being pointed to...but then, words are all we have to try to talk about it. So in that sense, words are always going to fall short. All we can do it point and pointers often do get wrongly interpreted.
When engaged in a conversation where you disagree with what's being said, an authoratative tone, confident demeanor, assertive stance, can easily be mistaken for an arrogant, egoic and delusional position.
Absent an actual first hand observation of how one moves about and engages experience, you really can't tell for sure. One time Reefs and I were arguing and he vehemently refused to answer my question of; What motivates you to engage on the forum? he insisted that to answer the question was to engage in 'identity poker'. That to me was an example of someone standing upon a concept to avoid engagement with the experiential. Clearly, he didn't want to reveal information about the arising interests that were behind his forum engagement, so, to ensure he didn't have to reveal those interests, he stood in denial of them.
But I also used to think that E too, was using concepts to avoid engagement with experience, and I've since seen that I was wrong about that. E is entirely consistent in his talk about Oneness, not because he is stubborn and arrogant, but because he's fully Truth realized.
Bottom line, Truth IS uncompromising....hard lines are drawn when it comes to seeing what is True and what is not. Indeed, that might not gel with personal values about how it's good to be flexible and compromising. Truth realization though, is actually not at odds with a relationship to experience that is flexible and compromising. In fact, one who has realized the Truth, is, due to the absence left in the wake of that realization, generally far more open to compromise in terms of experience, than one who is still asleep and caught up in Maya. Seeing life as a dream generally means not taking it all near as seriously as one who is asleep does.
|
|