|
Post by Figgles on Dec 7, 2019 17:50:43 GMT
Some have mistaken direct experience of the arising world, absent overt and obvious self-referential thought, for transcendent seeing.
I think too there may be a conflation between thoughts about what is happening, about dream content, with self-referential thought. One can think 'about' the shoe on the floor without there being an SVP involved.
Indeed, in terms of being consciously aware of what's going on with mind, seeing the important difference between direct experience vs. thoughts about what is being experienced, and thoughts that are in direct reference to a separate person, is important.
However, overtly self referential thoughts are but one facet of self-identification. Identification with body/mind is far more nuanced and subtle than just the presence of obvious self referential thinking. It runs much deeper. Is much more viscerally anchored. I'd dare to say that ZD's intense focus and interest upon 'body awareness' is itself indicative of self-identification. Just because one has moved from identification with mind/thoughts to identification with body, feelings, sensations, does not make for 'transcendence' of mind.
Body may seem to be 'beyond mind,' but really, the two go hand in hand. The body is an appearance only and thus, all body knowings, senses, are as well.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 7, 2019 17:56:26 GMT
There is a point where thoughts AND senses are both seen to be appearance only, thus, part and parcel of the dream. The idea that senses are superior to thoughts is a red-herring, keeping one mired in the dream rather than towards where the finger is pointing.
Transcendence lies not just beyond thought, but beyond all experience....all perceivables.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2019 3:01:11 GMT
Transcendence lies not just beyond thought, but beyond all experience....all perceivables. If something is beyond all experience then it can only exist as a concept or speculation. If something is known then it must be experienced. Transcendence or more specifically transcendental consciousness or samadhi is the experience of nondual objectless awareness knowing itself. The subject is Awareness and that which is known is also Awareness. It is awareness experiencing itself.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 8, 2019 18:28:15 GMT
Transcendence lies not just beyond thought, but beyond all experience....all perceivables. If something is beyond all experience then it can only exist as a concept or speculation. If something is known then it must be experienced. Transcendence or more specifically transcendental consciousness or samadhi is the experience of nondual objectless awareness knowing itself. The subject is Awareness and that which is known is also Awareness. It is awareness experiencing itself. Really? So that which you really are, that which lies foundational to all that comes and goes, can only exist as a concept or speculation?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 8, 2019 21:48:23 GMT
Well said.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2019 0:47:20 GMT
If something is beyond all experience then it can only exist as a concept or speculation. If something is known then it must be experienced. Transcendence or more specifically transcendental consciousness or samadhi is the experience of nondual objectless awareness knowing itself. The subject is Awareness and that which is known is also Awareness. It is awareness experiencing itself. Really? So that which you really are, that which lies foundational to all that comes and goes, can only exist as a concept or speculation? Not if it's experienced. How do you know of that which lies foundational to all that comes and goes if it is beyond experiencing? If something is beyond experiencing then it's just an idea isn't it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2019 3:31:35 GMT
Some have mistaken direct experience of the arising world, absent overt and obvious self-referential thought, for transcendent seeing. I think too there may be a conflation between thoughts about what is happening, about dream content, with self-referential thought. One can think 'about' the shoe on the floor without there being an SVP involved. Indeed, in terms of being consciously aware of what's going on with mind, seeing the important difference between direct experience vs. thoughts about what is being experienced, and thoughts that are in direct reference to a separate person, is important. However, overtly self referential thoughts are but one facet of self-identification. Identification with body/mind is far more nuanced and subtle than just the presence of obvious self referential thinking. It runs much deeper. Is much more viscerally anchored. I'd dare to say that ZD's intense focus and interest upon 'body awareness' is itself indicative of self-identification. Just because one has moved from identification with mind/thoughts to identification with body, feelings, sensations, does not make for 'transcendence' of mind. Body may seem to be 'beyond mind,' but really, the two go hand in hand. The body is an appearance only and thus, all body knowings, senses, are as well. There are some illusion you can see through. For an example, happy defines unhappy and unhappy defines happy. Any movement you step towards to eradicate something from your experience or gain from it is an illusion, for an instance, controlling creates the lose of control and lose of control creates the controlling again. Trying to prove something to yourself project the argument outside. For an example, trying to prove predetermination project the people with opposite idea(God has fallen into the dream). Some other tricky illusion follows after realization, for an example after realizing nothing can be done, one stops taking any action but as a matter of fact this is another new action. Illusion can be seen but the thing is, it's not under our control.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2019 4:18:57 GMT
controlling creates the lose of control and lose of control creates the controlling again. No it doesn't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2019 4:20:39 GMT
after realization, for an example after realizing nothing can be done, one stops taking any action but as a matter of fact this is another new action. No it isn't.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 9, 2019 4:29:48 GMT
Really? So that which you really are, that which lies foundational to all that comes and goes, can only exist as a concept or speculation? Not if it's experienced. How do you know of that which lies foundational to all that comes and goes if it is beyond experiencing? If something is beyond experiencing then it's just an idea isn't it? Realization.
|
|