Inavalan
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,608
|
Post by Inavalan on Sept 16, 2021 23:33:08 GMT
You and ZD are the only ones who define Kensho this way, from what i can see. I recall when the terms first came up....prior to that, you weren't much of a zen fan at all and kinda pooped on such terminology. But when the whole issue of 'knowing/not knowing' relative to appearing people, apparent perception came up, Kensho gave you a leg to stand on for need to preserve and account for your 'knowing,' so as I see it, you took that ball and ran with it. Each time you talked about "Kensho" you padded it up with more and more starch to augment your position. Any definition of Kensho I've come across, while alluding to it as a momentary glimpse of 'essence/nature,' makes sure to firmly state that this is not in fact 'enlightenment' but rather, a very beginners/initial, and thus, "incomplete" glimpse...and definitely not something to hang your hat upon. You are describing conceptual, mind-enlightenment only...and very aptly demonstrating the inherent mind pretzels that ensue. To truly see through the separate volitional person, all separation, to see all perceivables are dependent upon but not separate from the abiding ground of being, is to "simultaneously" see there is no 'fundamental' other-ness. There is no seeing/realizing one without also seeing the other. The idea you are putting forth there that there can be SR and then there can be a "forgetting" that there are no others, or a "forgetting" there is no entity/self, is a nonsense. As is the idea that each of these states where some other "approach" is "forgotten" indicates that there are two "aspects" of SR. There are two aspects to SR...there is the seeing through...the absence and then the informing of mind...the impact that has upon experience. What you've done is conflated the informing of mind bit with 'realization' itself. Realization lies beyond experience, while mind-informing, experiential impact, of course, lies within experience. I think that @reefs tried to summarize for me the meaning of the terms, and did a good job for me. I have some knowledge of Japanese, and I should've checked it myself, but I just didn't care enough to do it. In the post @reefs replied to, I just wanted to give the context that I weren't commenting on his satori / kenshoo observation. The words satori and kenshoo are self-explanatory, close to the wiki quote you posted. The wiki translation of "kenshoo" isn't quite exact, as "shoo" means “nature of something, inherent quality”, so it would be " seen + nature_of_something", where "seen" is the qualifier, so it is more about the nature_of_something that has been seen, than about the process of seeing the nature_of_something. It is a fine nuance, but that's what the Japanese says. In Japanese, "seen" doesn't have the connotation of "comprehended" as in English "I see" has. In general terms, you can see something without comprehending. You can also comprehend without seeing, especially as the wider-reality is formless. At some level of evolvement, even after comprehending a lot, for us it is still more comforting to cloth concepts with forms / images that can be seen. So, I don't agree with @reefs' opinion, but seemingly for different reasons than you. I'd say kenshoo doesn't mean much, and it is what happens to most that honestly claim self-realization. Saturi means more, bbut it is difficult to say if what you comprehend is really so; you can say that even less about somebody claiming satori. Where does the "samunkie" comes from? Is it a misspelling? (it sounds Hindi, but couldn't find it easily) You explained what you understand those terms to mean, which is an interpretation that probably some adepts use. Anyway, thanks for commenting on that, because it made me think about it a little.  |
|
Inavalan
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,608
|
Post by Inavalan on Sept 17, 2021 1:49:09 GMT
In terms of experience...the dream/story, yes there is a myself and other people, all seemingly, at least on the surface of things having their own free will. However, when seen from a non-personal vantage point, from beyond immersion within experience/story, the me character and all other characters can be seen as arisings/appearances within that that which lies foundational to all arisings. In seeing that the me character/body-mind and all appearing character's body/minds have no inherent existence of their own, that they arise and fall, dependent upon the awareness within which they arise, free-will (personal volition of each appearing character) gets revealed as an illusion.  ) You can't see from a "non-personal vantage point". That's a "speculation". You should also know there is no "body-mind" ... As Ramana's quote said: in the beginning an aspirant believes that physical reality is an "illusion"; later the aspirant "sees" clearer. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 17, 2021 4:52:17 GMT
In terms of experience...the dream/story, yes there is a myself and other people, all seemingly, at least on the surface of things having their own free will. However, when seen from a non-personal vantage point, from beyond immersion within experience/story, the me character and all other characters can be seen as arisings/appearances within that that which lies foundational to all arisings. In seeing that the me character/body-mind and all appearing character's body/minds have no inherent existence of their own, that they arise and fall, dependent upon the awareness within which they arise, free-will (personal volition of each appearing character) gets revealed as an illusion. ) You can't see from a "non-personal vantage point". That's a "speculation". You should also know there is no "body-mind" ... As Ramana's quote said: in the beginning an aspirant believes that physical reality is an "illusion"; later the aspirant "sees" clearer. Well..."the person" can't, no. The 'seeing' I reference is not 'an act' and most certainly not 'visual seeing' as in 'through human eyes.' It's best described as awareness being aware. The body/mind is an appearance only....not an illusion though. There is an appearance of such. The illusion is that the body/mind is a separate entity/thing, existent in its own right...giving rise to awareness. It's awareness that gives rise to the body/mind and ALL appearance. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 19, 2021 5:18:23 GMT
Precisely.....that's why your insistence about an absolute knowing of "a field of aliveness" is a nonsense...as is the very idea that there is a special experience that reveals the "fundamental nature/essence" of consciousness.
If consciousness is not a thing or a material, then obviously to ascribe the attribute of "aliveness" to it, involves a misconception.
Precisely.....thus, to insist upon an attribute (aliveness...vibrancy) as realized "True nature," is a nonsense.
|
|
amoeba
Junior Member
Posts: 72
|
Post by amoeba on Sept 29, 2021 4:00:14 GMT
Returning to one's earliest state of consciousness we gradually do
as our minds take the back seat and slowly return to where the person was first crystalised.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 3, 2021 22:23:45 GMT
This is where you go wrong and what has me questioning if you even have non-conceptual reference for what is meant by the pointer "Non-duality/Oneness."
The idea of duality/separation is not just like any other idea about dream-stuff. The idea of separation is a "mistake" of mind. A falsity....a lie. It's "erroneously" imagined. A delusion.
The ideas of lat/longitude are relative ideas about the appearing world, whereas the delusion of separation addresses the supposed, fundamental Truth of the world.
You continually mix relative with absolute context when you make this point.
You have taken that to mean something different than what Niz intended. He's referencing the mistaken imagining/surmising of "fundamental separation" inherent to the appearing distinction.
You continually conflate distinction with separation. They are not the same.
No. Most sages use the distinction of "actual" (denoting that which is fundamentally so, unchanging) vs. "appearance/phenomenal/perceivable," (denoting that which is ephemeral/changing).
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 13, 2021 21:14:03 GMT
Yes...well put. While we can try to talk about "Truth"... words will always be once removed....a mere attempt to try to conceptualize that which is beyond concept.
So long as some kind of 'whatness/property/quality' is known and attributed, you are still in the realm of conceptualization/perceivables/appearance. You've still yet to see "what-ness/thing-ness" as empty appearance only...a perceivable.
"All perceivables are stains." Niz
The above it NOT a realization of Oneness. It's a very profound, mystical, unity experience. All along ZD, you've been mistaking the experience of "unity" within the dream for seeing beyond the dream...for seeing through separation....for "Oneness."
The two are not even comparable. One is an in the dream "experience," the other, a seeing through from beyond the dream...from beyond experience.
You continually regal and reify the seeker in his search with this nonsense talk--with your conflation of mystical, unity experience with Nonduality/Truth.
The seeing through of what you previously thought reality was is not replaced with a new knowing about 'what it is,' rather, all material knowing gets seen through. Truth/Reality is not a what!!
Reality has no nature, property or quality that pertains to it. Realization/seeing through leaves an absence, not the presence of new knowledge. Any new knowledge that gets added, is the informing of mind...mind's attempt to conceptualize and point to the Truth/absence.
& again, another great example of your constant waffling. If it's really 'beyond the capability of thought to grasp' then what the heck is up with your argument for "Absolute knowing" that all appearing shoes, socks, rocks are alive, conscious, perceiving/experiencing? "Aliveness" references an experiential sense....something phenomenal...experiential. Truth lies beyond perceivables...beyond all property/quality.
Right. So stop arguing for perceived quality/property as absolute Truth.
See through identification with a 'me' and there is only "Being." Not a something that you are, that can only BE. You're still carrying around a full suitcase/identity ZD.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 19, 2021 4:25:55 GMT
This idea you hold to that makes a distinction between experience vs. direct perception, gets blown apart by realizing what the Niz pointer " All perceivables are stains," is referencing. It's a pointer that directly references the misconception you are making here in upholding one arising/appearance/perceivable as uniquely different/special than all others, simply because of how special it is....how good it makes you feel.  This is on par with suggesting that all doings, requires a doer. That all seeing, requires a seer...that all perception, requires a perceiver. Nonduality 101 stuff, Dude...you used to nail to people to the ground over on ST in the old days for suggesting that very idea! It's like You've completely morphed your ontology to upgrade and support your Kensho/CC experience and acquired knowledge via that as Truth. (It's not!) Wowzers! Again, completely different than what you used to say. & This is plain and simply not so. The term 'experience' covers the entire gamut of arising content, regardless of whether or not an intermediary is invoked or not. What you are inadvertently positing there with that odd definition of 'experience,' is that post SR, once the SVP, intermediary/inner translater/running, self-referential commentary ceases, is absent, then "experience" itself, ceases. Otherwise, you are suggesting that post SR, an intermediary who/that translates, remains and abides all moments of arising experience...? Both assertions are a nonsense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 19, 2021 5:03:44 GMT
You just made up a new definition of 'experience,' that hinges upon the presence of an intermediary, a translater, distorted perception, labelling, objectifying/conceptualizing, and then used that wonky, made-up definition to explain why the natural state cannot be an experience...and why it cannot be objectified.
The natural state is but a pointer. You are actually 'objectifying/conceptualizing' it as you attempt here to wrestle it down into a concise definition.
The intermediary is the SVP...it is the delusion of separation that mars what would otherwise be 'the natural state.' In the absence of imagined separation, the natural state IS...wakefulness to the dream, IS. Natural state = Being awake.
Yes...including CC/Kensho experiences. The natural state goes hand in hand with the realization of all appearance as empty....all perceivables as stains.
I assure you, post SR, the intermediary/SVP does not come and go. It's absent, and I also assure you, experience continues to arise and fall...ebb and flow, come and go.
You are conceptualizing/objectifying a pointer here...you've taken a term that is somewhat of a concession to mind, a means of talking about how experience is when the SVP is absent, and you've made a meal out of it.
To say the 'natural state' exists in it's own right is to say there is something other than, in addition to, the abiding ground of Being/awareness.
All UG is talking about when he uses that pointer is the state of wakefulness to the dream...seeing from beyond the dream, vs. through imagined eyes of an SVP, within the dream.
Bingo!!
He's speaking the exact same language there I have been trying to speak to you when I speak about 'not knowing' relative to ALL appearance. "There is no way to experience the reality of anything." Exactly. Which = "there is no way to know if an appearing person who appears to be experiencing/perceiving, actually is...no way to know whether a shoe, sock, pile of poo is alive, conscious, or not." & That's because all appearances are empty of inherent existence in their own right (reality!).
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 19, 2021 9:21:17 GMT
Yes! Agreed. Solipsism (all forms) is a philosophical position that very much hinges upon the imagined presence of an entity/me/self, that erroneously 'knows' itself, as an entity, to be 'an experiencer/perceiver'....a someone/something who/that is experiencing and knowing of that experience, by virtue of direct, arising experience, and then what he doesn't know, is whether other people in his experience, are also as entities, experiencing.
UG explained it perfectly when he said: "do not look upon the world as a separate thing as you do. The knowledge about the world comes to me when there is a demand. The natural state is one of unknowing. I do not know that I am a free man. There is no way to experience the reality of anything. It is something that cannot be experienced by anybody."
Again, that is a reference to the inherent emptiness of all appearance...all perceivables....anything at all that arises. Freedom is an absence of knowledge, not the attainment of knowledge. That's what he's referencing when he says "I do not know that I am a free man." Freedom/liberation is an absence. period.
(& of course, that includes appearing people/their apparent experiencing. This is not "solipsism" of any variety, as the absence of knowledge/the inherent emptiness also applies to the appearing me/character/body/mind...it applies to everything, even the smallest nuanced of senses that arises/appears. All of it-empty...beyond it's appearance, there is 'no way to experience the reality of it.'
What UG calls not-knowing is intimately related to the inherent emptiness of all content....all perceivables. And of course the natural state is not referencing a particular experience...it's a pointer to an absence...the absence of the SVP!
What UG is indicating by "not knowing," goes far deeper...far more encompassing..it really is an absence of knowledge that hinges upon realizing the inherent emptiness of the entire world of appearance.
What you describe above, a constant overlay of labelling/naming arising in mind, is indeed indicative of the presence of an imagined, erroneous intermediary/SVP, and while that does indeed make for an obstacle to direct experience of 'rose' or whatever else appears, when it comes to actual liberation/freedom, abiding nondual awareness, the entirety of perceivables must be realized as empty and absent inherent existence in it's own right. Even 'direct' experiential content. Identification with appearance can be ever so subtle...even the tiniest bit = the presence of delusion. Again, Niz's "All perceivables are stains," applies. The entire gamut of content must be seen for what it is!!
|
|
) You can't see from a "non-personal vantage point". That's a "speculation". You should also know there is no "body-mind" ... As Ramana's quote said: in the beginning an aspirant believes that physical reality is an "illusion"; later the aspirant "sees" clearer.
