What Happened? Nothing!

[3bob]

last question first:  spiritual realization as Self realizing Self, another one that we can't really wrap our heads around.

 

the steps you mention sound good to me...

 

one might wonder if soul as a seed is perfect enough or has built in perfection -  and if it does not have such in essence already then how would it ever get there?  (to perfection)  Btw, I agree with the idea of preparation and or effort of some kind which spirit can see as plain as day in beings.

[Bindi]

I think the soul would have the potential to be (relatively) perfect, at least as perfect as it needs to be to be to exit this plane, but I doubt it is already perfect. To my mind Grace would be required to do the lion's share and ultimately lift it from its karmic rut, as long as I have done my small but vital part first. 

[Marblehead]

13 hours ago, dwai said:

You my friend are always welcome on any thread, as far as I am concerned

Thanks.  I think it be best that I just read and keep my mouth shut.

 

[neti neti]

I'll just quote "someone else."

 

Quote

Nisargadatta Maharaj used to point out ceaselessly - as does Jnaneshwar - that the manifest and the unmanifest are not different.

Absolute awareness (not aware of itself) becomes "witnessing" when it is in contact with an object as a physical form; and it becomes an individual person when it becomes simultaneously identified with the object it reflects. The difference, however, is only notional because, as Maharaj said, nothing has actually happened; only waves have appeared on the expanse of water.

 

Nonetheless it is necessary in the process of understanding to be clear about the difference, notional though it may be, between awareness of the Absolute and the consciousness in which manifestation occurs: one is only the reflection of the other, but reflection of the sun in the dewdrop is not the sun.

 

In deep sleep, in the absence of objectivization, there is no apparent universe but we are (because on waking we know that we were asleep). What-we-are and the apparent universe are dual in presence (when consciousness is present), and non-dual in absence; separate in conceptualization, but inseparable when unconceived. ~Ramesh S. Balsekar

 

Edited August 16, 2018 by neti neti

[Stosh]

19 hours ago, dwai said:

Agreed. Lets take this thread forward logically... 

 

But it cannot really be said to be independently “real” either. What that means is, the phenomena need awareness to exist, not the other way round. Shiva doesn’t NEED shakti, shakti is his nature. So is shakti independently existent? No. The two are not mutually interdependent either. There is nothing apart from Shiva. 

Whoa , whoa whoa , Hold the phone , ain't that backwards ...

Awareness needs phenomena to exist , the phenomena may exist without you knowing about it.  

To be actually aware of a candle , you have to see it. You could imagine one , but that's not really being aware of an existing candle.

But when you leave the room , I can still see the candle , it doesn't go away , when you personally stop being aware of it, so it ,, regardless of your regard , it still has its existence.

Edited August 16, 2018 by Stosh

[dwai]

44 minutes ago, Stosh said:

Whoa , whoa whoa , Hold the phone , ain't that backwards ...

Awareness needs phenomena to exist , the phenomena may exist without you knowing about it.  

To be actually aware of a candle , you have to see it. You could imagine one , but that's not really being aware of an existing candle.

But when you leave the room , I can still see the candle , it doesn't go away , when you personally stop being aware of it, so it ,, regardless of your regard , it still has its existence.

 

tell me when have you ever known phenomena to exist without being aware? 

 

Remember second hand knowledge is also predicated on awareness.

[Stosh]

15 minutes ago, dwai said:

 

tell me when have you ever known phenomena to exist without being aware? 

 

Remember second hand knowledge is also predicated on awareness.

I would say I can and do know things to be existing , without experiencing an awareness of it, through inference. 

Kim Jong-un isn't going anywhere ,just because I close my eyes to the issue. I learned object permanence at 4-7 months of age, like everybody else.  

 

 I will go with ..second hand knowledge , is predicated on an awareness held by someone else ,and is related to me by description. Fine. I don't think that makes a difference , the situation exists as it does ,without or with me being personally aware of it. 

 

I have become aware of things , which others tell me existed before I knew about it , like the Statue of liberty.

As a toddler I didn't have that awareness, but the thing was still standing since at least 1886... which is before my time. And I have seen it many times , and been in it, literally touching ,the stone and steel. 

 

 

Edited August 16, 2018 by Stosh

[dwai]

29 minutes ago, Stosh said:

I would say I can and do know things to be existing , without experiencing an awareness of it, through inference. 

What do you use to infer? Can you infer anything without awareness?

If you don't like the word awareness, use Consciousness.

 

29 minutes ago, Stosh said:

Kim Jong-un isn't going anywhere ,just because I close my eyes to the issue. I learned object permanence at 4-7 months of age, like everybody else.  

 

 I will go with ..second hand knowledge , is predicated on an awareness held by someone else ,and is related to me by description. Fine. I don't think that makes a difference , the situation exists as it does ,without or with me being personally aware of it. 

 

I have become aware of things , which others tell me existed before I knew about it , like the Statue of liberty.

As a toddler I didn't have that awareness, but the thing was still standing since at least 1886... which is before my time. And I have seen it many times , and been in it, literally touching ,the stone and steel. 

 

 

And any knowing that occurs to YOU, is predicated on your awareness/consciousness. Can you ever know anything without being aware/conscious? 

 

[Marblehead]

9 minutes ago, dwai said:

If you don't like the word awareness, use Consciousness.

You be sly fox.

 

[Stosh]

38 minutes ago, dwai said:

What do you use to infer? Can you infer anything without awareness?

If you don't like the word awareness, use Consciousness.

 

And any knowing that occurs to YOU, is predicated on your awareness/consciousness. Can you ever know anything without being aware/conscious? 

 

I think my brain does the inferring. 

That which I infer , are those things of which I am not directly aware , yet suppose to exist , comparatively ,,,

If I was aware ,  I would be having a direct sensory relationship regarding that thing. 

That which I am conscious of , are things of which I am aware , and those things which I infer. 

If at some point if I infer .. that there are gators in the pond, because all the ducks are gone,, I cannot say I am directly aware of them , nor have I ever been aware of them.

I could in fact be wrong in my inference, the ducks may have just flown off to migrate,, 

 

I am not sure , but doubt,,  that one can be wrong about--- that which they are aware of.

Meaning , if you are sad , that's just the fact of it, its self evidentiary .

Edited August 16, 2018 by Stosh

[dwai]

16 minutes ago, Stosh said:

I think my brain does the inferring. 

That which I infer , are those things of which I am not directly aware , yet suppose to exist , comparatively ,,,

If I was aware ,  I would be having a direct sensory relationship regarding that thing. 

That which I am conscious of , are things of which I am aware , and those things which I infer. 

If at some point if I infer .. that there are gators in the pond, because all the ducks are gone,, I cannot say I am directly aware of them , nor have I ever been aware of them.

I could in fact be wrong in my inference, the ducks may have just flown off to migrate,, 

 

I am not sure , but doubt,,  that one can be wrong about--- that which they are aware of.

Meaning , if you are sad , that's just the fact of it, its self evidentiary .

The problems with syntax. 

The big question to answer would be - Is consciousness a property of my brain or is the brain a receptacle for consciousness? 

 

There are three valid ways to know.

 

1. Direct Experience -- there's a fire in the neighborhood and you see it burning
2. Testimony of a reliable witness -- Bob tells you that there is a fire in the neighborhood
3. Inference -- you see smoke and infer there's a fire somewhere 

All three require consciousness/awareness to know. Can you know anything without Consciousness/awareness? 

Again, by Consciousness I mean the basic quality that makes knowing possible. This is not something that can be observed or studied objectively. You know you have it because you know. 

 

In scientific circles today, Consciousness is called the "Hard Problem". 

[rideforever]

Such stupid ideas have been in the mad mind of monkey men for thousands of years.

The inevitable conclusion of these ideas is that there is nothing to do.
So even if you are miserable and everyone destroys everything, is there really nothing to do ?
Stupid isn't it.
You can continue with such idiot monkey logic, and decide that you don't exist.

And lie there and not feed yourself until you are dead - many have done this.

Others have beaten body, flailing the skin off the back with a leather whip.

Shave your hair, shave your food, shave your life.

Stupid isn't it.

 

If you can't get beyond this dumbness, if all you understand you hunger for is a reason do to sweet fa, you are going to die here just another monkey.

 

The lives of the realisers tell their own story.   You get exactly what you deserve.

 

[3bob]

know that death dies, it may be a hard nut to crack but it has nothing on the truth of Spirit that is beyond its grip.

 

 

[3bob]

 

"There is only one reality in form, which is the pure consciousness which is conscious of form, and this reality is what realizes itself as formless, timeless, spaceless."  Gurudeva 

[Stosh]

35 minutes ago, dwai said:

The problems with syntax. 

The big question to answer would be - Is consciousness a property of my brain or is the brain a receptacle for consciousness? 

 

There are three valid ways to know.

 

1. Direct Experience -- there's a fire in the neighborhood and you see it burning
2. Testimony of a reliable witness -- Bob tells you that there is a fire in the neighborhood
3. Inference -- you see smoke and infer there's a fire somewhere 

All three require consciousness/awareness to know. Can you know anything without Consciousness/awareness? 

Again, by Consciousness I mean the basic quality that makes knowing possible. This is not something that can be observed or studied objectively. You know you have it because you know. 

 

In scientific circles today, Consciousness is called the "Hard Problem". 

I don't see this as a hard problem , for ME ,

its just a hard problem for someone else because they are operating from a position of bad reasoning. 

 

I agree theres a syntax issue , however , there are misunderstandings which can be detected apart from the words chosen.

 

RE:point 1 --

Direct experience is awareness, its self evidentiary , but only lasts as long as the event is underway, it is knowing (and cannot be faulty , since it is not a derived conclusion or expectation ). 

You hear the bell , and when it stops ringing , you can say you heard the bell , but that's past tense.   

After that time , 'currently knowing' ,  is not going on , its remembering, and it can be faulty.  

 

RE:point 2-- Testimony of a reliable ,,, or unreliable witness ,,, is not knowing either.

You are making suppositions , or,  connections are being suggested ,

but again , this can be faulty , and its not Knowing. 

 

RE:point 3 Inference is not Knowing either , it is making a conclusion based on rationale , which may be correct or incorrect. 

Though colloquially we say we know things because we inferred them , it has not the perfect certainty, of Knowing, but in speech its used as a means of knowing. 

.............................

So when the monks ring the bell , or smack you with a stick , you are brought to a state of knowing something. You experience the shock or sound , and its free from suppositions recollections etc . This is you being aware. As the event fades , you're supposed to recognize the transition , the subsequent attribution of various sentiments and evaluations ,regarding the event, which has already passed or is passing swiftly away.

You are being given a slow-mo opportunity to watch your mind do its thing.  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 16, 2018 by Stosh

[rideforever]

Lotus Sutra ;

 

Buddha sits with thousands of monks and Bodhisattavas.   He introduces them by name and describes their character :

Maitreya : the being most likely to become the next saviour
Medicine Buddha : with great compassion saves other beings.

 

Name and Character > Individual.

 

And of course this would explain why great teachers took so many years and such arduous journeys to wake up.
When the source is found, so is the individual, the real individual within.

[dwai]

7 minutes ago, Stosh said:

I don't see this as a hard problem , for ME ,

its just a hard problem for someone else because they are operating from a position of bad reasoning. 

 

I agree theres a syntax issue , however , there are misunderstandings which can be detected apart from the words chosen.

 I didn't say anything about the accuracy of the knowing. I just pointed out that knowing can be in one of the three ways  

The validity of the knowing is a different matter altogether. 

7 minutes ago, Stosh said:

 

RE:point 1 --

Direct experience is awareness, its self evidentiary , but only lasts as long as the event is underway, it is knowing (and cannot be faulty , since it is not a derived conclusion or expectation ). 

You hear the bell , and when it stops ringing , you can say you heard the bell , but that's past tense.   

After that time , 'currently knowing' ,  is not going on , its remembering, and it can be faulty.  

 

7 minutes ago, Stosh said:

 

RE:point 2-- Testimony of a reliable ,,, or unreliable witness ,,, is not knowing either.

You are making suppositions , or,  connections are being suggested ,

but again , this can be faulty , and its not Knowing. 

So if you read certain things in a text book, you assume that it is right, until proven otherwise. Certain things we have to take on authority of the messenger (ergo reliable witness)

7 minutes ago, Stosh said:

 

RE:point 3 Inference is not Knowing either , it is making a conclusion based on rationale , which may be correct or incorrect. 

Though colloquially we say we know things because we inferred them , it has not the perfect certainty, of Knowing, but in speech its used as a means of knowing. 

So you mean to say when you see smoke you don't infer there might be a fire? Maybe it was not smoke at all, but dust...or water being sprayed in the air and reflecting light in a certain way...

7 minutes ago, Stosh said:

.............................

So when the monks ring the bell , or smack you with a stick , you are brought to a state of knowing something. You experience the shock or sound , and its free from suppositions recollections etc . This is you being aware. As the event fades , you're supposed to recognize the transition , the subsequent attribution of various sentiments and evaluations ,regarding the event, which has already passed or is passing swiftly away.

You are being given a slow-mo opportunity to watch your mind do its thing.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jeff]

5 minutes ago, rideforever said:

Lotus Sutra ;

 

Buddha sits with thousands of monks and Bodhisattavas.   He introduces them by name and describes their character :

Maitreya : the being most likely to become the next saviour
Medicine Buddha : with great compassion saves other beings.

 

Name and Character > Individual.

 

And of course this would explain why great teachers took so many years and such arduous journeys to wake up.
When the source is found, so is the individual, the real individual within.

 

When talking about buddhas in the Lotus Sutra, do not forget the many jeweled stupa and what comes with it...

 

Then there arose a Stûpa, consisting of seven precious substances, from the place of the earth opposite the Lord, the assembly being in the middle, a Stûpa five hundred yoganas in height and proportionate in circumference. After its rising, the Stûpa, a meteoric phenomenon, stood in the sky sparkling, beautiful, nicely decorated with five thousand successive terraces of flowers, adorned with many thousands of arches, embellished by thousands of banners and triumphal streamers, hung with thousands of jewel-garlands and with hourplates and bells, and emitting the scent of Xanthochymus and sandal, which scent filled this whole world. Its row of umbrellas rose so far on high as to touch the abodes of the four guardians of the horizon and the gods. It consisted of seven precious substances, viz. gold, silver, lapis lazuli, Musâragalva, emerald, red coral, and Karketana-stone. This Stûpa of precious substances once formed, the gods of paradise strewed and covered it with Mandârava and great Mandâra flowers. And from that Stûpa of precious substances there issued this voice: Excellent, excellent, Lord Sâkyamuni! thou hast well expounded this Dharmaparyâya of the Lotus of the True Law. So it is, Lord; so it is, Sugata.

 

At the sight of that great Stûpa of precious substances, that meteoric phenomenon in the sky, the four classes of hearers were filled with gladness delight, satisfaction and joy. Instantly they rose from their seats, stretched out their joined hands, and remained standing in that position. Then the Bodhisattva Mahâsattva Mahâpratibhâna, perceiving the world, including gods, men, and demons, filled with curiosity, said to the Lord: O Lord, what is the cause, what is the reason of so magnificent a Stûpa of precious substances appearing in the world? Who is it, O Lord, who causes that sound to go out from the magnificent Stûpa of precious substances? Thus asked, the Lord spake to Mahapratibhâna, the Bodhisattva Mahâsattva, as follows: In this great Stûpa of precious substances, Mahâpratibh'ana, the proper body of the Tathâgata is contained condensed; his is the Stûpa; it is he who causes this sound to go out.

-Lotus Sutra

 

[Stosh]

4 minutes ago, dwai said:

 I didn't say anything about the accuracy of the knowing. I just pointed out that knowing can be in one of the three ways  

The validity of the knowing is a different matter altogether. 

 

So if you read certain things in a text book, you assume that it is right, until proven otherwise. Certain things we have to take on authority of the messenger (ergo reliable witness)

So you mean to say when you see smoke you don't infer there might be a fire? Maybe it was not smoke at all, but dust...or water being sprayed in the air and reflecting light in a certain way...

 

I do indeed infer fire from the smoke , there is simply far more to what is going on , than the incremental .. chunks , that we can know directly. We are forced to infer. 

If there is a 'hard problem' it is..

"Why can people be expected to arrive at similar conclusions , (have a common logic ), given the same data,and  provided that they have no reason to balk?" 

 

Texts , personally,,  I just do not assume they are right, everything goes through the mill , somethings come out smelling like roses , and others do not. Much I put on a back-burner, I temporarily suspend disbelief , so I can proceed. I expect this is true for most folks but in variable degrees. Adjudication may be held in abeyance.  

[dwai]

1 hour ago, Stosh said:

I do indeed infer fire from the smoke , there is simply far more to what is going on , than the incremental .. chunks , that we can know directly. We are forced to infer. 

If there is a 'hard problem' it is..

"Why can people be expected to arrive at similar conclusions , (have a common logic ), given the same data,and  provided that they have no reason to balk?" 

 

Texts , personally,,  I just do not assume they are right, everything goes through the mill , somethings come out smelling like roses , and others do not. Much I put on a back-burner, I temporarily suspend disbelief , so I can proceed. I expect this is true for most folks but in variable degrees. Adjudication may be held in abeyance.  

For all that to happen, and in fact any mode of knowing (Direct, Indirect or inferential), you need consciousness/awareness. Again I ask you, can you know anything without being conscious/aware?

Edited August 16, 2018 by dwai
typo fix

[Stosh]

27 minutes ago, dwai said:

For all that to happen, and in fact any mode of knowing (Direct, Indirect or inferential), you need consciousness/awareness. Again I ask you, can you know anything with being conscious/aware?

Sorry , I didn't realize I wasn't hitting the nail , Yes, you or I  need to either be conscious or aware , to know things. 

Point being? 

[dwai]

3 minutes ago, Stosh said:

Sorry , I didn't realize I wasn't hitting the nail , Yes, you or I  need to either be conscious or aware , to know things. 

Point being? 

Point being, how then do you say, Awareness needs phenomena to exist? Do you think it's not possible to be simply aware without any objects of awareness?

[Stosh]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

Point being, how then do you say, Awareness needs phenomena to exist? Do you think it's not possible to be simply aware without any objects of awareness?

Well , the Daoist angle , whether many of aware of this,  or not, is that ,, without having distinctions of some sort,  then you just have a unity.,, the proverbial - drop of water in an endless sea, - the mind before the first object of consciousness.

Its in the first TTC chapter.

I happen to agree with the logic of it. And that it is a matter of perspective whether all equates to everything , or nothing, but for speaking purposes we can say that if there is anything,  all is something,.  not nothing. 

 

The issue is brought up in The Chuangtze as well (though I agree the excerpt is not an exact match for our discussion.. )

If then all things are One, what room is there for speech? On the other hand, since I can say the word 'one' how can speech not exist? 

If it does exist, we have One and speech -- two; and two and one -- three(14) from which point onwards even the best mathematicians will fail to reach (the ultimate); how much more then should ordinary people fail?

Terebess Lin Yutang ( on leveling all things) 

 

So Yes,  awareness needs phenomena to exist. 

Edited August 16, 2018 by Stosh

[dwai]

2 hours ago, Stosh said:

Well , the Daoist angle , whether many of aware of this,  or not, is that ,, without having distinctions of some sort,  then you just have a unity.,, the proverbial - drop of water in an endless sea, - the mind before the first object of consciousness.

Its in the first TTC chapter.

I think it points to a different "you". You ARE water itself. The drop is just a case of relative/mistaken identification as being a drop. 

2 hours ago, Stosh said:

I happen to agree with the logic of it. And that it is a matter of perspective whether all equates to everything , or nothing, but for speaking purposes we can say that if there is anything,  all is something,.  not nothing. 

 

The issue is brought up in The Chuangtze as well (though I agree the excerpt is not an exact match for our discussion.. )

If then all things are One, what room is there for speech? On the other hand, since I can say the word 'one' how can speech not exist? 

If it does exist, we have One and speech -- two; and two and one -- three(14) from which point onwards even the best mathematicians will fail to reach (the ultimate); how much more then should ordinary people fail?

Terebess Lin Yutang ( on leveling all things) 

 

So Yes,  awareness needs phenomena to exist. 

What does speech have to do with awareness? We can simply be happy being aware (drop this or that and description of this or that). 

[steve]

On 8/14/2018 at 11:55 AM, dwai said:

https://www.medhajournal.com/what-happened-nothing/

 

In my view, this is only half the story... 

 

Nothing happens and everything happens.

It is not that nothing happens or nothing exists, it is more that the way things happen and the manner in which they exist is not quite what it appears to be from the relative perspective.

It seems to me this refusal to accept the truth of our relative experience, side by side with the truth of absolute perspective, is a form of nihilism.

 

Just my perspective...