[Post must be at least 20 characters]
[Post must be at least 20 characters]
So the problem is that I don’t discern the difference between what is created by thought, and what actually is. I say “don’t” because if one does discern the difference, one is no longer bound by that ignorance; one is free
Yes, this is how I understand it. If one could only live with facts, with actualities, then one would no longer be a prey to ignorance (of the psychological kind) and the suffering ignorance brings.
But we are conditioned to experience certain contents of our thinking as though they were facts, actualities, and then suffer (or enjoy) because of them.
Awareness of what our brains are doing daily (due to thought, due to our conditioning) gives us the opportunity to see these contents for what they are. So that if they are just thoughts, just habits of thought, we can drop them (not through will of course, but simply by becoming aware of them objectively, factually - the seeing is the doing, etc).
I was thinking of something private and either idiosyncratic or rare, like a kensho experience.
If all the person means is a moment of being taken ‘outside of themselves’ when looking at a sunset or when surfing, or a ‘second wind’ when running, then I think that’s acceptable. But anything more exotic than this we would probably have to pause it or say ‘no’ to for now.
Why? What is the cut off point and how is it determined? Is it when the person defines the experence as being Spiritual? For example when koans, meditation, crystals, or past life regression is involved?
If so aren’t we still in the realm of interpretation, relationship and belief?
If I get a second wind, when running, is that okay because it remains a mystery for me?
The problem as far as I’m concerned, is that the “mystical experience” makes one an authority - part of this includes building a secret altar to the memory of it in a secret part of our mind. Thats one reason I started a topic here which is either of no interest or taboo. (of course some seem to clamour their authority out loud, setting themselves apart from those that have not seen - this seems even more worrying)
I think it is fair to say that half of the people on Kinfonet have at least made allusions to the fact that they have had some sort of “experience” of altered consciousness. The thing that is difficult to determine is the effect that it had on their personalities - I’m betting none (the crazies are just as crazy, the confused just as confused, and ditto for the well-behaved)
Maybe there has been a misunderstanding? I felt that all that was being discussed was whether we could experiment - on some not-yet begun hypothetical future thread - with staying with the immediate facts of our daily experience, our daily actualities. And that to keep this hypothetical future thread focussed, we would agree not to bring in any ‘extra’ or speculative ideas unless they seemed absolutely fitting and relevant.
This topic refers to the following question:
So it was merely a proposal for a hypothetical future thread, as I understand it. It was not meant as a proposal to govern all future threads!
So on this hypothetical future thread, the “spiritual experiences” that you mention would be classified as “unique private experiences”. These - we said - would be
The common private experiences - such as loneliness, etc - would be the base level for our conversation, because loneliness (etc) is something everyone has experienced.
Whereas experiencing one’s past lives is a relatively rare private experience, and would have to be considered on its own merits separately (which is why I suggested that - on this hypothetical future thread - we would press “pause” on that topic, or say “no” to it, as it would be a distraction from the stipulated challenge of moving from daily fact to daily fact).
It is certainly possible that in the middle of this hypothetical future thread (in which we are moving from fact to fact) that suddenly one of us begins to have a full blown ‘spiritual experience’, and then we would be forced to consider this.
But, I ask you, how likely is it that, during such a hypothetical future thread, one of us suddenly, without any warning, begins to channel their former lives and livestream this experience directly to the rest of us?! Yes, anything is possible here, but - really?
I know that there are some people here who claim to have experienced their past lives, but how are we to assess such a claim on a thread about daily facts? Given what we know about the human tendency, isn’t the greater likelihood of such claims that they are deluded, hallucinatory, false? The unconscious is a marvellous reservoir of imaginative resources, chocked full of artefacts from the near and distant past, with archetypes and memories galore, racial memories, collective memories, personal traumas, latent psychic or extra-sensory perceptions, etc. Who needs actual past lives when the brain can invent them from the whole stream of past memory, right?
However, if there is such a thing as actual past (and future) lives, then this would require exploring on its own terms. And for that we would probably require a separate thread.
So, for the sake of keeping the hypothetical future thread (dedicated to moving from fact to fact) relatively grounded, we are merely suggesting that we would press “pause” on those kinds of unique private experiences - and that if such experiences (such as past lives) really need full expression, then there is no reason why they cannot be expressed separately on a thread of their own. Would this not be fair to request?
Are you saying emotions are related to actuality, which is not related to thought?
In some videos, Jiddu said that “Love is the desire in the field of reality”, what is the reality in this context?
Can I say that reality is related to thought? from the above assertion.
@sivaram you seem to making the same mistake as me : comparing unrelated statements out of context.
For example : “Love is the desire in the field of reality” is not a statement of absolute truth - it could be said to be meaningless even - it only has meaning in a context.
It was said in a different context, I agree but Jiddu might have been careful with his wording.
Jiddu said in some video that, “Love is the desire in the field of reality”.
James previously said that, " Hurt is an actuality in the field of reality"
In both the above statements there is an usage of the word “reality”. I got a comparison between these two statements, as you said.
James shared me the following definitions as I asked him,
Now, I got that curiosity to know,
What is actuality?
What is fact?
What is reality?
What is lie?
What is the difference between lie and reality?
What is the difference between truth and fact?
If someone had some understanding, please do share.
Are you saying you don’t understand the working definitions we came up with? Or would you like examples?
This is my understanding also.
This is so obviously wrong that only context can save it. For example, if the word “love” means “desire” in this particular statement. It doesn’t matter that K said it.
Can I say love is not related to reality?
It depends what you mean by those words.
Love is not related to reality, that is what we have learnt so far as it is not the product of thought, but Jiddu is referring to society in his era.
Our idea of Love is put together by thought, thus part of Reality (if Reality means “my understanding of reality”)
But - if as you say, we don’t know what Love is, then its not part of our Reality
Reality (in the sense we are using the word here) is the fruit of thought. Is love related to thought?
When we describe something which we either perceived or observed, our description cannot define everything about the dynamic which we have observed in a given situation. Therefore, our description is very limited in nature.
If two or more people who witnessed the same situation agreed up on the description which we have given and along with some reasoning, then it becomes fact, I think. Why because the situation we have described has been validated by others and the provided information connects with other pieces of information for a given situation.
Jiddu use negation principle just not to describe the love with any definition. From that context, we can say that it is not related to thought.