UnbornTao

Hmmm, we might need to get back to the drawing board. Let's leave awareness for another time.

If we're considering experience in the usual fashion, then that is indirect -- a sensory encounter, or the process of making sense of that. You encounter something -- What is it that you're calling direct? We can know about something, identify it, like "that is a nice yellow shirt." We can know how it relates to us and what charge it has for us, yet I wouldn't call this direct but perhaps personal experience. Do we? Direct access as in direct consciousness. But I think we are starting to speculate too much. Let's keep it real. Seems to be more objective than a mere idea, I don't see why it has to entail a perceiver. It could be like the body functioning -- a function of biological life that occurs rather naturally on its own. A perceiving is pure and impersonal, as Wei Wu Wei said. Not at all. In my experience (), memory is incredibly biased and subjective. It is safe to say that it often is a complete misrepresentation of "what happened." The recording that you talk about sounds like a pipe dream -- we likely didn't even payed much attention to what actually happened. Concept is a much broader notion than a mere idea. It is not. A memory of playing football is not the experience of playing, since we've established that the experience it is referring to isn't happening now. It is a thought. Not aware of something but the fact of awareness itself. Regarding your second sentence, yes, it seems to be that way. It is tricky. It doesn't mean they're the same, though. Cheers!

We can understand the explanation in retrospect but imagine you are Newton prior to the discovery of that. --- "Principle", by GPT: 1. Beginning or starting point of something. Example: The beginning of the movie was very striking. 2. Fundamental basis or foundation of a system, theory, or process. Example: The principles of Euclidean geometry. 3. Moral rule or standard that guides behavior. Example: He acted according to his principles. 4. Cause or origin of something. Example: The principle of motion. --- From Latin principium, meaning “beginning, origin, foundation.” Derived from princeps (“first, foremost”), which is composed of: primus = first capere = to take or seize So principium literally means “that which is taken first,” pointing to what comes first in order, logic, or importance.

Not a bad definition, but it sounds like: balance is balance. Sounds good. This might be pointing at the "relationship" aspect. Clearly it doesn't happen in isolation but in how various elements interact with each other. You've been reading the Lankavatara Sutra?

@Anton Rogachevski You could be open to the possibility of direct access or knowledge. How do you see knowledge and experience? Why do you see them as the same? Would you say there are other kinds of knowing? What about perception and its relationship to experience? The memory itself is the story of something that happened. What's happening now is the activity called memory, which is conceptual. What the memory refers to, even though it may be thought of as a past experience, isn't an experience now. Notice the crucial point: we tend to live as if a memory is the same as the experience it is referring to! It is held as a re-experiencing, but it isn't. Well, different words are used for a reason. "I'm aware" is not exactly the same as "I experience." The wonder and inherent openness is the point of such questions. What is awareness may be a topic for another time.

Extraneous explanations may be valid but they aren't really necessary in this context. Principles constitute the "rules" of existence, so to speak. In this case, it simply means that objects fall downward in a fairly consistent way wherever the principle applies. This is your experience. To the extent that the principle is operative, "reality"--or some aspect of it--will function according to its demands. That was just an example of relative truth. Why would you care? Find out what's true for yourself, first of all. That alone is already difficult. It's not about fantasy--it's about what is, here and now. I'd add that seeking utility and seeking truth are entirely different pursuits, each with its own goals. Perhaps understanding principles would be more fruitful for the advancement of humanity. And consider this: the truth is unknown--and may even be useless. What if our search for utility blinds us to what's true?

A memory, say, may be experienced but it isn't an experience. Because, among other things, what it is referring to is not happening now, it is about a past event. In that sense, it could be called a concept, a story. Now, we may have found one component of experience: it is always occurring now. What about awareness?

Good question. You need to look into your experience of self--yourself--in order to have any chance at discovering what that's really about. That sentiment might reflect a common resistance to the work of introspection.

"I do all my work to escape myself. I don't believe in looking into yourself. If you do this, you just discover a lot of shit. The truth is not deep in ourselves. The truth is outside." -- From his Substack newsletter.

@Someone here It's not about having an answer. Consider: What did it take for Newton to grasp the principle of gravity? Remember, he was a genius, so it might not be a simplistic matter.

Don't describe them; make fine distinctions within what is commonly a vague experience. You can become conscious of the nature of experience -- not without questioning, though. Actually go through some of the exercises and notice the matter isn't simplistic at all, despite our notions about it.

@Someone here What is balance as a principle? How does it show up? What are we referring to when we say something is balanced? What is not balance (for something to be out of balance)?

Importance may be a secondary, human concern. If truth is just what is, then it precedes activity--in this case, value-making. For example, gravity is a principle and, as such, a fact. But does it manifest in the same way in outer space or on other planets? This hints at the nature of relative truth. The absolute is whatever exists in and of itself, and becoming conscious of that for ourselves is our task.

@Someone here Fine by me. But keep in mind, you might be wrong, at least in certain respects. Anyway, enjoy the forum.

I've noticed you tend to act rather recklessly here from time to time. Some of us are discussing the principle of balance in another thread -- feel free to check it out.

Again, the fact that something is distinct doesn’t mean it is separate. That might be beside the point, though--distinction deserves its own thread. You seem to think that distinguishing something is bad or wrong; you want to believe that everything is one, but you don’t want to challenge what may be just a notion. Even then, both things might be true, paradoxically--everything being one and things being different from each other. But that's an interesting idea for us right now. Take your experience of eating a meal as an example: What is actually happening while you eat, and by contrast, what do you think is happening? What mental activities are you generating that are extraneous to a “raw” encounter? You might be eating soup and finding it rather bland and unappetizing. Or maybe you’re eagerly devouring a piece of cake. Can you begin to pick out different kinds of activities within your experience of eating a particular meal?

People make claims all the time; that doesn’t necessarily make them true. They might also be using terms like 'awakening' differently, so take that into account. We generally tend to confuse an unusual state or experience with an enlightenment, so it’s important to stay rigorous with oneself regarding that. That said, circumstances seem to be secondary to the desire to know. Bear in mind that "How does this benefit me?" is a completely different question from "What is true?"

I think I do understand where you're coming from. My issue with it is that it is most likely a notion, not an experience, from the way you're answering. How likely is it that you actually experience that there are "no things"--except as a belief adopted from an external source? Do you eat food or a picture of food? See, in your experience, you're already making these distinctions; you just have to be honest about it. You can look at a tree, and many ideas will likely emerge from that encounter--not just your raw experience of what's there, whatever that is. Maybe there's no tree there, or maybe it's of a different nature than what we think it is. Without experientially distinguishing what is what in a precise manner, though, we're stuck with our current knowledge, thinking that our "experience" is the same as what is so.

@Anton Rogachevski Nice, thank you for the response. It’s quite the mu. What would you call a direct experience of something? And what if, in this context, direct experience isn't really an experience at all, but something more like consciousness? Also, what would you say a concept is? Can you notice, in your own answer, what’s conceptual? Isn’t the presumed impossibility of direct access a notion you’ve concluded? We may know what is experienced--yet what is that knowing? As you suggest, it’s indirect, not the thing itself. We can know about things and have insights--which may be a more direct or grounded form of knowing. On top of that, we hear stories of direct consciousness--of personally getting to the heart of things. It does seem like experience is everything we have--that it's where “life” happens for us. We could use our responses to break apart many of the assumptions we may be sharing on this topic. For example: Is it true that, in order to investigate experience, one needs to be separate from it? How do you view your self? Is it considered to be part of experience, perhaps? Is it actually the case that perception implies a perceiver? And why do we generally assume that perception is primary, and experience secondary? Just some food for thought.

Hey, maybe 'the experiencer' is conceptual rather than experiential, so there might as well be something existing that is not experience, or experienced.

Are you giving up before even starting? . I'm just questioning what 'experience' is, and you can do that too. Why did you write "experience/concept"? Could it be that the distinction between the two isn't so clear? When we distinguish between things, that act doesn't imply that those things are separate in reality. So your point about isolation misses that nuance. A concept of something isn't the same as the thing itself, wouldn't you agree?

That sounds like a solid definition to start us with. An additional definition of balance, and its etymology, by GPT: --- Balance, Noun A state of equilibrium or parity, especially between opposing forces or influences. The distribution of weight that allows someone or something to remain upright and steady. A mental or emotional steadiness. A condition in which different elements are equal or in the correct proportions. Balance, Verb To bring into or maintain in a state of equilibrium. To offset or counteract something with an equal force or amount. To assess or weigh different elements to reach harmony or fairness. Etymology of balance: From Middle English balaunce, From Old French balance meaning “balance, scales for weighing,” From Latin bilanx, bilancem (nominative: bilanx): bi- = “two” lanx = “plate” or “dish” (of a scale) Originally, the term referred to a pair of scale pans (two plates) used for weighing—hence the notion of weighing opposing things to achieve equilibrium. --- Can you provide examples of the interplay of polar opposites in life? How do you view multiplicity? What is the principle regardless of how it might affect us? It seems balance occurs as a relationship. For example, say you prepare a dish. What would a "balanced" meal be about? Obviously, adding a pound of salt to the dish is inconsistent with balance, unless the other ingredients call for it (maybe you're cooking a huge meal). How do the ingredients relate to each other such that "balance" shows up?

It seems to me that not everything that exists is, or can be, perceived. For example, you are aware, and this isn't a perception. What is that about? The act of perceiving is hard to deny; in that sense, it could be said to exist. Even though I view it as a process mediated by the body (and thus relative), what it is is up for grabs. It's not that the hardware is perceived, but rather that it is responsible for the perceiving in the first place. You can close your eyes and experience this personally. If you didn’t have eyes, you obviously wouldn’t enjoy the sense of sight--that’s what the claim refers to. I’d like to get clear on what you consider perception to be, so we can contemplate this better. As for me, I’m not conscious of what perception is--its nature--just making observations on the fly. For what it's worth, I’ll say that perception is a meaningless phenomenon. Encountering something through the senses, which is done indirectly, is useless sensory input until we relate what's encountered to ourselves by interpreting it, assigning meaning, etc.

Stop thinking all the time and just relax, calm down, exercise, meditate.

@Growly Feel the body, allow it to be there completely, practice deep and slow breaths from the belly, relax your body. Dedicate half an hour to this practice and it should help.