Vaj <vajradhatu@...> wrote [from various posts; hopefully I am not scrambling
his intent by this selection]:
Part of the problem is there are entire swaths of our own mental landscape that
we're not familiar with. In a mental technique, as awareness of mentation
expands into other areas, there's always the danger that we'll attach some
special providence to these thoughts, esp. if they don't appear to even be
thoughts....
>
>Not everyone believes or finds helpful the idea of a "transcendent". Otherwise
>you can force a false duality onto the way things are. It's always better to
>see
>things as they are then to create false beliefs of "transcendent" and
>"immanent"
>onto reality. "Fabricating" reality. Dividing ourselves like that just means
>you'll have to dismantle that duality in order to recognize any underlying
>unity.
>
>Each layer of reality has it's own logic, it's own structure which may or may
>not bear any resemblance to the mental layer or any other. The important thing
>is to experientially be trained in each, so their unique language and
>territory
>is understood directly, not merely from the POV of the mental world.
>
I find it hard to disagree with this. Attaching special providence to our
thoughts is a common fault if you will. If reality is a unity, that is really a
unity, the idea that the unity has layers though, would seem to be a convenient
fiction, and that one only needs to be 'trained' in that single so-called
layer,
and that all thought is just a convenient fiction, useful albeit, but a
fiction.
Enlightenment is that simplification to the unity. I do not see the need for
layers. Logic highlights true relationships between aspects of diversity, and
with language, with science, this is the only method. With direct experience,
logic is not necessary, as long as one does not try to express the experience
in
language.
...I realize that people writing from the level of discursive thoughts can say
very helpful, insightful, wise and worthwhile things. That's what a good
fiction
author does. So it's no surprise that just about anyone can do it in a light
trance or mental tuning of thought-projections.
>
How can one not write from the level of discursive thought? Obviously one can
have an experience that does not, or at least does not obviously entail
discursive thought, but to express that experience, discursive thought seems to
be the only option, and thus one becomes by default, a fiction author.
But really for it to be unbiased, it has to come from beyond the mental,
trans-mental if you will....
>
How can an expressed value of language not be biased? Even if you have
something
you call trans-mental, you have to have a mental experience to express it, in
which case you are no longer trans-mental, and the other person to which you
are
expressing this, you hope, will have the background of experience to read
between the lines of the fiction, of the distortion of expressing in language,
and grasp the truth of matter somehow. Have I failed to read between the lines
here, and missed your point?
authfriend <jstein@...> wrote [in reference to channelling mentioned by
"seventhray1" <steve.sundur@...> and others]
Thing is, anybody can make up unverifiable claims like these, so they don't
seem
to me like evidence of a "higher source."
>
This is always the basic problem, are some thoughts more special than others?
All metaphysical claims are unverifiable except to the person who is generating
the metaphysical scenario in their mind, and these are the ones that are most
subject to special pleading because they are not directly accessible to
another.
Whatever experience one might have, if we describe it as somehow
transcendental,
beyond the material, it falls out of the possibility of verification, which
requires factual, material observation, which more than one person can access.
'Evidence' is something that passes between what we assume to be two or more
minds capable of discursive thought.
If there is just one mind, one experience, one can fantasize all one wants, one
does not have to put up an argument or provide evidence. One can be crazy unto
oneself. In discourse one has less freedom to be just plain nuts. There has to
be some structure, logic, facts, giving shape to expression. Like being in a
court of law, you just cannot spin a tale, you have to back the tale up with
something visceral that others can grasp, you cannot stay in the metaphysical.
How do you tell the difference between a metaphysical seagull and a
metaphysical
cow that have no visible or sensory characteristics or properties that more
than
one mind can experience? How can you show someone such a difference?
If you are arguing about metaphysical ideas, you have a choice of billions of
gods, billions of peculiar concepts, Pleiadians, and other fantastical concepts
because there is no verification possible by demonstration, so you can make up
anything, and you can buy into what others have made up. On the other hand, if
you want to discuss the ideal topological shape for a teapot or a teacup, the
choices have very little variety because anybody can grasp what it looks like,
what it is supposed to do etc., and the number of possibilities that do not
work
are legion. Metaphysical ideas refer to the non sensory, but that is where the
word 'nonsense' is derived from. Spiritual development, call it what you will,
seems directed to allowing a person to have a single irrefutable experience
that
settles the matter of the mystery of existence on the basis of their own direct
experience. This seems to have practical value, at least for the curious. The
story, the mythology, spun around this singularity seems without end. Are we
missing something?
Speaking of material facts, the Japan earthquake moved the main island about
2.4
metres, or about 8 feet, and shortened the length of Earth's day by 1.8
microseconds (we're spinning a bit faster now - is this somehow related to
discussions on this forum?).
