I made some nectarine chutney this weekend and inhaled the many spices as they simmered. How lovely! Think how starved early Europe was for those spices. What a difference a cuisine makes, I thought. Yes- it seems off topic but it really isn't if you agree that before one can transcend they need states/beliefs of preparation. Look how long Buddha wandered about and how many disiplines he tried. He had the freedom to quest while most of humanity does not although to some ambrosia could be quite simple. (I think my analogy got a bit muddled! Please forgive me.)
On Aug 30, 5:23 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > Without meaning to delve too deeply into the meaning of words here, > some agreement about what we are discussing must yet again be reached > similar to while talking about ego. > > GW already acknowledges a continuum. This term is used in many ways in > different contexts. Here, I will assume that some sense of a whole, of > a unity is included. And, when seen from this view, even though there > absolutely do exist relative views from individuals (read: individual > consciousnesses) since it is all a “continuum”, the direct > apprehension and experience of this totality by any of the many > components is possible. > > And, yes, there is a ‘positive feeling’ as countless people who have > achieved this state have reported…more use terms similar to Joy though > when this state is achieved. Further, besides this happiness from the > vantage of a “positive feeling state” (which clearly differs from a > baby resting on a breast), the enlightened state is that which finds > many qualities that differ from the relative state. And, while mind > rests in its own radiance, both the subjective ruminations as well as > the total silence of the absolute state are at once known. > > But, as it has always been known, such states, not being conceptual in > nature, are not describable using relative terms. Plato merely called > it “the Fifth” > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_Letter_(Plato)#Long_digression_o... > > On Aug 30, 2:18 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > How is one to know for certain that their direct experience of > > "consciousness" is the same for each perceiver. > > > We know there is a continuum of consciousness. This strongly suggests that > > any state of consciousness must necessary be relative > > > to a given observer. The idea of transcending concepts to a sustained > > unified uninterpreted state of at-one-ment may temporarily feel good to the > > experience - like I imagine a recently fed baby feels resting his/her head > > on its mother's breast - . But aside from a positive feeling state what > > else would constitute direct knowledge of a state that presumably > > transcends all concepts? > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Mon, Aug 30, 2010 4:21 pm > > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Direct Knowledge > > > What do you think? > > > On Aug 30, 6:23 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > This is why Molly end her snippets with the direct demand: "What do > > > > YOU think?" > > > > Try to answer her next time. ;-) > > > > On 30 Aug., 05:30, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > from Chogyam Trungpa: DIRECT KNOWLEDGE > > > > > "In the study of Buddhist philosophy, from the start one tries to > > > > > transcend concepts, and one tries, perhaps in a very critical way, to > > > > > find out what /is. /One has to develop a critical mind that will > > > > > stimulate intelligence. If one cultivates intelligent, intuitive > > > > > insight, then gradually real intuitive feeling develops, and any > > > > > imaginary or hallucinatory element is clarified and eventually dies > > > > > out. Finally, the vague feeling of discovery becomes very clear, so > > > > > that almost no doubt remains. Even at this stage, it is possible that > > > > > one may be unable to explain one's discovery verbally or write it down > > > > > exactly on paper. In fact, if one tried to do so, it would be limiting > > > > > one's scope and would be rather dangerous. Nevertheless, one finally > > > > > attains direct knowledge, rather than achieving something which is > > > > > separate from oneself. This can only be achieved through the practice > > > > > of meditation, which is not a question of going into some inward > > > > > depth, but of widening and expanding outward." - Condensed from > > > > > "Meditation," in /Meditation in Action/, pages 78 to 79. Shambhala > > > > > Library Edition.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
