UnbornTao

Not only the definition but the way it is experienced. I think this overlooks the invention itself. What has to happen in one's experience, for something to be created out of nothing? "Some one was drawing water and my teacher placed my hand under the spout. As the cool stream gushed over one hand she spelled into the other the word water, first slowly, then rapidly. I stood still, my whole attention fixed upon the motions of her fingers. Suddenly I felt a misty consciousness as of something forgotten–a thrill of returning thought; and somehow the mystery of language was revealed to me. I knew then that "w-a-t-e-r" meant the wonderful cool something that was flowing over my hand. That living word awakened my soul, gave it light, hope, joy, set it free!" - Helen Keller.

@Anton Rogachevski We should have stuck with the mu answer from the very beginning I suggested there's the self, and being. The former is what you take yourself to be; the latter is what you actually are, prior to activity. The "who" question isn't about enlightenment but about getting the person doing the asking. You likely experience yourself right now as someone, so who is that someone? If I were to ask you to hand me that pencil over there, you'd grab the object and give it to me. You wouldn't give me your idea of the pencil. This is another simplistic example but I think it gets the point across. So, you're saying that concept is the same as experience, not just that it can be experienced. Okay. Again, experientially - without stories or resorting to intellect - you can see that they're not exactly the same, can't you? That's the basic point.

@Anton Rogachevski That's what we're looking into. You can take your sensory feed example and recognize various activities within it such as perception, experience, and so on, which show up differently for you. You just mushed these together into a one simplistic distinction, painting it with broad strokes. Seeing an apple and experiencing an apple is different; your participation in the encounter may be the differentiating element here. Having a concept about an apple is the least "direct" process. Nice, thanks. Isn't that interesting? We seem to find ourselves in our identifications and experience, and yet don't seem to find the one that's supposed to be behind these activities - we might call this the self. And then there's who you are as a conscious entity. I suggest you can't be found within perception. Maybe there's isn't a perceiver in the first place - but you are conscious. Who's the one reading this now? We keep encountering this confusion- fusing (failing to differentiate) perception with experience.

It is experienced as concept - mental activity. The having of the concept isn't. Think of doing something, and then do it - these are the domains I'm talking about. I'm not conscious of what experience is yet, so won't speculate on its substance. Three activities seem to be involved here: experience concept experiencing a concept (experience) The latter isn't commonly done. It is the possibility of not only having a thought but experiencing the activity that is the thought as it occurs. Hence the conflation. Would you say you perceive a concept the same way you experience what the concept is referring to? I'm just suggesting we conflate - fuse with - these different domains, not necessarily separate. I'm not claim realness for one or the other - but experience does seem to be more grounded and less "burdened" with mental activity. We fucked up - it's probably sensory, not sensual. Yeah, we should get clear on what these things are. In your example, they are taken to be the same thing, even though we can see that they are not. Sounds like your claim is that you are a perception.

We had to invent language at some point - both as a species and as individuals - so why couldn't we also experience what it's like to be without it? It'd be a temporary exercise, after all. We probably couldn't talk or think about it, though. Again, it's just a question to contemplate - eliminate the context of language and see what that's like. Perhaps. We now live within language and so take its existence for granted. And yet, this very act requires a significant leap in our cognition. It seems quite basic or primordial, but I'm not sure whether it is the first idea a creature has. "Language" as a context would need to have been invented first before such an idea could be conceived. Without language, a movement is just a movement. Sound is just sound. You move your hand that way, yet language isn't found in that act. So "where" is it? 什麼是語言？ jiuhg rr- x,es`+`´gv214z<. efdt vt7h I think what you're exploring here is the nature of difference, rather than language. Anyway, language aims to represent something with something else - sound, gesture, scribble - that is not that thing. I'd say that the nature of that thing may actually be secondary to this process. As long as it represents a distinct experience, then language has done its job in this regard. So I'm repeating myself here. Not sure what other creatures do with our use of language. Yes, we often conflate labeling something - and being familiar with the label - with a personal understanding of that thing. Take emotions, for example: once we learn to name them, we start treating them as if they're fixed, objective phenomena. And yet, each individual doesn't make the exact same distinctions. It might be the case that what people experienced as emotions centuries ago was not quite the same as what we experience and call emotions today.

Ahh okay.

You've got a lot of crap in the way: expectations, "knowledge," and opinions about what enlightenment is or looks like. The solution is to be open and really ask what you are; stay there.

How's the book going for you?

You keep conflating concept and experience! Yes, as you say, a concept can also be experienced, yet it isn't an experience. You'd experience the mental activity giving rise to it. Like experiencing a pineapple versus the recollection that your uncle Bob bought it for you. Sounds good! The body might not need a self but that's another topic. That one is different from the other. It sounds like you are calling experience the sensual feed (sensory field?) - I'd call that perception. And I'd say that perception comes prior to concept. Perception > experience > conceptualization. Don't take this model too seriously, btw. I'm not even saying it's true but it might help us ponder what each process is about.

What would an experience of having no language be like? That's quite the contemplation. It's a fascinating question - and not a simplistic one at all. Without the context of language, there couldn't even be symbol, or the possibility that noise represents something other than the sound itself. It points - that's the point. Whether it references a fact or a truth is secondary. If we're aware of something, then we've already made a distinction in our experience. Terms like "paradox," "gravity," or "unicorn" all point to something we're aware of, even if abstract or unreal - something comes to mind in relation to the word. It might be something objective, abstract, invented, false - whatever - but it is a distinction, even if the term is "nothing." Language is supposed to represent something through something that isn't the medium itself. You read sandía and, if you don't speak Spanish, you have no idea what it represents, but you know that something is being communicated. Even though the term is unknown, the context of language is still operative. Not sure what specific point I'm trying to get across here. I'll need to keep investigating this - these are just provisional thoughts. So, what must be created for a sound, a bodily movement, or a squiggle to represent something it's not?

the what? @Xonas Pitfall That was quite the explanation and story. Thanks.

I'd move this thread to the Intellectual subforum, surprisingly.

It sounds like you are thinking of it as something perceived - like a state. But interpretation doesn't apply to the realization itself; it's a direct consciousness of your nature. Like being aware your body is breathing - no mind required. If someone is being authentic (which isn't guaranteed), there's no doubt about what they became conscious of. It's a function of the consciousness itself, not conviction or other mental activity. If it is, they're most likely fooling themselves. The mind does try to capture and make sense of it, but it can't. From what I can tell, "pure" breakthroughs are rare. People tend to interpret them through their so-called knowledge and mess them up in their minds. But there's a difference between the expression or memory of realization, and the actual consciousness of it. There also seem to be degrees, like glimpses, full-blown awakenings, and everything in between. I once had a small insight into who I am, where I made a distinction between the self I've always taken myself to be, and what we might call being. I recognized that who I am is not my self. But the memory is vague and I eventually "lost" the insight. Go figure. (By the way, that wasn't an enlightenment.) But where would the mind place its attention to "remember" the realization? On your experience: perception, mood, reactions, feelings, knowledge, beliefs. And you'll talk about these. When Ramana spoke, he wasn't recalling an experience or state - he was speaking from direct consciousness of being and existence. Of course, there's no way to verify claims of this nature, except by realizing them firsthand - hence "direct." I imagine awakened people struggle to convey that kind of consciousness. But that's what language is for. They'll probably fail miserably, but the attempt is made. Or so the theory goes (maybe.)

@Xonas Pitfall Yes, being open is incredibly useful (See? Value ). Some people fear that investigating this might undermine their sense of value - but why? As you said, the only implication is understanding it. What you do with that understanding is entirely up to you. I agree with your claim that value is relational. Reaching a conclusion doesn't go far enough, though. Bring to mind Newton: he didn't just think about gravity but personally encountered the principle itself. He had insight. Meaning, value, and worth seem to be the core categories here, while the others might be secondary forms of those three -- though I'm not entirely sure. The differences may be subtle, but suggesting that every element in your comparison list is exactly the same thing isn't quite accurate. Different words are used for a reason. And different doesn’t necessarily mean separate.

Yeah, you could say there's you and there's your self - a more sober way to think about it. Eventually, we reach a point where we have to admit that we don't really know what either of those are -- unless you do grasp it, though that's not very common. The chatting is fun, though. Ramana would slap us in the face. It's a misnomer. Experience is indirect, whereas awakening is direct... but what does direct even mean here? It isn't an interpretation or perception, nor is it mediated by mind activity. Interpretation comes after the fact, so to speak. It is inconceivable and yet true, from what I've been told. Bringing up authentic individuals, such as Ramana, probably the "best" teacher, is useful because it points to a real case and possibility - although an incredibly rare one. Pedestrians like us, on the other hand, love to talk! Yeah, the very existence of self is what the existential loneliness is based on. Maybe your nature is Nothing, absolutely. It is, Now, and is Consciousness itself. But hoopla like this means nothing unless it comes from a direct realization -- which it isn't in this case. We don't even know it's true. Maybe we are clouds, or a pencil. What do we make of that? I could speculate more but it'd be better to just "awaken" already. I mean, we are going to die relatively soon, so better get busy with that.

Neither is direct; perhaps a better word would be personal, since both seem to be personally experienced - they just aren't of the same "kind." Your memory of a punch doesn't physically hurt you - a punch does. However, what you do in relation to the memory could hurt you! Which is to say, your mental activity - ideations. Not sure where this is going. Mu! is actually the best answer. Why not? Don't confuse our failure to grasp it with the impossibility of doing so. We can have a memory of/memorize something ("what was experienced") and experience the having of the memory. Anyway, it might be the case that we didn't really know what was experienced in the first place. We come back to what experience is, now. I brought up 'memory' to make a point about concept. If you are conscious of that, that's awesome. Is your experience like that, though? I suspect we both currently have a pretty solid sense of self - the one somewhere behind our eyes reading this - as well as think that is what we are.

Seems like we'd need to look into the function of language and distinction, quite advanced stuff. I could contribute a few questions to get the ball rolling, the main one being- what is language? It still points to a notion, albeit an abstract one, that occurs in your perceptive experience. Contrast that word with "watermelon" or "Santa Claus" and different associations arise. Why is that? I might say more but need some time to think about it.

Could be. We can see that the matter is a bitch. I guess we need some enlightenment experiences.

Maybe you could create a newsletter on Substack, Medium, or your own website.

We take ourselves for granted and often attach negative associations to these kinds of belief systems. In our minds the idea of being existentially alone is unbearable and depressing. Yet we likely misunderstand such matters on a deep level. Beyond speculative efforts, we are likely ignorant of what the self (and the other) is. Grasping the nature of these should be the aim here. Once that is clear for you, there's no longer any need to play with beliefs, because you've directly realized whatever is true regarding the matter. Here’s a new possibility: Even though, for you and me, it's currently just a cute little saying, it might help open our minds to some real contemplation.

Hello there, we meet again.

@Xonas Pitfall Nice, thanks for such a detailed response. I liked your examples on the list above, they're quite illuminating and can serve as an intellectual exercise to get a better handle on this. Beyond that, what is your experience of value? I'm not even sure what we're looking into anymore. A few things have come up: value, meaning, worth. Anyway... Value shows up as a relationship, doesn’t it? We might recognize that objects themselves don’t possess inherent worth--so, as you say, it’s assigned by the self doing the relating. Could it be a charged, self-referential interpretation based on one’s agenda--hence an activity? By the way, the way I see it, an explanation isn’t really the point here, but rather the act of questioning itself and the possibility of insight. It seems we often resist exploring these things because we fear it will erode or undermine our sense of value, but it doesn’t have to. We could keep enjoying the same things, only now we’d be recognizing what worth and value are in and of themselves.