Awareness during sleep

September 7, 2001

To my point:

>

> This misses my point in an earlier email about objective correlates. Talk

> about any experience doesn't objectify the experience; it refers to the

> objective correlates (the context) of the experience.

>

San replied:

>

> When you believe that apperception, or enlightenment or whatever terminology

> you wish to use, has objective correlates to it, and it's just a question of

> finding and establishing these correlates, what you in fact are believeing, is

> that apperception exists within the duality of a " subject " and a separate to

> it, the objective correlates of the experience of apperception.

>

> Whereas apperception is perceiving without a perceiver and thus has no

> objective correlates to it.

>

It is important not to equate enlightenment with apperception, since by your

own account of apperception it does not apply to the natural world.

Enlightenment, on the other hand, is supposed to be a cure for suffering

that actual people experience. Enlightenment is therefore related to the

natural world of our ordinary experience, however unusual the experience of

enlightenment may be. It therefore has objective correlates, which merely

means that we can meaningfully talk about it even though, like any

experience, it has a " private " aspect. Our public or " objective " context

allows us to do this. For example, though you cannot have my experience of a

sunset, you know what I'm talking about when I say I saw a beautiful sunset

last night. The objective correlates to " I saw " are my eyes, the sun setting

in the west, our common language, etc. Because you and I share the same sun,

have the same visual perceptual apparatus, the same language, and you too

have seen sunsets, we can talk meaningfully about our experiences,

identifying them as roughly the same (of course, no two individuals'

experience will be identical). The science of enlightenment aims to identify

the context within which claims about enlightenment will have similar

meaning.

To Jan's point about superstition: superstition is taking a way of thinking

that works in one context and misapplying it to another. Thus, if people

throw stones at me, I have reason to believe they disapprove of me in some

way. That logic works well in an interpersonal context. It goes awry when I

conclude that the tree fell on me because it or the gods were angry with me.

In a different way, unnecessary puzzles are created about spirituality when

we forget the context within which spirituality has historically arisen:

human suffering. By failing to identify a context for their statements, the

confused or the charlatan can generate endless paradoxes to create the

illusion of profundity. Outside a meaningful context, the very form of a

syntactically correct but unintelligible sentence can seem to have meaning.

And because the meaning isn't specific, it is mistakenly taken to be

profound.

Gary

Gary Schouborg

Performance Consulting

Walnut Creek, CA

garyscho

Publications and professional services:

http://home.att.net/~garyscho

September 7, 2001

Hiya Gary,

-

Gary Schouborg

Realization

Saturday, September 08, 2001 03:53 AM

Awareness during sleep

To my point:> > This misses my point in an earlier email about objective correlates. Talk> about any experience doesn't objectify the experience; it refers to the> objective correlates (the context) of the experience.> San replied:> > When you believe that apperception, or enlightenment or whatever terminology> you wish to use, has objective correlates to it, and it's just a question of> finding and establishing these correlates, what you in fact are believeing, is> that apperception exists within the duality of a "subject" and a separate to> it, the objective correlates of the experience of apperception.> > Whereas apperception is perceiving without a perceiver and thus has no> objective correlates to it.> It is important not to equate enlightenment with apperception, since by yourown account of apperception it does not apply to the natural world.Enlightenment, on the other hand, is supposed to be a cure for sufferingthat actual people experience.Enlightenment is therefore related to thenatural world of our ordinary experience, however unusual the experience ofenlightenment may be.

San:

Then Gary please ignore all San's prattlings, for you and I have been talking about totally different events.

For you are trying to define the science of transformations, self-improvement techniques, which aid, help an individual, cope, adjust to what Life brings to them.

These tools, are indeed subject to anaylsis, comparisons, evaluations, proof, methodoly of establshing the context etc.

What I was prattling, was about the rare event of the non volitional end of the "self" itself, not the transformation of the self, now capable of tackling suffering, etc etc.

Incidentally suffering is pain,(in whatever form), unaccepted.

It "should" not have been so.

Why "me"?

etc, etc.

Even Jesus on the cross, cried out "Hey Dad, why are ye shafting me"

It was in the next moment that Jesus became Christ, when there was an utterance through that body-mind complex, "Let thy will be done".

Let thy will be done,

Inshallah (God willing),

Twamay Karta, Twamay Bhokta (You the Supreme Self are the doer, You the Supreme Self is the experiencer),

There is suffering, but no one to suffer, there is doing, but no doer, there is Nirava, but none to reach it, there is a path, but none to tread it,

all Masters, from whom all the major religions of the world have come into existence, in all their utternces, the commonality is the illusion of the individual self.

Incidentally, in a sage, in whom, apperception, enlightenment(in San's lingo) has occurred, pain may still arise, occur, but there cannot be any suffering, for the entity to accept or not accept, that occuring pain, that entity, is no more.

A sage becomes, once again like a child which says "It hurts", not "I am hurting".

-------------

It therefore has objective correlates, which merelymeans that we can meaningfully talk about it even though, like anyexperience, it has a "private" aspect. Our public or "objective" contextallows us to do this. For example, though you cannot have my experience of asunset, you know what I'm talking about when I say I saw a beautiful sunsetlast night.

San:

That is why enlightenment is not an experience of seeing a beautiful sunset.

In seeing a beautiful sunset, there is a "seeing-you" and the "seen-sun" and it's the conditioning of the "seeing-you" which lends the beauty to the setting sun.

Another conditioning, starving ,begging for food, coming across that same setting sun, may spit at it.

Existence, has no beauty, no ugliness to it.

It IS and beauty and ugliness being both contained in it, has no relevance to it.

(Conceptually speaking)

Enlightenment is not a "you" having a beautiful experience.

There is no "you" left, to add or deduct any attributes to the "occurrence".

--------

The objective correlates to "I saw" are my eyes, the sun settingin the west, our common language, etc. Because you and I share the same sun,have the same visual perceptual apparatus, the same language, and you toohave seen sunsets, we can talk meaningfully about our experiences,identifying them as roughly the same (of course, no two individuals'experience will be identical). The science of enlightenment aims to identifythe context within which claims about enlightenment will have similarmeaning.

San:

Agreed, so long in that experience, any experience, there is a "you" left which can then dialogue with an "other" who has had a similar experience.

Comparing of notes, etc is possible and is done by both, contend with their own spiritual halo, of having achieved profound spiritual movements.

Enlightenment, is the non-volitional dissolution of the "you" and thus after this "occurrence", who is the "other" present?

Some conceptual prattlings to end this thread from this side.

Have fun, Gary

Cheers

Sandeep