|
Post by Figgles on Jan 10, 2020 21:27:07 GMT
Hmmm....seeming yet more indicatation ZD that you conceputalize 'what you are.' The idea that there are 'aspects' to "________________" is problematic...and indication of conceptualizing/licking a pointer. Experience is an appearance within/to that which you are, and by virtue of that 'within/to' is not separate from that which you are. And again, these are only words, imperfect descriptors to attempt to capture that which ultimately defies such capture, but the 'within/to' relationship between that which abides and that which appears is about as good as we can do. That's what 'no separation' is in response/resolve to; The erroneous assumption that there are fundamentally two things in play in "appearances arising in Being." That appearances arise within/to that which abides as the ground, makes 'the ground' prior to the appearance. In other words, the ground abides, does not change, as appearances arise, appear and then disappear. That which appears arises within/to the ground, whereas the ground does not arise within/to the appearance. None of that indicates 'separation.' It's all fundamentally One, Being always the unmoving ground giving rise to that which moves...appears and disappears. Again, this is why it's so important to see the entire realm of perceivables as 'appearance only.' In this, there is no need to resolve the idea of 'two things.' Absent the seeing that you are not a limited body/mind, what you describe above, will still include identification with the limited bounded. While third mountain might sound the same as first mountain, there's an important realization that's foundational to saying 'I am all of it,' and that is the seeing of 'no mountain'....'I am not the limited body/mind.' Once the body/mind is seen to be appearance only, it can be said "I am the body" absent identification with limitation being part of that. Oneness does not = exactly the same. Absent all distinction, there is no experience. Experience = distinction. (again, NOT separation).
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Jan 10, 2020 22:01:41 GMT
When character 4 explodes and takes out the first three. Yet, another 'mind-blowing' experience...hehe. Ohhh, bad pun alert!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2020 3:43:33 GMT
When your ego gets wounded, your immediate go-to is to discredit the messenger. You're a bit of a baby that way. If you were Self-realized you would be completely unconcerned about my comments. You have projected your wound onto me. My comments were sincere. There is a very good post on ST about how confusing Nisargadatta's teachings are. I suggest you read it.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Jan 11, 2020 13:38:47 GMT
When your ego gets wounded, your immediate go-to is to discredit the messenger. You're a bit of a baby that way. If you were Self-realized you would be completely unconcerned about my comments. You have projected your wound onto me. My comments were sincere. There is a very good post on ST about how confusing Nisargadatta's teachings are. I suggest you read it. Case in point.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 11, 2020 20:11:09 GMT
When your ego gets wounded, your immediate go-to is to discredit the messenger. You're a bit of a baby that way. If you were Self-realized you would be completely unconcerned about my comments. You have projected your wound onto me. My comments were sincere. There is a very good post on ST about how confusing Nisargadatta's teachings are. I suggest you read it.If you were Self-realized you would be completely unconcerned about my comments.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2020 2:56:13 GMT
If you were Self-realized you would be completely unconcerned about my comments. You have projected your wound onto me. My comments were sincere. There is a very good post on ST about how confusing Nisargadatta's teachings are. I suggest you read it.If you were Self-realized you would be completely unconcerned about my comments. Touché 😀
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 12, 2020 16:36:59 GMT
Exactly, and thus, not something either with properties/qualities such a 'aliveness.'
"aliveness" or any kind of "field" is not perceived without boundary/definition as part and parcel of that. Perception in it's most basic sense, is contingent upon boundary/definition/distinction.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 12, 2020 17:22:14 GMT
Oh, haven't you hear the news yet Reefs? That which abides and that which appears does not actually constitute 'two separate things'?
Appearances arises 'within/to' that which abides = One.
Appearance/distinction is not actually 'other than' "__________________". It just looks that way.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 12, 2020 21:46:00 GMT
Well, not sure if you've realized this or not ZD, but even in normal experience, there is no 'actual' experiencer. It arises as appearance only, like all other experiential content.
There actually is not a 'person/someone' who/that experiences. The body/mind that seems to be the source of experience, that seems to give rise to experience, is itself, a facet of 'experience'!
All experiential content, including the experiencer, is an appearance arising within/to that which abides all experiential comings and goings.
And not that the realization itself is a matter of logic, but, it actually makes perfect sense logically once it's seen that what you are is not an SVP...not a who/what/something...once identification with body/mind is no longer in play.
But indeed, from the position of taking yourself to BE 'an experiencer' the idea of 'awareness without an experiencer' won't make sense logically, no.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2020 9:58:25 GMT
Am I to take your own discussion about this here and now as evidence that you regard post moment discussion to be critical to the realizations you are referencing? No and that's because I'm the master and you are the student. Reads more like you're into the blowhard aspect of "doership." Have you ever read Nisargadatta?
|
|