|
Quotes
Nov 22, 2019 3:11:17 GMT
Post by Figgles on Nov 22, 2019 3:11:17 GMT
You've been told repeatedly what 'identifying with' means to us and the rest of the free world, but you continue to discuss with us as though you don't hear it, and proceeding to ask us pointed questions involving the term that we define differently. So which is it, trolling or Dufus? (or ignoramousness) What I've been repeatedly told what it means to you is nonsense. Now answer the question about how you can engage without identifying or do you want to continue trolling me. Engagement absent identification continues because experience itself continues. This is the very same misconception that Reefs poses when he points out that despite the assertions of 'not knowing,' engagement with the appearance of sentience continues and that proves that we actually DO know. Seeing the appearing world and all it's appearing facets as empty does not make the world appear 'dead, empty, lifeless, boring, dreary, lacking in vitality.' The appearing world continues to compel and garner interest, attention, and yes, even love, despite the fact that it's all seen to be entirely empty, lacking in substance, devoid of Truth.
|
|
|
Quotes
Nov 22, 2019 3:13:52 GMT
Post by Figgles on Nov 22, 2019 3:13:52 GMT
Consciousness creates and observes. Creation and perception are the same. No entity involved. Stating that something called Consciousness creates and observes is just a conceptual idea generated by your mind which is the personal self. That's where you go wrong....where you take a pointer for what it is not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2019 3:43:01 GMT
What I've been repeatedly told what it means to you is nonsense. Now answer the question about how you can engage without identifying or do you want to continue trolling me. Engagement absent identification continues because experience itself continues. This is the very same misconception that Reefs poses when he points out that despite the assertions of 'not knowing,' engagement with the appearance of sentience continues and that proves that we actually DO know. Seeing the appearing world and all it's appearing facets as empty does not make the world appear 'dead, empty, lifeless, boring, dreary, lacking in vitality.' The appearing world continues to compel and garner interest, attention, and yes, even love, despite the fact that it's all seen to be entirely empty, lacking in substance, devoid of Truth. The world is empty and devoid of Truth? I don't know what you mean by that. The concept of emptiness comes from Mahayana Buddhism and can have two basic meanings. Emptiness can refer to the experience of pure nondual objectless awareness which is of course empty of mind and perception. It is just awareness knowing itself and meditation practice is essential to experience this. At the same time it is total fullness because the essence of it is peace and total fulfillment when established as awareness. The other meaning relates to the appearance and perception of objects which have no independent existence apart from our perception of them. So they are empty. But emptiness doesn't mean devoid of Truth because this perceptual reality arises from me and I am real. There is nothing that is not the Self including what arises as this limited personality. You are able to discriminate between the unchanging ground of Being and unchanging phenomena which includes the personal self and you are claiming that the ground of being is the reality and the changing is false or illusory. But that's not the end of the journey. Self-realization is when it all dissolves into Unity, where there is no difference or separation between unchanging and changing It is all YOU. To talk about SVP as not being an entity has absolutely no meaning for the realized. It's not a question that would be even entertained. But I have to go along with these conversations because I recognize where you are which is a good place to be, to discriminate between the unchanging and the changing. Regular and systematic meditation practice would greatly hasten you on your path.
|
|
|
Quotes
Nov 22, 2019 5:29:23 GMT
Post by Figgles on Nov 22, 2019 5:29:23 GMT
Engagement absent identification continues because experience itself continues. This is the very same misconception that Reefs poses when he points out that despite the assertions of 'not knowing,' engagement with the appearance of sentience continues and that proves that we actually DO know. Seeing the appearing world and all it's appearing facets as empty does not make the world appear 'dead, empty, lifeless, boring, dreary, lacking in vitality.' The appearing world continues to compel and garner interest, attention, and yes, even love, despite the fact that it's all seen to be entirely empty, lacking in substance, devoid of Truth. The world is empty and devoid of Truth? I don't know what you mean by that. The concept of emptiness comes from Mahayana Buddhism and can have two basic meanings. Emptiness can refer to the experience of pure nondual objectless awareness which is of course empty of mind and perception. It is just awareness knowing itself and meditation practice is essential to experience this. At the same time it is total fullness because the essence of it is peace and total fulfillment when established as awareness. The other meaning relates to the appearance and perception of objects which have no independent existence apart from our perception of them. So they are empty. But emptiness doesn't mean devoid of Truth because this perceptual reality arises from me and I am real. There is nothing that is not the Self including what arises as this limited personality. You are able to discriminate between the unchanging ground of Being and unchanging phenomena which includes the personal self and you are claiming that the ground of being is the reality and the changing is false or illusory. But that's not the end of the journey. Self-realization is when it all dissolves into Unity, where there is no difference or separation between unchanging and changing It is all YOU. To talk about SVP as not being an entity has absolutely no meaning for the realized. It's not a question that would be even entertained. But I have to go along with these conversations because I recognize where you are which is a good place to be, to discriminate between the unchanging and the changing. Regular and systematic meditation practice would greatly hasten you on your path. Not separate does not equal 'united, connected or exactly the same/no distinction' It means, fundamentally, only One. Not two. That perception is happening at all, necessarily means, distinction. The very arising of appearance = distinction. Again, distinction is not separation. The ultimate seeing that "it's all me" does not mean going back to identifying with the phenomenal. The phenomenal never ceases to be an arising to/within that which abides all appearances, as the ground. The distinction between the two does not need to disappear for Oneness to be realized. Your 'I am the body' is the very same 'I am the body' of the first mountain' seeker. It has identification at it's helm. The true sages 'I am the body,' is absent identification. "Your true home is in nothingness, in emptiness of all content." Niz
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2019 7:36:12 GMT
Again, distinction is not separation. The ultimate seeing that "it's all me" does not mean going back to identifying with the phenomenal. The phenomenal never ceases to be an arising to/within that which abides all appearances, as the ground. The distinction between the two does not need to disappear for Oneness to be realized. Yes I agree. Distinction is not separation. I never said it was. I said that in Unity there is no separation or difference. I can make a distinction between ocean and wave, but there is no separation or difference between them as they are both water. You could say the distinction between ocean and wave is a distinction without a difference. Non separation or oneness can only be lived spontaneously, effortlessly and choicelessly from moment to moment. There is nothing that can be said about it which has any bearing on the reality as lived. It can be discussed conceptually but that is not the reality. The reality is ineffable. The only useful thing I can say is go back to the source and know what you are, but please don't tell me because it won't be the Truth.
|
|
|
Quotes
Nov 22, 2019 16:19:58 GMT
Post by Figgles on Nov 22, 2019 16:19:58 GMT
Again, distinction is not separation. The ultimate seeing that "it's all me" does not mean going back to identifying with the phenomenal. The phenomenal never ceases to be an arising to/within that which abides all appearances, as the ground. The distinction between the two does not need to disappear for Oneness to be realized. Yes I agree. Distinction is not separation. I never said it was. I said that in Unity there is no separation or difference. I can make a distinction between ocean and wave, but there is no separation or difference between them as they are both water. You could say the distinction between ocean and wave is a distinction without a difference. Non separation or oneness can only be lived spontaneously, effortlessly and choicelessly from moment to moment. There is nothing that can be said about it which has any bearing on the reality as lived. It can be discussed conceptually but that is not the reality. The reality is ineffable. The only useful thing I can say is go back to the source and know what you are, but please don't tell me because it won't be the Truth. You're playing word games. Distinction = difference. Fundamentally not-separate does not mean exactly the same/no distinction. If not for distinction, there would be no perception at all.The moment perception happens, distinction itself is appearing. The 'water' analogy is limited in that water is a something that can be conceptualized. Perceivables are not 'made up of/comprised' of "________________." "______________" is not a substance that infuses perceivables. When it's said that a perceivable is "________________", that's a pointer. Taking that to mean that perceivables are 'made up of' that, indicates conceptualization of that pointer. Perceivables are inherently empty of all substance and appear/arise, non-separately, within/to "_________________."
|
|
|
Quotes
Jan 4, 2020 18:20:57 GMT
Post by Figgles on Jan 4, 2020 18:20:57 GMT
Amen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Quotes
Jan 5, 2020 17:31:12 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2020 17:31:12 GMT
Yes I agree. Distinction is not separation. I never said it was. I said that in Unity there is no separation or difference. I can make a distinction between ocean and wave, but there is no separation or difference between them as they are both water. You could say the distinction between ocean and wave is a distinction without a difference. Non separation or oneness can only be lived spontaneously, effortlessly and choicelessly from moment to moment. There is nothing that can be said about it which has any bearing on the reality as lived. It can be discussed conceptually but that is not the reality. The reality is ineffable. The only useful thing I can say is go back to the source and know what you are, but please don't tell me because it won't be the Truth. You're playing word games. Distinction = difference. Fundamentally not-separate does not mean exactly the same/no distinction. If not for distinction, there would be no perception at all.The moment perception happens, distinction itself is appearing. The 'water' analogy is limited in that water is a something that can be conceptualized. Perceivables are not 'made up of/comprised' of "________________." "______________" is not a substance that infuses perceivables. When it's said that a perceivable is "________________", that's a pointer. Taking that to mean that perceivables are 'made up of' that, indicates conceptualization of that pointer. Perceivables are inherently empty of all substance and appear/arise, non-separately, within/to "_________________." Mind likes to confuse itself, because that's what mind does... Take the statement, "I am aware of milk", or "I am aware of a tree". Can you clearly 'discern' the two elements in each statement or not?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2020 17:37:37 GMT
You're playing word games. Distinction = difference. Fundamentally not-separate does not mean exactly the same/no distinction. If not for distinction, there would be no perception at all.The moment perception happens, distinction itself is appearing. The 'water' analogy is limited in that water is a something that can be conceptualized. Perceivables are not 'made up of/comprised' of "________________." "______________" is not a substance that infuses perceivables. When it's said that a perceivable is "________________", that's a pointer. Taking that to mean that perceivables are 'made up of' that, indicates conceptualization of that pointer. Perceivables are inherently empty of all substance and appear/arise, non-separately, within/to "_________________." Mind likes to confuse itself, because that's what mind does...Take the statement, "I am aware of milk", or "I am aware of a tree". Can you clearly 'discern' the two elements in each statement or not? You're a pretty good example of this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Quotes
Jan 5, 2020 17:40:58 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2020 17:40:58 GMT
Mind likes to confuse itself, because that's what mind does...Take the statement, "I am aware of milk", or "I am aware of a tree". Can you clearly 'discern' the two elements in each statement or not? You're a pretty good example of this. Yes, you are junior, you just have to turn the mirror around and claim it...
|
|