|
Post by someNothing on Dec 10, 2019 0:29:06 GMT
So, just seeing/looking requires an entity? Don't use the word entity but ask yourself who is seeing. You will say, "I Am". There is your answer. There's an answer, sure. But still no entity, and no agenda either. Sawwy.
|
|
|
Post by someNothing on Dec 10, 2019 0:32:49 GMT
It could be that the Self-realization is an illusion. An example could be that there’s a memory that SR happened, but somehow is not true now. You are expressing doubts about a state which you imagine to be capable of doubt. What can I say? I'm expressing a doubt that someone might hold when they have their woweezowee experience and assume that's what it is, making their assumed SR an illusion. If it ain't now, it's an illusion. Get it?
|
|
|
Post by someNothing on Dec 10, 2019 0:51:54 GMT
Indeed, the realized is no longer taking illusions for actuality, I didn't say that. There are no illusions for the realized because everything is the Self. Everything is the actuality. There is nothing that could be taken or not taken for an illusion because there is no such thing as an illusion. Relax, Satch. Self transcends mind, sure, but the mind is still prone to misperceptions, perfectly so. It's OK. It's just not used to Realize or validate Self.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2019 2:28:15 GMT
No it's not, but maybe you suffer when there is anger. The arising of vengeance, blameful anger means immersion within the story. The story's gotcha by the short & curlies. There's nothing wrong with the story. It too is a manifestation of the reality. You keep talking about oneness but everything you say indicates separation. You are not living in unity because you are trying to reject the story. If you are liberated there is no need to do that. The thought would never enter your mind. You would engage with the story like everyone else but free from the bondage of action. What that means cannot even be described nor would you be compelled to describe it or justify it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2019 2:30:03 GMT
You are expressing doubts about a state which you imagine to be capable of doubt. What can I say? I'm expressing a doubt that someone might hold when they have their woweezowee experience and assume that's what it is, making their assumed SR an illusion. If it ain't now, it's an illusion. Get it? Then what you refer to is not Self-realization which is beyond all doubt.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 10, 2019 2:43:04 GMT
The arising of vengeance, blameful anger means immersion within the story. The story's gotcha by the short & curlies. There's nothing wrong with the story. It too is a manifestation of the reality. You keep talking about oneness but everything you say indicates separation. You are not living in unity because you are trying to reject the story. If you are liberated there is no need to do that. The thought would never enter your mind. You would engage with the story like everyone else but free from the bondage of action. What that means cannot even be described nor would you be compelled to describe it or justify it. What have I said that indicates 'rejection'? There's a world of difference between engaging the story, enjoying it, vs. being 'lost within' it. The difference, quite simply, is the difference between awake and fast asleep. Again, you continue to conflate distinction with separation. "Free from the bondage of action" means "non-immersion within the story,"..."awake to the story"...."seeing the story for a story."
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 10, 2019 2:48:34 GMT
Yes. And, important to note (ZD!) that 'separately existing phenomenon, absence of unity, separation' does not equal 'distinction.' This idea that 'Awareness absent awareness of separately existing phenomena' means that form/objects are no longer perceived, but rather, an undistinguishable, field of aliveness is instead, is hokum. The perception of an object, recognition, does not equal the perception of separation. Distinction continues to appear even when separation has been fully seen through. Distinction does not equal separation. Stay as the Self and see that thoughts of distinction and separation are merely leaves flowing by on the river. Entangling Self with thoughts is like muddling the pure waters. Thoughts are not problematic once they've been seen as empty arisings within consciousness. No need to consciously try to 'stay' as anything...no need to try to remain 'dis-entangled' from thought.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2019 2:58:04 GMT
"Free from the bondage of action" means "non-immersion within the story,". No it doesn't. You are already contradicting yourself when you say you can enjoy the story which is being immersed in the story is it not? You are doing what you always do when challenged, by engaging in word play by changing and adapting your "story" to meet any challenges. This is not about knowledge. It's about finding the right words to fit you're non-duality agenda which you're mistaking for real knowledge. You have become very accomplished in this word play I will have to admit, but it doesn't fool me for several reasons, one of which is what you say about practice. That in itself tells me everything I need to know. You have constructed a mental world based on principles derived from non-duality and you are putting forward your views and arguing from that standpoint. It doesn't matter if you try and fool me but for heaven's sake when are you going to stop fooling yourself?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 10, 2019 3:10:56 GMT
"Free from the bondage of action" means "non-immersion within the story,". No it doesn't. You are already contradicting yourself when you say you can enjoy the story which is being immersed in the story is it not?There is no contradiction, no. To be fully immersed in the story is to identify with the appearing character, with the body/mind, as the doer who takes action, the person that supposedly makes things happen. The unfolding story can be appreciated, enjoyed, absent identification with/as anything that appears within it. Sorry. If we're going to talk about this on forum, all I have is words. Ultimately, they are indeed a poor substitute for what is pointed to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2019 4:57:17 GMT
D: If the jnani and the ajnani perceive the world in like manner, where is the difference between them?
M: Seeing the world, the jnani sees the Self which is the substratum of all that is seen; the ajnani, whether he sees the world or not, is ignorant of his true Being, the Self. Take the instance of moving pictures on the screen in the cinema-show. What is there in front of you before the play begins? Merely the screen. On that screen you see the entire show, and for all appearances the pictures are real. But go and try to take hold of them. What do you take hold of? Merely the screen on which the pictures appeared so real. After the play, when the pictures disappear, what remains? The screen again! So with the Self. That alone exists; the pictures come and go. If you hold on to the Self, you will not be deceived by the appearance of the pictures. Nor does it matter at all if the pictures appear or disappear. Ignoring the Self the ajnani thinks the world is real, just as ignoring the screen he sees merely the pictures, as if they existed apart from it. If one knows that without the seer there is nothing to be seen, just as there are no pictures without the screen, one is not deluded. The jnani knows that the screen, the pictures and the sight thereof are but the Self. With the pictures the Self is in its manifest form; without the pictures. It remains in the unmanifest form.
To the jnani it is quite immaterial if the Self is in the one form or the other. He is always the Self. But the ajnani seeing the jnani active gets confounded.
From Maharishi's Gospel Ramana Maharshi
|
|