Esponja
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,727
|
Post by Esponja on Mar 3, 2021 0:03:14 GMT
It’s what Figgles, Enigma, Muttley etc are pointing to. In simple terms, the mind creates the story around what appears in the here and NOW. Time, Control, Cause and effect are all illusions. Am in Australia, I speak English (although not as well as some of the more intellectual folk on this forum). 😊 I don't go so far as to say that time, cause and effect are illusion, rather, they're just patterns in the way that appearances appear. Now, this isn't to say there aren't potential altered states of consciousness which put those patterns into perspective. And time, cause and effect are not what most people think they are, as those thoughts are grounded in the existential illusions of separation and limitation. Oh correct, although again, I think it’s a ‘wordey’ thing. From my (rather new) perspective, thought is an overlay on reality. It all ‘seems’ to be happening yet not happening simultaneously.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 3, 2021 5:05:35 GMT
As I've said, when I'm speaking with someone who is intent upon finding 'causation' within the dream, as you seem to be here, I try to avoid saying separation 'causes' suffering. That's not really how it is. More apt to say "Separation = suffering." Imagined separation = the delusion of being a separatr, volitional, limited, bound something/someone who needs certain conditions to be in place for peace to be. ha ha, so you have been saying there is no cause within the dream but now you know separation is the actual cause of suffering but you don't know how to manage this situation. So you started writing nonsense, correct?It only seems like nonsense because you're still seeing from within the dream. You are intent upon proving there is causation within the dream, so you have latched onto the idea that 'separation causes suffering,' to try to catch me out and score your point. You don't seem to have much interest in Truth...liberation. The problem is, you don't seem to grasp what 'suffering' is...what constitutes the experience of suffering. The experience of imagining you are a separate someone who is limited, bound, guilty, responsible, needy, IS the experience of suffering.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 3, 2021 5:15:49 GMT
Appearences appear in ways that manifest as both subjective, and objective. E' coined a term in the past, "radical subjectivity". But you see, it doesn't mean "subjective" in the sense of appearances appearing, it's more a pointer to how there is no "God" in the way that you're thinking of "creation", and the only awareness here, is you. None of these appearances will help you find reality, but ideas about appearances can help obscure reality. The only reality, is you. Not the personal you, not what you might imagine as an impersonal "you", either. Just what you're aware of with one, simple, quiet breath. That's all. Only awareness exist, that's me. Meaning of personal me or impersonal me looses it's grip for me because I am the ultimate witness to whom appearance are floating one after another. Your insistence that some of those appearances are actually "causal" to others, contradicts that.
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Mar 3, 2021 5:26:51 GMT
Only awareness exist, that's me. Meaning of personal me or impersonal me looses it's grip for me because I am the ultimate witness to whom appearance are floating one after another. Yes, but, as we discussed the other day, even in this notion of witnessing, there is a divide.What's that?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 3, 2021 5:45:30 GMT
Yes, & then you said this: "but just because you don't know about it does it mean that there's nothing there?" That's neither a contradiction of the 'not knowing' she was indicating, nor is it an affirmation of it. The question you've asked there, is actually 'misconceived." Mind has no business in trying to go beyond the clear seeing that ' there is no knowing beyond immediate appearance.' But, you missed the point that I affirmed what she was saying. Why won't you admit that? I agree, and agreed with the statement. Now you've morphed what she wrote, and we disagree on the nature of it. It's a powerful perspective. I'd even say that it was useful. But, do you really think that everyone and anyone who makes it is relating something non-relative? Yes. It's a seeing of what is actually so...what is/what can be actually known for certain. There's a reason so many nonduality teachers start seekers off with the question of 'what do I know for certain.' It's not a question about relative knowledge...it's a question as to what is, beyond question. It really is so that the Truth is not hiding...it's in plain sight... (absent the delusions in play, obscuring it.) Relatively speaking, there is assumptive knowing of a hallway beyond my bedroom, but in actuality, I don't know for certain that it's there, because 'knowing for certain what is actual' hinges upon present, immediate appearance and presence itself which abides that.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Mar 4, 2021 2:59:22 GMT
I don't go so far as to say that time, cause and effect are illusion, rather, they're just patterns in the way that appearances appear. Now, this isn't to say there aren't potential altered states of consciousness which put those patterns into perspective. And time, cause and effect are not what most people think they are, as those thoughts are grounded in the existential illusions of separation and limitation. Oh correct, although again, I think it’s a ‘wordey’ thing. From my (rather new) perspective, thought is an overlay on reality. It all ‘seems’ to be happening yet not happening simultaneously. Some nonduality speaker's will point with the idea .. "in the highest truth, nothing is happening, happened or ever will happen". It's a fine pointing, it's just not one I prefer.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Mar 4, 2021 3:05:54 GMT
Yes, but, as we discussed the other day, even in this notion of witnessing, there is a divide. What's that? We just had a dialog about it less than a few weeks back. Wait awhile.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Mar 4, 2021 3:08:56 GMT
But, you missed the point that I affirmed what she was saying. Why won't you admit that? I agree, and agreed with the statement. Now you've morphed what she wrote, and we disagree on the nature of it. It's a powerful perspective. I'd even say that it was useful. But, do you really think that everyone and anyone who makes it is relating something non-relative? Yes. It's a seeing of what is actually so...what is/what can be actually known for certain. There's a reason so many nonduality teachers start seekers off with the question of 'what do I know for certain.' It's not a question about relative knowledge...it's a question as to what is, beyond question. It really is so that the Truth is not hiding...it's in plain sight... (absent the delusions in play, obscuring it.) Relatively speaking, there is assumptive knowing of a hallway beyond my bedroom, but in actuality, I don't know for certain that it's there, because 'knowing for certain what is actual' hinges upon present, immediate appearance and presence itself which abides that. I wasn't referring to your morph, I was referring to the question that was the topic of the actual words on the page.
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Mar 4, 2021 11:17:19 GMT
If I am perceiving the movement of appearance, then it must be either I am creating while I am perceiving(from inside) or I must be receiving the appearance from outside. But as for as I am concerned, a careful look tells me that I am not receiving the perception because perception is inseparable from the perceiver, perceiver can't even perceive nothing in my view, perceiver is within the perceiving act. Perceiving holds the perceiver and perception together. But if you include the perception and the perceiver this way then you can say EITHER: there is no inside, and no outside, OR, you can say that there is both inside, and outside.
This dichotomy you state here is ultimately false. It's a logical consistency, but logic cannot reach what we point to as not-two. The dichotomy only makes sense in relative terms, but the totality of perceiver and perception isn't relative. In relative terms, you cannot deny both the perceiver and the perceived, you have to include them both. Another way of saying this is that appearances appear in terms that are both subjective, and objective. Your personal perception does not create the pull of the Earth on your feet or the rays of the Sun on your skin. In relative terms, your feeling of these is subjective, but the apparent source of the cause of these feelings is objective.
In absolute terms, there is no dichotomy, no perceiver, no perceived. Even to say that there is perception is a concession to the relative, as perception, change, and movement, are always ephemeral, always relative. But, what you are is the source of the perception, which is neither subjective, nor objective, but rather, what we can point to with the notion, of the absolute, which is not an appearance, and so, never appears.
We can't know whether other individual is real or figment. So if other individual is figment, then I create the gravity(pull of the earth). But you still don't know why we say other individual is real or figment can't be known. so you are yet to cross the first step!
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Mar 4, 2021 11:19:33 GMT
ha ha, so you have been saying there is no cause within the dream but now you know separation is the actual cause of suffering but you don't know how to manage this situation. So you started writing nonsense, correct?It only seems like nonsense because you're still seeing from within the dream. You are intent upon proving there is causation within the dream, so you have latched onto the idea that 'separation causes suffering,' to try to catch me out and score your point. You don't seem to have much interest in Truth...liberation. The problem is, you don't seem to grasp what 'suffering' is...what constitutes the experience of suffering. The experience of imagining you are a separate someone who is limited, bound, guilty, responsible, needy, IS the experience of suffering. No point in discussing with you if you say separation is not causing the suffering. That's the major point all the spiritual people accept it. That's what I say theoretically thinking over these things wouldn't work. Have to face the reality directly which you have never done it.
|
|