Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2022 9:39:16 GMT
And you are doing exactly the same thing here. If you are looking for something that doesn't change then you are looking for an object that doesn't change because you as the subject are looking for it so you have now created twoness. And that's a state. There is nothing but the Self, the Self without a second. If you are looking for something that doesn't change and think that is different from something that changes then you are still experiencing separation. So now we can doubt Jean Klein's realization as well as UG. Yes, agreed, that which the seeker is looking for can only be an object. I was merely useing a turn of phrase, but should have been more precise with my wording there. I should have said "what is found/illuminated, is that which does not change, which is always true and real"...and I assure you, that is NOT an object and in finding it, any previous, erroneously imagined "subject," goes up in smoke. And no, the distinction between the unchanging and the changing is NOT what is meant by the term "separation." Oneness does not deny distinction. These are your words? I thought they were the words of Francis Lucille I was referring to. Now I'm really confused. If separation isn't referring to unchanging versus changing then what is separate from what? I don't know why you are referring to distinctions. I never mentioned it. But if you are saying that distinction is synonymous with separation then that's not what you told me in the past. You said there was a difference between separation and distinction. This is baffling because you keep saying there is no SVP, that SVP is the illusory self which is forever changing. Now if it's not separate what's it not separate from? I assumed it would not be separate from awareness which is unchanging but you've just told me that's not what separation is.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 2, 2022 10:07:19 GMT
Yes, agreed, that which the seeker is looking for can only be an object. I was merely useing a turn of phrase, but should have been more precise with my wording there. I should have said "what is found/illuminated, is that which does not change, which is always true and real"...and I assure you, that is NOT an object and in finding it, any previous, erroneously imagined "subject," goes up in smoke. And no, the distinction between the unchanging and the changing is NOT what is meant by the term "separation." Oneness does not deny distinction. These are your words? I thought they were the words of Francis Lucille I was referring to. Ah yes, my bad, they were not "my" words, but in highlighting them, I was denoting my agreement with them. Yeah, it's most certainly not a reference to unchanging vs. changing. There is no separation between them! What "separation" references is the erroneous sense/belief that there is something/anything that exists fundamentally, independent from anything else. Appearances arise "within/to" that which abides...no fundamental separation....not fundamentally two, even though appearance = distinction. To erroneously take yourself to be a "separate" entity is to identify with the appearing body/mind/character as the source of consciousness...an an object/thing/someone that is an experiencer. No, I am NOT saying that...in fact I've been saying the opposite and I think being quite clear about that. Are you not reading my posts? Yes, Absent "distinction" there is no experience...no appearing world. But fundamental separation is erroneously imagined. I have not said that. There is no SVP, so how could "it" be forever changing? A separate, volitional person is only ever "imagined." There is no volitional person that exists in it's own right. "exists in it's own right" is what is meant by "fundamentally separate." A body/mind/me character appears, but that appearances is dependent upon the abiding ground of awareness from which it arises upon. Yes, the "appearing" character is not separate from "the abiding ground from which it arises upon" (awareness!). There is no SVP (separate, volitional person). You are positing an SVP as an actual something and then asking what it is not separate from. It's a nonsense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2022 14:40:01 GMT
What "separation" references is the erroneous sense/belief that there is something/anything that exists fundamentally, independent from anything else. Appearances arise "within/to" that which abides...no fundamental separation....not fundamentally two, even though appearance = distinction.]I'm not really interested in beliefs, only in what is directly experienced. It doesn't matter whether I believe that what I'm seeing is just an appearance in my mind or whether it has an independent existence. The experience is the same. Someone from the Advaita tradition who believes that everything is just an appearance can become liberated and someone from the tantric shaivism tradition who believes that the world has an independent existence can also have the same liberation. There is no SVP (separate, volitional person). You are positing an SVP as an actual something and then asking what it is not separate from. It's a nonsense. If there is no SVP then why talk about something that doesn't exist? If you talk about SVP then it must exist in your mind as a concept. You can't use the word separate unless you define what it is separate from. My living room is separate. Separate from what? it is separate from the kitchen . It has to be separate from something. It makes no sense to talk about separation unless you define what it is separate from.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 3, 2022 3:26:28 GMT
What "separation" references is the erroneous sense/belief that there is something/anything that exists fundamentally, independent from anything else. Appearances arise "within/to" that which abides...no fundamental separation....not fundamentally two, even though appearance = distinction.]I'm not really interested in beliefs, only in what is directly experienced. It doesn't matter whether I believe that what I'm seeing is just an appearance in my mind or whether it has an independent existence. The experience is the same.Not so at all. The belief in independent existence = a belief in fundamental separation...it means there is experience 'as an experiencer,' vs. abidance in awareness as experience arises, absent identification with/as an experiencer. When you mistake the appearing body/mind/character to be the source of awareness (to have independent existence) that is a very different experience than when that mistake/illusion is no longer in play. Not so. The belief in an independently existent world, necessarily also includes an independently existent 'experiencer/perceiver,' which means, awareness is erroneously posited as a property/quality that arises within/to the appearing me character, vs. the appearing me character being an arising within to that which abides. Freedom = abidance in awareness, not abidance in a body/mind, which is necessarily the case if appearances are mistaken to have independent existence. How can there be 'fundamental Oneness' AND independent existence? There cannot. It's a complete nonsense to suggest otherwise. Because, that is the all powerful delusion that must be seen through for freedom/liberation to be! It's the delusion bondage/limitation..suffering....hinges upon. Yes, I have reference for the concept of SVP as it's what seeking hinges upon. It's what is at the root of all seeking. It's an erroneous/false idea that is the hallmark of being asleep. What a strange idea this is that you put forth that suggests post SR, there is no longer any reference for the obstacles/delusions that previously obscured the Truth. I think we've established in the other convos that of course, the ground is not separate from appearance and distinct appearances are not separate from each other. That includes the whole ball-o-wax...all of it, essentially, One. And...Distinction can continue to appear without fundamental separation being the case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2022 3:46:25 GMT
It doesn't matter whether I believe that what I'm seeing is just an appearance in my mind or whether it has an independent existence. The experience is the same.Not so at all. The belief in independent existence = a belief in fundamental separation...it means there is experience 'as an experiencer,' vs. abidance in awareness as experience arises, absent identification with/as an experiencer. When you mistake the appearing body/mind/character to be the source of awareness (to have independent existence) that is a very different experience than when that mistake/illusion is no longer in play. Not so. The belief in an independently existent world, necessarily also includes an independently existent 'experiencer/perceiver,' which means, awareness is erroneously posited as a property/quality that arises within/to the appearing me character, vs. the appearing me character being an arising within to that which abides. Freedom = abidance in awareness, not abidance in a body/mind, which is necessarily the case if appearances are mistaken to have independent existence. How can there be 'fundamental Oneness' AND independent existence? There cannot. It's a complete nonsense to suggest otherwise. Because, that is the all powerful delusion that must be seen through for freedom/liberation to be! It's the delusion bondage/limitation..suffering....hinges upon. Yes, I have reference for the concept of SVP as it's what seeking hinges upon. It's what is at the root of all seeking. It's an erroneous/false idea that is the hallmark of being asleep. What a strange idea this is that you put forth that suggests post SR, there is no longer any reference for the obstacles/delusions that previously obscured the Truth. I think we've established in the other convos that of course, the ground is not separate from appearance and distinct appearances are not separate from each other. That includes the whole ball-o-wax...all of it, essentially, One. And...Distinction can continue to appear without fundamental separation being the case. Of course the experience is the same. If I look at a tree I see a tree. That seeing is not dependent on any kind of belief. I don't know how you can say this. Well I do. You are simply trying to impose a belief system on top of the immediate and direct experience you are having. The same applies to realization. You're suggesting that realization is impossible unless they subscribe to your set of non-duality beliefs. That would rule out anyone from any other tradition, Buddhism Christianity you name it, whether it's non-dual or dualistic. So yoga which is a dualistic system. Iimpossible to get realization in that tradition yes. You don't need to understand anything at all about non-duality concepts to be liberated because Liberation is not dependent on seeing the world in any particular way.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 3, 2022 4:11:04 GMT
Not so at all. The belief in independent existence = a belief in fundamental separation...it means there is experience 'as an experiencer,' vs. abidance in awareness as experience arises, absent identification with/as an experiencer. When you mistake the appearing body/mind/character to be the source of awareness (to have independent existence) that is a very different experience than when that mistake/illusion is no longer in play. Not so. The belief in an independently existent world, necessarily also includes an independently existent 'experiencer/perceiver,' which means, awareness is erroneously posited as a property/quality that arises within/to the appearing me character, vs. the appearing me character being an arising within to that which abides. Freedom = abidance in awareness, not abidance in a body/mind, which is necessarily the case if appearances are mistaken to have independent existence. How can there be 'fundamental Oneness' AND independent existence? There cannot. It's a complete nonsense to suggest otherwise. Because, that is the all powerful delusion that must be seen through for freedom/liberation to be! It's the delusion bondage/limitation..suffering....hinges upon. Yes, I have reference for the concept of SVP as it's what seeking hinges upon. It's what is at the root of all seeking. It's an erroneous/false idea that is the hallmark of being asleep. What a strange idea this is that you put forth that suggests post SR, there is no longer any reference for the obstacles/delusions that previously obscured the Truth. I think we've established in the other convos that of course, the ground is not separate from appearance and distinct appearances are not separate from each other. That includes the whole ball-o-wax...all of it, essentially, One. And...Distinction can continue to appear without fundamental separation being the case. Of course the experience is the same. If I look at a tree I see a tree. That seeing is not dependent on any kind of belief. I don't know how you can say this. Well I do. You are simply trying to impose a belief system on top of the immediate and direct experience you are having. You don't think there's any kind of important difference between a life lived from a position of imagining you are seeing through the eyes of a separate entity, vs. a life lived absent identification with an experiencer? It is quite literally the difference between an experience of bondage suffering, vs. one absent that sense. I assure you, it's a monumental difference! What "nonduality beliefs" exactly? The realization inherent to liberation/wakefulness/SR is the seeing through of fundamental separation. That means also seeing ALL ideas, all thoughts, all beliefs as inherently empty. SR lightens the load of beliefs, vs. adds to it. What you were positing in the previous post was a continued sense of separation co-abiding alongside SR. You cannot experience life as a separate, volitional entity, AND also, be free. The two are at odds. Liberation is dependent upon where you are seeing/looking from, and that does mean a shift in the way the world is seen and regarded. Prior to SR, there is 'an experiencer/doer/perceiver/entity' in play, and the appearing world is filtered through that false, erroneous idea, whereas post SR, that is absent, no longer in play and thus, the appearing world no longer has that filter applied on top of the direct experience of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2022 4:27:47 GMT
Of course the experience is the same. If I look at a tree I see a tree. That seeing is not dependent on any kind of belief. I don't know how you can say this. Well I do. You are simply trying to impose a belief system on top of the immediate and direct experience you are having. You don't think there's any kind of important difference between a life lived from a position of imagining you are seeing through the eyes of a separate entity, vs. a life lived absent identification with an experiencer? It is quite literally the difference between an experience of bondage suffering, vs. one absent that sense. I assure you, it's a monumental difference! What "nonduality beliefs" exactly? The realization inherent to liberation/wakefulness/SR is the seeing through of fundamental separation. That means also seeing ALL ideas, all thoughts, all beliefs as inherently empty. SR lightens the load of beliefs, vs. adds to it. What you were positing in the previous post was a continued sense of separation co-abiding alongside SR. You cannot experience life as a separate, volitional entity, AND also, be free. The two are at odds. Liberation is dependent upon where you are seeing/looking from, and that does mean a shift in the way the world is seen and regarded. Prior to SR, there is 'an experiencer/doer/perceiver/entity' in play, and the appearing world is filtered through that false, erroneous idea, whereas post SR, that is absent, no longer in play and thus, the appearing world no longer has that filter applied on top of the direct experience of it. I of course recognize this kind of intellectual non-duality. The idea that there is a "monumental" difference between which conceptual idea I go with and that somehow Liberation is dependent on that is highly amusing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2022 4:52:43 GMT
This is the first time I've heard you describe yourself as a non-duality teacher so what are you teaching?
Are you teaching that one needs to start thinking about seeing through illusions and then your liberated or do you meditate for 20 years and then discover that your mind magically starts to think that way and then you're liberated?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 3, 2022 5:52:35 GMT
You don't think there's any kind of important difference between a life lived from a position of imagining you are seeing through the eyes of a separate entity, vs. a life lived absent identification with an experiencer? It is quite literally the difference between an experience of bondage suffering, vs. one absent that sense. I assure you, it's a monumental difference! What "nonduality beliefs" exactly? The realization inherent to liberation/wakefulness/SR is the seeing through of fundamental separation. That means also seeing ALL ideas, all thoughts, all beliefs as inherently empty. SR lightens the load of beliefs, vs. adds to it. What you were positing in the previous post was a continued sense of separation co-abiding alongside SR. You cannot experience life as a separate, volitional entity, AND also, be free. The two are at odds. Liberation is dependent upon where you are seeing/looking from, and that does mean a shift in the way the world is seen and regarded. Prior to SR, there is 'an experiencer/doer/perceiver/entity' in play, and the appearing world is filtered through that false, erroneous idea, whereas post SR, that is absent, no longer in play and thus, the appearing world no longer has that filter applied on top of the direct experience of it. I of course recognize this kind of intellectual non-duality. The idea that there is a "monumental" difference between which conceptual idea I go with and that somehow Liberation is dependent on that is highly amusing. It's not "intellectual" at all...it really does hinge upon an absence, not the holding to of any idea/thought/concept. The shift from experiencing life as a separate volitional person to beyond is not 'an idea.' It really is a shift in locus of seeing...to a non-place... a non-something....identification with thingness ends. And yeah, that does have in impact on experience. If SR didn't have an impact on experience, what would all the hoopla be about?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 3, 2022 6:00:40 GMT
This is the first time I've heard you describe yourself as a non-duality teacher so what are you teaching? Are you teaching that one needs to start thinking about seeing through illusions and then your liberated or do you meditate for 20 years and then discover that your mind magically starts to think that way and then you're liberated? Is this directed to me? If so, where did I describe myself as a non-duality teacher? Non-duality ultimately is not taught...all anyone can do it point, thus, the term 'teacher' is a bit of misnomer, but there are some who use the label anyway. Awakening to the Truth is not in the hands of the person...it happens if/when it happens. I say a far more sane goal for the person who sincerely is interested in clarity is to focus upon being aware of mind's machinations. In the absence of SR, being a conscious, mature adult is an entirely worthy pursuit.
|
|