Tenka
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 3,647
|
Post by Tenka on Feb 4, 2022 20:11:22 GMT
Is there something different from what you are that exists? If you say no, then how can there be two of that? Where do you see confusion in that statement? You are projecting two you's that's where the confusion was.
In actuality, there is only one you to which everything appears. And whatever is appearing to this you is created by the same you. So you are not only a passive witness but creator of those perception as well.
No, I was saying that there is what you are that is either doing or not . There are not two of you's . So let me ask the question again. Is there something different form what you are that exists?
|
|
Tenka
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 3,647
|
Post by Tenka on Feb 4, 2022 20:14:17 GMT
The fact is, that I don't think I know what consciousness is .. I don't use the term for myself . The term is used over and over again as if peeps have realised what it is, which has been created from mind as being what you are . You speak about appearances not being what you are, and again, I will say you can't know that for many a reason . I would of thought over 5 years of saying there is what you are, would be a dead giveaway, rather than saying what you are is consciousness . This is why I have continually asked peeps what have they realised about consciousness .. The answer is a big fat nothing, because it isn't realised . You can't point in Truth to something not realised . You have to realise it to point to it . Otherwise you're just waving your arms in the air pointing to what you think is it . You have mistaken what that actually means. What you "really are," is not "A what." That said, "whats/things" appear and those appearances are expressions of the singular, abiding awareness that gives rise to all appearance. (Not separate...they arising within/to the unwavering ground--not "fundamentally" two). I am not going to waste time digging around, but you did say/imply that appearances are not what you are . I simply wanted to know what else is there .. I would appreciate you just speaking in plain English, not this silly non duality talk that is just simply ridiculous . Just speak like a normal person pls ..
|
|
Tenka
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 3,647
|
Post by Tenka on Feb 4, 2022 20:18:59 GMT
You tell me .. that's all you ever say . Just because I use the pointer "It's all arising within consciousness" does not mean that I also claim to know "how" or "why" that is so. Well it's a pointer to Truth lol isn't it . You can't point to Truth and know nuffin about what that is and how it arises . Like said, you don't know what consciousness is, you don't know how it arises and yet you point to the Truth in that what appears isn't what you are lol . It makes no sense to me .. Don't say you have to realise what it is non conceptually
|
|
Tenka
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 3,647
|
Post by Tenka on Feb 4, 2022 20:25:44 GMT
The appearance of birth/death is just that, an empty appearance. The very question of "how" it is that things simply arise in consciousness, is itself an 'arising in consciousness.' All "arisings" are empty....appearance only....no inherent substance in their right. Again, it makes no sense to me . I just want to know how things arise . Your empty appearance notion is simply that . You base what you class as an empty appearance upon your own definitions, not based around any realisation . You simply make things fit based upon what your premise is . That's why the chain gang keeps on chugging away in reflection of the floaters and the dream characters . You could set fire to all of those notions and start a fresh .
|
|
Tenka
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 3,647
|
Post by Tenka on Feb 4, 2022 20:33:56 GMT
Yes, 'things arising within consciousness' does indeed sound poetical and perhaps "floaty' but you're bang on that it's just a "notion"...as it the dream metaphor. The actual, non-conceptual Truth can only be pointed to...it defies words. A dream metaphor and a notion that isn't realised, that you have held as your premise for years . A dream metaphor that hasn't even anything to back up such a claim . How can it be a premise that you stand by as being true when there isn't anything at all to substantiate such a stance? There is absolutely nuffin is there . There isn't even a shred of evidence . There are no dots to join . I agree with Satch to a degree that there cannot just be pointers to something beyond the pointer . I have said so myself, that there has to be something realised to then point to it . It's no good saying the realisation is beyond a concept and a pointer to then conceptually point to it as being true .. It's just beyond a joke excuse the pun ..
|
|
Tenka
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 3,647
|
Post by Tenka on Feb 4, 2022 20:41:05 GMT
You are very aptly describing the fast asleep state prior to awakening/SR. Indeed, there is always a causal process....a means and a way that things happen....all of that gets illuminated in a new light in SR. All causal processes get seen through. So you know there are processes involved then . Things don't just arise in consciousness . One minute you don't know at all how things arise, then the next you say there are processes but you see through them . So you do know that there are processes, but you still don't know how things arise because the process of how things arise are in someway illusory .. Again, there is nothing to back anything up, your clutching at straws, making things fit as you go along .
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 4, 2022 22:16:05 GMT
You have mistaken what that actually means. What you "really are," is not "A what." That said, "whats/things" appear and those appearances are expressions of the singular, abiding awareness that gives rise to all appearance. (Not separate...they arising within/to the unwavering ground--not "fundamentally" two). I am not going to waste time digging around, but you did say/imply that appearances are not what you are . I simply wanted to know what else is there .. I would appreciate you just speaking in plain English, not this silly non duality talk that is just simply ridiculous . Just speak like a normal person pls .. I am trying to explain this in plain language, perhaps even more so than usual, because of the fact that I know you are having trouble grasping what's being said, so not sure how much more simple or plain the words can get. The fact that Truth ultimately defies capture by language/words definitely play in here. I see so many seekers hung up on the idea of finding out 'what I am/what they are. They take the imagined realization of such to equal "identity as something/someone." But really, identity dissolves in SR. Yes, ultimately, the pointer, I am the appearing shoe, is a pointer to Truth, but those words take on a different meaning when all identity has dissolved vs. when identity is in play.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 4, 2022 22:50:35 GMT
Yes, 'things arising within consciousness' does indeed sound poetical and perhaps "floaty' but you're bang on that it's just a "notion"...as it the dream metaphor. The actual, non-conceptual Truth can only be pointed to...it defies words. A dream metaphor and a notion that isn't realised, that you have held as your premise for years . A dream metaphor that hasn't even anything to back up such a claim . How can it be a premise that you stand by as being true when there isn't anything at all to substantiate such a stance? There is absolutely nuffin is there . There isn't even a shred of evidence . There are no dots to join . I agree with Satch to a degree that there cannot just be pointers to something beyond the pointer . I have said so myself, that there has to be something realised to then point to it .It's no good saying the realisation is beyond a concept and a pointer to then conceptually point to it as being true .. It's just beyond a joke excuse the pun .. Yes, that's also, precisely what i say! But, I also say, that that which is realized is not actually 'a something,' that that word 'something' just gets used as a sort of place-holder.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 4, 2022 22:52:51 GMT
You are very aptly describing the fast asleep state prior to awakening/SR. Indeed, there is always a causal process....a means and a way that things happen....all of that gets illuminated in a new light in SR. All causal processes get seen through. So you know there are processes involved then . Things don't just arise in consciousness . One minute you don't know at all how things arise, then the next you say there are processes but you see through them . So you do know that there are processes, but you still don't know how things arise because the process of how things arise are in someway illusory .. Again, there is nothing to back anything up, your clutching at straws, making things fit as you go along . You misunderstood my point. Which was, the seeker'd state is rife with what seems to be 'causal processes,' that gets seen through in SR.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2022 3:55:01 GMT
So awareness is 'self-radiant'...it 'shines by itself'? Makes for a nice poetic metaphor, but kind of a crappy pointer if you ask me. That's because it's not a pointer. And, regardless of whether we are talking pre or post SR, the Truth is always the same, because the Truth is the Truth....it's absolute, not relative, it never changes. Despite what may seem to be, the mind/body is not actually giving rise to the seeking. All of it, the mind, body, seeking action, all of that is arising within awareness. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. There is no such entity. Ego is but a thought structure/framework of mind, not an actual "thing" that has inherent existence to thereby actually create, give rise to, DO and create stuff. If you talk about something and give it a label it's a thing. Tree is a thing, a concept is a thing, a description is a thing, everything you care to mention is a thing. If you can speak about it it's a thing. What is this thing. Why it's a thought structure/framework of mind. Oh that thing you mentioned. So it's not another thing but that thing? Mind gets informed following SR Sounds like an entity. 😀 Make sure it takes notes. The ego generally loses all it's stuffing in SR, but it does not lie down completely. And, so long as it's seen for what it is, where it is, it's unproblematic. Sounds like an entity that doesn't have 100% of its stuffing. This is hilarious. If I were to say this kind of stuff you would shoot me down for talking about ego as if it's an entity but when you do it's not. It's just apparent or it just seems to be that way or it's not actual, that kind of crap. You will always be able to use ndSpeak to talk yourself out of what you are challenged on. So it's not a thingy? caring" about life and other appearing characters does not completely cease in SR as you seem to be indicating. Strawman! WTH? You actually see a difference between "realization" and "transcendence of mind"? WTF! You don't? I've heard all I need to hear. Oh wait...... I agree completely that a mere ability to discriminate between a perceived ground and a perceived arising world is NOT SR. In SR, the ground is realized/known directly and the perceived appears within that. The SVP is no longer. What!!!! A perceived ground as opposed to a realized ground? This has gone beyond parody. The event in time that you label as such does, but the abiding ground of awareness, doesn't. Is that the abiding ground you are perceiving or the abiding ground you have realized? 😀 But isn't your definition of Samadhi, awareness 'absent' arising content? (contentless awareness?) That would mean you're in a constant state that is contentless?....no body/mind...absent personality....absent objects.... Or is this simply a case of another waffling definition on your part? On the contrary SR is contentment. I think I explained several times before that the natural state is also called sahaja samadhi which is the simultaneous experience of awareness and content as one unified totality of Self knowledge. Knowledge here does not mean intellectual knowledge. It is knowledge of Self. If not for distinction between wave and ocean, you would not even be able to say that they are "both" water Exactly! Isn't that what I've been telling you? Through meditation practice/inquiry the seeker develops the power to discriminate between unchanging awareness and changing mental activity. The "idea" of everything that appears in experience is "connected" is not what is meant by Oneness. I quite agree. I really dislike that phrase. "Everything is connected" sounds so New Age. So, let's get this straight; You say in SR, there is No change/dissolving of old mental construct/patterns, BUT in the same breath you speak of getting rid of notions and ideas and concepts..? Yes as the process of spiritual practice for the seeker. You are a seeker aren't you? It is withdrawing from the field of mind and the senses and going back to silence. That is the core of any spiritual practice. But you don't turn into a vegetable! I denoted that taking the appearing world as "evidence" of separation, as "a mistake" of mind. The seeker mistakes separation to be 'evidence' of what is actually so, when indeed, as you seem to be saying, the idea of there being 'physical/material evidence' within experience of the Truth, is a misconception. You obviously get to pick what is conceptual and what is non-conceptual. What gets laid bare, what shines forth, is NOT conceptual. What obscures IS! Truthy Satch: awareness is ' self-radiant' - Crappy pointer! 😀
|
|