muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Oct 12, 2018 5:40:29 GMT
I don't go so far as to assassinate causation, and I think the disagreement is deeper than just semantics or word lawyering. The dream continues, the game goes on, and the recurring patterns that appear to make up the game's "rules" persist. No, I don't have any illusion about individual doership, but in terms of unique perspective, and the appearance of interests, these are not beyond my personal influence once I become more deeply conscious of the relative causes of those interests. Some people might start ignoring time after they see it for what it is. For most of my life I've tended to lose track of it.  It is what it is, and once we start talking about appearances we're talking about processes. "Creation" isn't timeless, and influencing our own interests through inward attention is all about "creation", and very much related to this idea of "LOA". I'm having trouble following your responses and how they relate to what I said. Will simply say; "Causation" is only ever an appearance. It's compelling as hell and can be engaged with as an experience, absent buying into it as something more than an experience. Same with 'rules', however persistent they may appear to be. If we're talking about supposed laws that govern creation, we are talking about the experiential and not Truth. Causation and other patterns of appearances aren't about "Truth", they're about what we can see, hear, taste and touch. Causation is about how events order in time in the context of those patterns. To say that the cause of the thought you're having right now isn't the sentence your reading, but instead is only correlated to it, is to introduce an unnecessary confusion by mixing existential contexts. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 12, 2018 16:02:07 GMT
Well, I've got no reaction to the first sentence, but "transcendent view" suggests an elevated perspective, and I might relate that to something temporary, but to speak of a "realized state" seems to me to reify the myth of an enlightened superpeep. I would say the actual 'seeing through' itself is not a state...but yeah, I think it could be said that all views, all perspectives, per se, are temporary by nature. That whole issue of 'realization' being permanent or something that still comes and goes, where folks still sometimes find themselves 'getting hooked' by something happening in experience, is what Adyashanti's new book addresses. I bought it for a young dude, struggling with seeing the emptiness of experience, but still identifying with it and thus, failing to apprehend the 'fullness' of Being.....he's disinterested in reading the book, so I've been leafing through....it's really good. He addresses many of the conversations (arguments ) folks have had on ST about whether or not you can see it, then lose it, whether or not awakening means you behave 'perfectly' afterwards, etc. I'd highly recommend it to both folks who are pre SR as well as post SR...now if I could just get that kid to read it.  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 12, 2018 16:05:08 GMT
I'm having trouble following your responses and how they relate to what I said. Will simply say; "Causation" is only ever an appearance. It's compelling as hell and can be engaged with as an experience, absent buying into it as something more than an experience. Same with 'rules', however persistent they may appear to be. If we're talking about supposed laws that govern creation, we are talking about the experiential and not Truth. Causation and other patterns of appearances aren't about "Truth", they're about what we can see, hear, taste and touch. Causation is about how events order in time in the context of those patterns. To say that the cause of the thought you're having right now isn't the sentence your reading, but instead is only correlated to it, is to introduce an unnecessary confusion by mixing existential contexts. Depends what context we're speaking from. If we're talking Truth, it's clear as crystal...should be no confusion due to contextual mixing if that's understood. But yes, I agree; Causation and other patterns of appearance aren't about "Truth" but about what we can see, hear, taste and touch, and indeed, there is value in seeing those patterns, that said, important too, to then see that 'ultimately' they too are empty appearances. |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Oct 15, 2018 6:50:16 GMT
Well, I've got no reaction to the first sentence, but "transcendent view" suggests an elevated perspective, and I might relate that to something temporary, but to speak of a "realized state" seems to me to reify the myth of an enlightened superpeep. I would say the actual 'seeing through' itself is not a state...but yeah, I think it could be said that all views, all perspectives, per se, are temporary by nature. That whole issue of 'realization' being permanent or something that still comes and goes, where folks still sometimes find themselves 'getting hooked' by something happening in experience, is what Adyashanti's new book addresses. I bought it for a young dude, struggling with seeing the emptiness of experience, but still identifying with it and thus, failing to apprehend the 'fullness' of Being.....he's disinterested in reading the book, so I've been leafing through....it's really good. He addresses many of the conversations (arguments ) folks have had on ST about whether or not you can see it, then lose it, whether or not awakening means you behave 'perfectly' afterwards, etc. I'd highly recommend it to both folks who are pre SR as well as post SR...now if I could just get that kid to read it. Well you know what they say .. "when the student is ready, the teacher appears" .. so, have a good read!  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 24, 2018 17:34:45 GMT
Yes, we differ on this point. I see human adulthood as a matter of degree, and I see this as the furthest the human adult can go, when they account for the notion that there is a greater, holistic movement that leads to and in which context those interests appear. But, if anything is possible, how is it that it's not possible for you to influence the interests that arise to you? Personally, I've found it to be a fun game to play, both in the past when I thought I was a people peep, and also now. It's just that now, the rules of the game have changed.  There are some caveats regarding the 'all things are possible' thing. The reason all things are possible is because Consciousness is the cause, and Consciousness has no boundaries. The person that we would have becoming his own creator is, himself, a creation of Consciousness and is virtually defined by limitations. Having said that, it IS possible for Consciousness to create the appearance of individual creation. I think this one deserves a 'bump.'  |
|
It is what it is, and once we start talking about appearances we're talking about processes. "Creation" isn't timeless, and influencing our own interests through inward attention is all about "creation", and very much related to this idea of "LOA". 
