|
Post by Figgles on Oct 27, 2020 17:56:56 GMT
While previous interests do indeed shift and change, sometimes completely disappear once the SVP is seen through, It's important to note that seeing the inherent emptiness of all appearances, does not necessarily equal a complete lack of interest in those appearances, as some have mistakingly concluded and then used that false premise to argue such things as: 'You haven't really seen appearing people and their apparent sentience as empty or you'd no longer engage the appearance.' Such a stance demonstrates a deep misunderstanding about what it means to see the inherent emptiness of all that appears.
I'm always a tad leery when I hear folks claim that clarity has resulted in them no longer being interested in the appearing world. Important to remember just how sneaky spiritual ego can be. Spiritual ego floats all sorts of personal ideas about what is means to BE spiritual.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 27, 2020 18:02:18 GMT
Seeing mistaken ideas as illusion does not involve 'denial.' Did you mean to imply that the assertion that time is an illusion = 'a denial' of the experience of time? In seeing the Oasis as a mirage, there is not a 'denial' of the oasis, but rather, a seeing of falsity. In terms of overall story/dream, There is indeed the experience of/sense of passage of time but there's not actually a present moment appearance of time itself. Time is not a substantive thing that could appear, but rather, an interpretation of mind. There is no 'denial' involved in realizing separation, and thus, no denial involved in realizing time, volition or causation, as illusion. All of those false ideas are indeed based upon the seeming unfolding nature of the dream/story, but there really is not actual appearance of time per se, because that would give credence to experience arising in some moment other than the present....for time to actually appear, would be the same as saying that separation actually appears. It doesn't, but nevertheless, the idea that there is separation can be very, very compelling. First of all let's clear this up: I am the one refusing to say that time is an illusion. So, it appears that you take issue with my use of the word, denial. Sorry, but it's a dwad: to say that time is an illusion isn't substantively different from denying that it's happening.
Mind, in the most general sense of the word, is responsible for the perception of time, yes. But, like space, it is not the individuated mind that creates time, and any description of any sensation, requires time. Time is a pattern as to the way that appearances appear.
Just curious, are you okay with saying the SVP is an illusion? Similar to 'passage of time,' there are those who would swear there is an actual SVP that they very much DO experience.
|
|
|
Post by someNothing on Oct 28, 2020 9:28:32 GMT
Seeing mistaken ideas as illusion does not involve 'denial.' Did you mean to imply that the assertion that time is an illusion = 'a denial' of the experience of time? In seeing the Oasis as a mirage, there is not a 'denial' of the oasis, but rather, a seeing of falsity. In terms of overall story/dream, There is indeed the experience of/sense of passage of time but there's not actually a present moment appearance of time itself. Time is not a substantive thing that could appear, but rather, an interpretation of mind. There is no 'denial' involved in realizing separation, and thus, no denial involved in realizing time, volition or causation, as illusion. All of those false ideas are indeed based upon the seeming unfolding nature of the dream/story, but there really is not actual appearance of time per se, because that would give credence to experience arising in some moment other than the present....for time to actually appear, would be the same as saying that separation actually appears. It doesn't, but nevertheless, the idea that there is separation can be very, very compelling. First of all let's clear this up: I am the one refusing to say that time is an illusion. So, it appears that you take issue with my use of the word, denial. Sorry, but it's a dwad: to say that time is an illusion isn't substantively different from denying that it's happening.
Mind, in the most general sense of the word, is responsible for the perception of time, yes. But, like space, it is not the individuated mind that creates time, and any description of any sensation, requires time. Time is a pattern as to the way that appearances appear.
It's early here, but are you equating movement with time? I would distinguish time as mind referencing conceptualized events, using abstract constructs. It is useful, but it would indeed have its place.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 28, 2020 18:30:59 GMT
First of all let's clear this up: I am the one refusing to say that time is an illusion. So, it appears that you take issue with my use of the word, denial. Sorry, but it's a dwad: to say that time is an illusion isn't substantively different from denying that it's happening.
Mind, in the most general sense of the word, is responsible for the perception of time, yes. But, like space, it is not the individuated mind that creates time, and any description of any sensation, requires time. Time is a pattern as to the way that appearances appear.
It's early here, but are you equating movement with time? I would distinguish time as mind referencing conceptualized events, using abstract constructs. It is useful, but it would indeed have its place. Oh...that's good.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Oct 30, 2020 14:50:06 GMT
You've lost some precision in your paraphrase. What I wrote is that "any description of any sensation, requires time". It's not unimportant. Okay, yeah, that is different, but my answer is still the same as the experience of offering a description, while it may 'seem to' require a moment that moves to even register as an experience, is not an actual unfolding, movement, a 'passage of' time. There IS only NOW. Time is an illusion. It's the same with 'causation,' and I think we had a similar argument, where for you, it is NOT 'an illusion.'
Stuff appears 'sequentially' comprising an ongoing story/dream, but at no point is 'the experience of time' ever anything more than an illusion. Similarly, within the dream, there's an experiential sense of this action 'causing' that, but when we step back to look in clarity, it's clear that nothing in the dream is actually causing anything else to appear in the dream. The seeing of time as an illusion is both a pointer and a seeing of WIBIGO 'in' the dream. The realization of no separation is not required to see that there is no past/no future, beyond mind's present imagining of such....that it's always NOW.
But to see the story in it's entirety is one singular appearance, and that the 'movement' that even has us calling it a story is not actual, is what the pointer/realization that time is an illusion, hinges upon. In short, no separation takes care of 'the experience of', time, revealing it as illusion...Similarly for causation. Both psychological time and clock time are 'in the dream'...talk of such, of either, is mere psychology, not Truth. In terms of 'being conscious about what's happening in the dream,' important indeed, but in terms of seeing what is not actually so, what is Truth, not so much. I'm stranger to neither the altered states of perception nor the existential realization that places time in relative perspective. But, if all we're talking is WIBIGO, then your "everything is now" is, at best, simply acknowledging a limitation. It's also short of some simple, conceptual insight into the nature of the way appearances appear. And that's not to say that suggesting this ("everything is NOW") to someone in the trance might direct their attention away from it, because, most certainly, time, space, material and personality are not what most people think they are.
The context for Raj's interest here is LOA, and LOA is premised on the notion of vibration. Sound is a great example here: you can't hear a note in a single, frozen moment of time. Rather, what you perceive, is the motion, the pattern of difference, and, no time, no motion, no pattern:
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Oct 30, 2020 15:11:11 GMT
First of all let's clear this up: I am the one refusing to say that time is an illusion. So, it appears that you take issue with my use of the word, denial. Sorry, but it's a dwad: to say that time is an illusion isn't substantively different from denying that it's happening.
Mind, in the most general sense of the word, is responsible for the perception of time, yes. But, like space, it is not the individuated mind that creates time, and any description of any sensation, requires time. Time is a pattern as to the way that appearances appear.
Just curious, are you okay with saying the SVP is an illusion? Similar to 'passage of time,' there are those who would swear there is an actual SVP that they very much DO experience. All of space and time and the objects that come and go within that space and by that time are all appearances, and there is no existential truth in appearances. But "appearance", in this sense, is not synonymous with "illusion". Satch' actually explained this distinction quite well on many occasions. Yes. You're not imagining the passage of time, it's just not what most people think it is. That the instant in which you finish reading this sentence differs by an interval that can be measured relative to the instant that you started reading it is not an illusion, no more than the height of your body is an illusion. The illusion, in terms of time, is that reality is divided into fragments of it. The distinction between the two instants isn't an existential separation of them, but that doesn't make the distinction, an illusion. There are all sorts of ways people try to reconcile time in physical and psychological terms, and they're all existentially wrong, as all appearances are fundamentally empty and devoid of any existential truth.
But, just because the SVP and time are both empty appearances, does not make them both equivalent in terms of our perception of them. The illusion of the SVP is premised on the fact of unique perspective, and the illusion of the fragmentation of reality by time is premised on the dynamics of sensation, and how sensations are limited. Time isn't an illusion, it's just the basis for an illusion.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Oct 30, 2020 15:47:06 GMT
First of all let's clear this up: I am the one refusing to say that time is an illusion. So, it appears that you take issue with my use of the word, denial. Sorry, but it's a dwad: to say that time is an illusion isn't substantively different from denying that it's happening.
Mind, in the most general sense of the word, is responsible for the perception of time, yes. But, like space, it is not the individuated mind that creates time, and any description of any sensation, requires time. Time is a pattern as to the way that appearances appear.
It's early here, but are you equating movement with time? I would distinguish time as mind referencing conceptualized events, using abstract constructs. It is useful, but it would indeed have its place. Well, I'm going to nitpick on the use of the word, "conceptual" here. But before I do, I'd agree that time defined as narrowly as this, could be called an illusion, but I still wouldn't do that. I wouldn't necessarily argue about it, all things considered, but I still wouldn't affirmatively state that.
Some examples might be useful. A contract is an illusion, as is, say a memory of a past event. But sensations - what you see, hear, feel and taste - these are not illusion, and yes, motion is inherent in sensation, and motion is also premised on time. The descriptions of these sensations, and the descriptions of the mechanics of these sensations, are conceptual, yes, but not the sensations themselves. For figs sake, also, there's no doubt that any and all sensation is also empty appearance, devoid of existential truth, but, that doesn't mean those appearances are illusion.
The existential resolution of this is best expressed by the notion that the entirety of eternity and all creation ever conspire to even the seemingly most fleeting, and insignificant sensation.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 30, 2020 16:55:09 GMT
I'm stranger to neither the altered states of perception nor the existential realization that places time in relative perspective.But you ARE a stranger to the existential realization that renders time 'an illusion'....? Would you also say that there's an existential realization that places fundamental separation in the relative perspective....Or do you go further with that one, and would say it's 'an illusion'...? If separation is an illusion, then surely time must also be...just as volition, causation also must be. This is why I always say the realization of 'no separation' is an encompassing one. If you truly see through separation entirely, which of course means the SVP, time, volition, causation are encompassed within that. Well, I did not say that 'all we're talking about is WIBIGO,' I said this: "The seeing of time as an illusion is both a pointer and a seeing of WIBIGO 'in' the dream." Volition and causation are similar. Indeed, The seeing of WIBIGO is not the full seeing through/absence of separation that the existential realization is, as imagined separation may still very well be in play, but even while anchored within the dream, clear seeing of WIBIGO can indeed illuminate volition, causation, even the person, as a misconception. Of course, absent the full seeing through of separation, we're still in the realm of ideation...conceptualization.
I'm not sure what you mean by "simply acknowledging a limitation." Not really important at all as it's just more 'mind stuff'....conceptualization about appearance appearing. The only "way" appearances appear, (that does not involve ideation about appearance beyond the present moment of appearance) is here...now....immediately, or not at all. To say anything more about how or the way appearances appear, is to enter into story-telling. I don't see Raj invoking the 'vibration' model at all when he speaks about LOA, rather, I see him invoking a personal God that has a plan and cares about how the story unfolds and that thus, directs the story in a certain direction, accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 30, 2020 17:51:26 GMT
All of space and time and the objects that come and go within that space and by that time are all appearances, and there is no existential truth in appearances. But "appearance", in this sense, is not synonymous with "illusion". I am not equating 'appearance' with 'illusion.' In all of these conversations, I make a distinction between appearance only vs. illusion. Separation, volition, causation, time, are all illusions because while we think we see them, they aren't actually arising/appearing...it's a trick of mind that has us believing we are seeing and experiencing an SVP who has free will, who can cause stuff to happen, over the course of time. Really? As I recall Satch designated all that appears as 'illusion,' and made no room for the distinction that I made between that which appears vs. that which mind mistakingly assumes, misconceives. That supposed differing interval is an illusion...no such thing is actually appearing as all appearances appear here, now or not at all. It's always NOW. So there really ARE 'two' instances...? Two NOWS appearing? What you regard to be the previous instant is actually an idea, an appearance arising, appearing, NOW. There is no 'previous instant,' other than an idea/memory that arises here...now...in this instance. I don't call the SVP an 'empty appearance,' rather, I call it an 'illusion,' and that is because there is not actually an SVP that appears...it's a mistake of mind. A character, body/mind appears, but the entity/fundamental separation bit is completely, totally and utterly misconceived. It's the equivalent of the Oasis/mirage. A body/mind is actually appearing in a given moment of perception of body/mind, but 'separation' is a misconceived overlay upon it, just as is that 'different interval between' that you think you are actually experiencing/perceiving. A different interval between moments isn't actually appearing, it's being imagined, just like the separate person is. The illusion of the SVP is premised on far more than just the idea of unique perspective. (For unique perspective to be something more than just an appearance, 'a fact,' goes too far imo....'unique' implies the actuality of other perspectives and that remains unknown...it does indeed appear though, as if there are unique perspectives). The illusion of separation very much also has the misconception of space, time, causation, volition, objectively existent world of objectively existent things, all wrapped up in it...it hinges upon far more than just the unique, discrete perspective idea...it's a whole collection of ideas that ultimately have their root in identification with form, the obscuring of that which abides. To say that time is "the basis for illusion," reifies time as something that actually appears, and plain and simply, it doesn't. How could a 'different interval from here, now' appear, when all there is is now?...when all appearances, ideas included, arise here, now or not at all. Is there really some 'other' moment than now, that could appear?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 30, 2020 18:05:11 GMT
It's early here, but are you equating movement with time? I would distinguish time as mind referencing conceptualized events, using abstract constructs. It is useful, but it would indeed have its place. Well, I'm going to nitpick on the use of the word, "conceptual" here. But before I do, I'd agree that time defined as narrowly as this, could be called an illusion, but I still wouldn't do that. I wouldn't necessarily argue about it, all things considered, but I still wouldn't affirmatively state that. Some examples might be useful. A contract is an illusion, as is, say a memory of a past event. But sensations - what you see, hear, feel and taste - these are not illusion, and yes, motion is inherent in sensation, and motion is also premised on time. The descriptions of these sensations, and the descriptions of the mechanics of these sensations, are conceptual, yes, but not the sensations themselves. For figs sake, also, there's no doubt that any and all sensation is also empty appearance, devoid of existential truth, but, that doesn't mean those appearances are illusion.
The existential resolution of this is best expressed by the notion that the entirety of eternity and all creation ever conspire to even the seemingly most fleeting, and insignificant sensation. A memory of a past event, per se, arising here, now, is not an illusion, nor is any other idea arising presently. But, that 'different interval of time between the recalled past moment and this moment,' IS. All that 'interval of time' really is, is a presently arising idea/thought/sense. The 'different moment' is an illusion. There is no moment other than THIS...NOW. And I would never describe an arising/appearing sensation as an illusion. But if a sensation is appearing, it is known to be appearing, here, now, or not at all. The sense of time involved is an illusion as all there is, is this here, now, present moment of what is appearing, what is arising as feeling, sensation. Memory of past feeling, sensation is also arising here, now, (or not at all).
|
|