|
|
Post by Gopal on May 21, 2022 7:02:54 GMT
So what did you mean when you told sree on ST there that 'identifying with the human body contradicts the view that consciousness is not personal'? because it's true. You do not understand the subtle difference between taking yourself to be exclusively the body which is the state of ignorance compared to the sage who says I also take myself to be the body but the difference is that this body is no different to the totality of reality which is one "indivisible flow". (Your words). You don't have the direct experience to have that understanding that there is no contradiction yet you speak about oneness and non-separation as if you actually understand what it is. How do you define separation in your words? What do you think separation is? |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 21, 2022 7:04:23 GMT
Yes, there is contradiction! The sage says "I am the body," but but there is no identification with the body inherent to that. You had it right in your first quote; 'identifying with the human body contradicts the view that consciousness is not personal.' If that is so, and it is, that means that one who identifies with the body, has the view that consciousness is personal. for me there is no contradiction. Here's another: Here you are, denoting awareness as the ground that gives rise to all experience, and yet you've argued for pages on end previously that awareness is itself "an experience." By what means then do you differentiate awareness to be unchanging/non-individuated in contrast to those other experiences that are also experienced? If awareness is itself an experience, what lies as the ground to that as it arises as an experience? Some 'other' more fundamental awareness? |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 21, 2022 7:05:42 GMT
Yes, it IS true that's it's a contradiction. Which means, you're full of it when you insist that identification with the body continues post SR...continues for the sage. I'm sorry but I cannot help you. I cannot make you see the truth with mere words. Your arrogance is getting too much in the way. So the Truth is that identification ceases and also does not cease? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2022 7:07:09 GMT
because it's true. You do not understand the subtle difference between taking yourself to be exclusively the body which is the state of ignorance compared to the sage who says I also take myself to be the body but the difference is that this body is no different to the totality of reality which is one "indivisible flow". (Your words). You don't have the direct experience to have that understanding that there is no contradiction yet you speak about oneness and non-separation as if you actually understand what it is. How do you define separation in your words? What do you think separation is? separation is identifying yourself exclusively as that which is limited. Non separation is knowing that you are everything including what appears to be limited. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2022 7:07:47 GMT
I'm sorry but I cannot help you. I cannot make you see the truth with mere words. Your arrogance is getting too much in the way. So the Truth is that identification ceases and also does not cease? see my reply to gopal |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 21, 2022 7:10:10 GMT
How do you define separation in your words? What do you think separation is? separation is identifying yourself exclusively as that which is limited. Non separation is knowing that you are everything including what appears to be limited. To 'identify' with/as any-thing at all, is to mistake yourself to be an entity/some-one/some-conceptual-thing. Waking up means the end of ALL identification. When the SR says "I am all of it," he is not taking himself to BE an appearing thing, even temporarily. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on May 21, 2022 7:10:50 GMT
How do you define separation in your words? What do you think separation is? separation is identifying yourself exclusively as that which is limited. Non separation is knowing that you are everything including what appears to be limited. What is limited here? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2022 7:12:33 GMT
separation is identifying yourself exclusively as that which is limited. Non separation is knowing that you are everything including what appears to be limited. What is limited here? individuality and objects of the world. Brahman alone is real the world is an illusion the world is Brahman Brahman is the world |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 21, 2022 7:13:08 GMT
So the Truth is that identification ceases and also does not cease? see my reply to gopal Here...in your very own words... "identifying with the human body contradicts the view that consciousness is not personal." In other words, identifying with the body = a mistaking of consciousness to be personal...to be arising within the brain. That was your point to Sree, wasn't it? Now you're back to arguing FOR identification with the human body. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2022 7:15:16 GMT
Here...in your very own words... "identifying with the human body contradicts the view that consciousness is not personal." In other words, identifying with the body = a mistaking of consciousness to be personal...to be arising within the brain. That was your point to Sree, wasn't it? Now you're back to arguing FOR identification with the human body. you're not reading and properly comprehending what I'm saying. Can you understand the difference between exclusively identifying with something and identifying with something but not exclusively? |
|
