|
|
Post by Gopal on May 21, 2022 7:16:13 GMT
individuality and objects of the world. Brahman alone is real the world is an illusion the world is Brahman Brahman is the world You say Brahman is real
and you say world = Brahman
and you then you say world is illusion?
Whattttttttttttt?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2022 7:17:25 GMT
individuality and objects of the world. Brahman alone is real the world is an illusion the world is Brahman Brahman is the world You say Brahman is real
and you say world = Brahman
and you then you say world is illusion?
Whattttttttttttt? maybe you should read more Shankara to get the full picture. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 21, 2022 7:20:08 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? You are mangling the term "identification." What did you mean when you told Sree that to identify with the body was a contradiction to consciousness as not personal? |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 21, 2022 7:20:52 GMT
You say Brahman is real
and you say world = Brahman and you then you say world is illusion?
Whattttttttttttt? maybe you should read more Shankara to get the full picture. Because you are incapable of explaining further in your words. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2022 7:22:19 GMT
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? You are mangling the term "identification." What did you mean when you told Sree that to identify with the body was a contradiction to consciousness as not personal? to exclusively identify with the body contradicts the idea that consciousness is impersonal. When you realize that your true nature is impersonal but yet the personal and particular continue to appear then it cannot be anything else but your own Self because that's all there is. There is nothing that is not the Self. This cannot be understood intellectually. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2022 7:23:16 GMT
maybe you should read more Shankara to get the full picture. Because you are incapable of explaining further in your words. I already did. But I'm not responsible for you being able to understand it. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on May 21, 2022 7:26:44 GMT
You say Brahman is real
and you say world = Brahman
and you then you say world is illusion?
Whattttttttttttt?  maybe you should read more Shankara to get the full picture. You are unnecessarily making things complicated.
What is separation?
When you believe appearing things or appearing people moves independently, you have the belief in separation. But if you know, you are non-local, everything moves as one, then you are not believing in separation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on May 21, 2022 7:27:59 GMT
Because you are incapable of explaining further in your words. I already did. But I'm not responsible for you being able to understand it. I started to have the feel of arguing with Tenka. He is the only one who has the understanding problem. But now ...? |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 21, 2022 7:28:23 GMT
You are mangling the term "identification." What did you mean when you told Sree that to identify with the body was a contradiction to consciousness as not personal? to exclusively identify with the body contradicts the idea that consciousness is impersonal. When you realize that your true nature is impersonal but yet the personal and particular continue to appear then it cannot be anything else but your own Self because that's all there is. There is nothing that is not the Self. This cannot be understood intellectually. You kind of missed that words when you spoke to Sree, didn't you? Fact is, 'exclusivity' matters not. The non-SR identify with a whole of host of 'things.' All of those identifications are erroneous, as is any identification post SR, even an identification with 'the unbounded.' To 'identify' is to mistakingly limit yourself to a something that appears. At no point does the unbounded become bounded in/by/as an appearance. To identify with an appearance, even while recognizing it's finite, fleeting nature, is temporarily mistake yourself for the bounded. The body is an appearance within/to unbounded awareness....to identify with it, even for a moment, is to mistake yourself as finite/bounded. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2022 7:28:23 GMT
maybe you should read more Shankara to get the full picture. You are unnecessarily making things complicated.
What is separation?
When you believe appearing things or appearing people moves independently, you have the belief in separation. But if you know, you are non-local, everything moves as one, then you are not believing in separation.
you need to get away from this word belief. Why would you say that since you have already said that you accept that others are real. If that is so why would you believe otherwise? |
|
