|
|
Post by Gopal on May 21, 2022 7:29:09 GMT
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? I still believe other people are real, how it is that contradict what I wrote above? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2022 7:30:07 GMT
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? I still believe other people are real, how it is that contradict what I wrote above? okay so if you believe they are real then you are believing in separation yes? |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on May 21, 2022 7:32:02 GMT
I still believe other people are real, how it is that contradict what I wrote above? okay so if you believe they are real then you are believing in separation yes? If other people are real, then they should be the same 'non-local', IF so, then there is no separation no?
Oh you believe objective outer world in which people are moving here and there? If so, we have to argue first about why objective world existence is wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2022 7:32:21 GMT
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. you have an incorrect understanding based exclusively on a conceptual understanding I'm sorry I have to say this because I am in that state and I know you are not from what you say. How else am I supposed to react to your comments? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2022 7:34:13 GMT
okay so if you believe they are real then you are believing in separation yes? If other people are real, then they should be the same 'non-local', IF so, then there is no separation no?
Oh you believe objective outer world in which people are moving here and there? If so, we have to argue first about why objective world existence is wrong.
you also believe there is a contradiction between unlimited and unlimited appearing as form. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on May 21, 2022 8:23:40 GMT
If other people are real, then they should be the same 'non-local', IF so, then there is no separation no?
Oh you believe objective outer world in which people are moving here and there? If so, we have to argue first about why objective world existence is wrong.
you also believe there is a contradiction between unlimited and unlimited appearing as form. I don't use those words. I say I am 'non-local' and experience the life from this view point and you are from other view point(You could be real but I can't confirm it). |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 21, 2022 18:22:25 GMT
you also believe there is a contradiction between unlimited and unlimited appearing as form. I don't use those words. I say I am 'non-local' and experience the life from this view point and you are from other view point(You could be real but I can't confirm it). Yes, multiple viewpoints per se would not/does not defy Oneness. Again, distinction is not separation. The only issue is in denoting each personal viewpoint as existent in it's own right vs. an appearance within the abiding ground of awareness. Once it's seen that the personal viewpoint is not actually arising within/to the appearing body, that BOTH are arising/appearances within the fundamental ground of awareness, there is no issue. Satchi still does not know the difference between distinction/multiple, personal, discrete experiences, vs. fundamentally separate "experiencers/perceivers/persons/doers." When it's seen there is ultimately, no "experiencer," no entity that "personally sees and experiences," any previous dilemma over the possibility of multiple, discrete, individuated viewpoints/experiences, dissolves. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 21, 2022 18:29:40 GMT
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. you have an incorrect understanding based exclusively on a conceptual understanding I'm sorry I have to say this because I am in that state and I know you are not from what you say. How else am I supposed to react to your comments? No. What it really comes down to is that you are confused/unclear, and thus, you get sloppy in your writings, as you are trying to keep your ontology cogent. I think too, there is a mental prowess issue....whether that is induced via some substance you ingest or something else as you engage here, not sure. Your reading comprehension and written expression are often lacking. If "exclusivity' relative to what you term "identification" is in fact the defining lynch-pin to the message you are attempting to impart to Sree, then surely you should have included that word? See? Sloppy at best, also possibly, outright deluded/unclear. Waffling, contradicting, flip-flopping of ontology, all signs of a lack of true clarity. You exemplify such. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2022 23:50:27 GMT
you have an incorrect understanding based exclusively on a conceptual understanding I'm sorry I have to say this because I am in that state and I know you are not from what you say. How else am I supposed to react to your comments? No. What it really comes down to is that you are confused/unclear, and thus, you get sloppy in your writings, as you are trying to keep your ontology cogent. I think too, there is a mental prowess issue....whether that is induced via some substance you ingest or something else as you engage here, not sure. Your reading comprehension and written expression are often lacking. If "exclusivity' relative to what you term "identification" is in fact the defining lynch-pin to the message you are attempting to impart to Sree, then surely you should have included that word? See? Sloppy at best, also possibly, outright deluded/unclear. Waffling, contradicting, flip-flopping of ontology, all signs of a lack of true clarity. You exemplify such.  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 23, 2022 17:08:52 GMT
Again, an example of that "sloppiness."
The key and missing term (pointer!) there is "fundamental." As in, "the is no fundamental difference/distinction (separation!) between samsara and nirvana. If there were no difference/distinction at all, then there would not be two words/two terms. There is an apparent distinction or we wouldn't even be talking about it.
It's those important delineations that make the difference between a good 'teacher/Truth-talker,' vs. one that just further confuses seekers.
|
|
