Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2019 7:33:38 GMT
Nope! Wrong! I can still converse with people whom I am not certain whether they are real. The best example for you is, you discuss with people in your nightly dream which you know you have mistaken for happening. The difference between you and me then is that I don't even think about whether they are real or not. The thought does not arise. Those kinds of thoughts wouldn't even arise to me either. But when questioned, it has to be this way. When I look at my daughter's eyes, I forget the whole world in her innocence look, I wouldn't even think that whether she is real or not when I look at her, there is a kind of belief in my background that says to me that she may be real but I can't KNOW ultimately.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 30, 2019 18:10:33 GMT
Yeah, you're using an argument that Reefs has used himself, over and over during this argument. Just as the white ball hitting the red ball on a pool table is not evidence of 'actual' cause/effect/catalyst , nor is the appearance of perception/experience re: the apparent person I converse with here on forum, nor engagement with that perception, evidence of 'actual' perception/experience there. And yet, the 'play' goes on....... That right there, is the amazing part of it all. Despite the seeing of the inherent emptiness of the entire material world, all perceivables, they still continue to engage attention, invite interest. The "mansion of delights" you have spoken of, IS ever so more delightful, when it loses it's weightiness. In fact, I'd say, the 'delight' bit, won't even appear on the radar until that 'weight' is lost/seen through. Stop using the words actual and apparent. They are totally meaningless. You are deluding yourself. Actual cause and effect and non actual cause and effect. Apparent person and real person. It's complete nonsense. Your mind is playing tricks on you! You don't experience the mansion of delights because the world and your experience of it is less weighty or because it's more apparent and less actual and not identified with or you have seen through some illusion and the SVP is gone blah blah blah. You experience this mansion of delights because your true nature is bliss and that bliss permeates all experience. To be established as your true nature is very very very simple. More simple than you can imagine right now and I hope one day you discover that. And then all your questions, all your seeking, your need to express and to be understood will simply fall away and vanish forever. So...."true" nature....? Doesn't that indicate there is a 'false' nature, or that a mistake can be made with regards to what is true/false? That's really what's being said when the term 'actual' is used. What you 'actually' are, is not something limited/bound/changing, and to mistakingly take what you are (nature) to be that which appears, that which is by virtue of appearing/disappearing, bound/limited, is to identify with the false. What I've noticed with you Satchi is that you are totally inflexible with wording. When different words are used from the teachings you cut your teeth upon, you fail to grasp that they are essentially pointing to the same Truth. That's what happens when one is stuck on words....or in other words, has a conceptual understanding only. Truth can be talked about in a myriad of ways, because ultimately, words can't completely capture, and at best, are always mere shadows of the actual. You clearly have an aversion to certain words that essentially are saying the same thing you are. As I see it, finding different ways to try to point to Truth, is a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 30, 2019 18:19:32 GMT
You are operating here on exactly the same premise that reef does. You are responding to other people who you think are capable of perceiving what you're saying. In fact your belief in their existence is much greater than you think it is because you don't even have the benefit of seeing them in the flesh. They are mere words on a screen and yet you believe these are people reading your posts and you identify with them as people you are conversing with. To claim otherwise is cloud cuckoo land. 😀Nope! Wrong! I can still converse with people whom I am not certain whether they are real. The best example for you is, you discuss with people in your nightly dream which you know you have mistaken for happening. It's bizarre really how this assertion keeps being made. What they're really saying is that in seeing that world is but an ephemeral arising within/to Being, there should no longer be any interest in engaging it. It's fallacious thinking that erroneously ties arising interest/impetus to engage with "knowing." I would say one of the most important 'insights' tied to SR, is the seeing that as the world appears, interest in it, interest to engage, naturally appears.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 30, 2019 18:21:45 GMT
Nope! Wrong! I can still converse with people whom I am not certain whether they are real. The best example for you is, you discuss with people in your nightly dream which you know you have mistaken for happening. The difference between you and me then is that I don't even think about whether they are real or not. The thought does not arise. *sigh*...... How many times do we have to tell you that we also do not spend any time thinking about of questioning it. That really IS the point. The mere appearance is more than enough to engage interest....to engage caring.....to evoke love. No "knowing" necessary either way. Folks just think they need to know. They've mistaken their knowledge for the evoker/catalyst of love.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 30, 2019 18:28:21 GMT
The difference between you and me then is that I don't even think about whether they are real or not. The thought does not arise. Those kinds of thoughts wouldn't even arise to me either. But when questioned, it has to be this way. When I look at my daughter's eyes, I forget the whole world in her innocence look, I wouldn't even think that whether she is real or not when I look at her, there is a kind of belief in my background that says to me that she may be real but I can't KNOW ultimately. Well said. And again, the love, your interest in and caring for your daughter, is not dependent upon that knowing. If it were, that would make your love for her, the impetus to engage with her, conditional upon knowledge that what appears is Truth. The appearance of sentience, the appearance of eyes that look back with love shining from them, is MORE than enough to evoke interest...caring.....love. No need to know for certain if there is actual sentience, actual experiencing/perception there. And that's really the miracle, the beauty, the awesomeness of Love!! I find it very sad that some figure you must 'know' for absolute certain that an appearing other is actually perceiving/experiencing, not to just ignore them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2019 2:22:29 GMT
The difference between you and me then is that I don't even think about whether they are real or not. The thought does not arise. *sigh*...... How many times do we have to tell you that we also do not spend any time thinking about of questioning it.. It doesn't look like that to me. You never stop talking about it, trying to convince others that knowing the world is an appearance has something to do with realization. 😀
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 31, 2019 4:48:51 GMT
*sigh*...... How many times do we have to tell you that we also do not spend any time thinking about of questioning it.. It doesn't look like that to me. You never stop talking about it, trying to convince others that knowing the world is an appearance has something to do with realization. 😀 So does your frequent talk about meditation as causal to SR mean that you are always thinking about and questioning meditation? If it weren't for folks claiming that the world is something more than just an empty appearance, I wouldn't be talking near as much about the world being an appearance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2019 5:16:02 GMT
It doesn't look like that to me. You never stop talking about it, trying to convince others that knowing the world is an appearance has something to do with realization. 😀 So does your frequent talk about meditation as causal to SR mean that you are always thinking about and questioning meditation? If it weren't for folks claiming that the world is something more than just an empty appearance, I wouldn't be talking near as much about the world being an appearance. It makes me laugh when you tell me that I have a mere conceptual understanding when it is clear as day that it applies to you. And I will tell you exactly why because you have the cart before the horse. Self Realization happens when the limited I which is mistakenly identified with as the real me dissolves completely into infinite silence and becomes the Self which has always been but is simply revealed to the conscious mind. From that moment on there is the direct knowledge that I am the unchanging eternal witness. That also means that changing phenomena or any experience is seen as something just appearing and disappearing against this unchanging background of awareness/being. The path to the dissolution of the limited into the unlimited is revealed by meditation practice as advocated by the sages and scriptures. It is clear to me that what you are doing is the opposite, as is the case with most conceptual non-duality theorists. You are trying to develop the intellectual conviction that the world is an appearance and by trying to disassociate yourself from the world you mistakenly believe yourself to be realized. You think that understanding the world is an appearance will somehow result in realization when it is the other way around. It is the realization, the direct knowledge of the Self that results in you knowing that the world is an appearance because you know you are the witness. That's why meditation practice is so essential and why it's at the core of Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism. Whereas I am completely unconcerned about what appears, you are very concerned about it and you use this space to continually reinforce that conviction that you're trying to make stick. It's not going to stick no matter how many times you come back with a response because you have to actually go back to the source and not just dream or imagine that you are the source.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2019 8:43:57 GMT
Nope! Wrong! I can still converse with people whom I am not certain whether they are real. The best example for you is, you discuss with people in your nightly dream which you know you have mistaken for happening. The difference between you and me then is that I don't even think about whether they are real or not. The thought does not arise. I don't think either. But somebody asked me whether I know other people are real, then my answer would be, I DON'T KNOW BECAUSE I CAN'T KNOW.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2019 10:49:25 GMT
Nope! Wrong! I can still converse with people whom I am not certain whether they are real. The best example for you is, you discuss with people in your nightly dream which you know you have mistaken for happening. It's bizarre really how this assertion keeps being made. What they're really saying is that in seeing that world is but an ephemeral arising within/to Being, there should no longer be any interest in engaging it. It's fallacious thinking that erroneously ties arising interest/impetus to engage with "knowing." I would say one of the most important 'insights' tied to SR, is the seeing that as the world appears, interest in it, interest to engage, naturally appears. As a matter of fact, I believe more than that, when one steps into the experience, it defines whole line from the beginning to the end. For an example, the beginning of your dream determines the whole experience you are going to have until you wake up.
|
|