Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2019 2:45:39 GMT
Being is not a state. And whether you are aware of it or not, Being constantly/continually abides ALL arising experience, regardless of what's happening. If that were not the case, there would be nothing 'unchanging'....no 'ground.' Is that what you are suggesting? Now we are getting somewhere. You are assuming that Being is abiding even if you are not aware of it. But the only thing you can know is what you are aware of, so if you are not aware of it abiding then it is not abiding as something you are aware of.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Nov 11, 2019 4:36:21 GMT
What if you are only real person in the world? I don't see how that would change anything I said there. Ultimately, I can/don't know. The appearance of sentience is engaged with and that's that. The individual has different responses to circumstance if/when there is an absence of identification. The example of 'blaming' I gave is a good one. And when that is absent, of course, so is 'blameful anger.' The very same circumstance could arise; Ex: Someone cuts you off in traffic. If there is still identification, blameful anger may arise and you chase the offender down to make him pay. Where there is no identification, blameful anger cannot arise, and thus, the behavior towards that driver also changes. It's unlikely you'd chase someone down to make him pay when you don't hold him fundamentally to blame. The one thing that does not need to change, is the circumstance 'being cut off in traffic.' I don't tie emotional responses to circumstance the way you do. There is the circumstance and then, there is the response to that, and the response changes depending upon whether there is identification/separation in play, or not. Gopal, do you believe you are the only real person in the world?
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Nov 11, 2019 5:20:23 GMT
You've been selling the idea that there's constant bliss. You and figgles need to get away from the myth that within your body mind experience there is going to be something permanently abiding all the time. "The idea of enlightenment or self-realisation as a onetime event or a lasting and permanent state or experience is an erroneous concept." From rowan's quote from Bob Adamson in the "what is realization" thread. Yes bliss is pretty constant but it's mixed in with other changing experience and therefore there is an overall experience. You could say that Bliss permeates experience. You are never going to be in a state where there is only abiding Being all of the time. I know it's a nice idea and both you and figgles have latched onto it and use that as your ultimate test of realization, but neither of you experience that yourselves so it has just become part of your nonduality belief system. “Truth or reality cannot be stored, cannot be amassed – it does not accumulate. The value of any insight, understanding, or realisation can only be in the ever-fresh presence of the moment. Yesterday’s realisation is not a bit of good – it is dead, it has lost its vitality. It is useless to try and cling to or hold onto an insight, understanding, or realisation, for only in its movement can ever-fresh and new insights of truth or reality appear. The idea of enlightenment or self-realisation as a onetime event or a lasting and permanent state or experience is an erroneous concept. Understand-ING or know-ING is alive in the immediacy which can never be negated. The emphasis is on the activity of know-ING which is going on as the immediacy now – not the dead concept I understand or I know.” -Bob Adamson Bob is not saying that SR comes and goes or ebbs and flows like the tide. He's saying that is not SR. He's saying it is not an experience or an accumulation of knowledge. Realization is always NOW. SR is a permanent abidance in the heart of Being where realization is always available NOW. It does not come and go, and therefore Peace does not come and go. Bliss bunny mode, however, does.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2019 5:32:36 GMT
You and figgles need to get away from the myth that within your body mind experience there is going to be something permanently abiding all the time. "The idea of enlightenment or self-realisation as a onetime event or a lasting and permanent state or experience is an erroneous concept." From rowan's quote from Bob Adamson in the "what is realization" thread. Yes bliss is pretty constant but it's mixed in with other changing experience and therefore there is an overall experience. You could say that Bliss permeates experience. You are never going to be in a state where there is only abiding Being all of the time. I know it's a nice idea and both you and figgles have latched onto it and use that as your ultimate test of realization, but neither of you experience that yourselves so it has just become part of your nonduality belief system. “Truth or reality cannot be stored, cannot be amassed – it does not accumulate. The value of any insight, understanding, or realisation can only be in the ever-fresh presence of the moment. Yesterday’s realisation is not a bit of good – it is dead, it has lost its vitality. It is useless to try and cling to or hold onto an insight, understanding, or realisation, for only in its movement can ever-fresh and new insights of truth or reality appear. The idea of enlightenment or self-realisation as a onetime event or a lasting and permanent state or experience is an erroneous concept. Understand-ING or know-ING is alive in the immediacy which can never be negated. The emphasis is on the activity of know-ING which is going on as the immediacy now – not the dead concept I understand or I know.” -Bob Adamson Bob is not saying that SR comes and goes or ebbs and flows like the tide. He's saying that is not SR. He's saying it is not an experience or an accumulation of knowledge. Realization is always NOW. SR is a permanent abidance in the heart of Being where realization is always available NOW. It does not come and go, and therefore Peace does not come and go. Bliss bunny mode, however, does. No he's not saying that. You're just making up your own words and ideas and attributing them to him.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Nov 11, 2019 5:34:29 GMT
You've been selling the idea that there's constant bliss. Yes! And the reason he said that is because that's what he was taught. It came from other advaitists. (Projection is a tricky thingy)
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Nov 11, 2019 5:43:26 GMT
What can be constant is an absence Nope! Another one of your myths and which you don't experience yourself. Be honest. She's right. All things are subject to change. This is the nature of duality. Only an absence can remain constant. This why Peace and Love remain constant, because they are fundamentally an absence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2019 6:07:01 GMT
“Truth or reality cannot be stored, cannot be amassed – it does not accumulate. The value of any insight, understanding, or realisation can only be in the ever-fresh presence of the moment. Yesterday’s realisation is not a bit of good – it is dead, it has lost its vitality. It is useless to try and cling to or hold onto an insight, understanding, or realisation, for only in its movement can ever-fresh and new insights of truth or reality appear. The idea of enlightenment or self-realisation as a onetime event or a lasting and permanent state or experience is an erroneous concept. Understand-ING or know-ING is alive in the immediacy which can never be negated. The emphasis is on the activity of know-ING which is going on as the immediacy now – not the dead concept I understand or I know.” -Bob Adamson Bob is not saying that SR comes and goes or ebbs and flows like the tide. He's saying that is not SR. He's saying it is not an experience or an accumulation of knowledge. Realization is always NOW. SR is a permanent abidance in the heart of Being where realization is always available NOW. It does not come and go, and therefore Peace does not come and go. Bliss bunny mode, however, does. No he's not saying that. You're just making up your own words and ideas and attributing them to him. Nope, He is definitely saying that. While you start to read, it seems to be the way you think, but at the end, he made his statement very very clear. Read this Understand-ING or know-ING is alive in the immediacy which can never be negated. The emphasis is on the activity of know-ING which is going on as the immediacy now
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 11, 2019 6:30:44 GMT
I've been saying the opposite. That which fundamentally abides all experience is not a some-thing that appears in experience. You cherry-picked that one out of context. The general gist of that quote was that 'wakefulness' 'SR' is a present moment thing, not 'time-bound.' When I asserted such in the past, you argued against me. Fwiw, Being is not a state. And whether you are aware of it or not, Being constantly/continually abides ALL arising experience, regardless of what's happening. If that were not the case, there would be nothing 'unchanging'....no 'ground.' Is that what you are suggesting?
If Being is not a state then what is it that enables you to know it? Well I'll tell you. You cannot know it except as a reflection in your individual consciousness which means that it is not always abiding as that reflected experience. In fact you cannot experience Being at the same time as you are absorbed in a thought. When there is Self there is no world. When there is world there is no Self. - Sri Atmananda Plain and simply, "Being" is NOT an experience. It's what abides experience. It gives rise to experience. It's what experience arises to/within. It's the ground of experience. And so long as experience is arising, Being abides. When identification with perceivables is absent, the abiding ground, is unobscured.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 11, 2019 6:36:35 GMT
I don't see how that would change anything I said there. Ultimately, I can/don't know. The appearance of sentience is engaged with and that's that. The individual has different responses to circumstance if/when there is an absence of identification. The example of 'blaming' I gave is a good one. And when that is absent, of course, so is 'blameful anger.' The very same circumstance could arise; Ex: Someone cuts you off in traffic. If there is still identification, blameful anger may arise and you chase the offender down to make him pay. Where there is no identification, blameful anger cannot arise, and thus, the behavior towards that driver also changes. It's unlikely you'd chase someone down to make him pay when you don't hold him fundamentally to blame. The one thing that does not need to change, is the circumstance 'being cut off in traffic.' I don't tie emotional responses to circumstance the way you do. There is the circumstance and then, there is the response to that, and the response changes depending upon whether there is identification/separation in play, or not. The thing is, the circumstance 'being cut off in traffic' wouldn't occur. And I have no way to communicate this to you because this is what I am seeing the change but you did not see that change. So let's agree to disagree this one. Okay. I've asked you this many times and seemed you were saying differently. This seems pretty clear. You are saying there is a point where certain experiences, (even, apparently, quite common ones) will forever cease to arise. I say, so long as the experience of driving amidst appearing other drivers happens, getting cut off, at times, will continue to happen. What can cease to happen, is becoming emotionally inflamed, casting blame, feeling vengeful when another vehicle, cuts in front of yours.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 11, 2019 6:40:10 GMT
So, you think it's a mere myth that the SVP/separation can be 'constantly' absent? I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. What I can tell you is that the manifestation of personal self becomes fully integrated with the unbounded as one unified living experience. Why is it Satchi, that at times you are fully on board with the idea that the delusion of separation is what goes in SR, and then other times, like this, you act as though you've never heard of the 'separate volitional person'? There was a point where you first arrived on ST, where your posts, as they appeared to me, had integrity.....where you seemed to speak with authority and genuine confidence. Now you just seem like a desperate guy who wants to win an argument.
|
|