|
Post by Figgles on Dec 9, 2019 17:09:56 GMT
That's a misconception. A delusion.... and a powerful one at that. When it gets seen through, you might even laugh at how tenaciously you held to the idea that 'a who must be seeing through the who.' Don't worry, I'm already laughing. I'll give you a really big clue. There is no such thing as illusion for the realized, only for the seeker. Indeed, the realized is no longer taking illusions for actuality, but that does not mean that there's no longer any reference for 'illusion.' The seeker on the other hand, is oblivious to illusion. He's taking the mistaken idea of separation to be the actuality. And he's completely unaware that's happening.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 9, 2019 17:12:04 GMT
Here's a question for you. If Self-realization means oneness, unity, not two, then how can there be illusion in the reality? Mistakingly seeing separation happens 'within' the dream. The sense of separation, seeing separation, is an arising within/to that which is fundamental/substantive (reality).
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 9, 2019 17:14:51 GMT
There is no acceptance of irritation or anger. You want to get angry then get angry. The question is are you suffering if you get angry? If you are not suffering, then it's a faux anger. That's not anger at all. Yup. To express in a way that implies anger, but all the while to remain grounded in Being, thus, not becoming lost within the story, is a very different thing than actually 'being' angry/blameful, which means a falling into the story, a loss of wakefulness.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 9, 2019 17:18:16 GMT
What gets seen through, Is the 'who'!!!! The idea that a 'who' is doing stuff, is an illusion that must be seen through if separation is to be seen through. Can you answer to his question, I find his question is very legitimate. I have answered. The very question of 'who' is misconceived. There is no thing, person, what, at the helm. It just appears that way. Seeing through happens, as do ALL happenings, absent a doer, absent a seer, absent a knower. Anything that happens has "___________________" at the helm. We can only point to 'what' that is. (it's NOT a what!)...not even an IT! Both you and Satch are insisting that I conceptualize that which can only be pointed to.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 9, 2019 17:18:45 GMT
There's no such thing as faux anger. Have you seen any faux elephants? Faux anger means you are not angry inside but making outward expression like you are in anger. Well put.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 9, 2019 17:23:48 GMT
If you are not suffering, then it's a faux anger. That's not anger at all. Why would real anger make you suffer? Because real anger (blameful/vengeful ideas/thoughts/feelings) mean abidance in mind. Abidance in being = awareness that there is not actually anyone to blame....no person who is actually responsible. To vengefully ascribe blame and responsibility is to suffer because that ascribing means the presence of the SVP. The imagined SVP = suffering.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 9, 2019 17:25:00 GMT
So, just seeing/looking requires an entity? Don't use the word entity but ask yourself who is seeing. You will say, "I Am". There is your answer. So to you, "I am" references a "who"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2019 17:31:32 GMT
Indeed, the realized is no longer taking illusions for actuality, I didn't say that. There are no illusions for the realized because everything is the Self. Everything is the actuality. There is nothing that could be taken or not taken for an illusion because there is no such thing as an illusion.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 9, 2019 17:36:41 GMT
Indeed, the realized is no longer taking illusions for actuality, I didn't say that. There are no illusions for the realized because everything is the Self. Everything is the actuality. There is nothing that could be taken or not taken for an illusion because there is no such thing as an illusion. Even fundamental separation?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2019 17:37:29 GMT
Can you answer to his question, I find his question is very legitimate. I have answered. The very question of 'who' is misconceived. There is no thing, person, what, at the helm. It just appears that way. Seeing through happens, as do ALL happenings, absent a doer, absent a seer, absent a knower. Anything that happens has "___________________" at the helm. We can only point to 'what' that is. (it's NOT a what!)...not even an IT! Both you and Satch are insisting that I conceptualize that which can only be pointed to. Has what at the helm? Why are you afraid to fill in the blank?
|
|