|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Feb 23, 2020 1:27:46 GMT
While we may not be able to specifically pin-point precisely how SR will impact experience, there are some general changes that can be expected when the SVP is no longer imagined to be at the helm. Basically, there are certain ideas, attachment to ideas, a specific depth of discordant feeling that plain and simply cannot arise when the SVP is absent. That's why it has been said that 'blameful anger' has nothing to arise from once the SVP has been seen through. Blameful anger hinges upon imagined separation...the imagining of a separate entity that is responsible, that causes and catalyses other stuff appearing within the dream to happen. Here's a question for you: haven't you said that cause and effect are an illusion, that the most that can be said is that things are correlated? If so, how can it be known what something like 'blameful anger' 'hinges upon'... 'hinges upon' is of course a causal idea. As is, for that matter, the idea of the "impact" of SR upon experience. Those are all causal ideas. So how do you square those issues? |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 23, 2020 1:48:19 GMT
While we may not be able to specifically pin-point precisely how SR will impact experience, there are some general changes that can be expected when the SVP is no longer imagined to be at the helm. Basically, there are certain ideas, attachment to ideas, a specific depth of discordant feeling that plain and simply cannot arise when the SVP is absent. That's why it has been said that 'blameful anger' has nothing to arise from once the SVP has been seen through. Blameful anger hinges upon imagined separation...the imagining of a separate entity that is responsible, that causes and catalyses other stuff appearing within the dream to happen. Here's a question for you: haven't you said that cause and effect are an illusion, that the most that can be said is that things are correlated? If so, how can it be known what something like 'blameful anger' 'hinges upon'... 'hinges upon' is of course a causal idea. As is, for that matter, the idea of the "impact" of SR upon experience. Those are all causal ideas. So how do you square those issues? 'Hinges upon' does not equal 'fundamentally/actually causal,' nor does talking bout SR being 'impactful' upon experience denote fundamental causality with the dream/story. Suffering is always 'correlated' with delusion...with an SVP....so much so, We could even go so far as to say they are 'essentially' one & the same. Delusion/SVP = suffering. In the absence of delusion/absence of an SVP there is an absence of suffering. It's not that the SVP actually "causes" suffering. Suffering is a mental overlay. SVP is a mental overlay. The presence of an SVP/the presence of suffering is singular, if that makes sense..? Bottom line is, experience is different when the SVP is present vs. when the SVP is absent/seen through. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Feb 23, 2020 2:54:26 GMT
Here's a question for you: haven't you said that cause and effect are an illusion, that the most that can be said is that things are correlated? If so, how can it be known what something like 'blameful anger' 'hinges upon'... 'hinges upon' is of course a causal idea. As is, for that matter, the idea of the "impact" of SR upon experience. Those are all causal ideas. So how do you square those issues? 'Hinges upon' does not equal 'fundamentally/actually causal,' nor does talking bout SR being 'impactful' upon experience denote fundamental causality with the dream/story. Suffering is always 'correlated' with delusion...with an SVP....so much so, We could even go so far as to say they are 'essentially' one & the same. Delusion/SVP = suffering. In the absence of delusion/absence of an SVP there is an absence of suffering. It's not that the SVP actually "causes" suffering. Suffering is a mental overlay. SVP is a mental overlay. The presence of an SVP/the presence of suffering is singular, if that makes sense..? Bottom line is, experience is different when the SVP is present vs. when the SVP is absent/seen through. But that's precisely a causal idea. Saying something is "always correlated" with something else is exactly what causality means. That's the reason people think and have always thought in terms of cause and effect. They want to find the "always correlations." Suppose I said: it's not that when one billiard ball strikes another, that the first causes the second to move. It's simply that they are always correlated... in fact, they are essentially the same. You could simply re-write all statements of causality to that -- to notions of "always correlating" and "essentially" one and the same. In fact, this is literally what the ancients thought: what it meant to say that something is the effect of a particular cause is to say that they are, precisely, essentially one and the same. So what then does the non-existence of causality then mean? |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 23, 2020 3:41:57 GMT
But that's precisely a causal idea. Saying something is "always correlated" with something else is exactly what causality means. That's the reason people think and have always thought in terms of cause and effect. They want to find the "always correlations." SVP and suffering, absence of SVP and absence of suffering go hand in hand. They are not two things/events. Thus...Even 'correlated' is not really the right word. Well...we're NOT talking billiard balls though, are we? It means that nothing within the dream, nothing that appears is an 'actual' catalyst/cause to anything else that appears in the dream. It's means it's all one singular movement, no separation. ...No one ever said this stuff was easy to talk about.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2020 3:47:16 GMT
It means that nothing within the dream, nothing that appears is an 'actual' catalyst/cause to anything else that appears in the dream. I really don't know how you can say that when that's not your actual experience. For instance sifting's question was a catalyst for you to respond. Isn't that obvious. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 23, 2020 3:54:32 GMT
It means that nothing within the dream, nothing that appears is an 'actual' catalyst/cause to anything else that appears in the dream. I really don't know how you can say that when that's not your actual experience. For instance sifting's question was a catalyst for you to respond. Isn't that obvious. Everything arising within experience is 'appearance only', which means it is not Truth....not actual. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2020 3:56:55 GMT
I really don't know how you can say that when that's not your actual experience. For instance sifting's question was a catalyst for you to respond. Isn't that obvious. Everything arising within experience is 'appearance only', which means it is not Truth....not actual. Everything is the truth including appearance if you are SR. Everything without exception is actual. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Feb 23, 2020 3:58:45 GMT
But that's precisely a causal idea. Saying something is "always correlated" with something else is exactly what causality means. That's the reason people think and have always thought in terms of cause and effect. They want to find the "always correlations." SVP and suffering, absence of SVP and absence of suffering go hand in hand. They are not two things/events. Thus...Even 'correlated' is not really the right word. If they weren't two things, then why is there a question about how they affect each other? Surely there must be some difference. That's why the title of this thread is SR- How It Impacts Experience... which suggests that there are two different things at stake -- SR... and experience. If they were literally the same thing, then there would be no way of saying that one impacts the other. The redness of a rose obviously doesn't impact the redness of a rose. A car crash doesn't impact itself. So do you not have a response to what I'm asking? What's the difference between an "actual" catalyst and a "non-actual" catalyst? Can "non-actual" catalysts result in "always correlations" of things that are "essentially the same"? And if so, then, isn't a "non-actual" catalyst "always correlated" with an "actual catalyst" and thus "essentially the same" as one? I agree this stuff isn't easy to talk about... but then are you simply saying that your views aren't actually accurate, but are simply your attempt to express some subjective sense of things? It's totally fine if it is, honestly. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 23, 2020 4:01:36 GMT
Everything arising within experience is 'appearance only', which means it is not Truth....not actual. Everything is the truth including appearance if you are SR. Everything without exception is actual. No. That's a return to 1st mountain position. Third mountain, full circle, means an unfettered re-engagement with the world, absent a need to actively distinguish/differentiate, but there is also a complete absence of identification with limitation/boundedness. When the sage says "I am the mountain," he is not taking himself/that which abides to be arising within the appearing mountain, he is seeing the mountain as arising within/to that which abides. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2020 4:06:04 GMT
Everything is the truth including appearance if you are SR. Everything without exception is actual. No. That's a return to 1st mountain position. Third mountain, full circle, means an unfettered re-engagement with the world, absent a need to actively distinguish/differentiate, but there is also a complete absence of identification with limitation/boundedness. When the sage says "I am the mountain," he is not taking himself/that which abides to be arising within the appearing mountain, he is seeing the mountain as arising within/to that which abides. I would have to be vehemently disagree with you. The sage is not seeing the mountain arising because the mountain is nothing other than Self. There are no arisings for the Self-realized. Only the seeker who can discriminate between unchanging awareness and phenomenon sees phenomena as arisings within Being, but that is not SR. |
|
