|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 23, 2020 4:14:49 GMT
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. In saying that SR impacts experience, what is actually being said is that the absence of the SVP makes for a different kind of experience than when the SVP is present. Self realization lies 'beyond experience'...it's not a thing...not an experience...but rather, the falling away/seeing through of the imagined SVP. SR is not the same thing as experience. No. But the SVP is the mental overlay from which suffering arises. What we're really talking about when we talk about SR and how it relates to experience, is the presence or absence of the SVP and the erroneous ideas that comes/goes with that, and ultimately, the presence/absence of suffering. Ultimately, it all hinges upon the presence or the absence of the SVP. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 23, 2020 4:16:34 GMT
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. So for the sage, the mountain does not appear, disappear? It remains constant? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2020 4:19:10 GMT
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. So for the sage, the mountain does not appear, disappear? It remains constant? The appearance or disappearance of the mountain does not add or take anything away from the Self. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 23, 2020 4:21:59 GMT
So for the sage, the mountain does not appear, disappear? It remains constant? The appearance or disappearance of the mountain does not add or take anything away from the Self. Of course not, because Self does not come and go...unlike the appearing mountain. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2020 4:24:39 GMT
The appearance or disappearance of the mountain does not add or take anything away from the Self. Of course not, because Self does not come and go...unlike the appearing mountain. The appearing and the disappearing of the mountain is irrelevant. The mountain is the Self and no mountain is the Self. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Feb 23, 2020 4:27:47 GMT
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. In saying that SR impacts experience, what is actually being said is that the absence of the SVP makes for a different kind of experience than when the SVP is present. Self realization lies 'beyond experience'...it's not a thing...not an experience...but rather, the falling away/seeing through of the imagined SVP. SR is not the same thing as experience. No. But the SVP is the mental overlay from which suffering arises. So there are two things again now: the "overlay from which suffering arises" and "the suffering." That again is back in the land of the causal. That's like the ground and the seed that sprouts from it, etc. Right, and that's a causal notion. "Hinges upon" = "arises from"... all these metaphors are causal. Not really... argument proceeds by analogy. If you want to say my analogy is inapt, you have to distinguish the relevant point by which it is so. I asked for the difference between an actual catalyst and a non-actual catalyst, and your response is that nothing in the dream is "actually causing/catalyzing anything else" -- but that is using the thing to be defined in your definition. Again, what's the difference between "actual" and "non-actual" cause? I understand that you're asserting that God/Source is the actual cause, but what I'm asking is the meaning of actual here. If actual has no meaning, then why use that word? So now you are openly using the word cause. So there is causation? Realization at its basis = realization as causing it? Is that actual or non-actual cause? |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 23, 2020 5:00:44 GMT
So there are two things again now: the "overlay from which suffering arises" and "the suffering." That again is back in the land of the causal. That's like the ground and the seed that sprouts from it, etc. You are taking pointers and conceptualizing them. Is what I am saying really so foreign to you? ...you are behaving as though you've never heard that causality is an appearance only...that SR means freedom and that freedom is known in experience...that when the SVP is absent that equals an absence of a series of thoughts/ideas/beliefs, which makes for a shift in overall experience...in how the world is seen, regarded. What you are arguing against here then really, is my choice of language. You are 'word-lawyering' against pointers. An 'absence' is not a something that lies causal to something else. The presence of the SVP is the presence of the mental overlay that = suffering. 'Actual' very much does have meaning... is a reference to that which is Absolutely so.. fundamentally True....Truth. NO, my bad for using that word when I am trying to steer you beyond concepts... there is not. Think 'hand in hand.' Keep in mind, finger vs. moon. Much of this conversation is pointing. Would it help if I told you Realization itself is also ultimately, fundamentally, 'acausal'? Intellectualizing is plain and simply not going to reveal that cause/effect are appearance only. Only realization will collapse the obstacles to that seeing. And realization/collapsing is not 'an experience' is not a happening/thing for which the concept of 'cause' could ever actually apply. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Feb 23, 2020 5:18:35 GMT
So there are two things again now: the "overlay from which suffering arises" and "the suffering." That again is back in the land of the causal. That's like the ground and the seed that sprouts from it, etc. You are taking pointers and conceptualizing them. Is what I am saying really so foreign to you? Well I was taking you at your word that you were interested in discussing the Truth, etc. It seems, however, like you're not actually interested in discussing your statements (except to hear some variety of agreement)... because you simply say you're "pointing" whenever any statement is challenged on its logic or internal contradictions. That's fine, I guess. I'm not sure what you mean about your strong interest in discussing truth, then, though. Does that mean you simply have a strong interest in "pointing" people who you think are seekers to the truth with your statements? Or are you mainly looking for other people to chime in to talk about how their realizations agree with your pointers? Or what? |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 23, 2020 5:35:47 GMT
You are taking pointers and conceptualizing them. Is what I am saying really so foreign to you? Well I was taking you at your word that you were interested in discussing the Truth, etc. It seems, however, like you're not actually interested in discussing your statements (except to hear some variety of agreement)... because you simply say you're "pointing" whenever any statement is challenged on its logic or internal contradictions. That's fine, I guess. I'm not sure what you mean about your strong interest in discussing truth, then, though. Does that mean you simply have a strong interest in "pointing" people who you think are seekers to the truth with your statements? Or are you mainly looking for other people to chime in to talk about how their realizations agree with your pointers? Or what? Despite the fact that you were conceptualizing pointers there, I think I gave a pretty decent effort to try to explain....to converse. You're making it sound as though I completely dismissed your queries with 'I'm pointing.' I didn't at all, and am completely up for further discussion if you are. What is it you wanted an answer to that I did not address? |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 23, 2020 5:43:56 GMT
You are taking pointers and conceptualizing them. Is what I am saying really so foreign to you? Well I was taking you at your word that you were interested in discussing the Truth, etc. It seems, however, like you're not actually interested in discussing your statements (except to hear some variety of agreement)... because you simply say you're "pointing" whenever any statement is challenged on its logic or internal contradictions. That's fine, I guess. I'm not sure what you mean about your strong interest in discussing truth, then, though. Does that mean you simply have a strong interest in "pointing" people who you think are seekers to the truth with your statements? Or are you mainly looking for other people to chime in to talk about how their realizations agree with your pointers? Or what? What you are saying below, does not sound all that different from 'there are no actual causes within the dream/story.' Do you see a marked difference? |
|
