|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Feb 23, 2020 5:54:44 GMT
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? Well I think I expressed it pretty well already, and I'm not certain there's much further to say. It seems to me your concepts are full of internal contradictions regarding causality. But when I mention that, you say that it can only be understood by realization. Well, ok. Kind of ends the discussion...again, fine if the point was simply pointing rather than conversing. What I was trying to remark on is that if "SR" is "beyond causality" and if anyhow causation is an illusion, then it must technically be the case that SR is compatible with any so-called manifestation in the appearance-world, including of suffering, vengeful anger, etc... since nothing either causes these or their absence, since, again, cause is an illusion. Only if SR is regarded as an empirical phenomenon, as an experiential thing, and as a thing subject to cause and effect, could it be held to have those kinds of connections. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Feb 23, 2020 5:58:01 GMT
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? Oh, quoting words of wisdom at me  . I agree that in the end causality is in a deep sense meaningless, but I also think, for that very reason, that SR cannot be tightly tied to any particular manifestation at the emotional level... because, indeed, SR is not really a 'thing.' It would have to be a thing to be so tied. No one "is" or "has" SR, and the absence of an SVP is not really an absence so much as the non-existence of a thing that was never existent to begin with... and thus cannot have any determinate effects on anything. I mean, we can muse about "what happens after" but it's not a matter of Truth but of simple, contingent, and quite possibly incorrect, truth. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 23, 2020 6:19:24 GMT
Well I think I expressed it pretty well already, and I'm not certain there's much further to say. It seems to me your concepts are full of internal contradictions regarding causality. There is no 'contradiction' between the experience of this leads to/causes that, vs. the seeing that there is no 'actual' causality within the dream...that ultimately, there is one singular movement in play....no cause, no doer. Just as there is no contradiction between the experience of doing stuff, and the realization that there is no doer. Much of what is conversed about on this forum involves pointing. That's the nature of Truth. Seems to me you were getting hung up on some specific words/terms rather than really trying to understand what I was saying. In some cases, you were arguing for what a word meant, instead of asking what I meant. Connections...hand in hand, in tandem arisings, do not equal 'causation.' Suffering, vengeful anger go hand in hand with an imagined SVP, they are not really created/caused/catalysed BY an SVP....although talking about this, it can sound that way. I think perhaps it would be easier to move beyond the idea that an SVP 'causes' or 'gives rise to' suffering, vengeful anger, if we break down what precisely the SVP Is. It really is ultimately just an idea...a delusion, a deluded idea believed to be actual, just as is the idea that 'this is intolerable' which is what suffering is, just as the idea that there is someone responsible to blame, is. What suffering really is then, is the delusion of separation. The delusion of separation does not cause suffering, it IS suffering. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 23, 2020 6:23:45 GMT
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? Oh, quoting words of wisdom at me . I agree that in the end causality is in a deep sense meaningless, but I also think, for that very reason, that SR cannot be tightly tied to any particular manifestation at the emotional level... because, indeed, SR is not really a 'thing.' It would have to be a thing to be so tied. No one "is" or "has" SR, and the absence of an SVP is not really an absence so much as the non-existence of a thing that was never existent to begin with... and thus cannot have any determinate effects on anything. I mean, we can muse about "what happens after" but it's not a matter of Truth but of simple, contingent, and quite possibly incorrect, truth. Well, the delusion of separation is not just one singular idea. It encompasses a whole slough of erroneous ideas. Thus, when it goes, it takes a whole delusional story with it. It's the absence of that delusional story about causes/effects, persons who are to blame, personal volition, doership, stuff we think we know for certain that we now see we do not, that IS the change in experience I am talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 23, 2020 6:37:31 GMT
Thanks Sifting....I think I've arrived at some better ways to talk about this, so as to not confuse anyone that I am asserting actual causality.
The presence of an SVP is experiential. When it's absent, experience is different. The absence of the SVP did not 'cause' experience to change, the change in experience is that it is now absent an SVP.
The SVP is an idea that includes the delusion of volition, the delusion of personal responsibility, the delusion of causality, the delusion of separation. The absence of the SVP does not 'cause' the end of all those delusions, the SVP = all those delusions. The delusion of separation is experienced as suffering.
|
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Feb 23, 2020 6:40:25 GMT
Well I think I expressed it pretty well already, and I'm not certain there's much further to say. It seems to me your concepts are full of internal contradictions regarding causality. There is no 'contradiction' between the experience of this leads to/causes that, vs. the seeing that there is no 'actual' causality within the dream...that ultimately, there is one singular movement in play....no cause, no doer. Just as there is no contradiction between the experience of doing stuff, and the realization that there is no doer. Much of what is conversed about on this forum involves pointing. That's the nature of Truth. Seems to me you were getting hung up on some specific words/terms rather than really trying to understand what I was saying. In some cases, you were arguing for what a word meant, instead of asking what I meant. Connections...hand in hand, in tandem arisings, do not equal 'causation.' Suffering, vengeful anger go hand in hand with an imagined SVP, they are not really created/caused/catalysed BY an SVP....although talking about this, it can sound that way. I think perhaps it would be easier to move beyond the idea that an SVP 'causes' or 'gives rise to' suffering, vengeful anger, if we break down what precisely the SVP Is. It really is ultimately just an idea...a delusion, a deluded idea believed to be actual, just as is the idea that 'this is intolerable' which is what suffering is, just as the idea that there is someone responsible to blame, is. What suffering really is then, is the delusion of separation. The delusion of separation does not cause suffering, it IS suffering. All right, I feel we're going around in circles. Anyhow, maybe we'll pick up another discussion another time... |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Feb 23, 2020 6:42:00 GMT
Thanks Sifting....I think I've arrived at some better ways to talk about this, so as to not confuse anyone that I am asserting actual causality. The presence of an SVP is experiential. When it's absent, experience is different. The absence of the SVP did not 'cause' experience to change, the change in experience is that it is now absent an SVP. The SVP is an idea that includes the delusion of volition, the delusion of personal responsibility, the delusion of causality, the delusion of separation. The absence of the SVP does not 'cause' the end of all those delusions, the SVP = all those delusions. The delusion of separation is experienced as suffering. I just can't agree that the SVP is a real idea such that its absence is linked to the end of various delusions-as-ideas... if SR is, the reality is that delusion is too. To the extent that delusion isn't, in the end, neither is SR. Thanks for the conversation too  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 23, 2020 7:36:54 GMT
Thanks Sifting....I think I've arrived at some better ways to talk about this, so as to not confuse anyone that I am asserting actual causality. The presence of an SVP is experiential. When it's absent, experience is different. The absence of the SVP did not 'cause' experience to change, the change in experience is that it is now absent an SVP. The SVP is an idea that includes the delusion of volition, the delusion of personal responsibility, the delusion of causality, the delusion of separation. The absence of the SVP does not 'cause' the end of all those delusions, the SVP = all those delusions. The delusion of separation is experienced as suffering. .. if SR is, the reality is that delusion is too. To the extent that delusion isn't, in the end, neither is SR. Thanks for the conversation too "Real" idea? I don't know what you mean by that. All ideas are ephemeral appearance only, have no fundamental existence in their own right, thus, no idea is any more or less 'real' than another. To be more clear, the SVP is not just one idea....it's not merely 'linked' to other ideas, it's more accurate to say the imaginary SVP IS a whole host of erroneous ideas. Sorry, I'm not really grasping what you mean by 'is' and 'isn't, when you say, "if SR is, the reality is that delusion is too. to the extend that delusion isn't, in the end, neither is SR." Delusion is the absence of clarity. The presence of an obscuring obstacle to 'what actually is so.' Self realization is the absence of that which obscures 'what is actually so.' All of that is just a way to talk about what is so, and the false ideas that obscure the realization of that. ...And...you are very welcome. I love talking about this stuff...even when it gets difficult. |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969 
|
Post by Enigma on Feb 24, 2020 8:38:40 GMT
Not what I asked. Both fundamentally absent guilt, does not erase the two distinct appearances. The very fact that you reference two appearing characters speaks to there being 'a difference.' I thought what you asked was dumb so I changed the subject. Not only that, it didn't include anything about global warming.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2020 12:43:06 GMT
I thought what you asked was dumb so I changed the subject. Not only that, it didn't include anything about global warming. as I always say the world would be a better place if there were more activists for world peace and fewer brutal dictators |
|
. I agree that in the end causality is in a deep sense meaningless, but I also think, for that very reason, that SR cannot be tightly tied to any particular manifestation at the emotional level... because, indeed, SR is not really a 'thing.' It would have to be a thing to be so tied. No one "is" or "has" SR, and the absence of an SVP is not really an absence so much as the non-existence of a thing that was never existent to begin with... and thus cannot have any determinate effects on anything. I mean, we can muse about "what happens after" but it's not a matter of Truth but of simple, contingent, and quite possibly incorrect, truth.
