Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Feb 24, 2020 15:37:47 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. SR doesn't make one go blind. The sage sees the world arising. He sees distinction and differences. What he does not see is otherness and causation.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Feb 24, 2020 15:46:06 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? Now we know that the sage can't see mountains. Who would have thunk it?
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Feb 24, 2020 15:47:50 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. Did somebody imply that it did?
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Feb 24, 2020 16:02:00 GMT
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? I like to say one event leads to another where there is a correlation. This is not meant to imply causation within the events, though the correlation is to be taken seriously.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Feb 24, 2020 16:26:37 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 she is not looking for is an intellectual logic debate. I know you've devoted a blog to combining such an approach with spirituality, but they are like oil and water. Here it will be a rather continuous process of missing the point.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Feb 24, 2020 16:34:09 GMT
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. A fall from 1000 feet will lead to death, so it may be significant to know what leads to your fall. Even if you heard causation mentioned there, it was not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2020 16:49:03 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. SR doesn't make one go blind. The sage sees the world arising. He sees distinction and differences. What he does not see is otherness and causation. The sage does not see the the world arising because if something arises it must arise from some thing else. When the sage sees the mountain it is no different to Self which alone exists. The mountain is consciousness appearing as form. Nothing is arising because that would create a difference where there is none.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Feb 24, 2020 16:51:31 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. No person get's self realized but SR changes a pattern of behavior in certain ways. That's what's being discussed on this thread. You can join in the discussion or you can continue arguing for the sake of argument using your flawful logic.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Feb 24, 2020 16:59:25 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 SR 'is' and delusion 'is', so no problem.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 24, 2020 18:15:18 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. 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. A fall from 1000 feet will lead to death, so it may be significant to know what leads to your fall. Even if you heard causation mentioned there, it was not. Yup.
|
|