|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 25, 2020 4:08:40 GMT
Yeah....it's kinda funny 'cause he was accusing us of being the ones who were denying the experiential. In the experience of drinking sugared water are you seeing a difference or separation between the sugar and the water? Bad analogy. That which arises does not 'mix with' and thus, change, that which abides. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2020 4:11:58 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2020 4:13:41 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? Do you believe cause and effect?
I believe believing in cause and effect creates the experience to confirm my belief.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 25, 2020 4:14:33 GMT
Back to "how sr impacts experience".....
Struggle ends when separation is seen through because all struggle is based upon the illusion of separation...the illusion that I am a separate something that exists apart from the world, apart from circumstance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2020 4:16:12 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. You are watching a movie, how come one thing can cause other things to happen? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2020 4:17:17 GMT
In the experience of drinking sugared water are you seeing a difference or separation between the sugar and the water? Bad analogy. That which arises does not 'mix with' and thus, change, that which abides. Nor does the sugar change the nature of the water, but there is one undivided experience in tasting it. That is Self Realization! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2020 4:18:58 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. That's self-evident, eh? anyone can see immediately. Everything which you are looking at is the movement of the story and you are witnessing it. eh? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2020 4:19:38 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. You are watching a movie, how come one thing can cause other things to happen? It does. In the movie when the bank is robbed it causes someone to call the cops. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2020 4:22:07 GMT
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. There is a Looker who is looking at a mountain.Looker is consistently looking at movement of the appearance,yes? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2020 4:23:17 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. That's self-evident, eh? anyone can see immediately. Everything which you are looking at is the movement of the story and you are witnessing it. eh? You as the Self are witnessing the story but at the same time the story is no different to the Self. But this truth has not been realized for the seeker. |
|
