|
Post by Figgles on Feb 5, 2022 18:34:19 GMT
If you talk about something and give it a label it's a thing. Tree is a thing, a concept is a thing, a description is a thing, everything you care to mention is a thing. If you can speak about it it's a thing. What is this thing. Why it's a thought structure/framework of mind. Oh that thing you mentioned. So it's not another thing but that thing? I used the term "entity" there, not "thing." There's a difference. You seem to have a real difficult time with the subtleties. An entity = "a thing with distinct and independent existence." Thus, we can have (appearing) things, that are not entities. All things are empty of inherent existence of their own. To make ego 'an entity' is different than denoting it as an appearing thing. If we say thoughts are things, then yes, an ego is a reference to a conglomerate of things. Much different though from saying the ego (or the person!) is an entity. Entity denotes separation....denotes inherent existence in it's own right. Nothing that appears exists in it's own right. Ah, yes, it's clear right here; you are equating 'entity' with 'thing.' There's an important difference. I think perhaps you need to get yourself a good dictionary. The vantage point of seeing through separation is "transcendent of mind....transcendent of all experiential content." Dude! Get with the program!...I was referencing your continued assertion that the ground of awareness is experienced/perceived....I've been clear all along it is not, and I maintain that. This is what I said...put yer beer down and read it slowly...: I'm very clear that a 'mere ability to discriminate a perceived ground, is not SR. If you are experiencing/perceiving 'the abiding ground,' you're mistaken/deluded....the abiding ground is not a perceivable....not 'an experience.' It's a non-conceptual, direct seeing/apprehension/knowing. My response was to your post specifically talking about "samadhi." That's the term you used that i asked about. You are now morphing the convo. See below; What do you mean exactly? You were arguing against all difference/distinction, using the argument, "it's all water." You were dismissing the distinction because of the absence of fundamental separation. Fundamental Oneness does not collapse the "appearance of" distinction. Oneness includes the appearance of distincition...distinction is an expression of the ground. Nah....there's nothing being sought for. Nice try though. No, in clarity it becomes obvious.
|
|
Tenka
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 3,647
|
Post by Tenka on Feb 5, 2022 20:04:45 GMT
I am not going to waste time digging around, but you did say/imply that appearances are not what you are . I simply wanted to know what else is there .. I would appreciate you just speaking in plain English, not this silly non duality talk that is just simply ridiculous . Just speak like a normal person pls .. I am trying to explain this in plain language, perhaps even more so than usual, because of the fact that I know you are having trouble grasping what's being said, so not sure how much more simple or plain the words can get. The fact that Truth ultimately defies capture by language/words definitely play in here. I see so many seekers hung up on the idea of finding out 'what I am/what they are. They take the imagined realization of such to equal "identity as something/someone." But really, identity dissolves in SR. Yes, ultimately, the pointer, I am the appearing shoe, is a pointer to Truth, but those words take on a different meaning when all identity has dissolved vs. when identity is in play. You said so yourself a while back that the way you talk here is not how you talk in ordinary life . It's not normal figs and it just makes things so difficult to understand and relate too . When you use terms of appearances absent of truth arising in consciousness, it just makes no bloody sense . It's not how normal folk talk . You see, one minute, you talk in non duality language, then you speak in a normal language when you speak about the covid pandemic .. Why can't you speak normally about non duality lol . It's like talking to a non duality bot . It makes no sense mate .
|
|
Tenka
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 3,647
|
Post by Tenka on Feb 5, 2022 20:10:24 GMT
A dream metaphor and a notion that isn't realised, that you have held as your premise for years . A dream metaphor that hasn't even anything to back up such a claim . How can it be a premise that you stand by as being true when there isn't anything at all to substantiate such a stance? There is absolutely nuffin is there . There isn't even a shred of evidence . There are no dots to join . I agree with Satch to a degree that there cannot just be pointers to something beyond the pointer . I have said so myself, that there has to be something realised to then point to it .It's no good saying the realisation is beyond a concept and a pointer to then conceptually point to it as being true .. It's just beyond a joke excuse the pun .. Yes, that's also, precisely what i say! But, I also say, that that which is realized is not actually 'a something,' that that word 'something' just gets used as a sort of place-holder. butt .. you speak about seeing thru the illusions of separation etc as the realisation . There is being what you are . That's it . There is no seeing through illusions . Being what you are isn't seeing thru illusions of separation . Simply being what you are doesn't involve a realisation at all . The being of what you are beyond self and mind is exactly that . All these mindful notions you have about seeing clearly only relates to a self that can see clearly . This is why I think you don't understand the difference between self and no self . You keep coming across from a position of self and mind . What you are simply being that, doesn't have the ability to see what they are clearly compared to what you are from as self perspective . What you are simply being that doesn't realise anything . Only what you are that has a self reflection can realise something . I have just liked this post for myself
|
|
Tenka
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 3,647
|
Post by Tenka on Feb 5, 2022 20:24:31 GMT
So you know there are processes involved then . Things don't just arise in consciousness . One minute you don't know at all how things arise, then the next you say there are processes but you see through them . So you do know that there are processes, but you still don't know how things arise because the process of how things arise are in someway illusory .. Again, there is nothing to back anything up, your clutching at straws, making things fit as you go along . You misunderstood my point. Which was, the seeker'd state is rife with what seems to be 'causal processes,' that gets seen through in SR. Either way, you know that appearances just don't arise . Processes seen through are still referencing, appearances that arise through a process. You can say that these processes are real or not, causal or not, but you don't just see a tree appear in front of your eyes do you that reflects a mature tree that has 100 years of growth . You can say this process is a load of bollocks, you can say that the birthing of your kids as just a dream, butt without the natural process occurring, there would never be a tree or a child to be seen to appear in the first place . So let me say it again, you do know how appearances arise, they don't just arise, they go through a process that you can then see through or not . It's not helpful at all when you keep swapping premises, one minute you do know, the next you don't . Then what you do know, is either illusory or dreamy or not . This is why conversations go on for years .. I have had another relatively short spell of talking to you about the nature of appearances, butt it again falls short because of the lack of knowing what consciousness is, what is being pointed too, what is a dream or not, what is a metaphor or not, what is a real or not .. This is why I have said often that it's just like a slippery fish without any sound foundation whatsoever . Non duality talk just goes round and round without any sense at all . I watched a YouTube video the other day, there was a channel ' medium and a bloke that follows the buddhist path .. It made me chuckle because he said the most common misunderstanding had is self and no self . I had to laugh because he said the same thing as I do about the self being some kind of illusory appearance that isn't really here . This then reflects upon dream world realities and appearances arising which is daft as a brush ..
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 6, 2022 4:37:32 GMT
You said so yourself a while back that the way you talk here is not how you talk in ordinary life . What I recall saying in that vein, is I don't just go up to folks in my day to day life and start Truth-talking with them...it's reserved for those who express interest, thus, it usually happens on forum. What terms in particular are having difficulty grasping? The term "appearance" references absolutely anything that is perceived/anything that is thought, sensed, seen, heard....all facets of experience. What makes all appearance empty is that it has no inherent existence on it's own....it arises dependent upon the ground of awareness. Do you not have any reference for what it meant by 'ground of awareness'? I'd think by now, years since you first started partaking in these discussions, you might at least have some kind of a conceptual grasp on the terms used. Like it or not, due to the nature of what is being addressed, conversations about the relative are going to be different (use different terms) than conversations that attempt to point to the absolute/beyond.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 6, 2022 4:49:49 GMT
You misunderstood my point. Which was, the seeker'd state is rife with what seems to be 'causal processes,' that gets seen through in SR. Either way, you know that appearances just don't arise . Processes seen through are still referencing, appearances that arise through a process. You can say that these processes are real or not, causal or not, but you don't just see a tree appear in front of your eyes do you that reflects a mature tree that has 100 years of growth . You can say this process is a load of bollocks, you can say that the birthing of your kids as just a dream, butt without the natural process occurring, there would never be a tree or a child to be seen to appear in the first place . So let me say it again, you do know how appearances arise, they don't just arise, they go through a process that you can then see through or not . It's not helpful at all when you keep swapping premises, one minute you do know, the next you don't . Then what you do know, is either illusory or dreamy or not . This is why conversations go on for years .. I have had another relatively short spell of talking to you about the nature of appearances, butt it again falls short because of the lack of knowing what consciousness is, what is being pointed too, what is a dream or not, what is a metaphor or not, what is a real or not .. This is why I have said often that it's just like a slippery fish without any sound foundation whatsoever . Non duality talk just goes round and round without any sense at all .I watched a YouTube video the other day, there was a channel ' medium and a bloke that follows the buddhist path .. It made me chuckle because he said the most common misunderstanding had is self and no self . I had to laugh because he said the same thing as I do about the self being some kind of illusory appearance that isn't really here . This then reflects upon dream world realities and appearances arising which is daft as a brush .. What's interesting though Tenka, is that although throughout the years you've continued to express contempt for Nonduality talk, and even after all these years, just now you full out admit and demonstrate, you have very low understanding of the terms used, you keep coming back to engage in these discussions. What's that about do you think? There are lots of spiritual forums whose subject matter caters to more new agey topics that would likely be more to your liking, and yet, you continue to engage in spiritual discussions that are geared towards Nonduality. If you find it nothing more than a heap of cow dung, why not just ignore the Nonduality stuff? A really, really good question to sit with if you're up for it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2022 4:52:40 GMT
I used the term "entity" there, not "thing." There's a difference. You seem to have a real difficult time with the subtleties. An entity = "a thing with distinct and independent existence." Thus, we can have (appearing) things, that are not entities. All things are empty of inherent existence of their own. So stop arguing that the mind isn't an entity. Just continue describing it as something that hates stuff. Just continue saying things like the mind doesn't comprehend the no thing, it only wants to grasp, it resists freedom etc and let other people make up their minds about what they think you understand it to be apart from your continual and tiresome assertions and affirmations. You'll continue pleading that although you describe it as something that sounds like an entity you don't really mean it's an entity. No you really really don't because if you say it enough times it might be true. The vantage point of seeing through separation is "transcendent of mind....transcendent of all experiential content." If you were to see through separation that implies a subject object relationship of a seer who is seeing something in this case a concept of no separation. That in itself is separation. Hot tip. Why don't you instead pull out one of your stock phrases about directly realizing it. That would get you out of trouble because no one could challenge it. But isn't your definition of Samadhi, awareness 'absent' arising content? (contentless awareness?) That would mean you're in a constant state that is contentless?....no body/mind...absent personality....absent objects.... How did you arrive at that conclusion? Samadhi is not SR. It is a temporary state. So for someone who claims to be SR you don't know that SR is sahaja samadhi which is the simultaneous experience of samadhi and the experience of changing phenomena as one value without separation? Please tell me now that you don't know that so we can close this chapter on your claims about being realized and move on.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 6, 2022 5:12:49 GMT
So stop arguing that the mind isn't an entity. Just continue describing it as something that hates stuff. Just continue saying things like the mind doesn't comprehend the no thing, it only wants to grasp, it resists freedom etc and let other people make up their minds about what they think you understand it to be apart from your continual and tiresome assertions and affirmations. You'll continue pleading that although you describe it as something that sounds like an entity you don't really mean it's an entity. No you really really don't because if you say it enough times it might be true. Stop arguing that my mere use of the term 'mind' indicates reference to an entity, and I will. Clearly, you've no reference for "realization/seeing through of separation. " In seeing through separation, it's clear there is no 'seer' who/that is seeing...and it's a "non-conceptual" seeing, so no, definitely NOT the seeing of "a concept of no separation." Yes, it IS a temporary state. It was YOU a few posts back who starting talking about Samadhi when the subject was SR. You have referenced 'annihilation of mind,' as something that is more than a mere 'temporary state.' Fwiw, being awake does not = having reference for specific yogic/buddhist/religious book terms.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2022 5:18:53 GMT
So stop arguing that the mind isn't an entity. Just continue describing it as something that hates stuff. Just continue saying things like the mind doesn't comprehend the no thing, it only wants to grasp, it resists freedom etc and let other people make up their minds about what they think you understand it to be apart from your continual and tiresome assertions and affirmations. You'll continue pleading that although you describe it as something that sounds like an entity you don't really mean it's an entity. No you really really don't because if you say it enough times it might be true. Stop arguing that my mere use of the term 'mind' indicates reference to an entity, and I will. Clearly, you've no reference for "realization/seeing through of separation. " In seeing through separation, it's clear there is no 'seer' who/that is seeing...and it's a "non-conceptual" seeing, so no, definitely NOT the seeing of "a concept of no separation." Yes, it IS a temporary state. It was YOU a few posts back who starting talking about Samadhi when the subject was SR. You have referenced 'annihilation of mind,' as something that is more than a mere 'temporary state.' Fwiw, being awake does not = having reference for specific yogic/buddhist/religious book terms. As Justin Trudeau would say, you are holding unacceptable views. 😀 Samadhi is the gateway to Self-realization. You are not properly reading and assimilating my comments. You're just riding roughshod over everything in an attempt to steamroll your views/beliefs onto the screen.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 6, 2022 5:24:23 GMT
Stop arguing that my mere use of the term 'mind' indicates reference to an entity, and I will. Clearly, you've no reference for "realization/seeing through of separation. " In seeing through separation, it's clear there is no 'seer' who/that is seeing...and it's a "non-conceptual" seeing, so no, definitely NOT the seeing of "a concept of no separation." Yes, it IS a temporary state. It was YOU a few posts back who starting talking about Samadhi when the subject was SR. You have referenced 'annihilation of mind,' as something that is more than a mere 'temporary state.' Fwiw, being awake does not = having reference for specific yogic/buddhist/religious book terms. As Justin Trudeau would say, you are holding unacceptable views. 😀 Samadhi is the gateway to Self-realization. Yes, you are saying that now and I have read you saying so before, but a few posts ago, you responded to a post of mine that referenced SR with a post about Samadhi, which was confusing...it seemed to me you were conflating the two. Says the guy that continually puts words in my mouth. Can you offer up a specific example of where I did not properly read and assimilate your comment?
|
|