|
|
Post by Gopal on Apr 8, 2022 7:31:16 GMT
There is "experience." "Experiencing" implies a something that is doing it. And for what it's worth, that's a far deeper into minding than it is to simply say "experience arises." I'm speaking from a position 'beyond' in that, you are speaking from a position within the dream/story. You say there is experience arising then I say there is experiencing and then you dispute it in your ridiculous game of spiritual ego oneupmanship. For heaven's sake you're a total joke!  you really are deeply insecure aren't you?  |
|
Esponja
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Esponja on Apr 18, 2022 7:45:57 GMT
It's all awareness does not = an appearing shoe 'being aware/experiencing.' That's a perfect example of conceptualizing a pointer and then erroneously dragging that attempted absolute context into the relative to erroneously apply it. I have yet to encounter a shoe that can experience anything. But forget the shoe. Awareness isn't experiencing anything either. Awareness isn't doing anything. Remember when you responded to Gopal when he suggested that awareness is perceiving, so why consider a shoe? Everything is awareness/consciousness, but whether it has no form or it takes the form of a shoe it is not experiencing anything. So what does experience? Experienc-ing Be-ing 🤗 |
|
Esponja
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Esponja on Apr 18, 2022 7:48:32 GMT
There was no assumption. It was a question. There is experiencing. Even saying that it is arising is already too much intellectual explanation. There is "experience." "Experiencing" implies a something that is doing it. And for what it's worth, that's a far deeper into minding than it is to simply say "experience arises." I'm speaking from a position 'beyond' in that, you are speaking from a position within the dream/story. I feel like it explains a happening? As long as it’s clear there is nobody experiencing I guess. (There, I tried to join in 😂). |
|
Esponja
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Esponja on Apr 18, 2022 7:49:32 GMT
You say there is experience arising then I say there is experiencing and then you dispute it in your ridiculous game of spiritual ego oneupmanship. For heaven's sake you're a total joke!  you really are deeply insecure aren't you? It's true, relatively speaking, even the sagiest of sages are likely at some point to speak of "experiencing." But we are not relatively speaking here.....this forum is dedicated to Truth-talk and as such, there's a very strong focus here in pointing away from falsity, TO Truth, and that means pointing out those subtle ways mind infers an erroneous separate entity. You spoke yesterday about your view that separation was either present as an overt thought or it wasn't at all present, and I countered that by explaining that the SVP is so much more than a presently arising, overt, obvious thought, that mind's mistake of separation runs wide and deep and has structure to it that easily goes unnoticed even if/when the SVP goes looking for it. That sense of "experiencing," (which then invokes an "experiencer,") is one facet of that structure. If we're talking Truth and pointing away from falsity, it's important to point out those subtle mistakes of mind/imaginings....they seem innocent enough and I know you think my pointing out of the difference between 'experience arising' vs. 'experiencing' is pointless, but really, if you're at all interested in seeing beyond the dream, it's not at all. Again, I think you'd do well to pay some attention to mind's content....to really look at what's going on and then the overlay of imagination that gets heaped upon that. "Experiencing" is itself an arising sense, and it's erroneous in that it invokes an entity 'who/that' experiences. All that is really know is that there is "experience" and it's ultimately arising to no-one/no-thing. Ah ok, you addressed it. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 28, 2022 18:56:55 GMT
You are glossing over the important difference between a mere conceptual seeing vs. a non-conceptual realization/shift in locus of seeing. It's not enough to simply look from the position of being mired in the dream...everything seen from within that position is going to be tainted by that position.
The conceptual idea that I am not the body, is not the same as a non-conceptual realization that I am not the body.....absent the shift in locus of seeing from within the dream, where the sense of 'being the body,' is primary, the seeing that I am not the body is just a surfacey, conceptual sort of seeing, based entirely on ideation. Whereas what's required is a shift in locus of seeing to beyond the dream...beyond the bodily sense of being, to that which lies fundamental to it.
It's a nice idea that thought alone...inquiry alone, can reveal the Truth of things, but that's all it is...a thought...empty at that.
There is no causal path to SR. Inquiry is great...it's a general indicator of a sincere interest to BE more consciously aware, but even that is not an absolute given when it comes to SR.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 16, 2022 16:46:34 GMT
It's not the term "body" that has a different meaning, it's the term "I am," that changes in awakening...or rather, the sense of "amness" where seeing/awareness is seemingly tied to a body/mind/person, disappears and instead, the locus of seeing is the ground of awareness...unboundedness itself.
When the awakened says "I am the body," there is no identification in that, whereas the unawakened is very much identifying himself to be the body...A body/A person....which makes for an experience of boundedness to personhood. This is the mistake of beleiving you are a separate, volitional person.
Inherent, (yet unsaid) in the sages "I am the body," is "the body is an empty expression only, not existent, not separate from, fully dependent upon the abiding ground of unbounded awareness from which is arises/is expressed"...the body and awareness are "fundamentally" One/not separate. That does not though mean "exactly the same/no distinction/no difference" as some will insist...if there were no distinction, there would be nothing arising/appearing. Experiential content = an expression/a distinction/an apparent difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 16, 2022 18:55:32 GMT
"Fundamentally/Ultimately" there are no boundaries...no others. But if not for the appearance of others, the appearance of boundaries, there would nothing for which to point to, to say: "not other."
There IS an appearance of discrete things/objects...an appearance of this and the 'other,' but "fundamentally," there is but One.
When you suggest that the "other" that appears is "alive and conscious," what you've done is reified that empty appearance as a something that is "infused with" consciousness, which is different than an empty appearance as an expression of/arising within/to consciousness.
You can't collapse the appearing 'thing' and then declare it to be 'full of' consciousness. That's what you do when you insist that there is absolutely and "relatively" no boundaries...no other.
This is why "appearance only" is so important to see. It allows the acknowledgement of that which does appear, without erroneously infusing it with inherent existence as you have done when you insist that a shoe is known for absolute certain/is realized to BE, alive and conscious.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2022 3:34:59 GMT
"Fundamentally/Ultimately" there are no boundaries...no others. But if not for the appearance of others, the appearance of boundaries, there would nothing for which to point to, to say: "not other." There IS an appearance of discrete things/objects...an appearance of this and the 'other,' but "fundamentally," there is but One. When you suggest that the "other" that appears is "alive and conscious," what you've done is reified that empty appearance as a something that is "infused with" consciousness, which is different than an empty appearance as an expression of/arising within/to consciousness. You can't collapse the appearing 'thing' and then declare it to be 'full of' consciousness. That's what you do when you insist that there is absolutely and "relatively" no boundaries...no other. This is why "appearance only" is so important to see. It allows the acknowledgement of that which does appear, without erroneously infusing it with inherent existence as you have done when you insist that a shoe is known for absolute certain/is realized to BE, alive and conscious. Ramana: The jnani says, “I am the body”; The ajnani says, “I am the body”; what is the difference? ‘I am’ is the truth. The body is the limitation. The ajnani limits the ‘I’ to the body. ‘I’ remains independent of the body in sleep. The same ‘I’ is now in the wakeful state. Though imagined to be within the body, ‘I’ is without the body. The wrong notion is not ‘I am the body.’ ‘I’ says so. The body is insentient and cannot say so. The mistake lies in thinking that ‘I’ is what ‘I’ is not. ‘I’ is not insentient. ‘I’ cannot be the inert body. The body’s movements are confounded with ‘I’ and misery is the result. Whether the body works or not, ‘I’ remains free and happy. The ajnani’s ‘I’ is the body only. That is the whole error. The jnani’s ‘I’ includes the body and everything else. Clearly some intermediate entity arises and gives rise to the confusion. Talk 248 (15th September, 1936) |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 17, 2022 3:55:31 GMT
"Fundamentally/Ultimately" there are no boundaries...no others. But if not for the appearance of others, the appearance of boundaries, there would nothing for which to point to, to say: "not other." There IS an appearance of discrete things/objects...an appearance of this and the 'other,' but "fundamentally," there is but One. When you suggest that the "other" that appears is "alive and conscious," what you've done is reified that empty appearance as a something that is "infused with" consciousness, which is different than an empty appearance as an expression of/arising within/to consciousness. You can't collapse the appearing 'thing' and then declare it to be 'full of' consciousness. That's what you do when you insist that there is absolutely and "relatively" no boundaries...no other. This is why "appearance only" is so important to see. It allows the acknowledgement of that which does appear, without erroneously infusing it with inherent existence as you have done when you insist that a shoe is known for absolute certain/is realized to BE, alive and conscious. Ramana: The jnani says, “I am the body”; The ajnani says, “I am the body”; what is the difference? ‘I am’ is the truth. The body is the limitation. The ajnani limits the ‘I’ to the body. ‘I’ remains independent of the body in sleep. The same ‘I’ is now in the wakeful state. Though imagined to be within the body, ‘I’ is without the body. The wrong notion is not ‘I am the body.’ ‘I’ says so. The body is insentient and cannot say so. The mistake lies in thinking that ‘I’ is what ‘I’ is not. ‘I’ is not insentient. ‘I’ cannot be the inert body. The body’s movements are confounded with ‘I’ and misery is the result. Whether the body works or not, ‘I’ remains free and happy. The ajnani’s ‘I’ is the body only. That is the whole error. The jnani’s ‘I’ includes the body and everything else. Clearly some intermediate entity arises and gives rise to the confusion. Talk 248 (15th September, 1936) Why did you post this in response to my post...are you agreeing with, disagreeing with, or further augmenting what I said? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2022 7:48:25 GMT
Ramana: The jnani says, “I am the body”; The ajnani says, “I am the body”; what is the difference? ‘I am’ is the truth. The body is the limitation. The ajnani limits the ‘I’ to the body. ‘I’ remains independent of the body in sleep. The same ‘I’ is now in the wakeful state. Though imagined to be within the body, ‘I’ is without the body. The wrong notion is not ‘I am the body.’ ‘I’ says so. The body is insentient and cannot say so. The mistake lies in thinking that ‘I’ is what ‘I’ is not. ‘I’ is not insentient. ‘I’ cannot be the inert body. The body’s movements are confounded with ‘I’ and misery is the result. Whether the body works or not, ‘I’ remains free and happy. The ajnani’s ‘I’ is the body only. That is the whole error. The jnani’s ‘I’ includes the body and everything else. Clearly some intermediate entity arises and gives rise to the confusion. Talk 248 (15th September, 1936) Why did you post this in response to my post...are you agreeing with, disagreeing with, or further augmenting what I said? All of the above |
|
you really are deeply insecure aren't you?
you really are deeply insecure aren't you?