Sincerity

Even beyond the idea of "no difference at all"?

You are denying the distinction of appearance. Distinct does not mean "fundamentally separate/fundamentally other than." If you don't allow for distinction, you don't allow for temporal appearance...experience.




To say everything is consciousness, is a pointer. You've taken that pointer and conceptualized it, thereby making every-thing THE "abiding" ground of awareness.

The wave is an expression of/within/to the Ocean. It never "becomes" abiding. The apparent distinction between temporal arisings and abiding, unbounded ground of awareness does not collapse in the seeing of no "fundamental/essential/primordial."

If not for a continued "apparent distinction" between temporal arisings and the abiding ground, there would be no need to "realize" they are fundamentally One. And in that realization that fundamentally they are One, temporal appearance does not cease to arise.





Ah, so now you are adding in the crucial bit. It's one thing to say there is no "essential difference/no essential separation/distinction," than it is so say there is no difference whatsoever.

Of course there's an 'apparent difference,' or there'd be nothing to talk about as being "essentially One." The only reason there is the pointer "not two" is because, appearance = distinction/expression.



"The ground" is a pointer synonymous with "abiding/unchanging/unbounded/unlimited." No, the world never becomes "the ground/abiding/unchanging." Regardless of SR/awakening, the world...the body, etc, remains a temporal appearance only.

There is no point whereby an appearance "becomes" the abiding ground.

Again, the problem here is that you are taking these terms to be something more than mere pointers. You've conceptualized them...that could not be more clear than when you say "the world is also the ground." Huge delusion in that.





You've not yet realized what those words are pointing to. You've conceptualized them and think that equals SR. It doesn't.

"There is no difference between ocean and wave." = 'there is no difference between appearance and ground.'




It's a denial in mind/word only. Of course a distinctly appearing world, complete with distinct cups and computer screens continues to appear even after seeing that those appearances are 'essentially' not separate from the abiding ground.

According to you, there is difference between the computer screen and the abiding ground within/to which it appears. Which makes the computer screen then, unchanging, abiding. Your denial is of the distinction between an appearance vs. the abiding ground.




You just referenced it here as something that can only be realized.. that is beyond all ideas and concepts...that's means it can only be pointed to...it defies capture by concepts.







Only that which abides exists. The wave never was existent...it's an appearance only. To realize that though is not the equivalent of dividing reality. The wave and the ocean are One. You don't grasp what "separation" is in reference to. It's only ever erroneously imagined...not an actual circumstance. Being fast asleep/non-SR is to imagine that there is "fundamental separation."



Another flip-flop.

Satchi: There is no difference.




Realizing Oneness does not equal a collapse of all difference/distinction between the abiding and the temporal....the temporal remains temporal, the abiding, abiding, it's just now seen that "fundamentally" there is no separation....the temporal is an expression of the abiding. No separation. But if not for continued distinction, there would be no ephemerally appearing world...no experience.






Of course not. There is no causal path to SR.



I don't concern myself with ideas about "getting somewhere." I don't engage in these discussions with a sense of needing to achieve something....that's just projection on your part as you've admitted you are goal oriented as you have these discussions and as you "teach" meditation.





You still don't grasp what a pointer is; Every word we use to talk about "the Truth," here, is ultimately, but a pointer. The Truth defies conceptualization. To talk about Truth, pointers must be used. It defies direct capture by word/thought/conceptualization.




You're very confused.




Dude! We have to clear up this misunderstanding on your part once and for all. It's the words/terms we are using here to talk about Truth that are the pointers....not the Truth itself.

Even the word "Truth" is but a pointer....the Truth cannot be captured by thought or word...thus, we call the words we use to try to talk about Truth, "pointers."






Those bolded words are but a mere attempt to capture the non-conceptual Truth. The words themselves falls short, but we try. That's what a pointer is. I've explained this to you so many times. The Truth itself is not "a pointer." Again, this is a mental prowess issue....or perhaps a language issue..? Something amiss it seems with your understanding.

You made it clear that you were initially using difference and distinction interchangeably.

When I suggested that there IS a "distinction" between ocean wave, appearance/ground, this is what you said;



To say the distinction is "erroneous" is to argue against my assertion of 'distinction' which I was using interchangeably with the term "difference."

Now, here you are reversing track on that. Full out agreeing that yes, there IS distinction and that is something different than "fundamental" difference.

That right there sir, is a prime example of an absence of sincerity/honesty in these conversations.

You will use whatever means you have, even if that means outright lying and denial, simply to try to win an argument.






Again, you are mangling the term "pointer." It means something different than what you think it means. A prescription to practice meditation for the purpose of achieving SR, is NOT "a pointer to Truth."



Wow, really eh? The temporal wave exists before it even appears.

In a moment of deep meditation, where there is nothing at all arising in mind, there is "an existent" temporal appearance there?





There is no way to talk about Truth without using pointers. Niz, Ramana, all the supposed great gurus/sages use pointers when they speak about Truth.

So how do you determine that I am using pointers "because" I don't know what the truth is? That makes no sense and further demonstrates that you just still are not grasping the concept of pointers and why the words we use to speak about Truth are said to be "but a pointer."






I don't think the "actuality" of nondual awareness...the direct, immediate "nondual awareness" itself, is a pointer. But yes, the "words/terms" can only ever be.

The actuality/immediacy of "abiding nondual awareness" defies capture by concept/words. It's not "an experience" as per the definition of that term. An experience has content...there is quality/property involved...a beginning and end, it can be described, can be captured by words/concepts.

But abiding nondual awareness, defies such capture. It is known directly, immediately, non-conceptually. Here and now, or not at all. It cannot be captured/contained by a memory of a past event...it's either present or not.

Whereas an expereince and it's content, can be to some degree conceptually captured with words...we can explain/describe the experience...the beginning, the middle, the end, the qualities/properties, etc.

Nondual awareness has no such qualities or properties...the appehension of such is not an experience...it's a radical shift in locus of seeing...(that too is but a pointer to the actuality!)





Wrong. That is NOT why I say SR/Truth/Nondual awareness is NOT an experience.

Ultimately, there is no one to experience even that which arises/appears as an object. Ultimately, the Truth is; There is no experiencer other than the one that gets erroneously imagined into the equation when the appearing person is taken to be the ground of awareness.

But even absent an experiencer/perceiver/doer, there is still "experience/appearance arising"..."perceptions"...."doing/actions."

The reason I say the apprehension of Truth...abidance in nondual awareness is not itself "an experience" is because it's truly not an experience!