|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 26, 2018 15:47:07 GMT
Seems to me the term Self realization (SR) gets used in these conversations to reference difference things, depending upon who's using the term. Some speak of a sort of 'incompleteness' or 'falling short' of fully realizing "The Truth," following SR, hence the talk about CC experiences that fill in the gaps left in the wake of Self Realization. For me, the term Self realization encompasses the entire gamut in terms of what can be realized to be "Truthy." Fact is, there is not anything beyond I exist and there is no separation, (all is Self) that can be known with unquestionable certainty. Existence is known via itself.....inherent in existence is awareness of existing. And, no separation just means that the idea of being a separate something that stands apart from a separate world, collapses....gets seen through. All that arises and all that is, is clearly seen to be one & the same...all that is known to be, absent question, is Self. So really, there is no material knowledge gained in Truth realization....it's all about seeing through previously held to knowledge. Thus, when folks talk about attachments remaining following SR, it seems to me they must be defining SR in quite a different way than what I lay out above. Attachment to anything material, be it an idea, circumstance, thing, requires a sense of 'separate me,' doesn't it? Below is a recent post of ZD's from ST that prompted my response; I agree with all he says there, but the bolded stood out; Can SR be shallow vs. deep? I say no. Self has either been realized, (actually REALIZED), or not. There is no half way. If it's incomplete, then actual 'realization' has not happened and one has merely gotten comfy with the conception notion of no separation, of Self is all....there is but One thingless thing. And imo, a conceptual grasp of Self, does to some degree have a mitigating factor, but it plain and simply is not the 'shift' in seeing/knowing/Being, that IS actual Self "realization." I would say that if any of those attachments you describe above are in play, then clearly, Selfhood never actually fell away in the first place. Just seems to me that the term SR is being used to denote a conceptual understanding of Oneness/no separation, when really, the term 'realization' means something vastly different than just a mere understanding....it's the complete and total seeing through of separation.....of separate personhood....of 'an objective world out there.' Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/5101/non-abidance-mind#ixzz5DnBovCf1 |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969 
|
Post by Enigma on Apr 27, 2018 5:39:36 GMT
Seems to me the term Self realization (SR) gets used in these conversations to reference difference things, depending upon who's using the term. Some speak of a sort of 'incompleteness' or 'falling short' of fully realizing "The Truth," following SR, hence the talk about CC experiences that fill in the gaps left in the wake of Self Realization. For me, the term Self realization encompasses the entire gamut in terms of what can be realized to be "Truthy." Fact is, there is not anything beyond I exist and there is no separation, (all is Self) that can be known with unquestionable certainty. Existence is known via itself.....inherent in existence is awareness of existing. And, no separation just means that the idea of being a separate something that stands apart from a separate world, collapses....gets seen through. All that arises and all that is, is clearly seen to be one & the same...all that is known to be, absent question, is Self. So really, there is no material knowledge gained in Truth realization....it's all about seeing through previously held to knowledge. Thus, when folks talk about attachments remaining following SR, it seems to me they must be defining SR in quite a different way than what I lay out above. Attachment to anything material, be it an idea, circumstance, thing, requires a sense of 'separate me,' doesn't it? Below is a recent post of ZD's from ST that prompted my response; I agree with all he says there, but the bolded stood out; Can SR be shallow vs. deep? I say no. Self has either been realized, (actually REALIZED), or not. There is no half way. If it's incomplete, then actual 'realization' has not happened and one has merely gotten comfy with the conception notion of no separation, of Self is all....there is but One thingless thing. And imo, a conceptual grasp of Self, does to some degree have a mitigating factor, but it plain and simply is not the 'shift' in seeing/knowing/Being, that IS actual Self "realization." I would say that if any of those attachments you describe above are in play, then clearly, Selfhood never actually fell away in the first place. Just seems to me that the term SR is being used to denote a conceptual understanding of Oneness/no separation, when really, the term 'realization' means something vastly different than just a mere understanding....it's the complete and total seeing through of separation.....of separate personhood....of 'an objective world out there.' Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/5101/non-abidance-mind#ixzz5DnBovCf1 I'm in agreement with all of that, and I've actually only heard of partial SR recently. I may be wrong but it seemed to evolve out of a discussion CC experiences, and a need to include them as part of the realization package, adding some critical 'realization knowledge'. The whole thing makes me question what in blazes is going on. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2018 5:44:01 GMT
Seems to me the term Self realization (SR) gets used in these conversations to reference difference things, depending upon who's using the term. Some speak of a sort of 'incompleteness' or 'falling short' of fully realizing "The Truth," following SR, hence the talk about CC experiences that fill in the gaps left in the wake of Self Realization. For me, the term Self realization encompasses the entire gamut in terms of what can be realized to be "Truthy." Fact is, there is not anything beyond I exist and there is no separation, (all is Self) that can be known with unquestionable certainty. Existence is known via itself.....inherent in existence is awareness of existing. And, no separation just means that the idea of being a separate something that stands apart from a separate world, collapses....gets seen through. All that arises and all that is, is clearly seen to be one & the same...all that is known to be, absent question, is Self. So really, there is no material knowledge gained in Truth realization....it's all about seeing through previously held to knowledge. Thus, when folks talk about attachments remaining following SR, it seems to me they must be defining SR in quite a different way than what I lay out above. Attachment to anything material, be it an idea, circumstance, thing, requires a sense of 'separate me,' doesn't it? Below is a recent post of ZD's from ST that prompted my response; I agree with all he says there, but the bolded stood out; Can SR be shallow vs. deep? I say no. Self has either been realized, (actually REALIZED), or not. There is no half way. If it's incomplete, then actual 'realization' has not happened and one has merely gotten comfy with the conception notion of no separation, of Self is all....there is but One thingless thing. And imo, a conceptual grasp of Self, does to some degree have a mitigating factor, but it plain and simply is not the 'shift' in seeing/knowing/Being, that IS actual Self "realization." I would say that if any of those attachments you describe above are in play, then clearly, Selfhood never actually fell away in the first place. Just seems to me that the term SR is being used to denote a conceptual understanding of Oneness/no separation, when really, the term 'realization' means something vastly different than just a mere understanding....it's the complete and total seeing through of separation.....of separate personhood....of 'an objective world out there.' Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/5101/non-abidance-mind#ixzz5DnBovCf1 I'm in agreement with all of that, and I've actually only heard of partial SR recently. I may be wrong but it seemed to evolve out of a discussion CC experiences, and a need to include them as part of the realization package, adding some critical 'realization knowledge'. The whole thing makes me question what in blazes is going on. SR means knowing who you really are! Realizing yourself to be a creator of those perception in My view! But CC DD FF can't contribute anything to that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2018 8:18:19 GMT
"ZD:Following SR, people can get attached to the attainment of SR (probably the most common attachment), and they can still be attached to all kinds of other thoughts about SR, about what freedom means, about how it can be maintained, etc."
On the basis of that one statement alone I'm convinced that ZD doesn't know what he's talking about and he doesn't have direct knowledge of that on which he speaks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2018 9:19:45 GMT
"ZD:Following SR, people can get attached to the attainment of SR (probably the most common attachment), and they can still be attached to all kinds of other thoughts about SR, about what freedom means, about how it can be maintained, etc." On the basis of that one statement alone I'm convinced that ZD doesn't know what he's talking about and he doesn't have direct knowledge of that on which he speaks. One day his CC experience reveals him that other people existence can't be known but another day his CC experience reveals that another person existence can be known. |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Apr 27, 2018 15:05:09 GMT
"ZD:Following SR, people can get attached to the attainment of SR (probably the most common attachment), and they can still be attached to all kinds of other thoughts about SR, about what freedom means, about how it can be maintained, etc." On the basis of that one statement alone I'm convinced that ZD doesn't know what he's talking about and he doesn't have direct knowledge of that on which he speaks. I don't think I've ever heard him talk like that before. |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Apr 27, 2018 15:07:13 GMT
"ZD:Following SR, people can get attached to the attainment of SR (probably the most common attachment), and they can still be attached to all kinds of other thoughts about SR, about what freedom means, about how it can be maintained, etc." On the basis of that one statement alone I'm convinced that ZD doesn't know what he's talking about and he doesn't have direct knowledge of that on which he speaks. One day his CC experience reveals him that other people existence can't be known but another day his CC experience reveals that another person existence can be known. Well, the second one was CC revision A.  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 27, 2018 18:46:22 GMT
Seems to me the term Self realization (SR) gets used in these conversations to reference difference things, depending upon who's using the term. Some speak of a sort of 'incompleteness' or 'falling short' of fully realizing "The Truth," following SR, hence the talk about CC experiences that fill in the gaps left in the wake of Self Realization. For me, the term Self realization encompasses the entire gamut in terms of what can be realized to be "Truthy." Fact is, there is not anything beyond I exist and there is no separation, (all is Self) that can be known with unquestionable certainty. Existence is known via itself.....inherent in existence is awareness of existing. And, no separation just means that the idea of being a separate something that stands apart from a separate world, collapses....gets seen through. All that arises and all that is, is clearly seen to be one & the same...all that is known to be, absent question, is Self. So really, there is no material knowledge gained in Truth realization....it's all about seeing through previously held to knowledge. Thus, when folks talk about attachments remaining following SR, it seems to me they must be defining SR in quite a different way than what I lay out above. Attachment to anything material, be it an idea, circumstance, thing, requires a sense of 'separate me,' doesn't it? Below is a recent post of ZD's from ST that prompted my response; I agree with all he says there, but the bolded stood out; Can SR be shallow vs. deep? I say no. Self has either been realized, (actually REALIZED), or not. There is no half way. If it's incomplete, then actual 'realization' has not happened and one has merely gotten comfy with the conception notion of no separation, of Self is all....there is but One thingless thing. And imo, a conceptual grasp of Self, does to some degree have a mitigating factor, but it plain and simply is not the 'shift' in seeing/knowing/Being, that IS actual Self "realization." I would say that if any of those attachments you describe above are in play, then clearly, Selfhood never actually fell away in the first place. Just seems to me that the term SR is being used to denote a conceptual understanding of Oneness/no separation, when really, the term 'realization' means something vastly different than just a mere understanding....it's the complete and total seeing through of separation.....of separate personhood....of 'an objective world out there.' Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/5101/non-abidance-mind#ixzz5DnBovCf1 I'm in agreement with all of that, and I've actually only heard of partial SR recently. I may be wrong but it seemed to evolve out of a discussion CC experiences, and a need to include them as part of the realization package, adding some critical 'realization knowledge'. The whole thing makes me question what in blazes is going on. Yeah, it does seem to have come about as a result of needing/wanting to include CC experiences under the umbrella of Truth realization. And if I at some point have the time or inclination, I just might peruse some past ST convos, 'cause I'm pretty sure I recall the CC'ers, each being quite focal at various junctures about no such thing as 'partial SR.' |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 27, 2018 18:59:12 GMT
"ZD:Following SR, people can get attached to the attainment of SR (probably the most common attachment), and they can still be attached to all kinds of other thoughts about SR, about what freedom means, about how it can be maintained, etc." On the basis of that one statement alone I'm convinced that ZD doesn't know what he's talking about and he doesn't have direct knowledge of that on which he speaks. I don't think I've ever heard him talk like that before. Yeah, It seems that in defense of the precious CC experience, SR, which was previously the term used by most on ST, him incl that referenced Truth realization, period, got relegated to some lesser material gleaning of sorts.  |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Apr 27, 2018 19:45:32 GMT
Seems to me the term Self realization (SR) gets used in these conversations to reference difference things, depending upon who's using the term. Some speak of a sort of 'incompleteness' or 'falling short' of fully realizing "The Truth," following SR, hence the talk about CC experiences that fill in the gaps left in the wake of Self Realization. For me, the term Self realization encompasses the entire gamut in terms of what can be realized to be "Truthy." Fact is, there is not anything beyond I exist and there is no separation, (all is Self) that can be known with unquestionable certainty. Existence is known via itself.....inherent in existence is awareness of existing. And, no separation just means that the idea of being a separate something that stands apart from a separate world, collapses....gets seen through. All that arises and all that is, is clearly seen to be one & the same...all that is known to be, absent question, is Self. So really, there is no material knowledge gained in Truth realization....it's all about seeing through previously held to knowledge. Thus, when folks talk about attachments remaining following SR, it seems to me they must be defining SR in quite a different way than what I lay out above. Attachment to anything material, be it an idea, circumstance, thing, requires a sense of 'separate me,' doesn't it? Below is a recent post of ZD's from ST that prompted my response; I agree with all he says there, but the bolded stood out; Can SR be shallow vs. deep? I say no. Self has either been realized, (actually REALIZED), or not. There is no half way. If it's incomplete, then actual 'realization' has not happened and one has merely gotten comfy with the conception notion of no separation, of Self is all....there is but One thingless thing. And imo, a conceptual grasp of Self, does to some degree have a mitigating factor, but it plain and simply is not the 'shift' in seeing/knowing/Being, that IS actual Self "realization." I would say that if any of those attachments you describe above are in play, then clearly, Selfhood never actually fell away in the first place. Just seems to me that the term SR is being used to denote a conceptual understanding of Oneness/no separation, when really, the term 'realization' means something vastly different than just a mere understanding....it's the complete and total seeing through of separation.....of separate personhood....of 'an objective world out there.' Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/5101/non-abidance-mind#ixzz5DnBovCf1 I'm in agreement with all of that, and I've actually only heard of partial SR recently. I may be wrong but it seemed to evolve out of a discussion CC experiences, and a need to include them as part of the realization package, adding some critical 'realization knowledge'. The whole thing makes me question what in blazes is going on. Can't and don't want to speak for ZD here, but my take is that there is a sort of "existential status" that isn't fully self-realized in the sense that the peep hasn't stood up from the identity poker table yet, but at least they're in a high-stakes game. I think of this as "awakened", but not "SR". By contrast, Joe C. Trance never sat down to play. The gambler can easily get attached to an existential misconception. For example, it's a bluff that I'd say most of the batgap interviewees are playing. |
|
