|
Post by gypsywind on Jan 11, 2012 15:35:53 GMT -5
I've fallen asleep a few times while meditating, too!! Isn't it refreshing?!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 11, 2012 15:41:00 GMT -5
I don't see it that way at all, actually I see the object and the subject are not the same, the object is the seen and the subject is the seer. Lolly, I wanted to bump this since you've recently made an appearance. It's from the subjectivity thread. Can you say anything more about the above quote? it's refreshingly against the grain of the nondual stuff. I don't see it as incompatible with the 'nondual stuff', they're just different contexts. There is a subject and an object, which is a seer and something seen. The seer isn't an entity, and so all attempts to turn the subject into an object fail. As such, we can call the seer 'seeing'. We can say that seeing is happening. So we have seeing, and then we have something seen, but the object seen is not really an object 'out there' seen by something 'in here', since there isn't anything 'in here' but seeing itself. Outside/inside is an assumption that results from the experience of seeing, so there really is no outside/inside. The seeing just happens 'here', and what is seen is also happening 'here'. Here/there also obviously collapses. If the seeing and the seen are both happening 'here', and neither is an object, we can start to 'see' that the distinction between the two is purely imaginary. That which is seen is, in fact, the seeing of it. The seeing, is the seeing of what is seen. There is just the seeing, just perceiving itself. It all collapses into a little greasy spot.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jan 11, 2012 15:43:26 GMT -5
Haha - yeah, I definitely needed sleep anyway. Hope I didn't snore. Never ceases to amaze me how different each meditation is and how little say I have in it. I was all set to jump into some big questions once I got settled and then...zzzzzzzzzzzzz. Maybe that was my big non-answer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2012 16:31:05 GMT -5
so one context is nondualism and the other context is dualism?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 11, 2012 17:03:01 GMT -5
so one context is nondualism and the other context is dualism? Yes, but the larger context trumps the smaller one. It's not a matter of picking a belief system. Subject/object are appearances only. All that IS is appearances appearing. There isn't something else.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 11, 2012 17:16:10 GMT -5
Im not sure that one trumps another. Its like saying that the chocolate flavour of the 3 flavoured ice cream trumps the strawberry. Really its a matter of preference as to which way to see. Sometimes there is just seeing, sometimes there is seer and seen. Sometimes awareness is prior, sometimes awareness is not separate at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2012 17:26:07 GMT -5
so one context is nondualism and the other context is dualism? Yes, but the larger context trumps the smaller one. It's not a matter of picking a belief system. Subject/object are appearances only. All that IS is appearances appearing. There isn't something else. right, the smaller context appears within the larger.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 11, 2012 17:26:34 GMT -5
Im not sure that one trumps another. Its like saying that the chocolate flavour of the 3 flavoured ice cream trumps the strawberry. Really its a matter of preference as to which way to see. Sometimes there is just seeing, sometimes there is seer and seen. Sometimes awareness is prior, sometimes awareness is not separate at all. Truth isn't a buffet.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 11, 2012 17:28:17 GMT -5
Yes, but the larger context trumps the smaller one. It's not a matter of picking a belief system. Subject/object are appearances only. All that IS is appearances appearing. There isn't something else. right, the smaller context appears within the larger. Zakly. In the smaller contexts all the stories spin around endlessly. In the largest context, everything collapses, and there's just Silence.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 11, 2012 17:29:38 GMT -5
Im not sure that one trumps another. Its like saying that the chocolate flavour of the 3 flavoured ice cream trumps the strawberry. Really its a matter of preference as to which way to see. Sometimes there is just seeing, sometimes there is seer and seen. Sometimes awareness is prior, sometimes awareness is not separate at all. Truth isn't a buffet. Ah, but what is Truth prior to mind or encompassing of mind? Again, 2 ways to see it. A buffet no less hehe.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 11, 2012 17:41:34 GMT -5
Ah, but what is Truth prior to mind or encompassing of mind? What?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 11, 2012 17:43:57 GMT -5
Ah, but what is Truth prior to mind or encompassing of mind? What? Sometimes people talk of Truth as if it is prior to mind, and sometimes people talk about Truth as if 'its all Truth'.
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Jan 11, 2012 17:51:05 GMT -5
This is why I talk about the paradoxical nature of the Truth. Sometimes I call it the 'placeless place', or the 'stateless state' or 'eternally equal to both absolute oneness and absolute nothingness'. Ofcourse, the Truth is niether of these dualistic labels in any of my exaples, so it's not actually a paradox. But the Truth can only be discussed or refered to or thought about from here in the illusion of sepparation and duality so the only way to BEGIN to think about it is in this dualistic way. Once we embrace this seeming paradox totally, it is no longer seen to be a paradox.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 11, 2012 17:57:26 GMT -5
This is why I talk about the paradoxical nature of the Truth. Sometimes I call it the 'placeless place', or the 'stateless state' or 'eternally equal to both absolute oneness and absolute nothingness'. Ofcourse, the Truth is niether of these dualistic labels in any of my exaples, so it's not actually a paradox. But the Truth can only be discussed or refered to or thought about from here in the illusion of sepparation and duality so the only way to BEGIN to think about it is in this dualistic way. Once we embrace this seeming paradox totally, it is no longer seen to be a paradox. Yes, but in talking about it here, you saw paradox. Does that mean that you havent embraced the seeming paradox?
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Jan 11, 2012 18:04:31 GMT -5
This is why I talk about the paradoxical nature of the Truth. Sometimes I call it the 'placeless place', or the 'stateless state' or 'eternally equal to both absolute oneness and absolute nothingness'. Ofcourse, the Truth is niether of these dualistic labels in any of my exaples, so it's not actually a paradox. But the Truth can only be discussed or refered to or thought about from here in the illusion of sepparation and duality so the only way to BEGIN to think about it is in this dualistic way. Once we embrace this seeming paradox totally, it is no longer seen to be a paradox. Yes, but in talking about it here, you saw paradox. Does that mean that you havent embraced the seeming paradox? Well no, I'm just trying to explain it to people who may not have noticed it before. What I'm saying is that I know it's not actually a paradox, but It can only be seen as that from within the dream, unless you embrace this fact totally.
|
|