Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2013 8:36:03 GMT -5
"If I am Real I Have to Exist all the Time" -- this seems like a cornerstone foundation for much of what is pointed to here. There is the ever-changing sea of appearances, etc. and the changeless. It is the latter which is given primacy and regarded as real and existing. There is what you are not, which is an area of wide agreement, and then there is what you are. Some folks call this unbounded awareness, Self, __________, God....
Obviously, it is said, you can not just be a mix of appearances, just change itself. You are that which makes change possible. Without you, what is real, no change could be recognized. You were never born (and will never died), yada yada.
I think I get the argument. I just ain't so sure about it (no surprise). First of all, there are very few who claim to have gotten some sort of testimony that this is actually the case. That testimony could only come from someone who appears to have changed it's way into oblivion but still sends a message back (someone who died but was able to relay a message beyond death.) Second, absent evidence or testimony, it just seems like a logical conclusion, a supposition. IOW, just more thinking. Third, the only live testimony I've heard is from folks who have 'Realized' it. But the thing is, one can't know anything about Realization unless one has Realized.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2013 8:43:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 26, 2013 8:49:48 GMT -5
But the thing is, one can't know anything about Realization unless one has Realized. You can know what it not is. That's basically my approach here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2013 9:07:25 GMT -5
But the thing is, one can't know anything about Realization unless one has Realized. You can know what it not is. That's basically my approach here.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 26, 2013 9:15:01 GMT -5
You can know what it not is. That's basically my approach here. Precisely. Funny it is not. Negative and unkind often called it is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2013 9:31:18 GMT -5
Precisely. Funny it is not. Negative and unkind often called it is. Pointing out what you are not is sort of like shooting fish in a barrel, isn't it? And the barrel has a direct link to an unlimited supply of fish. Is there some sort of critical mass of shot fish where one just gives up and stops identifying with the fish? Anyhoo, I don't have a problem with the knowing what you are not. It's the knowing what you are part that I find suspicious.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 26, 2013 9:33:55 GMT -5
"If I am Real I Have to Exist all the Time" -- this seems like a cornerstone foundation for much of what is pointed to here. There is the ever-changing sea of appearances, etc. and the changeless. It is the latter which is given primacy and regarded as real and existing. There is what you are not, which is an area of wide agreement, and then there is what you are. Some folks call this unbounded awareness, Self, __________, God.... Obviously, it is said, you can not just be a mix of appearances, just change itself. You are that which makes change possible. Without you, what is real, no change could be recognized. You were never born (and will never died), yada yada. I think I get the argument. I just ain't so sure about it (no surprise). First of all, there are very few who claim to have gotten some sort of testimony that this is actually the case. That testimony could only come from someone who appears to have changed it's way into oblivion but still sends a message back (someone who died but was able to relay a message beyond death.) Second, absent evidence or testimony, it just seems like a logical conclusion, a supposition. IOW, just more thinking. Third, the only live testimony I've heard is from folks who have 'Realized' it. But the thing is, one can't know anything about Realization unless one has Realized.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2013 9:34:12 GMT -5
Precisely. Funny it is not. Negative and unkind often called it is. Pointing out what you are not is sort of like shooting fish in a barrel, isn't it? And the barrel has a direct link to an unlimited supply of fish. Is there some sort of critical mass of shot fish where one just gives up and stops identifying with the fish? Anyhoo, I don't have a problem with the knowing what you are not. It's the knowing what you are part that I find suspicious. suspicious...is that a curiosity coming-on?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 26, 2013 9:37:11 GMT -5
Precisely. Funny it is not. Negative and unkind often called it is. Pointing out what you are not is sort of like shooting fish in a barrel, isn't it? And the barrel has a direct link to an unlimited supply of fish. Is there some sort of critical mass of shot fish where one just gives up and stops identifying with the fish?Anyhoo, I don't have a problem with the knowing what you are not. It's the knowing what you are part that I find suspicious. Depending on how far you go, mind should just go _________ after some time because there's nothing left to identify with. That's a gradual approach. It's deconstructing concepts, shooting them down one by one. The straight beeline approach would be Niz' advice of staying with the 'I am'.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 26, 2013 9:41:57 GMT -5
" If I am Real I Have to Exist all the Time" -- this seems like a cornerstone foundation for much of what is pointed to here. That you can pose the question "Am I real?" is it's own answer -- the other way to ask it is "do I exist?". From there, "I am Real" translates into "What is real?", and that's where the process of elimination starts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2013 9:52:57 GMT -5
" If I am Real I Have to Exist all the Time" -- this seems like a cornerstone foundation for much of what is pointed to here. That you can pose the question "Am I real?" is it's own answer -- the other way to ask it is "do I exist?". From there, "I am Real" translates into "What is real?", and that's where the process of elimination starts. It can be overwhelming. There's an infinitude to question.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 26, 2013 9:59:37 GMT -5
That you can pose the question "Am I real?" is it's own answer -- the other way to ask it is "do I exist?". From there, "I am Real" translates into "What is real?", and that's where the process of elimination starts. It can be overwhelming. There's an infinitude to question. If you don't like or can't find Reefs' beeline, then recognize that you can only take the infinitude one question at a time ... just relax and let them come. The other thing to consider is that maybe it's not really an infinitude after all. There are a few attributes of what you are that do find general agreement and one of these is limitlessness. If you are unlimited, then what you aren't isn't ... now you might be tempted here to entertain the idea that what you aren't can be unlimited as well, but if that were true then there'd be two instances of limitless. Sounds sorta' koanish eh?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2013 10:05:15 GMT -5
It can be overwhelming. There's an infinitude to question. If you don't like or can't find Reefs' beeline, then recognize that you can only take the infinitude one question at a time ... just relax and let them come. The other thing to consider is that maybe it's not really an infinitude after all. There are a few attributes of what you are that do find general agreement and one of these is limitlessness. If you are unlimited, then what you aren't isn't ... now you might be tempted here to entertain the idea that what you aren't can be unlimited as well, but if that were true then there'd be two instances of limitless. Sounds sorta' koanish eh? The beeline -- I Am -- or the answer to Do I Exist? is a no brainer. It takes not an iota of attention to know that one exists. Whether there is a quality of limitlessness to existence or not seems to be more conjecture to me.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 26, 2013 10:06:31 GMT -5
That you can pose the question "Am I real?" is it's own answer -- the other way to ask it is "do I exist?". From there, "I am Real" translates into "What is real?", and that's where the process of elimination starts. It can be overwhelming. There's an infinitude to question. That's where it can be useful to question the assumption that you can be one of the 'things' that appears to you. This assumption is so deeply ingrained because we begin with the conviction 'I am the body/mind', and from there it seems obvious that 'I can be an appearance'. You can't actually find yourself as an appearance appearing to yourself. You don't ever appear. It doesn't matter how many fish appear in the barrel. You can't be any of them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2013 10:21:14 GMT -5
It can be overwhelming. There's an infinitude to question. That's where it can be useful to question the assumption that you can be one of the 'things' that appears to you. This assumption is so deeply ingrained because we begin with the conviction 'I am the body/mind', and from there it seems obvious that 'I can be an appearance'. You can't actually find yourself as an appearance appearing to yourself. You don't ever appear. It doesn't matter how many fish appear in the barrel. You can't be any of them. I'm down with shooting those fish. It's a useful activity. I'm trying to figure out if the claim that my fundamental nature never was born, will never die, is changeless, limitless, etc. is a fish or not. If it is I'm gonna shoot it.
|
|