|
Post by enigma on Mar 29, 2015 21:23:08 GMT -5
you must not be paying attention.. you don't even have a conceptual understanding of S.R. How do you know that there isn't a something that exists outside of so-called Oneness/non-duality/non-separation? How could there be anything outside of oneness? You can dispute the actuality of the realization, but you can't say oneness missed some stuff outside of oneness. You ARE the whole.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 29, 2015 21:27:32 GMT -5
There's no disagreement that separation appears. The problem is he says it's an actuality and I say it's an illusion. Does the absolute ever have a problem? No fair. The absolute doesn't have a mind. Ignorance is bliss.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 29, 2015 21:40:55 GMT -5
Love isn't based only on history and memory. It's primarily based on the ongoing relationship, assuming there is one. Love may or may not remain intact when there are personality changes. Loved ones (especially parents and siblings) can be quite intolerant of personality changes. 'Ineffable individuality' is just your imagination running wild. Duh, (conditional) love is subject to conditions. Maybe in the 5th dimension love always remains intact no matter what?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 29, 2015 21:41:19 GMT -5
Nice!.. that's the crux of it.. most people have SR experiences at some point, but some turn that into a religion, a ritualistic attachment to the 'idea' of SR, building a right/wrong way for SR to be interpreted and communicated, and.. rather than see the commonality in other SR experiences, the religious SR advocates insist that SR is only real if it is affirmed by their religious judgments.. I remain hopeful that SR/oneness advocates will realize this fundamental flaw in their BS (Belief System), that they believe they are right, at the expense of a still-mind's clarity, at the expense of opportunities for expanding their awareness beyond the attachment to being 'right'.. What's a self realization experience? It is the experience of realizing what is actually happening..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 29, 2015 21:42:45 GMT -5
The observer referred to is not a person. Welcome to nonduality 101. After 6,000 posts, he's still missing even the most basic non-dual no-brainers. What has he been doing here all this time? Spitting.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 29, 2015 22:52:24 GMT -5
Yes, I know what enigma means by he doesn't live in his head. And yes, what enigma means is that the tree borrows it's existence from that which does exist. So if you have to borrow something, that means that you don't actually have it yourself. No, Enigma says that tree doesn't exist in itself, tree existence only happens in consciousness, this is what he meant. That's the reason I asked you what does he meant by 'he doesn't live in his head', He says this because consciousness doesn't exist in his head, but his head exist in his consciousness. He says that outer world what we perceive doesn't exist, Or complete material world doesn't exist in itself, it's(tree's) existence only exist in consciousness as appearance. More closely put, tree just arises from consciousness, tree doesn't exist in objective outer world. Actually, I was speaking in the context of the person. I'm saying mind is a tool that's picked up when needed and put down when not.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 29, 2015 22:53:32 GMT -5
Do you know what I mean? I replied to source about this, I asked him this question because he believes objective world exist. You mean to say your consciousness doesn't exist in your head, but your head exist in consciousness. Entire material world exist as appearance in our consciousness, this is what you meant. You misunderstood. No biggie.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 29, 2015 22:58:25 GMT -5
That's quite a find. It's really not funny, though. It's not meant to be funny. It's better than suggesting that women can't see a bar in front of them though. Well, but it's a joke.....on a joke site. I think it's meant to be funny.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 29, 2015 23:00:18 GMT -5
He thought you might be acting as a medium for one of the babies. The babies and toddlers that he saw are all Self-Realised, yet without the understanding that they are. And he didn't engage any of them. I found that interesting. Not realizing that you realize self is not really self realization.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 29, 2015 23:06:05 GMT -5
Correct. It is possible to have a very clear conceptual understanding of non-duality long before SR, but seeking continues because the thought structure supporting a sense of personal selfhood remains. In this case there isn't even a conceptual understanding. Seems to me that the hypothetical person on this trajectory would have to be open, curious, sincere and humble to even get to the point of the conceptual understanding, as they'd have to admit to themselves that they only grasped a metaphor. Hypothetical?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 29, 2015 23:15:53 GMT -5
'I', or even 'I am', is not the equivalent of identifying as something. You do, in fact, exist. (You can say, I am) You are not, however, a something. It does matter what you identify with. You're obliged to conform to the boundaries that define your identity. Also, your original humorous dilemma is gone. I mentioned in context the acknowledgement that I exist . The very fact that I exist relates to something in existence . As mentioned at that point it doesn't matter what one relates themselves to be but rather just being aware that there is an existence of sorts . As one comes out of S.R. there is the acknowledgement that I am back within self awareness . What does it matter at that point what they now are in identity in relation a non identity status realized in S.R. I don't know what that means.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2015 23:16:13 GMT -5
When you say perception, it can't remain without perceiver, So perception always holds the perceiver. If you give the definition for person as perceiver, then yes. Lemme ask it this way: When you say "Perception is holding the attention", the attention of what? When you are looking at the Rock, the perception of rock is holding the attention, so attention of Rock. Perception includes appearance and attention(looking) both, It's a single unit. We are naming them simply to distinguish one from another or to understand, but in actually they are not two different thing. They are one. Perceiver is perceived.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2015 23:17:48 GMT -5
I replied to source about this, I asked him this question because he believes objective world exist. You mean to say your consciousness doesn't exist in your head, but your head exist in consciousness. Entire material world exist as appearance in our consciousness, this is what you meant. You misunderstood. No biggie. Ok, all right, My main motto was to make source to understand that tree doesn't exist in itself, source believes that tree exist in itself, I told him that you do not believe so, but he consider that you believe outer tree exist in itself. This is what he has written And yes, what enigma means is that the tree borrows it's existence from that which does exist. So if you have to borrow something, that means that you don't actually have it yourself.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 29, 2015 23:19:58 GMT -5
What we presumably love is how that person expresses in form. No form, no expression. That was an interesting turn or phrase, I would perhaps change the word 'person' for 'individual'. We don't know whether or not the individuality takes no expression after death, but we can say that we still love the individual, no different to when our loved one is in a different country or even in a different room. The love runs deeper than time and space. You're a romantic, Andy. But the love runs as deep and long as our fading memories. This is why grief becomes so entrenched. We don't want to forget, because that's all that remains.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 29, 2015 23:23:56 GMT -5
Sounds like a contradiction, but compartmentalization is expressly denied when it's all one compartment. We sure do like to play word games around here. You still didn't read the bit after. Saying that source is all there is, and ALSO saying that relative stuff that happens doesn't pertain to all there is, is creating a clear compartmentalization in mind. I read 'that bit after' the first time, Andy.
|
|