|
Post by Reefs on Mar 30, 2015 1:37:23 GMT -5
And now you want to bring the dialog back around in a circle. Why is that? Why do you keep stating and re-stating the same conclusions over and over again, despite the fact that the specific points of subjective disagreement have been highlighted repetitively? Link or giraffe. Enlightenment isn't a context. To put it in terms of a pointing (highlighted by quotes) The appearance of the enlightened individual can point "to where she is". She can't speak something that is absolutely free of falsity because any and all speech, language and ideas rest on the subject/object split, and "what" she is pointing "to", is not-two. You are saying that Reefs is saying something he is not, and I was showing you what he is saying. When we talk about enlightenment/self-realization, we are talking in context. Reefs has acknowledged that. He said recently.... ''In the context of SR, which means hatless being....'' Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/user/993/recent#ixzz3VdVIRZ9LOkay, then let me rephrase, "In terms of SR, which means hatless being...." Does that sit better with you?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 30, 2015 1:41:12 GMT -5
You are saying that Reefs is saying something he is not, and I was showing you what he is saying. Oh, what did I write that Reefs has written that he actually hasn't? Link or giraffe This then ... well ok, no giraffe for you on that one. What he was referring to was the context of the appearance of the enlightened individual and offering a pointing about social roleplay, and the fact remains that SR isn't a context, and that context doesn't apply to SR, and he has made that clear to you as well. Reefs was sloppy in responding to figgles, but he's already told you repeatedly that since your definition of SR isn't the same as his that you and he are just talking past each other. Where I do differ with him is that I won't either offer you a specific definition of SR or acknowledge -- to you -- the idea of a "context of SR", because SR means different things to me and you, so anything I write to you based on a definition I'd offer or a context I'd assume is just going to create confusion. If I'm writing to someone else I'd acknowledge a "context of SR", and I don't necessarily have to agree with them on what SR means, but your fixation on these ideas and your inability to accept the differences of opinion are such that you just ain't one of those peeps. Mr Temp is lost in literalism again. So conversing with him has been becoming very cumbersome again.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 30, 2015 1:53:29 GMT -5
Are you maybe confusing subjective with personal? To say experience is subjective is to assert of a secondary notion about experience. No comprendo. The question was if, to you, personal and subjective are synonyms.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Mar 30, 2015 1:57:38 GMT -5
I have said self not identity and said it in such a way where the non identity is beyond mind . The non identity in that respect is not an identity . Depends on if one is of the mind . If one is of the mind and relates self to no self then sure, the no self or the non identity is just another self reference . But you also wrote essentially, no mind, no awareness, and that's where our opinions diverge, and no debate will ever settle that matter as I'm not referring to something that's intellectually defensible. It's just as possible for a peep to harbor an identity based on the idea of the absence of identity as it is for them to harbor an identity based on the idea of the monism of Self. The thought that I exist is an identity in it's self . 'I' is an identity of sorts ... Not in my opinion, no. One more lap in the warren. Here's my TMT tornado in reply: That these words are being rendered by the mind in the moment, that this sentence is being read, is a self evident fact that is referred to by one of many different possible pointers. Peeps conditioning leads them to prefer one and the word lawyers can hash out which one is the best: existence, being, self, consciousness, awareness, this ... etc. In this moment, in the reading of the sentence, you are, and this "areness" is referred to indirectly -- that is, it's pointed to -- by any of those words, but none of them explain or define WHAT you are -- that is what is an identity is, that definition. The "I thought" is just an artifact of the "areness" + the fact of perspective, not a definition of what that "areness" is. When self is no more / no-one / no identity beyond mind then when one is again aware that 'I' exist then you will associate and realize the comparison had that just existing in awareness of the mind automatically identifies self with self but it is cool to not see eye to eye on that . I did somewhere explain the relevance of coming out of S.R. and entertaining self once more in relation to identity . If you want to quote me exactly in what I have said relating to no mind, no awareness then I can relate my thoughts to such a quote . As previously noticed you changed my quote in reference to self and identity in order to make your point so I need to understand the exact words mentioned and in the context they were used in order to reply my meaning . I understand your thoughts based on what we are and words that are used to describe as such . As mentioned before tis likened to the man in sandals wearing them out by running around in circles . I have a few key words that resonate with me when I try and speak about certain matters . As you know even self can have as many meanings as there are those that hold meaning of such a thing / word . I am o.k with that and I am ok with the limitations of such words and their meanings .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2015 1:58:33 GMT -5
Belief has nothing to do with it. Belief is just a mental concept. Yes correct, what you are thinking about the object and perceiver is just belief. When you see the moon, you are moon, that's the truth. You are not the moon. You are the Self.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2015 2:00:19 GMT -5
Yes correct, what you are thinking about the object and perceiver is just belief. When you see the moon, you are moon, that's the truth. You are not the moon. You are the Self. That's what I say , Perception is holding the peceiver , Perception and perceiver are one, when you are looking at the rock, perception of rock is holding the attention , Understand?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 30, 2015 2:01:16 GMT -5
Not-two points away from the compartments. The compartmentalization happens when the absolute is stated to be all that is, and then it is also insisted that any thing that happens ONLY pertains to the relative. It's a misunderstanding of the not-twoness of absolute and relative. The compartmentalization happens when it's all in one compartment?? His logic here is similar to his logic in the 'impersonal vs personal' discussions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2015 2:03:45 GMT -5
You are not the moon. You are the Self. That's what I say , Perception is holding the peceiver , Perception and perceiver are one, when you are looking at the rock, perception of rock is holding the attention , Understand? Perception holding the perceiver doesn't mean anything.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Mar 30, 2015 2:06:41 GMT -5
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. As one comes out of S.R one begins to associate what they are with self of the mind . From having no point of awareness to having a point of awareness registers in mind that one is back in an identity of sorts . An identity of existing in mind as something that can exist in mind .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2015 2:07:50 GMT -5
That's what I say , Perception is holding the peceiver , Perception and perceiver are one, when you are looking at the rock, perception of rock is holding the attention , Understand? Perception holding the perceiver doesn't mean anything. It mean many thing, but you are not understanding, perceiver is not a static entity sitting in the chair and watching what's happening over there. Perceiver is the act of perceiving, so this action is the part of perception itself. Perception itself holds this 'watching'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2015 2:08:27 GMT -5
I don't know what that means. As one comes out of S.R one begins to associate what they are with self of the mind . From having no point of awareness to having a point of awareness registers in mind that one is back in an identity of sorts . An identity of existing in mind as something that can exist in mind . How can you come out of SR?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 30, 2015 2:08:33 GMT -5
Yes but you see that's a distinction that isn't a dwad. It's explicit as to the nature of the individual. Well no, that's just one sub-topic. And here you repeat our difference of opinion, yet again. Ever thought about why you have that on endless repeat? If the context of SR is one in which we are talking about the appearance of enlightened individuals, then enlightenment is a condition in that context, after all, some appearances are enlightened and not others. It's not a sub-topic, the central theme of the forum is enlightenment/Self-Realization/Truth-Realization/God-Realization, and thus we are consistently talking within the context of enlightenment/SR, and also the context of individuals (whether they are an appearance or not). If you don't think you are talking within the context of SR/enlightenment, what context do you think you are talking in when you come here? A psychiatry context?I find your recent focus on psychiatry interesting. Why would that be the only other possibility? This is very odd. Are you maybe in therapy again or about to go into therapy again?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2015 2:10:02 GMT -5
Perception holding the perceiver doesn't mean anything. It mean many thing, but you are not understanding, perceiver is not a static entity sitting in the chair and watching what's happening over there. Perceiver is the act of perceiving, so this action is the part of perception itself. Perception itself holds this 'watching'. There is perceiver, act of perceiving, and perceived object.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Mar 30, 2015 2:15:08 GMT -5
As one comes out of S.R one begins to associate what they are with self of the mind . From having no point of awareness to having a point of awareness registers in mind that one is back in an identity of sorts . An identity of existing in mind as something that can exist in mind . How can you come out of SR? The same way one went in
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2015 2:15:43 GMT -5
How can you come out of SR? The same way one went in LOL
|
|