|
Post by tenka on Nov 3, 2018 14:41:56 GMT -5
Yes, I know I can't know appearing people are real or not. And I also know why you three are disagreeing with me and I also know why I can never convince you. So I decided to stop this argument. Can you explain to me why 'I am the only perceiver' is an impossibility for me please? I have explained it many times, but I am curious how closely you can explain it back to me. I can explain why it is possible to you (I have done many times). Stop chasing him .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 3, 2018 14:45:26 GMT -5
I see what you are saying, though I'm not sure about the last couple of paragraphs. There is a similarity to my explanation, in that...in essence....you are saying that the knowing of one's own nature combined with the not-knowing of another's nature, is the SVP position. Which it is. However, I very much doubt your explanation would be accepted, because they think the 'knowing/not-knowing' position they are taking, is prior to the person. And that's why I have said that it's a context mix i.e they THINK they are taking an impersonal position prior to the SVP, when really, it is just personal position (or the SVP). Just wanted to add this: I used to talk to Figgles about personal vs. impersonal several years ago and she always insisted that the impersonal is really just a more expansive view in comparison to the personal view while I insisted that it takes a quantum leap in order to get from personal to impersonal. So yeah, we are making the same point here. To suggest there is impersonal that relates to peep is just denial . For some reason peeps would rather deny the personal because it's more floaty than admitting the obvious . It's the same scenario where peeps say there is no self identity and all that jazz when they self identify with what they are saying in reflection of themselves . There is room for both . There is room for self and no self, the personal and impersonal . It depends on the situation / environment at hand .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 3, 2018 14:47:20 GMT -5
I'm not challenging your perspective, I'm simply asking if you can tell me why it is impossible to me. Given that we have been talking for 2/3 years about it, I am curious as to what extent you have been listening to my understandings. Stop chasing him .
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 3, 2018 15:05:11 GMT -5
I'm not challenging your perspective, I'm simply asking if you can tell me why it is impossible to me. Given that we have been talking for 2/3 years about it, I am curious as to what extent you have been listening to my understandings. Stop chasing him .
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Nov 3, 2018 15:25:22 GMT -5
More Ramana on the reality of the world:
The ajnani [ignorant one] sees the Jnani [wise one] active and is confounded. The world is perceived by both; but their outlooks differ...The ajnani takes the world to be real; whereas the Jnani sees it only as the manifestation of the Self. It is immaterial if the Self manifests itself or ceases to do so.
...
In sahaja samadhi [the constant experience of a realized one] the activities, vital and mental, and the three states are destroyed, never to reappear. However, others notice the Jnani active e.g., eating, talking, moving etc. He is not himself aware of these activities, whereas others are aware of his activities. They pertain to his body and not to his Real Self, swarupa. For himself, he is like the sleeping passenger - or like a child interrupted from sound sleep and fed, being unaware of it. The child says the next day that he did not take milk at all and that he went to sleep without it. Even when reminded he cannot be convinced. So also in sahaja samadhi.
|
|
|
Post by bluey on Nov 3, 2018 20:36:10 GMT -5
More Ramana on the reality of the world: The ajnani [ignorant one] sees the Jnani [wise one] active and is confounded. The world is perceived by both; but their outlooks differ...The ajnani takes the world to be real; whereas the Jnani sees it only as the manifestation of the Self. It is immaterial if the Self manifests itself or ceases to do so. ... In sahaja samadhi [the constant experience of a realized one] the activities, vital and mental, and the three states are destroyed, never to reappear. However, others notice the Jnani active e.g., eating, talking, moving etc. He is not himself aware of these activities, whereas others are aware of his activities. They pertain to his body and not to his Real Self, swarupa. For himself, he is like the sleeping passenger - or like a child interrupted from sound sleep and fed, being unaware of it. The child says the next day that he did not take milk at all and that he went to sleep without it. Even when reminded he cannot be convinced. So also in sahaja samadhi. Is Ramanas statement true for you, in your own realisation of Sahaja Samadhi?
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 3, 2018 20:57:07 GMT -5
So what I am is not the thought.
/
There is what you are of the mind and beyond. If there is a thought of 'I' then there is awareness of I AM of the mind . If there is no awareness / thought of I AM then there is what you are without that thought that is not of the mind . I don't know about all that, but I do not identify with thought, experience or the universe at large.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Nov 3, 2018 22:54:44 GMT -5
More Ramana on the reality of the world: The ajnani [ignorant one] sees the Jnani [wise one] active and is confounded. The world is perceived by both; but their outlooks differ...The ajnani takes the world to be real; whereas the Jnani sees it only as the manifestation of the Self. It is immaterial if the Self manifests itself or ceases to do so. ... In sahaja samadhi [the constant experience of a realized one] the activities, vital and mental, and the three states are destroyed, never to reappear. However, others notice the Jnani active e.g., eating, talking, moving etc. He is not himself aware of these activities, whereas others are aware of his activities. They pertain to his body and not to his Real Self, swarupa. For himself, he is like the sleeping passenger - or like a child interrupted from sound sleep and fed, being unaware of it. The child says the next day that he did not take milk at all and that he went to sleep without it. Even when reminded he cannot be convinced. So also in sahaja samadhi. Is Ramanas statement true for you, in your own realisation of Sahaja Samadhi? A dangerous question to answer , because the one who answers cannot be the one whose "experience" is referred to. It's like asking if someone is asleep; if they reply that they are... That said, yes, this is pointing to a very real fact that applies universally, for there are only realized ones: when attention is paid to the I, the world manifests; when attention is not there, both I and the world disappear. Not only that, but the very possibility that attention ever could be paid to the I such that the world appears... even that possibility is nowhere to be seen. And in fact attention is not now, and never has been paid to the I. Delusion/ignorance is the thought that delusion/ignorance exists, or the thought that a thought of delusion/ignorance exists, and so on, recursively. Realization is the fact that the entire chain is nonsense. As long as fear or doubt seem to manifest, the mind is simply not steady in this truth, that's all. But the truth is unchanged, and the truth is that fear or doubt never manifested, and that there was never any mind capable of being unsteady in the truth.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Nov 3, 2018 23:42:09 GMT -5
Hi all, Pretty funny. Sounds like there some kind of witch hunt going on, which, if true, the search is still outward into the world of appearances. Ironic, Huh? Here's a hint. If it pertains to appearances, it's probabilistic, as in not certain, not 100% bonafide Truth. The truth that can be spoken is not Truth. Kinda like the Zen koan thingy stuff where in answer to a question, with the first word out of the chella's mouth, the ZM smacks the crap out of 'em. Unless, unless, unless... The pointing is at somenothing eternally immediate, prior to any context. Hey dude, long time no see! Welcome back! I have been waiting for you! How are you doing by the way? let's start our argument our witnessing argument eh? Gopal says : The one who realized himself to be a witness has to create the story in which he needs to witness, he should not be creating the story in which he has to act, If he were to act in the story then he hasn't realized. SomeNothing: ____ Just curious, when you translate these into Tamil, what is the sense you get from them? Is there a sense of purpose, as in something must get accomplished? Because, from here, it sure sounds like story. The initial instinct is to question the conditioning which is giving rise to such thoughts, which are part of and about the story, as are the questions about it. It's been a very strange year in this dreamland, to say the least. Keeping the Peace in the midst of intense familial drama. Talk about witnessing and acting, hehe.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Nov 3, 2018 23:51:33 GMT -5
Hi all, Pretty funny. Sounds like there some kind of witch hunt going on, which, if true, the search is still outward into the world of appearances. Ironic, Huh? Here's a hint. If it pertains to appearances, it's probabilistic, as in not certain, not 100% bonafide Truth. The truth that can be spoken is not Truth. Kinda like the Zen koan thingy stuff where in answer to a question, with the first word out of the chella's mouth, the ZM smacks the crap out of 'em. Unless, unless, unless... The pointing is at somenothing eternally immediate, prior to any context. Nothing to see here, move along I think it's human nature to evaluate appearances, and sometimes to even compare current and former ones Sure, but why not consciously start from/as Source, and undermine at least some of the mind's unconscious reactions? It would likely improve the accuracy of said evaluations, not to mention reveal insights into human nature.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Nov 4, 2018 0:01:04 GMT -5
Hi all, Pretty funny. Sounds like there some kind of witch hunt going on, which, if true, the search is still outward into the world of appearances. Ironic, Huh? Here's a hint. If it pertains to appearances, it's probabilistic, as in not certain, not 100% bonafide Truth. The truth that can be spoken is not Truth. Kinda like the Zen koan thingy stuff where in answer to a question, with the first word out of the chella's mouth, the ZM smacks the crap out of 'em. Unless, unless, unless...The pointing is at somenothing eternally immediate, prior to any context. ...unless you've got a certificate of enlightenment, right? thwack!!
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Nov 4, 2018 0:07:47 GMT -5
So it starts at one point in time and end in another point of time(After 15 mins), yes? If so, that's not realization, that's experience. Don't call CC as realization, say that as experience, may that's mysterious experience you have ever had but that's an experience. I don't suspect your SR as experience, that's obviously realization but CC is experience. I began writing a long response to this post, but then decided that it wasn't worth the effort to think that much. I'm always amused by people who reach conclusions about things for which they have no reference. I leave you with these accounts by people who do have a reference for what the word "kensho" or "CC" points to: 1. All at once his body disappeared, and he was in infinite space. He remained in that state for some time. When he returned to his body, he understood. The rocks, the river, everything he could see, everything he could hear, all this was his true self. 2. A quotation I had read flashed into my consciousness. I came to realize clearly that Mind is no other than mountains, rivers, and the great wide earth, the sun and the moon and the stars. Then all at once I was struck as though by lightning, and the next instant heaven and earth crumbled and disappeared. I began laughing riotously and said, "There's no reasoning here at all." I continued to laugh until my wife covered my mouth with her hand and asked, "What's the matter with you?" I kept laughing and said, "I've come to enlightenment! The Buddha and the patriarchs haven't deceived me." 3. All at once, without warning of any kind, he found himself wrapped in a flame-colored cloud. The next, he knew that the light was within himself. Directly afterwards came upon him an intellectual illumination impossible to describe. Among other things he did not come to believe, he saw and knew that the cosmos is not dead matter but a living presence. 4. One day I wiped out all the notions from my mind. I gave up all desire. I discarded all the words which I thought and stayed in quietude. I felt a little strange, as if I were being carried into something, or as if i were touching some power unknown to me. I had been near it before, but each time I had shaken my head and run away from it. This time I decided not to run away and....Zttt---I entered. I lost the boundary of my physical body. I had my skin, of course, but my physical body extended to the corners of the world. I felt I was standing in the center of the cosmos. I spoke, but my words had lost their meaning. I saw people coming towards me, but all of them were myself. I had never known this world. I had believed that I was created, but now I had to change my opinion; I had never been created. I was the cosmos. I went to my teacher. He looked at me and said, Tell me about your new experience of entering the transcendental world." If i spoke, I would return to the old world, so i remained silent and looked at his face. He smiled at me. He also did not say a word. I entered the transcendental world in my twenties, and I never left it. If you enter my world, your view becomes entirely different. Then you understand why people build churches and sing hymns and do strange things. Yes, there is another world. Everyone is free to think whatever they wish. Okay, it's clear to me thanks. But can you please explain me the difference between SR and this one(CC)?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 4, 2018 0:09:11 GMT -5
Yes, I agree with you. It seems to me that E' sometimes gets to a point in the conversation when he recognizes that he can't directly convey what it is that his correspondent is interested in, but rather than drawing the dialog to a close, he'll offer to continue by writing about their interest in a different way. The reason this sometimes leads to frustration should be obvious. But, trying to help others understand what he means often ends in disaster. Perhaps it's true. But I don't face any difficulties when he tries to explain some concepts. I find he is always quite straightforward. Actually you are the another person who clearly understand why we say appearance by it's virtue is not conscious but still the question of whether another person is real or not arises due to the suspect of appearance may represent another view point of me. So you may explain to Reefs,Tenka,Andrew if possible. Can you please do that? I know you wouldn't agree with us but still I know you are clear as to why we three think this way. It would be very helpful if you enter into this argument and tries to clarify for them. Would you? The only one of them that's expressed any sustained interest in what I've written about it is andy, but that dialog already ran it's course. What I like to do with repetitive dialogs that I become a part of is to, first, point out how I've had them before with the person I'm having them with.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 4, 2018 0:13:00 GMT -5
Yes, I agree with you. It seems to me that E' sometimes gets to a point in the conversation when he recognizes that he can't directly convey what it is that his correspondent is interested in, but rather than drawing the dialog to a close, he'll offer to continue by writing about their interest in a different way. The reason this sometimes leads to frustration should be obvious. But, trying to help others understand what he means often ends in disaster. Actually, in the beginning, before the great debate, I would have agreed with you. So I think I'd rather stick with what he has said back then. Because that was very clear. To me it comes down to not-knowing, and there can be a profound depth to not-knowing, but none of that is necessary, nor is it entirely possible to make clear to someone else who didn't necessarily roll that way what it's all about. At one point ZD quoted to Tzu': "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Nov 4, 2018 0:13:00 GMT -5
Hey dude, long time no see! Welcome back! I have been waiting for you! How are you doing by the way? let's start our argument our witnessing argument eh? Gopal says : The one who realized himself to be a witness has to create the story in which he needs to witness, he should not be creating the story in which he has to act, If he were to act in the story then he hasn't realized. SomeNothing: ____ Just curious, when you translate these into Tamil, what is the sense you get from them? Is there a sense of purpose, as in something must get accomplished? Because, from here, it sure sounds like story. The initial instinct is to question the conditioning which is giving rise to such thoughts, which are part of and about the story, as are the questions about it. It's been a very strange year in this dreamland, to say the least. Keeping the Peace in the midst of intense familial drama. Talk about witnessing and acting, hehe. Since I am not an English man, some of the lines would not get formed from thinking(subconsciously), sometimes I convert the lines from Tamil, that means I think in Tamil first and then I convert them into English. I see story decides my feelings happy,unhappy,sad,suffering or whatever I imagine. And also whenever I see something clearly story changes, the people in the story moves away accordingly. I can't say I am witnessing the story when I suffer, I can't say I am witnessing the story when I get angry because when I am in anger I consider that this should not be happening this way and that's obviously not an witnessing mode. So If I don't create the story to witness, I am really not in witness mode.
|
|