|
Post by laughter on Nov 22, 2018 10:42:02 GMT -5
Frankly, my take is that the not-knowing in question is a seekers position, but I've had enough dialog with E' to be convinced he's not confused about anything, and have reduced our disagreement down to one very fine point that I find, essentially, inconclusive. But my experience as a seeker, is that the seeking didn't get interesting, and, in fact, wasn't even done consciously, until the illusion of the SVP was seen clearly for what it was. This isn't to say that not everyone who's never considered the not-knowing in question is still seeking, but all the Joe C. Trancer's who never sought, definitely never considered it, and the notion of the fallacy of any and all sorts of objective reality is one that only Trancer's and seekers object to. The reason for the objection is quite obvious to me. As I've said, it's that objection that interests me, and has opened a big can of worms that I never expected. The issue of other perceivers is pretty much a non-starter for me. As did this, and now that I think about it, in recollection, that wasn't the first time. Funny WIBIGO. Indeed.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 22, 2018 10:57:12 GMT -5
hmm no, more like seeing two different sides of the same diamond. reverence and irreverence are movements.. how can they be diamonds? lol pretend the diamond is moving then (my metaphors/similes have dried up!)
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Nov 22, 2018 12:06:14 GMT -5
Having said all that, I used to ref my son's soccer games. Half the crowd wants to kill you and some times, everyone wants to kill you, so I appreciate Reefs position. It is a tough job. But they were fun to have around in all their glory, even with that sharp edge. I miss the counter punches. .. So Reefs is a reeferee . In regards to the teachers, there are bits and pieces that resonate with me also, I remember niz saying in one of his books that was quoted on the forums at sometime to put his book down also and find it out for yourselves . I agree with that . Reefs said something similar to Gopal and when that is accomplished then pick up a book and see if it resonates with what you have realized . I think that is sound advice, at times however a book can be the catalyst in order to take note that one needs to put the book down lol . More or less all the post you take my name for your argument. Are you secretly loving me?
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Nov 22, 2018 12:10:11 GMT -5
Actually I am not a mediator. I wouldn't do meditation because the act while I perform while I am doing mediation would create the situation stimulate the same act(bringing back to the attention to the emptiness).
I did not get you here. Can you explain me more here?
Well, it could be that you realize you are the emptiness that you are paying attention "to" in meditation, but you seem more attracted to identifying with the thoughts that fill it. You don't have to tell me how that works out for you, good sir. You are someNothing in which everything is appearing. There seems to be a thought that is believed and is held onto dearly, mind you, that impedes the realization.Oh so you say mediation release me from those thoughts which I held so dearly?
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Nov 22, 2018 12:11:33 GMT -5
what do you mean by "one begins to desire what creation is providing" Rather than creation accommodating our fears and judgments, we lose our fears and judgments. You were not talking about fear and judgment there, you were talking about desire and creation.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Nov 22, 2018 12:26:40 GMT -5
That you don't see any value in the discussion on "appearances" gives rise to a ripple in consciousness. Only from/as No Mountain are appearances clearly seen for what they are; otherwise, No Mountain appears as a mirage. Appearances? In all seriousness, there is no body. :-) If we could just cut that ignorant head off...hmmm, now there's an idea...
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Nov 22, 2018 12:32:15 GMT -5
Well, it could be that you realize you are the emptiness that you are paying attention "to" in meditation, but you seem more attracted to identifying with the thoughts that fill it. You don't have to tell me how that works out for you, good sir. You are someNothing in which everything is appearing. There seems to be a thought that is believed and is held onto dearly, mind you, that impedes the realization.Oh so you say mediation release me from those thoughts which I held so dearly? Please pay attention! So you are asking me to meditate? So Do I have to raise a question before I meditate? Truth will be found via meditation ? I don't know what will happen. I'm just suggesting trying something in addition to inquiry to potentially make yourself more prone. It seems you have an intellectual understanding of what the ideas generally point to. Your questions seem to arise from realizations that have not been brought into clarity. Truth is already Here, something is in the way, as in can be let go of. Do you see your mind as a stubborn by any chance?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 22, 2018 14:38:57 GMT -5
I think you're pulling my frog leg, so in the interest of my leg, I'm done. Let me say it again for you to hear this time .. You said . 'It's not about not understanding what you';re trying to say. I'm trying to get you to understand what I'm saying'. You are personalising everything that I AM . This illustrates that there is an I and a you to relate with in regards to what we do and what we say . In this respect and in this context, you could be doing ballet and leap into a plant pot and knock it to the floor . I could be doing the robot dance and control my movements and not knock anything over. To say in this context I am responsible for knocking over the plant pot would be incorrect . This is all that I have implied . When I called Gopal a troll Laffy said it mean't that I am calling him a troll too based upon my premise that there is only what you are . It's a flawed premise, it doesn't mean that . So please can you finally get your head around this and personally take responsibility for not listening and understanding what I have said about 10 times now . Let me give an analogy that might apply. Take a film. In many cases there is one writer of the script. He might write for 4 or 6 or 10 or 20 characters, and different actors say the words, but they originate from One Source. One person creates all the dialogue. So lets say there is a character Tenka. Tenka has read the script and learned his lines. But at some point the actor forgets he is an actor and thinks he is Tenka, he has "fallen into the dream". ...But then the writer comes onto the set and says, I have a rewrite, please learn these new lines. And Tenka says, What (tf) are you talking about?, I AM Tenka, these are MY words, I have chosen every word I said. And the Writer says, No, you're an actor being paid to say MY words. Tenka is identified, asleep. Tenka has forgotten he is merely an actor. You can argue all you want, say things over and over and over. One view or the other is right. The correct view supersedes the illusory view. Comprende? (Incidentally, this is very easily seen in most Woody Allen films. You can see that every character is saying the words written by Woody Allen). Almost everybody lives from a certain perspective, a certain paradigm, a certain conceptual world view. For almost everyone their view is a box. They think they live in the whole world but they really live in a tiny box. Their conceptual box forms the limit of their world. To be able to enter the world of another, you have to be able to see that your own world might be a conceptual construct. (One man's realizations are another man's conceptual constructs, and vice versa).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 22, 2018 15:09:44 GMT -5
I would you please either use the [ quote] function of write your whole reply under mine? You might think you hand in continuous and a tree is continuous, but to me the hand is billions of sensations which pop in and out of existence, but that's probably because I'm feeling my way and you are more visually based. If my body is momentary sensation, then all matter is of that same nature. Everything I experience arises in sensation, so although I see the trees with eyes, I also feel the 'way that they are' in my sensation as the subjective quality of 'what it's like'. Hence when I see a tree or the mountains it's immediate coming and going is 'what it's like' to me. The human body is very immediate in sensation, because all things arise in feeling and fall in feeling so they we know 'what it's like'. The body which farts and so forth is also appearing/vanishing in sensation, and all the senses thereof arise momentarily in the moment of that they sense. The robot has sensors, but not a collage of senses that unify in the sensations of the nervous system. Because it has no 'feel' it doesn't know 'what it's like'. The human senses unify in the sensations (nervous system), the feel, so we do know 'what it's like'. Of course a human being is a living thing.
The body is manifest of trillions of sensation, all of which appear and disappear with tremendous rapidity. Our eyes cannot tell us 'what it's like' because 'what it's like' is a feeling. If you see your body it seems to be continuous, but if you feel it, it's entirely ephemeral. The thing is Lolz, you refer to the hand-body as billions of sensations which pop in and out of existence butt it makes no difference to say it like that when you lift up the weights at the gym . You hands don't disappear long enough for you to even know that is happening . If you hadn't read that theory in a book somewhere you never would have attained that theory . I have spoken about vibrating before, but I have never had the impression that I am disappearing and appearing in every moment . Do you know who had a realization of that? Your description of what occurs regarding the mountain disappearing and such likes is eggsactly like lifting the weights . The mountain doesn't disappear enough so for to no longer see the mountain at any point in time . Your thoughts about the disappearing act is not the same as the others here . They believe it no longer exists, it disappears completely . It will never reappear for as long as there is no conscious perceiver present . Now there isn't even a conscious perceiver present so god only know what's going on with the mountain . Who created the robot and the robots sensors? A conscious aware 'thing'? So when you say of course a human being is a living thing then are you saying there can be a living thing that disappears and reappears like how the others see mountains disappear or are you implying that a living thing is aware? If not then who created the living things and who/m or what designed it so that living things can appear and disappear . Using reefs quote the other day about the teacher telling his students that the elephant was in the form of God, IS EGGSACTLY what I have been talking about regarding appearances . It's not just an appearance of an elephant, it is God as an elephant, and God in elephant form is alive / conscious / aware and doesn't disappear when a peep shuts there eyes . It's not that things don't exist, it's that they are not what they think they are. In the film The Truman Show, Truman had a mother. Truman thought she was his mother, but she was merely an actress playing his mother. He had a best friend, but his best friend did and said what director Christof told him to do. He was not really Truman's best friend. Going out of the town there was a bridge, but it wasn't really a bridge but a barrier, a separating wall. At the end of the film Truman tried to cross the sea in a boat in a storm. But it wasn't an ocean, it was a huge prop, a huge tank (another barrier to keep Truman imprisoned). And it wasn't a real storm, the storm was created by Cristof with a weather machine. Everything was "real" in certain sense, but was not what it seemed to be. We live in Maya, most things are not what they seem to be. ....Truman finally hit the end of the ocean/tank with his boat. He then walked up some steps and through a door...into the real world. Movie ends there... Truman for the first time in his life entering the actual world.
|
|
|
Post by bluey on Nov 22, 2018 15:32:04 GMT -5
Let me say it again for you to hear this time .. You said . 'It's not about not understanding what you';re trying to say. I'm trying to get you to understand what I'm saying'. You are personalising everything that I AM . This illustrates that there is an I and a you to relate with in regards to what we do and what we say . In this respect and in this context, you could be doing ballet and leap into a plant pot and knock it to the floor . I could be doing the robot dance and control my movements and not knock anything over. To say in this context I am responsible for knocking over the plant pot would be incorrect . This is all that I have implied . When I called Gopal a troll Laffy said it mean't that I am calling him a troll too based upon my premise that there is only what you are . It's a flawed premise, it doesn't mean that . So please can you finally get your head around this and personally take responsibility for not listening and understanding what I have said about 10 times now . Let me give an analogy that might apply. Take a film. In many cases there is one writer of the script. He might write for 4 or 6 or 10 or 20 characters, and different actors say the words, but they originate from One Source. One person creates all the dialogue. So lets say there is a character Tenka. Tenka has read the script and learned his lines. But at some point the actor forgets he is an actor and thinks he is Tenka, he has "fallen into the dream". ...But then the writer comes onto the set and says, I have a rewrite, please learn these new lines. And Tenka says, What (tf) are you talking about?, I AM Tenka, these are MY words, I have chosen every word I said. And the Writer says, No, you're an actor being paid to say MY words. Tenka is identified, asleep. Tenka has forgotten he is merely an actor. You can argue all you want, say things over and over and over. One view or the other is right. The correct view supersedes the illusory view. Comprende? (Incidentally, this is very easily seen in most Woody Allen films. You can see that every character is saying the words written by Woody Allen). Almost everybody lives from a certain perspective, a certain paradigm, a certain conceptual world view. For almost everyone their view is a box. They think they live in the whole world but they really live in a tiny box. Their conceptual box forms the limit of their world. To be able to enter the world of another, you have to be able to see that your own world might be a conceptual construct. (One man's realizations are another man's conceptual constructs, and vice versa). Adjustment Bureau is good film. The character begins to wake up against the scripts he's accustomed to. Grace, lol. Seeing through the duality which has held him kept him in a role or many roles where each part fights for the directors chair yet he sees his role as just churning the milky ocean as can be seen in the temple of Angor Wat on the eastern gallery. In the movie he starts to open up to That. His script begins to slip as he running through different doors 🚪 and is amazed at the new and Now, the present moment the experience against his old limited predictable script. Where every door he runs through is wow, spontaneous like a new born who just experiences life no matter what's given to them as just what is and ever new. You can give a child the same toy all day but they will see and greet it as the first time. And he sees he's is the director script writer and actor. Yet locating as the director you can see that the character was never really there yet there too. As he was always in the directors chair free of his character all along. Not to say the director didn't enjoy the character. Of course He did He loves to watch and play at the same time. You must have seen old Hitchcock movies he used write the scripts of the film all the characters and he would also appear in the movie too. Just for a split second. He passes through in some scene. Im sure Quentin Tarantino and the director of the film the sixth sense let me just look him up M. Night Shyamalan, he also makes an appearance in his films. So does a Sage he makes an appearance in the movie 🎥 but knowing he's the director the script writer and actor. One Being One.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 23, 2018 2:58:58 GMT -5
Uh Huh, Uh Huh .. Just saying you tell me what's not true about it .How can I when there isn't anything? I was pulling your chain .. I don't think I am going to get any responses either, I kan't think how one would wriggle out of this. I know lets just sweep it under the carpet and pretend the theory still holds up
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 23, 2018 3:00:38 GMT -5
Let me say it again for you to hear this time .. You said . 'It's not about not understanding what you';re trying to say. I'm trying to get you to understand what I'm saying'. You are personalising everything that I AM . This illustrates that there is an I and a you to relate with in regards to what we do and what we say . In this respect and in this context, you could be doing ballet and leap into a plant pot and knock it to the floor . I could be doing the robot dance and control my movements and not knock anything over. To say in this context I am responsible for knocking over the plant pot would be incorrect . This is all that I have implied . When I called Gopal a troll Laffy said it mean't that I am calling him a troll too based upon my premise that there is only what you are . It's a flawed premise, it doesn't mean that . So please can you finally get your head around this and personally take responsibility for not listening and understanding what I have said about 10 times now . Let me give an analogy that might apply. Take a film. In many cases there is one writer of the script. He might write for 4 or 6 or 10 or 20 characters, and different actors say the words, but they originate from One Source. One person creates all the dialogue. So lets say there is a character Tenka. Tenka has read the script and learned his lines. But at some point the actor forgets he is an actor and thinks he is Tenka, he has "fallen into the dream". ...But then the writer comes onto the set and says, I have a rewrite, please learn these new lines. And Tenka says, What (tf) are you talking about?, I AM Tenka, these are MY words, I have chosen every word I said. And the Writer says, No, you're an actor being paid to say MY words. Tenka is identified, asleep. Tenka has forgotten he is merely an actor. You can argue all you want, say things over and over and over. One view or the other is right. The correct view supersedes the illusory view. Comprende? (Incidentally, this is very easily seen in most Woody Allen films. You can see that every character is saying the words written by Woody Allen). Almost everybody lives from a certain perspective, a certain paradigm, a certain conceptual world view. For almost everyone their view is a box. They think they live in the whole world but they really live in a tiny box. Their conceptual box forms the limit of their world. To be able to enter the world of another, you have to be able to see that your own world might be a conceptual construct. (One man's realizations are another man's conceptual constructs, and vice versa). I know what you mean Pilgrim, however I don't really buy into the dream / actor / character analogies much, it doesn't carry much weight with me . I don't believe I am something I am not if you understand me . All I am saying is that within context you are not for example responsible for what I say or do . Individuality is just that while what we are experiences the mind body, there isn't really any sharing of my pain while you are dancing for joy etc . This isn't to say that there are others that are not what we are or anything of the sort . The unrealized walks around in ignorance while the Self realized isn't . One has to take note of these individual / unique differences it would be silly not too . Even if I say that I am you and you are me is saying so from a individual / unique position, it is not you saying to me you are me and I am you . I am an advocate of individual resonance within a collective / whole . Individual growth awareness . It's true to say that one can be aware of what another isn't . It's a simple test that is full proof . I read just now ramana saying that he strongly discouraged devotees from adopting a renunciate lifestyle and renouncing their responsibilities.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 23, 2018 3:20:41 GMT -5
The thing is Lolz, you refer to the hand-body as billions of sensations which pop in and out of existence butt it makes no difference to say it like that when you lift up the weights at the gym . You hands don't disappear long enough for you to even know that is happening . If you hadn't read that theory in a book somewhere you never would have attained that theory . I have spoken about vibrating before, but I have never had the impression that I am disappearing and appearing in every moment . Do you know who had a realization of that? Your description of what occurs regarding the mountain disappearing and such likes is eggsactly like lifting the weights . The mountain doesn't disappear enough so for to no longer see the mountain at any point in time . Your thoughts about the disappearing act is not the same as the others here . They believe it no longer exists, it disappears completely . It will never reappear for as long as there is no conscious perceiver present . Now there isn't even a conscious perceiver present so god only know what's going on with the mountain . Who created the robot and the robots sensors? A conscious aware 'thing'? So when you say of course a human being is a living thing then are you saying there can be a living thing that disappears and reappears like how the others see mountains disappear or are you implying that a living thing is aware? If not then who created the living things and who/m or what designed it so that living things can appear and disappear . Using reefs quote the other day about the teacher telling his students that the elephant was in the form of God, IS EGGSACTLY what I have been talking about regarding appearances . It's not just an appearance of an elephant, it is God as an elephant, and God in elephant form is alive / conscious / aware and doesn't disappear when a peep shuts there eyes . It's not that things don't exist, it's that they are not what they think they are. In the film The Truman Show, Truman had a mother. Truman thought she was his mother, but she was merely an actress playing his mother. He had a best friend, but his best friend did and said what director Christof told him to do. He was not really Truman's best friend. Going out of the town there was a bridge, but it wasn't really a bridge but a barrier, a separating wall. At the end of the film Truman tried to cross the sea in a boat in a storm. But it wasn't an ocean, it was a huge prop, a huge tank (another barrier to keep Truman imprisoned). And it wasn't a real storm, the storm was created by Cristof with a weather machine. Everything was "real" in certain sense, but was not what it seemed to be. We live in Maya, most things are not what they seem to be. ....Truman finally hit the end of the ocean/tank with his boat. He then walked up some steps and through a door...into the real world. Movie ends there... Truman for the first time in his life entering the actual world. When you say things are not what they seem, then there can be confusion when a peep see's a snake for a rope for sure . There doesn't have to be confusion though . You can say one's hand is a hand or one can say it's not a hand, but nevertheless there it is, whatever it is and one can use whatever it is and lift weights, whatever weights are . Whatever anything is in regards to what we call a mountain or a snake doesn't disappear when you look away, it doesn't disappear in a way where it can no longer be seen . The theory of perceiving = creation is flawed in this respect based upon one doesn't need to perceive their eye for there to be perception via sight . For something to appear / disappear is seen through the sense of sight . This is also reflected upon the elephant that in no longer perceived when eyes closed still runs you down if you don't get out of it's path .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2018 3:51:05 GMT -5
How can I when there isn't anything? I was pulling your chain .. I don't think I am going to get any responses either, I kan't think how one would wriggle out of this. I know lets just sweep it under the carpet and pretend the theory still holds up Can you see your eyeballs without a mirror?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2018 3:58:44 GMT -5
Let me give an analogy that might apply. Take a film. In many cases there is one writer of the script. He might write for 4 or 6 or 10 or 20 characters, and different actors say the words, but they originate from One Source. One person creates all the dialogue. So lets say there is a character Tenka. Tenka has read the script and learned his lines. But at some point the actor forgets he is an actor and thinks he is Tenka, he has "fallen into the dream". ...But then the writer comes onto the set and says, I have a rewrite, please learn these new lines. And Tenka says, What (tf) are you talking about?, I AM Tenka, these are MY words, I have chosen every word I said. And the Writer says, No, you're an actor being paid to say MY words. Tenka is identified, asleep. Tenka has forgotten he is merely an actor. You can argue all you want, say things over and over and over. One view or the other is right. The correct view supersedes the illusory view. Comprende? (Incidentally, this is very easily seen in most Woody Allen films. You can see that every character is saying the words written by Woody Allen). Almost everybody lives from a certain perspective, a certain paradigm, a certain conceptual world view. For almost everyone their view is a box. They think they live in the whole world but they really live in a tiny box. Their conceptual box forms the limit of their world. To be able to enter the world of another, you have to be able to see that your own world might be a conceptual construct. (One man's realizations are another man's conceptual constructs, and vice versa). I know what you mean Pilgrim, however I don't really buy into the dream / actor / character analogies much, it doesn't carry much weight with me . I don't believe I am something I am not if you understand me . All I am saying is that within context you are not for example responsible for what I say or do . Individuality is just that while what we are experiences the mind body, there isn't really any sharing of my pain while you are dancing for joy etc . This isn't to say that there are others that are not what we are or anything of the sort . The unrealized walks around in ignorance while the Self realized isn't . One has to take note of these individual / unique differences it would be silly not too . Even if I say that I am you and you are me is saying so from a individual / unique position, it is not you saying to me you are me and I am you . I am an advocate of individual resonance within a collective / whole . Individual growth awareness . It's true to say that one can be aware of what another isn't . It's a simple test that is full proof . I read just now ramana saying that he strongly discouraged devotees from adopting a renunciate lifestyle and renouncing their responsibilities. Which one is primary Us or Me? Or isn't Us, just Me experienced as the Collective, i.e Consciousness.
|
|