|
Post by laughter on Aug 31, 2017 21:48:58 GMT -5
Bad things happen when there's noone around to chaperone Rocky and Pebbles. Well, they don't call her Pebbles because of her virtue. You have to understand that social mores are much more relaxed in the rock kingdom. For example, boulders pretty much get their way all the time, but nobody really minds. It's almost like they go around stoned, like, all the time.
|
|
|
Post by bluey on Sept 1, 2017 19:28:12 GMT -5
The domains of experience are One for a sage.No domain of experience is higher or lower. Yet is that true for Seth? He influenced the likes of Louise l Haye, deepak chopra , Marianne Williamson. They have made a living from Teaching on improving the story, as most channellers in the marketplace do. They do serve for the individual trying to better the many me in the story of separation but it's not what sages are pointing at. They may use the term awakening as Tenka does but there is no channelling in what sages are pointing at. Please don't confuse the two. There is no channelling for sages just the seeing through of the imagined me. There is no consciousness seeking of new experiences. Only in separation. I may have been with different sages as yourself but the pointing has not been at that. Sages are pointing at taking you out of the story of the opposites where each moment is unknown, spontaneous where you are not trying or seeking to improve on the character as the character is seen through in true realisation SR. indigo children, crystal children, Seth, Abraham Hicks belong to the story and not what sages are pointing at. A sage sees through even the idea, the very thought that enlightenment happened to a character in a story. Why in the Bhakti tradition Kabir and Nanaks teachings they point at the illusion of certain teachings being sold in the marketplace but are just there to keep you in separation. Kabir would say Kal takes on the form of the sage. Sai Baba, muktanada, the hugging Saint are from this stage. There have been many more. Just as Jesus said beware of false prophets dressed up in sheeps clothing. When I first met Donna she was surrounded by channellers bringing in commander Ashtar, and in the reiki tradition Usui, even one group came along with a channeled message from Usui which was the total opposite to the what an angel lady was teaching over from a different camp. Why when I danced with Donna I was taking her out of these groups which are serving the story and not the realisation sages are pointing at. Why Kabir said seek out a Sat Guru and not a guru. Just dancing with her she was moving away maturing out of the marketplace. The poem below came to her not too long after I Thought I thought I was someone A person born I thought I was something A character worn I thought I was vulnerable Separate and torn I thought I was emotional Happy and forlorn I thought I was so many things Born of caste, men and kings I never thought I was just a thought Till the death of I Was truly sought Death of life me and I Just a thought passing by Yet here I am I am still, Being All is one If you know what you're seeing No matter how enlightened a sage is he still has to deal with the human condition. And that's where sages seem to fail regularly. The story caught up with them. The story has caught up with them....explain or share over?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 6, 2017 10:30:52 GMT -5
The absurdity of "I act as if other people are real" is a very extreme example of a state of mind that presents a golden opportunity. Yes, you see, it's really not that hard at all to find instances where a person's day-to-day experience is very heavily influenced by their abstract notions of reality. It's just another version of the face value brambling, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 6, 2017 10:37:28 GMT -5
You mean is that the only direct seeing there is? No, it's the direct seeing that applies to the topic we're discussing. Okay. Well, as I've been trying to point out here, that's just one side of the coin.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 6, 2017 10:40:23 GMT -5
Bad things happen when there's noone around to chaperone Rocky and Pebbles. Well, they don't call her Pebbles because of her virtue. You have to understand that social mores are much more relaxed in the rock kingdom. For example, boulders pretty much get their way all the time, but nobody really minds. It's almost like they go around stoned, like, all the time. I see anthropomorphism is alive and well!
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 6, 2017 10:41:29 GMT -5
No matter how enlightened a sage is he still has to deal with the human condition. And that's where sages seem to fail regularly. The story caught up with them. The story has caught up with them....explain or share over? The story started way before their physical existence.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 6, 2017 11:47:38 GMT -5
The absurdity of "I act as if other people are real" is a very extreme example of a state of mind that presents a golden opportunity. Yes, you see, it's really not that hard at all to find instances where a person's day-to-day experience is very heavily influenced by their abstract notions of reality. It's just another version of the face value brambling, isn't it? Well, clearly, if you're questioning the face value experience of not knowing whether or not other people are real then you're thinking too much. Isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 6, 2017 11:58:04 GMT -5
What Tenka calls SR is actually what we call CC here. I've had long discussions with Tenka in the past about SR and it didn't go anywhere because of that. Only when I was using the cheese metaphor I realized that he has actually been speaking from a CC perspective all the time. Once you know that, you will find him exceptionally clear. What folks don't realize is that CC is on par with SR. It's basically the flip side of SR. And so with only a reference for either SR or CC one's realization is incomplete. And that's what I see as the actual issue in these discussions - folks speaking from different platforms without noticing it. There are folks who have no reference for either SR or CC, then there are folks who have a reference for only SR or only CC and then there are folks who have a reference for both SR and CC. Well for myself so to speak I identified afterwards a change in what transpired moment to moment in such quickness that's within the blink of an eye . What I think the sticky point for me was others pointing out the permanence of S.R. compared to C.C's that are not . It beggars the question also that I have maintained throughout and that is the difference between the mind / no mind . S.R. therefore must be entertained so to speak from the actual moment of realization to the actual moment of one's physical death . It was not so for Ramana and Niz I would say .. I would say as I have always said that the non functional bliss bunny awareness isn't present all the time .. What does this then mean in regards to S.R? and for the masters that have realized what they are . For me I noticed a transcendence from self through mind-through-universe, to beyond that .. There was an awareness of I AM the universe prior to going / being beyond that .. Like said in a blink of an eye one is self of the mind and then not . Realizing what you are universally speaking is realizing what you are that pertains to everything in existence . That is why cheese is all there is and that is why that knowing reflects upon the existence of rocks and the tree's .. Being what you are prior to existence, when aware of existence will have the same result / effect . It will reflect the sameness because there is no fundamental difference in regards to what you are being prior to mind and being of the mind . In my eyes realizing what you are beyond - prior too and of the mind is realizing what you are (S.R) Peeps can call it what they like .. it won't change what was realized . You can't unsee what you've seen. That's true for both SR and CC. SR makes you realize the vastness of the ocean, CC will give you an actual taste of the ocean. And both SR and CC answer the question of who you are. SR will give you a general answer, but CC will give you a more specific and in-depth answer. Peeps can call it what they like, yes. But they should be precise and consistent with their definitions or else we'll be debating words that have meaningless meanings and that are pointing to truthless truths.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 6, 2017 18:10:22 GMT -5
You mean is that the only direct seeing there is? No, it's the direct seeing that applies to the topic we're discussing. Okay. Well, as I've been trying to point out here, that's just one side of the coin. I'm saying that 'prior to the intellect', there is the direct seeing that appearances are empty.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 6, 2017 18:13:25 GMT -5
Well, they don't call her Pebbles because of her virtue. You have to understand that social mores are much more relaxed in the rock kingdom. For example, boulders pretty much get their way all the time, but nobody really minds. It's almost like they go around stoned, like, all the time. I see anthropomorphism is alive and well! Yes, and sometimes it likes to dance the Tango.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Sept 7, 2017 2:04:43 GMT -5
Well for myself so to speak I identified afterwards a change in what transpired moment to moment in such quickness that's within the blink of an eye . What I think the sticky point for me was others pointing out the permanence of S.R. compared to C.C's that are not . It beggars the question also that I have maintained throughout and that is the difference between the mind / no mind . S.R. therefore must be entertained so to speak from the actual moment of realization to the actual moment of one's physical death . It was not so for Ramana and Niz I would say .. I would say as I have always said that the non functional bliss bunny awareness isn't present all the time .. What does this then mean in regards to S.R? and for the masters that have realized what they are . For me I noticed a transcendence from self through mind-through-universe, to beyond that .. There was an awareness of I AM the universe prior to going / being beyond that .. Like said in a blink of an eye one is self of the mind and then not . Realizing what you are universally speaking is realizing what you are that pertains to everything in existence . That is why cheese is all there is and that is why that knowing reflects upon the existence of rocks and the tree's .. Being what you are prior to existence, when aware of existence will have the same result / effect . It will reflect the sameness because there is no fundamental difference in regards to what you are being prior to mind and being of the mind . In my eyes realizing what you are beyond - prior too and of the mind is realizing what you are (S.R) Peeps can call it what they like .. it won't change what was realized . You can't unsee what you've seen. That's true for both SR and CC. SR makes you realize the vastness of the ocean, CC will give you an actual taste of the ocean. And both SR and CC answer the question of who you are. SR will give you a general answer, but CC will give you a more specific and in-depth answer. Peeps can call it what they like, yes. But they should be precise and consistent with their definitions or else we'll be debating words that have meaningless meanings and that are pointing to truthless truths. Certain wordings I keep to, butt the problem is, they mean different things to different folk . Take 'mind' for instance . All I will say is that a peep realizes what they are that is of the mind and a peep realizes what they are beyond . For some as discussed see S.R. as realizing they are not the identified peep that is of the mind and that's it . C.C's allows one to realize the same .. butt for some reason C.C.'s can be said to be more expansive / universal where S.R. is more localised . I mean some might say they are aware of the mind-body when Self realizing (and that doesn't really add up to me) . The main sticky point has been the permanence of it all .. S.R. peeps maintain S.R. bliss bunny state up until the day they physically die .. .. I say they don't .. I would say there is no permanence of the expansive bliss bunny, non functioning, non identifying state at all, no matter what is realized while entertaining a mind-body experience ... The mind-body experience doesn't hold the state forever . It's not mean't / designed too .
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 7, 2017 4:29:31 GMT -5
Well, as I've been trying to point out here, that's just one side of the coin. I'm saying that 'prior to the intellect', there is the direct seeing that appearances are empty. And you, are not, an appearance.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 7, 2017 9:06:56 GMT -5
I'm saying that 'prior to the intellect', there is the direct seeing that appearances are empty. And you, are not, an appearance. Right.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 7, 2017 10:01:54 GMT -5
And you, are not, an appearance. Right. Case closed.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 7, 2017 19:06:22 GMT -5
What case is that? You mean the question of whether or not an appearance represents a point of perception in Consciousness? If so, what's the verdict?
|
|