Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2018 11:06:40 GMT -5
So SR folk get mad at each other over the finer points of SR. Is it because they perceive disagreement as a challenge to their SR status? Is it compassion? "I can see that I can help, but they won't let me help them." Curious. All the different flavors of SR expressed here seem the same to me. They all make sense. It's like everyone trying to describe the Mona Lisa's smile from a different angle and arguing about which angle is true. Not interested in stifling debate about SR and reality. Just wondering why folks yank chains and others react. I do it at times because I have a little sadistic streak that enjoys seeing others squirm a bit, but I think that disqualifies me from SR. Working on it. Really.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 7, 2018 12:38:30 GMT -5
So SR folk get mad at each other over the finer points of SR. Is it because they perceive disagreement as a challenge to their SR status? Is it compassion? "I can see that I can help, but they won't let me help them." Curious. All the different flavors of SR expressed here seem the same to me. They all make sense. It's like everyone trying to describe the Mona Lisa's smile from a different angle and arguing about which angle is true. Not interested in stifling debate about SR and reality. Just wondering why folks yank chains and others react. I do it at times because I have a little sadistic streak that enjoys seeing others squirm a bit, but I think that disqualifies me from SR. Working on it. Really. Oh, you didn't know? This means at least one mandatory reincarnation as a farm animal in a low-tech culture used for work instead of food. Hence, ergo, and because logic, there is no way you can SR in this lifetime. Sorry dude.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2018 13:12:19 GMT -5
So SR folk get mad at each other over the finer points of SR. Is it because they perceive disagreement as a challenge to their SR status? Is it compassion? "I can see that I can help, but they won't let me help them." Curious. All the different flavors of SR expressed here seem the same to me. They all make sense. It's like everyone trying to describe the Mona Lisa's smile from a different angle and arguing about which angle is true. Not interested in stifling debate about SR and reality. Just wondering why folks yank chains and others react. I do it at times because I have a little sadistic streak that enjoys seeing others squirm a bit, but I think that disqualifies me from SR. Working on it. Really. Oh, you didn't know? This means at least one mandatory reincarnation as a farm animal in a low-tech culture used for work instead of food. Hence, ergo, and because logic, there is no way you can SR in this lifetime. Sorry dude. Hey, I'll take that over my Johnson turning into a ray of light.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 7, 2018 13:28:38 GMT -5
Oh, you didn't know? This means at least one mandatory reincarnation as a farm animal in a low-tech culture used for work instead of food. Hence, ergo, and because logic, there is no way you can SR in this lifetime. Sorry dude. Hey, I'll take that over my Johnson turning into a ray of light. You must be willing to give up everything to find the existential truth.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 7, 2018 13:38:04 GMT -5
All the different flavors of SR expressed here seem the same to me. They all make sense. It's like everyone trying to describe the Mona Lisa's smile from a different angle and arguing about which angle is true. From within their contexts everything can make sense . I tend to emphasise the requirement to get to the heart of self / no self, mind / beyond mind in order to make conclusions about things . It's vitally important to do so . This is why I am pushing the debate to get it straight in regards to that which you are that is of the mind and beyond and what is real that pertains to what we are appearing of the mind . I see the process of this and the understanding of this essential otherwise it's possible that a realization of the mind, like seeing through the selfhood in someway is just a realization of what you are that is of the mind .. This is why it makes sense in that context to say that the realization of what you are is that you are not the selfhood / persona . Change the dial a few degrees and you have another reflection of self of the mind that includes the selfhood and beyond the selfhood pertaining to what you are . How many degrees are there to the dial, how many facets of self are there to realize?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 7, 2018 14:40:38 GMT -5
All the different flavors of SR expressed here seem the same to me. They all make sense. It's like everyone trying to describe the Mona Lisa's smile from a different angle and arguing about which angle is true. From within their contexts everything can make sense . I tend to emphasise the requirement to get to the heart of self / no self, mind / beyond mind in order to make conclusions about things . It's vitally important to do so . This is why I am pushing the debate to get it straight in regards to that which you are that is of the mind and beyond and what is real that pertains to what we are appearing of the mind .I see the process of this and the understanding of this essential otherwise it's possible that a realization of the mind, like seeing through the selfhood in someway is just a realization of what you are that is of the mind .. This is why it makes sense in that context to say that the realization of what you are is that you are not the selfhood / persona . Change the dial a few degrees and you have another reflection of self of the mind that includes the selfhood and beyond the selfhood pertaining to what you are . How many degrees are there to the dial, how many facets of self are there to realize? I'm curious what you mean here by "get it straight". Do you mean, you're trying to straighten out what other people mean for yourself? Or do you mean trying to arrive at some group consensus on the issue? Because at times, it seems to me that what you might mean by "get it straight" is to either convince others that they're wrong or get others to agree with you that those you can't convince are somehow wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2018 21:37:32 GMT -5
All the different flavors of SR expressed here seem the same to me. They all make sense. It's like everyone trying to describe the Mona Lisa's smile from a different angle and arguing about which angle is true. From within their contexts everything can make sense . I tend to emphasise the requirement to get to the heart of self / no self, mind / beyond mind in order to make conclusions about things . It's vitally important to do so . This is why I am pushing the debate to get it straight in regards to that which you are that is of the mind and beyond and what is real that pertains to what we are appearing of the mind . I see the process of this and the understanding of this essential otherwise it's possible that a realization of the mind, like seeing through the selfhood in someway is just a realization of what you are that is of the mind .. This is why it makes sense in that context to say that the realization of what you are is that you are not the selfhood / persona . Change the dial a few degrees and you have another reflection of self of the mind that includes the selfhood and beyond the selfhood pertaining to what you are . How many degrees are there to the dial, how many facets of self are there to realize? Here's Ramana endorsing the notion that seeing the world as illusion is a necessary first step in SR. Then he endorses your view as the next step. Very similar to Rupert's view. World as illusion
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2018 21:49:49 GMT -5
Hey, I'll take that over my Johnson turning into a ray of light. You must be willing to give up everything to find the existential truth. It flickered a few times a couple of nights ago. Not sure if it was static from friction or maybe it's about to go full light sabre, enlightenment at last!
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 8, 2018 1:43:06 GMT -5
From within their contexts everything can make sense . I tend to emphasise the requirement to get to the heart of self / no self, mind / beyond mind in order to make conclusions about things . It's vitally important to do so . This is why I am pushing the debate to get it straight in regards to that which you are that is of the mind and beyond and what is real that pertains to what we are appearing of the mind . I see the process of this and the understanding of this essential otherwise it's possible that a realization of the mind, like seeing through the selfhood in someway is just a realization of what you are that is of the mind .. This is why it makes sense in that context to say that the realization of what you are is that you are not the selfhood / persona . Change the dial a few degrees and you have another reflection of self of the mind that includes the selfhood and beyond the selfhood pertaining to what you are . How many degrees are there to the dial, how many facets of self are there to realize? Here's Ramana endorsing the notion that seeing the world as illusion is a necessary first step in SR. Then he endorses your view as the next step. Very similar to Rupert's view. World as illusionYep as Ramana say's .. The seeker ultimately reaches the Self and there finds unity as the prevailing note. Then, that which was originally rejected as being unreal is found to be a part of the unity. Being absorbed in the reality, the world also is real.Prior to that one has an idea about the world that changes in a way where it is not real .. From each context it is true based upon one's own self awareness in reflection of the world ..
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 8, 2018 1:50:04 GMT -5
From within their contexts everything can make sense . I tend to emphasise the requirement to get to the heart of self / no self, mind / beyond mind in order to make conclusions about things . It's vitally important to do so . This is why I am pushing the debate to get it straight in regards to that which you are that is of the mind and beyond and what is real that pertains to what we are appearing of the mind .I see the process of this and the understanding of this essential otherwise it's possible that a realization of the mind, like seeing through the selfhood in someway is just a realization of what you are that is of the mind .. This is why it makes sense in that context to say that the realization of what you are is that you are not the selfhood / persona . Change the dial a few degrees and you have another reflection of self of the mind that includes the selfhood and beyond the selfhood pertaining to what you are . How many degrees are there to the dial, how many facets of self are there to realize? I'm curious what you mean here by "get it straight". Do you mean, you're trying to straighten out what other people mean for yourself? Or do you mean trying to arrive at some group consensus on the issue? Because at times, it seems to me that what you might mean by "get it straight" is to either convince others that they're wrong or get others to agree with you that those you can't convince are somehow wrong. We have to get the foundation right and get this straight to begin with otherwise we are chasing shadows and tails . To use the Ramama's example of unity and realness then from that perspective it's no point arguing that this world is dreamy and everything that appears in or of this world is unreal . We need to get it straight from the off what it is that we are from the point of being Self realized, not dancing around swapping one self reflection with another . This is also why from this unity and realness the not knowing if everything is cheese is a pointless exercise as pointed out by my self and others . It's just a mindful play of self reflection, if you have realized Self you would not entertain this quandary . This has been my point and the point of others also .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2018 10:38:20 GMT -5
Here's Ramana endorsing the notion that seeing the world as illusion is a necessary first step in SR. Then he endorses your view as the next step. Very similar to Rupert's view. World as illusionYep as Ramana say's .. The seeker ultimately reaches the Self and there finds unity as the prevailing note. Then, that which was originally rejected as being unreal is found to be a part of the unity. Being absorbed in the reality, the world also is real.Prior to that one has an idea about the world that changes in a way where it is not real .. From each context it is true based upon one's own self awareness in reflection of the world .. As I see it, there is indeed a point where real vs. unreal or changing vs. unchanging just falls away and there is just 'this'...just One......just life happening...and in that, experience it taken at face value; if/when sentience appears, it is engaged with as it appears, no questions asked.
However, that said, if abiding SR is the case, there is no going back to identification with experiential content..even that which is overwhelming compelling in appearance......no getting sucked back into a sense of divisiveness because of something happening in experience.
We still don't know for certain that appearing others are actually sentient, feeling, experiencing, but we engage what is appearing because it's what's appearing...why not? It would take a whole lot of mental effort to do otherwise. That said, one does not get sucked back into assigning Truth to that experience or any experience. It's all understood to be empty and yet, it's all 'real' enough that it engages.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2018 10:59:42 GMT -5
Here's Ramana endorsing the notion that seeing the world as illusion is a necessary first step in SR. Then he endorses your view as the next step. Very similar to Rupert's view. World as illusionYep as Ramana say's .. The seeker ultimately reaches the Self and there finds unity as the prevailing note. Then, that which was originally rejected as being unreal is found to be a part of the unity. Being absorbed in the reality, the world also is real.Prior to that one has an idea about the world that changes in a way where it is not real .. From each context it is true based upon one's own self awareness in reflection of the world .. Yes. But he asserts that first stage is vital to see Self as source and separate. For me it is vital for two reasons. First, it provides a resting place for the mind, a refuge, so that what transpires is accepted because it is lighter. The step you endorse is where you begin to love the world, and in my view much harder to reach. So I think you should rethink the strategy you employ to reach others. Just a thought.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2018 11:14:50 GMT -5
From within their contexts everything can make sense . I tend to emphasise the requirement to get to the heart of self / no self, mind / beyond mind in order to make conclusions about things . It's vitally important to do so . This is why I am pushing the debate to get it straight in regards to that which you are that is of the mind and beyond and what is real that pertains to what we are appearing of the mind . I see the process of this and the understanding of this essential otherwise it's possible that a realization of the mind, like seeing through the selfhood in someway is just a realization of what you are that is of the mind .. This is why it makes sense in that context to say that the realization of what you are is that you are not the selfhood / persona . Change the dial a few degrees and you have another reflection of self of the mind that includes the selfhood and beyond the selfhood pertaining to what you are . How many degrees are there to the dial, how many facets of self are there to realize? Here's Ramana endorsing the notion that seeing the world as illusion is a necessary first step in SR. Then he endorses your view as the next step. Very similar to Rupert's view. World as illusion[/div]
Good stuff.
Important to note though, that in seeing that it's all Self, in seeing that there is no actual separation between the material universe and that which lies fundamental, there is no 'return to' mistaking the material for the fundamental.
The difference is that for the seeker, the material world still has the power to 'suck him in'...to obscure the peace that lies fundamental, whereas the one who sees it's All Self, has that peace of Being abidingly present regardless of what's happening in terms of experience. The collapse of the distinction does not mean that the script once again take precedence over the paper it's written on.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 8, 2018 15:55:35 GMT -5
You must be willing to give up everything to find the existential truth. It flickered a few times a couple of nights ago. Not sure if it was static from friction or maybe it's about to go full light sabre, enlightenment at last! Once you have fully harnessed the power of Nowness these intermittent interruptions will permanently cease, allowing you to continually spread the seeds of unity among all of man and womankind with the infallibly unerring aim of a Saint.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 8, 2018 16:02:01 GMT -5
I'm curious what you mean here by "get it straight". Do you mean, you're trying to straighten out what other people mean for yourself? Or do you mean trying to arrive at some group consensus on the issue? Because at times, it seems to me that what you might mean by "get it straight" is to either convince others that they're wrong or get others to agree with you that those you can't convince are somehow wrong. We have to get the foundation right and get this straight to begin with otherwise we are chasing shadows and tails . To use the Ramama's example of unity and realness then from that perspective it's no point arguing that this world is dreamy and everything that appears in or of this world is unreal . We need to get it straight from the off what it is that we are from the point of being Self realized, not dancing around swapping one self reflection with another . This is also why from this unity and realness the not knowing if everything is cheese is a pointless exercise as pointed out by my self and others . It's just a mindful play of self reflection, if you have realized Self you would not entertain this quandary . This has been my point and the point of others also . See, now, what I perceive here is that you've described what you want to get straight and how you perceive straightness. But that wasn't what I was interested in. My questions were more along the lines of why and to what end, rather than founded in any interest to argue about a different version of straightness. To my eye, you've left them completely unanswered.
|
|