|
Post by tenka on Oct 9, 2018 1:41:51 GMT -5
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. You were curious what I mean't by "getting it straight". So I told you what I mean't by it . We can talk about straightness if you like and you can say what you think straightness is . In my eyes it is straightforward in regards to my straightness . There requires a beingness beyond the reflection of oneself to then relate what you are to self . We need to get the basic fundamentals in place here before we start saying what we are and what we are not . It can save a lot of time explaining the foundations before there is a suggestion we are not the mind-body and the world is not real and such likes . If you have any objections to that which I have said, feel free to counter .
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 9, 2018 2:07:20 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. Sometimes people want to point out how you are wrong and that desire can overshadow any sincere endeavour to understand the other person. Desires to help can have the same effect. Hehehe, ya gotta express the sadism somehow, and what better venue than an online forum?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 9, 2018 2:48:22 GMT -5
Yep 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. I think there requires the understanding of what unity actually means in relation to Self of the mind. In my eyes it refers to fundamental sameness and we need to try and understand the fundamental properties of Self of the mind .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2018 12:29:45 GMT -5
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. I think there requires the understanding of what unity actually means in relation to Self of the mind. In my eyes it refers to fundamental sameness and we need to try and understand the fundamental properties of Self of the mind . What do you mean by "Self of the mind"?
The realization of Self is actually the seeing through of the 'self conceived of by the mind' (in case that is what you are referencing)...the end of identification with an idea of 'me'.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 10, 2018 2:45:53 GMT -5
I think there requires the understanding of what unity actually means in relation to Self of the mind. In my eyes it refers to fundamental sameness and we need to try and understand the fundamental properties of Self of the mind . What do you mean by "Self of the mind"?
The realization of Self is actually the seeing through of the 'self conceived of by the mind' (in case that is what you are referencing)...the end of identification with an idea of 'me'. There is what you are that is of the mind and there is what you are beyond the mind . Self of the mind is everything that is . That means Self is the chair, the moon, the heart, the ocean, it is everything without separation . I think it would be beneficial for peeps to understand what that means .. Seeing through certain identities can be part of the parcel and like you said before all this I am this and I am not that falls away post realization, but this also means in my eyes all these references made that life is a story and an illusion and a dream falls away also ..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 10, 2018 10:21:34 GMT -5
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. You were curious what I mean't by "getting it straight". So I told you what I mean't by it . We can talk about straightness if you like and you can say what you think straightness is . In my eyes it is straightforward in regards to my straightness . There requires a beingness beyond the reflection of oneself to then relate what you are to self . We need to get the basic fundamentals in place here before we start saying what we are and what we are not . It can save a lot of time explaining the foundations before there is a suggestion we are not the mind-body and the world is not real and such likes . If you have any objections to that which I have said, feel free to counter . " objections". seriously? Is that the way you think of these dialogs on here? Yes, I was "curious as to what you meant by 'getting it straight'", but go back and look: did I only ask you the general, ambiguous question, "what do you mean by 'getting it straight'?", or rather, did I also ask you two other specific questions about it? Do you think you answered those? Instead, to my eye, you just keep indirectly suggesting what you think everyone else should think about physical reality. In my perception you didn't answer those other two, more specific questions, and now you're just trying to make it look like you did. Why would you do that? Here, we can break it down into simpler parts to make the dialog more clear: first of all, let's get it straight as to what you mean by "we". Do you mean "we", as in you, tenka, and me, laffy? Or, rather, do you mean "we" as in everyone on the forum, or do you mean some subset of the people on the forum?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2018 11:38:55 GMT -5
What do you mean by "Self of the mind"?
The realization of Self is actually the seeing through of the 'self conceived of by the mind' (in case that is what you are referencing)...the end of identification with an idea of 'me'. There is what you are that is of the mind and there is what you are beyond the mind . Self of the mind is everything that is . That means Self is the chair, the moon, the heart, the ocean, it is everything without separation . I think it would be beneficial for peeps to understand what that means .. Seeing through certain identities can be part of the parcel and like you said before all this I am this and I am not that falls away post realization, but this also means in my eyes all these references made that life is a story and an illusion and a dream falls away also .. Yes, there's a point where one can say "I am all of it," but that does not mean one goes back to believing that the body/mind is giving rise to what I am.
There is ultimately but One thingless thing and I am none-other than that. But within that seeing one does not lose sight that the body/mind is an appearance within that which is not an appearance.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 11, 2018 1:49:05 GMT -5
You were curious what I mean't by "getting it straight". So I told you what I mean't by it . We can talk about straightness if you like and you can say what you think straightness is . In my eyes it is straightforward in regards to my straightness . There requires a beingness beyond the reflection of oneself to then relate what you are to self . We need to get the basic fundamentals in place here before we start saying what we are and what we are not . It can save a lot of time explaining the foundations before there is a suggestion we are not the mind-body and the world is not real and such likes . If you have any objections to that which I have said, feel free to counter . " objections". seriously? Is that the way you think of these dialogs on here? Yes, I was "curious as to what you meant by 'getting it straight'", but go back and look: did I only ask you the general, ambiguous question, "what do you mean by 'getting it straight'?", or rather, did I also ask you two other specific questions about it? Do you think you answered those? Instead, to my eye, you just keep indirectly suggesting what you think everyone else should think about physical reality. In my perception you didn't answer those other two, more specific questions, and now you're just trying to make it look like you did. Why would you do that? Here, we can break it down into simpler parts to make the dialog more clear: first of all, let's get it straight as to what you mean by "we". Do you mean "we", as in you, tenka, and me, laffy? Or, rather, do you mean "we" as in everyone on the forum, or do you mean some subset of the people on the forum? I answered your question best I could, best I could in reflection of how I understood them . I am not trying to look like anything either if you understand I answered your question the best I could . Your in my opinion speculating and creating an odd energy which has no foundation . In regards to getting things straight, perhaps you can reflect on what reefs is 'trying' to do to get things straight regarding world usage and meaning . I mean, it's straightforward really isn't it, we have a group of people on the forum crossing platforms and meanings and there are people that think the foundation of this world / mind is of no real substance to begin with and taking it from there . I would of thought it was obvious that ' we' all need to get the foundations straight to begin with, this will happen if there are the right questions asked as a whole. It is why I have asked the question/s pertaining to Self and Self's properties of the mind. Otherwise it will be 5 years down the line and we will continue to talk about stuff from different foundations, the problem and the pattern I am seeing is that certain peeps don't really answer the important questions which doesn't help getting foundations straight.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 11, 2018 2:44:41 GMT -5
There is what you are that is of the mind and there is what you are beyond the mind . Self of the mind is everything that is . That means Self is the chair, the moon, the heart, the ocean, it is everything without separation . I think it would be beneficial for peeps to understand what that means .. Seeing through certain identities can be part of the parcel and like you said before all this I am this and I am not that falls away post realization, but this also means in my eyes all these references made that life is a story and an illusion and a dream falls away also .. Yes, there's a point where one can say "I am all of it," but that does not mean one goes back to believing that the body/mind is giving rise to what I am.
There is ultimately but One thingless thing and I am none-other than that. But within that seeing one does not lose sight that the body/mind is an appearance within that which is not an appearance.
That which is not an appearance beyond the mind . That is the only comparison .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2018 14:19:27 GMT -5
What do you mean by "Self of the mind"?
The realization of Self is actually the seeing through of the 'self conceived of by the mind' (in case that is what you are referencing)...the end of identification with an idea of 'me'. There is what you are that is of the mind and there is what you are beyond the mind . Self of the mind is everything that is . That means Self is the chair, the moon, the heart, the ocean, it is everything without separation . I think it would be beneficial for peeps to understand what that means .. Seeing through certain identities can be part of the parcel and like you said before all this I am this and I am not that falls away post realization, but this also means in my eyes all these references made that life is a story and an illusion and a dream falls away also .. I'm still not grasping what you mean by 'Self of the mind.' Sorry.
Life as 'a story/dream/illusion' is just a way of talking about how life seems to be after it's been seen that all experiential content is arising within Being...that it is all entirely fleeting, temporary, transient, impermanent, thus, empty of Truth. And rather than go away, I'd say that sense of all that appears being transitory/ephemeral, goes even deeper with time.
It's not as though one is holding to an idea "Life is a story/dream" at all, it's that life is seen for what it is; One present moment experience at a time, always changing as the next moment arrives, with Being, the unchanging, abiding constant, as foundation to all of it. Along with that, it's clearly seen how mind takes a basic happening/circumstance/experience and has it's way with it...judging, assessing, creating drama where intrinsically, there is none.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 11, 2018 17:30:47 GMT -5
" objections". seriously? Is that the way you think of these dialogs on here? Yes, I was "curious as to what you meant by 'getting it straight'", but go back and look: did I only ask you the general, ambiguous question, "what do you mean by 'getting it straight'?", or rather, did I also ask you two other specific questions about it? Do you think you answered those? Instead, to my eye, you just keep indirectly suggesting what you think everyone else should think about physical reality. In my perception you didn't answer those other two, more specific questions, and now you're just trying to make it look like you did. Why would you do that? Here, we can break it down into simpler parts to make the dialog more clear: first of all, let's get it straight as to what you mean by "we". Do you mean "we", as in you, tenka, and me, laffy? Or, rather, do you mean "we" as in everyone on the forum, or do you mean some subset of the people on the forum? I answered your question best I could, best I could in reflection of how I understood them . I am not trying to look like anything either if you understand I answered your question the best I could . Your in my opinion speculating and creating an odd energy which has no foundation . In regards to getting things straight, perhaps you can reflect on what reefs is 'trying' to do to get things straight regarding world usage and meaning . I mean, it's straightforward really isn't it, we have a group of people on the forum crossing platforms and meanings and there are people that think the foundation of this world / mind is of no real substance to begin with and taking it from there . I would of thought it was obvious that ' we' all need to get the foundations straight to begin with, this will happen if there are the right questions asked as a whole. It is why I have asked the question/s pertaining to Self and Self's properties of the mind. Otherwise it will be 5 years down the line and we will continue to talk about stuff from different foundations, the problem and the pattern I am seeing is that certain peeps don't really answer the important questions which doesn't help getting foundations straight. Let's address your perception of an "odd energy" first because it seems to me to be coloring the dialog overall. You see, in my perception, I'm willing to take responsibility for the vibe of the dialog, but that you are at least as responsible for what you're perceiving as that "odd energy". First off, this time, you directly addressed the simple question of what you meant by "we" in "we need to get things straight". So thanks for that. But you see, it took 4 days and 6 messages to get to this: I mean, it's straightforward really isn't it, we have a group of people on the forum crossing platforms and meanings .. but in my perception, it's rather odd that you didn't respond that way the first time when I wrote this: 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? And furthermore, by characterizing it as "straightforward", you seem to be implying that it was something that I should have inferred from the beginning but failed to do so -- despite the bald fact that I made the absence of that inference quite clear in the original trio of questions. So, that said, and in light of the rest of what you've written this time -- which was clear and specific, so thanks -- let's go back to what you originally wrote and what I was interested in: 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 . In what you just wrote that I'm replying to, you directly imply that by "getting it straight", you mean Reefs' effort to address definitions and to get to a common ground on the definitions so that further dialog will be based on that common ground. But that seems like a morph to me. "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 ." reads to me like a conclusion, not a list of definitions that you're seeking clarification about. Will you be satisfied that "we got it straight" even if people clearly demonstrate that they understand what you mean by each of the phrases you've used in those two sentences but still disagree with you?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 12, 2018 2:11:46 GMT -5
There is what you are that is of the mind and there is what you are beyond the mind . Self of the mind is everything that is . That means Self is the chair, the moon, the heart, the ocean, it is everything without separation . I think it would be beneficial for peeps to understand what that means .. Seeing through certain identities can be part of the parcel and like you said before all this I am this and I am not that falls away post realization, but this also means in my eyes all these references made that life is a story and an illusion and a dream falls away also .. I'm still not grasping what you mean by 'Self of the mind.' Sorry.
Life as 'a story/dream/illusion' is just a way of talking about how life seems to be after it's been seen that all experiential content is arising within Being...that it is all entirely fleeting, temporary, transient, impermanent, thus, empty of Truth. And rather than go away, I'd say that sense of all that appears being transitory/ephemeral, goes even deeper with time.
It's not as though one is holding to an idea "Life is a story/dream" at all, it's that life is seen for what it is; One present moment experience at a time, always changing as the next moment arrives, with Being, the unchanging, abiding constant, as foundation to all of it. Along with that, it's clearly seen how mind takes a basic happening/circumstance/experience and has it's way with it...judging, assessing, creating drama where intrinsically, there is none.
Self of the mind is what you are of the mind . Self of the mind is you of this world . Everything that appears as manifest or relates to I AM is of the mind . We need to establish what properties Self has of the mind . Many of us as you know have said for instance that Self of the mind is cheese, so everything is cheese . It's no good peeps suggesting the tree is an illusory or dreamy appearance when they don't know the nature of the appearance . If everything is Self then the tree is Self . If Self and the world is real and not a dream or whatever world suits then the appearance of the tree must reflect the properties . Once the foundation is set to that effect then there will be no talk of the tree isn't real and is empty of this, and one wouldn't speak of not knowing if the tree is conscious or not or coming to the conclusion that I AM not the tree .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2018 15:55:01 GMT -5
Self of the mind is what you are of the mind . SR entails seeing that what you really are, is NOT 'of the mind'...seeing that what you really are, is beyond concepts, beyond objects. that is all what is being referenced by 'an appearance.' The 'you' of this world, is but a character arising within that which you actually are; Being. The self of the world is indeed not separate from what you actually are, (Self/Being) and therefore, it's not wrong to say, All is Self, including the appearing character. Thus we can also say that 'the nature' of all, including the appearing person/character is noneother than Self. Where folks are going wrong is in ascribing 'qualities' to Self such as: conscious/alive/responsive. "Being" is not a quality...and the moment we start talking about the qualities 'of' Being, we've entered into talking about experience. Knowing The nature of all that appears does not speak to the 'quality' of that which appears. Yes. That doesn't mean though, that you know the tree is experiencing/perceiving, is actually 'alive' or that it is actually 'responsive.' You Do know that it 'appears to be' alive and responsive within the waking dream. Self has no properties, no qualities. It is not a thing/object for which those would apply.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 13, 2018 5:30:20 GMT -5
Self of the mind is what you are of the mind . SR entails seeing that what you really are, is NOT 'of the mind'...seeing that what you really are, is beyond concepts, beyond objects. .. That is one interpretation sure . Just said about union in my last post . Your interpretation is not about union at all . Your creating a divide .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 13, 2018 5:34:00 GMT -5
Self of the mind is you of this world . Everything that appears as manifest or relates to I AM is of the mind . that is all what is being referenced by 'an appearance.' .. And what you are that is of a mind-body-construct / appearance is what you are . There is only what you are manifest / appearance of this world . The thought of I AM is Self manifest of this world .
|
|