|
Post by enigma on Nov 4, 2019 11:02:24 GMT -5
Enigma, FYI, you still owe me a reply to this one. Laughter and Figgles already confirmed. You're the only one who hasn't replied yet. I was actually assuming you left ST for good. That's why this thread is open again. Please read and confirm that you've understood the 'ETA' part before you continue to post here. R Of course!
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Nov 4, 2019 15:37:09 GMT -5
Yeah, a lot of it seems to come down to the fact that the pointers that are subsequently employed to point to a knowing resulting from realisation can come in the form of negation or affirmation, (the pointers themselves being insufficient and never being able to encapsulate the realisation), and it's all too easy to start licking and come down on the other side, which tends to begin the merry go round. But this is old news. Yes, virtually all of them can because that is the form of all realizations, but affirmation conveys a sense of knowing something new, which mind finds far more preferable. However, it also constitutes a trap for the supposed knower. Sure. Although 'oneness' is affirmative, but when you use it, no-one here is likely to assume you're caught in a mind-trap.
So we can say that how the usage of pointers is perceived depends on a number of things, but perhaps most notably, as others have suggested, whether there's a direct reference for what's being talked about, along with the quality of particular pointer, i.e. how skilful or clumsy it is. Really it's through that combination that the intent behind the usage is gleaned, (assuming we come empty). Then we decide whether or not we res with it.
And of course, in any event, a phrase like 'everything is alive' clearly can be a minefield, when we consider that defining the very nature of aliveness itself tends to be quite elusive. That even its subsets like sentience can be problematic. If I remember rightly, it's paraphrased anyway, and at this stage pretty well out of context.
Anyway I'm saying there can be a very fine line between whether we see something as a subtle pointing in the moment, or a potential mind-trap, and whether we see what side of the line we come down on, as being the result of what we are or aren't bringing to the party.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Nov 4, 2019 15:47:22 GMT -5
Personally I'm like Russ Abbot. I love a party with a happy atmosphere.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 4, 2019 22:23:06 GMT -5
Yes, virtually all of them can because that is the form of all realizations, but affirmation conveys a sense of knowing something new, which mind finds far more preferable. However, it also constitutes a trap for the supposed knower. Sure. Although 'oneness' is affirmative, but when you use it, no-one here is likely to assume you're caught in a mind-trap.
So we can say that how the usage of pointers is perceived depends on a number of things, but perhaps most notably, as others have suggested, whether there's a direct reference for what's being talked about, along with the quality of particular pointer, i.e. how skilful or clumsy it is. Really it's through that combination that the intent behind the usage is gleaned, (assuming we come empty). Then we decide whether or not we res with it.
And of course, in any event, a phrase like 'everything is alive' clearly can be a minefield, when we consider that defining the very nature of aliveness itself tends to be quite elusive. That even its subsets like sentience can be problematic. If I remember rightly, it's paraphrased anyway, and at this stage pretty well out of context.
Anyway I'm saying there can be a very fine line between whether we see something as a subtle pointing in the moment, or a potential mind-trap, and whether we see what side of the line we come down on, as being the result of what we are or aren't bringing to the party. I agree with the remainder of what you say here, but I sometimes see seekers seeking or confirming the experience of unification,(of that which was never in disunion), or objectifying Oneness (what we used to call a 'oneness blob') which is the direct effect of stumbling over the affirmative rather than realizing the negative.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Nov 4, 2019 23:01:26 GMT -5
So we can say that how the usage of pointers is perceived depends on a number of things, but perhaps most notably, as others have suggested, whether there's a direct reference for what's being talked about, along with the quality of particular pointer, i.e. how skilful or clumsy it is. That's why the only legitimate pointer is meditation practice because it leads to direct experience. That's the direct reference.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 5, 2019 1:04:13 GMT -5
Agreed. There is though a realization that gives the absolute knowing that 'the world' has no separate, inherent, independent existence. "dream world" is just a term (imperfect at that) to try to speak about how the world is regarded after seeing through separation. Well I am not sure why for years you spoke about a Truth realization that gave weight to the dream and the dream characters and you were the awakened one that perceived it for what it is / was, while poor old sleepy heads Andy and I just couldn't see what you are seeing lol. I questioned that realization from the very off. I can relate to a world that isn't separate that doesn't relate at all to a dream world but your analogy of the whole dream world was then used in comparison to the dream at night .. So it doesn't make sense to simply say that dream world was just a term used because it actually was the crux of you and E's and Gopals model .. "There is though a realization that gives the absolute knowing that 'the world' has no separate, inherent, independent existence." She's saying the world appears in/as Consciousness itself. There's nothing wrong with referring to that as a dream appearing in Consciousness.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 5, 2019 2:38:36 GMT -5
Why isn't there just one witness? The witness is an idea used to help generate an objective focus outside of the stream of continuous thinking. There isn't even one witness, it's just a mode of attention. The experiencer therefore by using your model is also just an idea (agreed)?, but you favour one idea over another .. When you have a dude favouring one idea over another it really points to there is one that can have preferences .. Awareness itself doesn't have ideas about awareness, nor does it favour one notion over another .. This reflects traits of self denial. self isn't a separate entity as we all know, but within mind there is an awareness of the individual that is absent beyond the mind. There is still what you are present but there is no thought about oneself, so it is foolish to deny self while of the mind and this is the biggest mind trap for most, thinking that self isn't present or is dreamy or illusory .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 5, 2019 2:51:13 GMT -5
Makes no sense to me .. You speak about awareness being present that can see the world for a dream then you start to speak about the one that has attention .. Awareness itself doesn't attend to anything, doesn't create anything, doesn't witness anything .. You say there is no witness but you say there is an experiencer .. this makes no sense to me .. There isn't Awareness just being Awareness, and something else that creates or attends. Those Selves and witnesses are movements of Awareness, or whatever you wish to call it. The point is there is just ONE. The one that has attention IS Awareness. As ZD keeps saying, there's just one thingless thing doing everything. .... There are qualities that are of the mind and of what we are of the mind even though there is only what we are .. You want to tie that into one word usage that is 'awareness' . Now in my eyes all you need to do is compare what you are aware of that reflects your individuality and beyond that . There are obvious differences .. I have emphasised that the witness is not some separate dude nor is the self a separate dude that is not what we are in any shape or form .. I have explained this for many years and agree with Ramana's thoughts on how consciousness and awareness and the self all come together so to speak .. But all you are doing is casting out many references and keeping to 'awareness' which doesn't help because only of the mind can one conclude what you have and favour what you have .. Awareness itself like said cannot have preferences, so it's not going to work of the mind . Saying that the witness is a movement of awareness makes no sense, it's just words cobbled together in order to uphold your notion .. Awareness itself doesn't have qualities of movement.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 5, 2019 3:02:27 GMT -5
You imply that awareness itself is aware of the dream and you associate awareness with having qualities per se .. Just because you want to disregard everything like the conscious self doesn't mean anything to me because all that you are displaying here is that which you disregard . You can do and say what you like, but it doesn't negate the qualities you display . All you are doing is attributing all self qualities in the one awareness basket . Awareness like said cannot have these self qualities .. There is only the experiencer / witness that is aware of self and this world .. It's true that we use concepts to break up oneness into pieces, some of which are witness or self and whatever else. Some of you are playing chess with the pieces, so I suggest collapsing it all back into one. Well what you are doing is collapsing what we are into one conceptual pointer . Awareness itself cannot do that. There requires the thought of oneself, there requires the mind, there requires perception, knowing/s and such likes. All your doing is exterminating all that is required to make that one conceptual pointer by passing them off as movements of awareness .. I don't see any benefits from passing off everything as a movement of awareness when the movement of awareness is what enabled you to collapse the concepts into a one neat box .. It's the dreamer thinking his outside the dream mentality and is counter productive ..
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 5, 2019 3:16:34 GMT -5
Well I am not sure why for years you spoke about a Truth realization that gave weight to the dream and the dream characters and you were the awakened one that perceived it for what it is / was, while poor old sleepy heads Andy and I just couldn't see what you are seeing lol. I questioned that realization from the very off. I can relate to a world that isn't separate that doesn't relate at all to a dream world but your analogy of the whole dream world was then used in comparison to the dream at night .. So it doesn't make sense to simply say that dream world was just a term used because it actually was the crux of you and E's and Gopals model .. "There is though a realization that gives the absolute knowing that 'the world' has no separate, inherent, independent existence." She's saying the world appears in/as Consciousness itself. There's nothing wrong with referring to that as a dream appearing in Consciousness. There isn't the realization of that, there is the conclusion of that when self aware of the mind . Figs has changed her mind of late by agreeing with a video link that I posted that emphasised everything is real But I questioned why one earth would you make out the world is a dream full of dream characters and everything said of the dream is empty and absent of Truth .. It's a very strange example used to describe a real reality full of real peeps to then set up a foundation around it and by comparing the illusory nature of it with dream characters in the night dream .. Everything points to things not being as they seem to be and not holding any Truth or weight .. When you have a peep telling you that they are awake to the dream and myself and other are not, it leaves you scratching your head .. How can I be asleep when the world being a dream is just something that you have made up lol .. This is why I have spent a long time getting to the truth of this matter. The notion is something that actually holds no Truth or weight. There is no realization had that reflects the notion .. so how can one peep be asleep to that notion and one be awake .. Sounds silly to me and it sounds like one peep just wants to put themselves in a higher position than the other with there being no foundation at all other than one making stuff up about the world and the other .. I can speak about life and God and Self and self without using a dream analogy at all . There really is no need to set up a foundation about life using a dream metaphor at all . What one has to look at is who would hold onto that concept for as long as they have done and have spent an age trying to bolster the notion up with further ideas about non aware peeps that walk the earth .. There is no reason to do this .. You want to collapse everything into one neat box, so I suggest you drop the dream notion and the zombies .
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Nov 5, 2019 5:34:42 GMT -5
Personally I'm like Russ Abbot. I love a party with a happy atmosphere. I can feel a Spritualteachers conga coming on ...
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Nov 5, 2019 5:35:46 GMT -5
Sure. Although 'oneness' is affirmative, but when you use it, no-one here is likely to assume you're caught in a mind-trap.
So we can say that how the usage of pointers is perceived depends on a number of things, but perhaps most notably, as others have suggested, whether there's a direct reference for what's being talked about, along with the quality of particular pointer, i.e. how skilful or clumsy it is. Really it's through that combination that the intent behind the usage is gleaned, (assuming we come empty). Then we decide whether or not we res with it.
And of course, in any event, a phrase like 'everything is alive' clearly can be a minefield, when we consider that defining the very nature of aliveness itself tends to be quite elusive. That even its subsets like sentience can be problematic. If I remember rightly, it's paraphrased anyway, and at this stage pretty well out of context.
Anyway I'm saying there can be a very fine line between whether we see something as a subtle pointing in the moment, or a potential mind-trap, and whether we see what side of the line we come down on, as being the result of what we are or aren't bringing to the party. I agree with the remainder of what you say here, but I sometimes see seekers seeking or confirming the experience of unification,(of that which was never in disunion), or objectifying Oneness (what we used to call a 'oneness blob') which is the direct effect of stumbling over the affirmative rather than realizing the negative. Yes of course, it's happening all the time. I think we just disagree whether it's happening in the instances of some of the things Reefs and ZD say when they're talking about stuff.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 5, 2019 5:40:41 GMT -5
In the context of talking about 'experiencing', either 'experiencers' are part of the dream, or there is just the One fundamental and omniscient Experiencer. Or, do you think there can be individual fundamental experiencers? Just one experiencer. Okay, so this One fundamental Experiencer is experiencing 'everything'...'all appearances', right? '
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Nov 5, 2019 5:44:57 GMT -5
So we can say that how the usage of pointers is perceived depends on a number of things, but perhaps most notably, as others have suggested, whether there's a direct reference for what's being talked about, along with the quality of particular pointer, i.e. how skilful or clumsy it is. That's why the only legitimate pointer is meditation practice because it leads to direct experience. That's the direct reference. Absolutely, and I think meditation is generally quite misunderstood and given a bad rap on these forums. In my opinion it's one of two areas that 'fall down' here, the other being kamma and rebirth, which doesn't really come up at all, but I don't think it's an area that's particularly prevalent in advaita.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 5, 2019 5:51:42 GMT -5
You imply that awareness itself is aware of the dream and you associate awareness with having qualities per se .. Just because you want to disregard everything like the conscious self doesn't mean anything to me because all that you are displaying here is that which you disregard . You can do and say what you like, but it doesn't negate the qualities you display . All you are doing is attributing all self qualities in the one awareness basket . Awareness like said cannot have these self qualities .. There is only the experiencer / witness that is aware of self and this world .. It's true that we use concepts to break up oneness into pieces, some of which are witness or self and whatever else. Some of you are playing chess with the pieces, so I suggest collapsing it all back into one. 'One' is a pointer there, right? Could probably equally say, collapse back into 'nothing'. Or 'no-thing'. All are fine, and your point is valid. But to be fair, to say, 'I know I am and appearances are appearing to me but don't know if you are and if appearances are appearing to you', is a very big chess move (and I think it's breaking the rules of the game)
|
|