|
Post by tenka on Mar 28, 2019 10:10:05 GMT -5
But where does the realization play into all this because this is where are beliefs about S.R. stems from, it is the comparison had of self and no self, mind and no mind, duality and non duality.. Actually there are no beliefs per se. All specific beliefs would be wrong. What there is is a connection to something beyond beliefs, and that is where the words flow from. The self cannot be an object of awareness. The self which is an object of awareness is precisely what is seen to be illusion. What do you mean "pertain"? What does "pertain" mean in this context? Actually there is no Ramana, Ramana's realization, or frog. Whose self-awareness? This question cannot be answered because there one cannot think the true "you" of this statement. I don't see eye to eye on your belief model, in my eyes to say that there are no beliefs is just another belief in my book that stems from something you believe to be true, that is why you have an opinion of certain concepts are wrong. And these same opinions that you have is not what I have so this self awareness view that you have makes no sense to me. Ramana put it across in a well said way where consciousness becomes awareness in the presence of a mind-body. The mind-body conscious self that is aware is tied up in all of that and cannot be separated from what you are. In regards to self awareness pertaining to I AM means that self awareness is related to I AM aware. You say there is no 'I' but your self awareness is I AM related. The peep that is referred to as ramana is self aware because I AM is not separate from anything ramana related. Ramana is a self reference just like the frog is or the elephant is .. Do you know what it feels like to have an elephants ears or trunk? To say there is no elephant denies the experience that what you are as the elephant is having. Have you given birth to a baby elephant? You will find the elephants experience of being 10 ft wide will be different from the mouse. If you can't relate to yourself as being in association with anything and you can't answer that then you can't be in a position of association for there to be a you to say there is no doer. You are holding a position within or of self awareness saying what S.R. means or doesn't mean. You can't have an opinion on anything if you don't have first a reflection of yourself. Do you see that by putting yourself in a particular position you actually relate to yourself, now if you don't or can't say what that is per se, then you can't have an opinion on lets say 'I' or duality. Where do you stand in reflection of I AM? Where does your sense of self awareness stand in relation to what duality is..
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Mar 28, 2019 10:16:57 GMT -5
To be technically accurate, it's not that I would say that I am not these things or that I am these things, but rather the duality of being or not being those things is wrong. The idea of such things is wrong. The very "I" that could be these things or not be those things is wrong. There is a holy silence in which all these different beliefs and their contraries are incomplete and inaccurate. Holy silence does not make what is not it, wrong, inaccurate nor incomplete. Only a person can do that. It is not the holy silence that deems these things inaccurate, but neither is it a person.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 10:21:23 GMT -5
What is the difference between seeing the world as illusion and the psychological defense mechanism called denial? Cool question, actually! I like the connection. Denial is a failure to recognize something true to protect the ego. But that the world is unreal is true. So seeing the world as illusion cannot be denial. By that definition, it is actually the "commonsense view" that is denial. No. But I will continue to speak as if there is one. That's a clever argument, one of quite a few that I'm sure many a therapist has heard. Of course someone in denial would deny that they're in denial. Otherwise denial wouldn't be very effective. Deniers are convinced that "this isn't really happening." But it is. How is sifty not a denier, different from someone who says, "this isn't really happening, because I and IT aren't real". Could a realized, non person, have their feelings hurt? Feel insulted, offended? Feel the sting of injustice?
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Mar 28, 2019 10:21:48 GMT -5
I don't see eye to eye on your belief model, in my eyes to say that there are no beliefs is just another belief in my book that stems from something you believe to be true, that is why you have an opinion of certain concepts are wrong Right, we don't see eye to eye on this point. Ramana ultimately did not believe in the existence of a mind-body. Yes, this is all a way of talking that is appropriate for some contexts but not ultimately true. Which is why even when I am saying it, I am not saying it. It only appears as if I am saying it. Actually, not even that. Only the one who sees this opinion and reflection must acknowledge it as such. Actually there are no opinions or reflections. Even when I say that I have an opinion that is not strictly true.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Mar 28, 2019 10:24:07 GMT -5
Cool question, actually! I like the connection. Denial is a failure to recognize something true to protect the ego. But that the world is unreal is true. So seeing the world as illusion cannot be denial. By that definition, it is actually the "commonsense view" that is denial. No. But I will continue to speak as if there is one. That's a clever argument, one of quite a few that I'm sure many a therapist has heard. Of course someone in denial would deny that they're in denial. Otherwise denial wouldn't be very effective. Deniers are convinced that "this isn't really happening." But it is. How is sifty not a denier, different from someone who says, "this isn't really happening, because I and IT aren't real". Wouldn't it be the same if in a world where everyone was blind, someone talked about colors? It would seem like psychosis. Of course realization seems like insanity from the standpoint of everyone else. The one who sees a body-mind can see that body-mind get its feelings hurt. But there is no such thing as a body-mind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 10:49:49 GMT -5
That's a clever argument, one of quite a few that I'm sure many a therapist has heard. Of course someone in denial would deny that they're in denial. Otherwise denial wouldn't be very effective. Deniers are convinced that "this isn't really happening." But it is. How is sifty not a denier, different from someone who says, "this isn't really happening, because I and IT aren't real". Wouldn't it be the same if in a world where everyone was blind, someone talked about colors? It would seem like psychosis. Of course realization seems like insanity from the standpoint of everyone else. The one who sees a body-mind can see that body-mind get its feelings hurt. But there is no such thing as a body-mind. This last sentence is quite true. But is there a difference between some one who sees the body-mind get offended and someone who forgets they are "observing" the body-mind and later realizes some noone (to borrow from the frog) got lost in the dream?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 28, 2019 10:56:34 GMT -5
What seems to be popular these days in various non-dual circles is an explanation of self-realization as "just the beginning" of a long process of the destruction of personality tendencies... at the end of which is real enlightenment.
There is also talk of after realization happens, it then later "comes down into the heart" or some such and then the "energetic" awakening is the real awakening.
And there is talk of how you must take your realization and "integrate it" into the real world. I disagree with all of these ways of putting things, and I think they are a way to run away from the stark truth of non-doership and non-individuality. Who is there to deliberately 'integrate' anything? Who is there to be the recipient of some energetic awakening? The mind -- if we posit the mind for discussion's sake -- may be said to grow quieter over time with realization, and this can increase mental pleasure and decrease emotional obstacles, but that doesn't affect realization. Realization is perfect and pure eternally. I really like to know who you think is saying this kind of stuff. Your OP smells like burning strawman.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 12:32:42 GMT -5
Holy silence does not make what is not it, wrong, inaccurate nor incomplete. Only a person can do that. It is not the holy silence that deems these things inaccurate, but neither is it a person. Is it the one that's calling silence holy that's doing it then?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 13:17:54 GMT -5
It is not the holy silence that deems these things inaccurate, but neither is it a person. Is it the one that's calling silence holy that's doing it then? Twenty you remind me so much of a spider. If you're really reefs under all that cleverness, I'll lose my faith in "cabbage".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 13:26:10 GMT -5
Is it the one that's calling silence holy that's doing it then? Twenty you remind me so much of a spider. If you're really reefs under all that cleverness, I'll lose my faith in "cabbage". This little spin by Figgles has been going on for years. She's the only one that still buys it, because.. it was originally spun by her
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 28, 2019 13:29:04 GMT -5
What seems to be popular these days in various non-dual circles is an explanation of self-realization as "just the beginning" of a long process of the destruction of personality tendencies... at the end of which is real enlightenment.
There is also talk of after realization happens, it then later "comes down into the heart" or some such and then the "energetic" awakening is the real awakening.
And there is talk of how you must take your realization and "integrate it" into the real world. I disagree with all of these ways of putting things, and I think they are a way to run away from the stark truth of non-doership and non-individuality. Who is there to deliberately 'integrate' anything? Who is there to be the recipient of some energetic awakening? The mind -- if we posit the mind for discussion's sake -- may be said to grow quieter over time with realization, and this can increase mental pleasure and decrease emotional obstacles, but that doesn't affect realization. Realization is perfect and pure eternally. I really like to know who you think is saying this kind of stuff. Your OP smells like burning strawman. I think I could come up with some Adya vids where he says something that would fit the bill, and I'd say, that kensho can be when things just start to get interesting.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Mar 28, 2019 13:33:43 GMT -5
What seems to be popular these days in various non-dual circles is an explanation of self-realization as "just the beginning" of a long process of the destruction of personality tendencies... at the end of which is real enlightenment.
There is also talk of after realization happens, it then later "comes down into the heart" or some such and then the "energetic" awakening is the real awakening.
And there is talk of how you must take your realization and "integrate it" into the real world. I disagree with all of these ways of putting things, and I think they are a way to run away from the stark truth of non-doership and non-individuality. Who is there to deliberately 'integrate' anything? Who is there to be the recipient of some energetic awakening? The mind -- if we posit the mind for discussion's sake -- may be said to grow quieter over time with realization, and this can increase mental pleasure and decrease emotional obstacles, but that doesn't affect realization. Realization is perfect and pure eternally. I really like to know who you think is saying this kind of stuff. Your OP smells like burning strawman. Plenty of people. Here’s one random example I just googled.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Mar 28, 2019 13:37:01 GMT -5
It is not the holy silence that deems these things inaccurate, but neither is it a person. Is it the one that's calling silence holy that's doing it then? Who said “to be or not to be: that is the question” — Shakespeare, Hamlet, an actor, the reader of the script, the watcher of the play, someone else, none of the above, all of the above, it depends?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 28, 2019 13:51:43 GMT -5
I really like to know who you think is saying this kind of stuff. Your OP smells like burning strawman. Plenty of people. Here’s one random example I just googled. One way to give them the benefit of the doubt is this. If I'm not mistaken, you've pointed out yourself that realizing the existential truth doesn't give you any special, relative knowledge, nor any sort of new power of reasoning or magic. But what does happen is that experience, going forward, is necessarily different that it was before the realization. Now, as far as this particular article goes, this certainly leads me to question the realization status of the writer: If awakening is to serve a real purpose in our lives, it needs to find new forms of expression through our everyday interactions. .. but I wouldn't want to make a hasty judgement based on such thin evidence. -- although, you're not the first guy on this forum to express such skepticism about her. I think the bottom-line is that experience, and conditioning, aren't static for anyone, and this is also true for a "realized peep". It's just that these changes happen one way when the illusion is running, and another way afterward. I'd even go out on a limb and say that a genuinely realized peep who'd lived that way for some time, might actually have worthwhile lessons learned from experience to convey to a fresh popped kernel.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 14:14:05 GMT -5
One way to give them the benefit of the doubt is this. If I'm not mistaken, you've pointed out yourself that realizing the existential truth doesn't give you any special, relative knowledge, nor any sort of new power of reasoning or magic. But what does happen is that experience, going forward, is necessarily different that it was before the realization. Now, as far as this particular article goes, this certainly leads me to question the realization status of the writer: If awakening is to serve a real purpose in our lives, it needs to find new forms of expression through our everyday interactions. .. but I wouldn't want to make a hasty judgement based on such thin evidence. -- although, you're not the first guy on this forum to express such skepticism about her. I think the bottom-line is that experience, and conditioning, aren't static for anyone, and this is also true for a "realized peep". It's just that these changes happen one way when the illusion is running, and another way afterward. I'd even go out on a limb and say that a genuinely realized peep who'd lived that way for some time, might actually have worthwhile lessons learned from experience to convey to a fresh popped kernel. We're all awake. Some of us have just forgotten and are recalling with a little difficulty. Cut'em some slack, man.😎
|
|