|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Mar 29, 2019 10:24:03 GMT -5
No, but if you believe there is an I, which you clearly do, then you should do that. What do you mean 'No'? lol, you have asked me to look deeply into me but there is no me here. Saying that if I believe in an "I" would just be an illusory character looking into an illusory character. It doesn't work. How can an illusory character appearance hold beliefs that there is an 'I'. None of it makes sense mate.The one who claims this should look into their I. There is no one to claim ownership of anything. Your working against your own premise here again .Right, so why don't you do that? Been there done that .. Me saying there is no me here is just a way of expressing the truth of an experience which goes beyond words. You need to experience the truth of it in your direct experience, not just listen to my words. Those who believe in an I should investigate it according to their belief.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Mar 29, 2019 10:25:12 GMT -5
But how can it flow through your appearance and not mine? Why does this truth exist when there is nobody here to say it or hear it or know it lol.It's exactly what I referred to earlier the peeps that say no-one is here and they go and write a book so peeps can buy it and read it. Can you answer this? This truth does not need a person to say it or hear it or know it, because it is not a conceptual truth.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Mar 29, 2019 10:29:22 GMT -5
Me saying there is no me here is just a way of expressing the truth of an experience which goes beyond words. You need to experience the truth of it in your direct experience, not just listen to my words. Those who believe in an I should investigate it according to their belief. Again you are relating me to a person that can experience something .. You need to look at what you say you are or not and then look at what you present. Your asking no-one to go do something. Can you see how this doesn't add up. It's all mixed up. There is no 'those' that can believe in an 'I' all your doing is adding more story to the story .. Why would you encourage a make believe movie character to search for themselves ... they don't actually exist as someone / thing that can search ... Do you understand what you are suggesting for a no-one to do?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Mar 29, 2019 10:32:49 GMT -5
This truth does not need a person to say it or hear it or know it, because it is not a conceptual truth. Why does it exist then? No-one here to speak it, hear it or know it .. but it is appearing to be spoken and heard and known .. What is the meaning / purpose behind some appearance, appearing to speak such non conceptual truths. There not non conceptual truths if they were there would be no appearance of them being understood.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Mar 29, 2019 10:33:15 GMT -5
Me saying there is no me here is just a way of expressing the truth of an experience which goes beyond words. You need to experience the truth of it in your direct experience, not just listen to my words. Those who believe in an I should investigate it according to their belief. Again you are relating me to a person that can experience something .. You need to look at what you say you are or not and then look at what you present. Your asking no-one to go do something. Can you see how this doesn't add up. It's all mixed up. There is no 'those' that can believe in an 'I' all your doing is adding more story to the story .. Why would you encourage a make believe movie character to search for themselves ... they don't actually exist as someone / thing that can search ... Do you understand what you are suggesting for a no-one to do? If you are no one, then I am no one too, correct? If I am no one, then what I am doing is nothing. So I am not asking you to go do something, am I?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Mar 29, 2019 10:39:56 GMT -5
Again you are relating me to a person that can experience something .. You need to look at what you say you are or not and then look at what you present. Your asking no-one to go do something. Can you see how this doesn't add up. It's all mixed up. There is no 'those' that can believe in an 'I' all your doing is adding more story to the story .. Why would you encourage a make believe movie character to search for themselves ... they don't actually exist as someone / thing that can search ... Do you understand what you are suggesting for a no-one to do? If you are no one, then I am no one too, correct? If I am no one, then what I am doing is nothing. So I am not asking you to go do something, am I? Geesus .. but you know you are asking me to do something .. you just did, but your going to deny it based upon the premise you have that you are not here ... It's just pure mind games .. Go and fetch me a glass of water, I am not asking you, there is nobody here, why have you not fetched me a glass of water? Why have you fetched me a glass of water? Geesus .. it's enough to send someone mental mate .. No-one lives like that mate and I don't believe you do .. Thanks for the respectful chat tho ..
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Mar 29, 2019 10:46:49 GMT -5
If you are no one, then I am no one too, correct? If I am no one, then what I am doing is nothing. So I am not asking you to go do something, am I? Geesus .. but you know you are asking me to do something .. you just did, but your going to deny it based upon the premise you have that you are not here ... I could also say that it's neither the case that I did or didn't, if that makes you feel better. If it were outside this forum the response would just be commonsense. Yes, here's the water. Because you ask on a nondual forum I am going to give you the nondual truth as best as I can put it in words. There's no such thing as "living like that." That's the error. There are stories about this in all the great wisdom traditions. Here's one example. A sage was teaching his disciple that the world was unreal. A wild elephant came rampaging. Both the sage and his disciple ran. Later, the disciple asked, "If the world is unreal, then the elephant was unreal, and your body was unreal, and the danger was unreal. So why then did you run?" "All those things are indeed unreal, my son," said the sage, "and so was my running." This is not a mere word game. It points to a truth that goes beyond logic. You too
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 29, 2019 10:54:24 GMT -5
Form is emptiness and emptiness is form. You guys are pointing at the same thingless thing from different directions. Is this not obvious? If nothing else, it's a very humorous dialogue. It reminds me of the "Who's on first?" comedy routine.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Mar 29, 2019 11:14:34 GMT -5
Form is emptiness and emptiness is form. Well, that depends on how we understand this. This should be understood as "Form is an incoherent idea. What seems to be form turns out, when it is examined, never to have existed." And emptiness properly understood is not the opposite of form but simply what reveals itself upon that examination (the idea of which suffers the same fate as the idea of form). Glad to provide some entertainment
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 29, 2019 13:13:05 GMT -5
Me saying there is no me here is just a way of expressing the truth of an experience which goes beyond words. You need to experience the truth of it in your direct experience, not just listen to my words. Those who believe in an I should investigate it according to their belief. Pointing directly to the existential seems to me to inevitably draw an intense and sustained negative interest in it, and there's no convincing someone in a debate that you're not speaking about a belief.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Mar 29, 2019 13:35:20 GMT -5
Me saying there is no me here is just a way of expressing the truth of an experience which goes beyond words. You need to experience the truth of it in your direct experience, not just listen to my words. Those who believe in an I should investigate it according to their belief. Pointing directly to the existential seems to me to inevitably draw an intense and sustained negative interest in it, and there's no convincing someone in a debate that you're not speaking about a belief.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 29, 2019 13:52:49 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 wouldn't say "in nondual circles". But this is the view of many, it's essentially my view. (I just replied to laughter on the ND trap thread, it essentially speaks to this issue). (IMO) seeing the false sense of self is illusory, doesn't negate the manifestation of its operation. This is admitted all the time here when people say that SR doesn't change what manifests in/as the mind-body (example, if you were an as$hole before SR you will probably be an a$shole after SR). To me, you are what you do, "Stupid is as stupid does". .....For the false sense of self to actually end, the manifestations of It need to end. (I know that view will remain in the minority here).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 29, 2019 13:54:01 GMT -5
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. Yes.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 29, 2019 13:56:29 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. Yes, and this is probably the view of James Swartz (traditional, meaning not-neo-advaita).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 29, 2019 14:02:07 GMT -5
You had to google it? Don't be shy. I wanna see that plenty of people list. Traditional/historic Advaita Vedanta (see post above).
|
|