|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 29, 2019 14:07:49 GMT -5
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. (This, is not a pipe).
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Mar 29, 2019 14:14:35 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). I don't know about James Swartz, but it's not the view of traditional vedanta. Traditional vedanta believes that the veiling thought of ignorance either is or isn't there. It is not the case that one gets liberated and then has to integrate it.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 29, 2019 14:35:43 GMT -5
Traditional/historic Advaita Vedanta (see post above). I don't know about James Swartz, but it's not the view of traditional vedanta. Traditional vedanta believes that the veiling thought of ignorance either is or isn't there. It is not the case that one gets liberated and then has to integrate it. OK, I agree with that. What I'm saying is with traditional Adviata, liberation is not so easy as with/in ND "circles" today, the "veiling thought of ignorance" is not so easy to get rid of. It's a process. (Andrew Cohen and what he taught, and what his students "believed" about what he taught is an example). I think you could almost make the case that what today's (western or Protestant) church teaches (say the sinner's prayer and get saved and get your ticket to heaven) and what Jesus actually taught (actual transformation) are light-years apart.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Mar 29, 2019 14:55:54 GMT -5
I don't know about James Swartz, but it's not the view of traditional vedanta. Traditional vedanta believes that the veiling thought of ignorance either is or isn't there. It is not the case that one gets liberated and then has to integrate it. OK, I agree with that. What I'm saying is with traditional Adviata, liberation is not so easy as with/in ND "circles" today, the "veiling thought of ignorance" is not so easy to get rid of. It's a process. (Andrew Cohen and what he taught, and what his students "believed" about what he taught is an example). I think you could almost make the case that what today's (western or Protestant) church teaches (say the sinner's prayer and get saved and get your ticket to heaven) and what Jesus actually taught (actual transformation) are light-years apart. Ah ok, I agree on that point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2019 15:03:41 GMT -5
Exactly. This idea that doership gets seen through in a separate realization from volition which is a separate realization from the seeing through of separation, is just silliness. In complete SR, various erroneous ideas get seen through all at once, all under the same one realization. This may be true for some people, but certainly not for most people. I've talked to numerous sages in person, and I've asked a lot of questions about their paths, and most of them had numerous realizations and/or experiences of oneness along the path to eventual freedom and what we call "the natural state" (SS). Sure. But so long as there is still something phenomenal remaining be seen through, we cannot say actual/complete SR is the case.
To truly 'realize Self' is to leave no stone unturned in terms of the seeing through of "what is not."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2019 15:08:16 GMT -5
A concept can be used as a pointer, but in the context of being told a truth, then yep, it relates to an association. So if the association is false / illusory then so is the truth that has been appointed .. This is the same scenario as the dream character speaking the truth or being outside the dream, it doesn't work.This is why foundations have to be rock solid. No one has talked about a dream character speaking the truth or being outside the dream. The seeing that what I am is not a character in the dream, is beyond the dream. There is no 'thing' seeing/realizing that....rather, realization happens absent a character, absent a person....beyond mind's machinations.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Mar 29, 2019 15:14:07 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. I have said earlier on in the proceedings that there is the notion that we are both the personhood and not. This is integration post S.R. Sifting has not integrated that what we are is both. That's the difference. Sifting is coming from only one side of the coin.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2019 15:14:28 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 It most certainly does. I see this notion of 'emptiness is form/form is emptiness' used to reify 'nothingness' as 'something' that exists within the manifest world, just prior to the arising form, that can be therefore said to be 'what form is made of.'
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Mar 29, 2019 15:19:55 GMT -5
So if the association is false / illusory then so is the truth that has been appointed .. This is the same scenario as the dream character speaking the truth or being outside the dream, it doesn't work.This is why foundations have to be rock solid. No one has talked about a dream character speaking the truth or being outside the dream. The seeing that what I am is not a character in the dream, is beyond the dream. There is no 'thing' seeing/realizing that....rather, realization happens absent a character, absent a person....beyond mind's machinations. What?? You and E have said that appearances are dream characters, the world is like a dream. I have argued till I am blue in the face that dream characters or illusions cannot speak of anything Truthy. The whole deal you said was story based and full of illusory counterparts.. Honestly I am not in the mood to say you said this I said that for the last few years .. this has been your constant theme If you deny it then you own it, I am not interested in finding a hundred posts from the other forum to prove my point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2019 15:20:24 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. I have said earlier on in the proceedings that there is the notion that we are both the personhood and not. This is integration post S.R. Sifting has not integrated that what we are is both. That's the difference. Sifting is coming from only one side of the coin. The 'integration' has to include the initial seeing through/negation of that which is now being included in "Oneness."
And It's not that 'seeing through' goes away. One does not suddenly once again take volition or cause/effect or personhood to be actual. Oneness includes both 'the actual' and that which is not 'actual.'
Integration does not mean going back to 1st mountain where full out identification with personhood once again becomes the case. The person, as a separately existent thing that has independent existence, remains seen through. The body/mind/character is now seen as a facet of the ongoing story...there's no need to deny or eschew it, but you also know that it's arising to that which abides, that which is the ground of all else.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2019 15:21:20 GMT -5
No one has talked about a dream character speaking the truth or being outside the dream. The seeing that what I am is not a character in the dream, is beyond the dream. There is no 'thing' seeing/realizing that....rather, realization happens absent a character, absent a person....beyond mind's machinations. What?? You and E have said that appearances are dream characters, the world is like a dream. I have argued till I am blue in the face that dream characters or illusions cannot speak of anything Truthy. The whole deal you said was story based and full of illusory counterparts.. Honestly I am not in the mood to say you said this I said that for the last few years .. this has been your constant theme If you deny it then you own it, I am not interested in finding a hundred posts from the other forum to prove my point. I am not a dream character. The dream character appears to that which I am.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Mar 29, 2019 15:24:31 GMT -5
I have said earlier on in the proceedings that there is the notion that we are both the personhood and not. This is integration post S.R. Sifting has not integrated that what we are is both. That's the difference. Sifting is coming from only one side of the coin. The 'integration' has to include the initial seeing through/negation of that which is now being included in "Oneness."
And It's not that 'seeing through' goes away. One does not suddenly once again take volition or cause/effect or personhood to be actual. Oneness includes both 'the actual' and that which is not 'actual.'
Integration does not mean going back to 1st mountain where full out identification with personhood once again becomes the case. The person, as a separately existent thing that has independent existence, remains seen through. The body/mind/character is now seen as a facet of the ongoing story...there's no need to deny or eschew it, but you also know that it's arising to that which abides, that which is the ground of all else.
All I said was that post S.R. one can eventually see both sides of the coin. At first one side might only be presented because there is the comparison of what you thought you were and the realization that what you are is beyond this. This is the one sided effect. The second side reveals that you are what you initially thought you were also.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Mar 29, 2019 15:26:30 GMT -5
What?? You and E have said that appearances are dream characters, the world is like a dream. I have argued till I am blue in the face that dream characters or illusions cannot speak of anything Truthy. The whole deal you said was story based and full of illusory counterparts.. Honestly I am not in the mood to say you said this I said that for the last few years .. this has been your constant theme If you deny it then you own it, I am not interested in finding a hundred posts from the other forum to prove my point. I am not a dream character. The dream character appears to that which I am. You can't separate or divide anything from what you are so I am not sure why you are still doing it. God is the form of God.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 29, 2019 16:57:57 GMT -5
I am not a dream character. The dream character appears to that which I am. You can't separate or divide anything from what you are so I am not sure why you are still doing it. God is the form of God. Now that's a tautology that I can get on board with!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 29, 2019 17:11:15 GMT -5
I am not a dream character. The dream character appears to that which I am. You can't separate or divide anything from what you are so I am not sure why you are still doing it. God is the form of God. Not that we're ever gonna' agree on this, but here goes. "I am not a dream character" isn't meant to imply division, it's simply a distinction. Another way to say exactly the same thing is that "nothing that is limited, is what I am", and a dream character, is certainly something that is, limited.
|
|