|
Post by satchitananda on Jun 23, 2019 22:21:26 GMT -5
You have missed my point. Everyone is conditioned, Ramana, the Buddha, everyone, but the difference is that the sage knows he is not the conditioning. Ok. From your viewpoint, can conditioning be conditioned to think it isn’t conditioning? If you did that then that would just be your conditioning to do so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2019 23:08:23 GMT -5
I think I'm kind of on your side in this debate. It's what Laffy argues. He postulates there's "Realization," which is noticing you are not the seaprate self, but you're still a drip, and then there's "Awakening" where you become more "saintly." I'm neither. But think I'll skip the big "R" component. I believe in many instances there's proprtional relationship between it and psychopathy. Maybe too strong a statement there. I see a continued increase in consciousness between the relationship of my conditioning with the ever changing conditions in consciousness. While each of the two is essentially consciousness, as I become more aware, I also see myself getting closer to God. This has a lot more to do with a developing and processing than it does with simply realizing I wasn't separate from God in the first place. Of course consciousness doesn't increase, the person I appear as becomes less unconscious, and accordingly, there is less identification of consciousness with thoughts and feelings. Life unfolds more smoothly because the mind isn't unconsciously wired to resist it's own happenings which occur spontaneously based on appearing conditions, which on the ultimate level, you yourself create. I find myself less willing or even less able to behave in a way which would lead to my own degradation, which is to say, arises out of an unconscious need to avoid how I'm feeling. And so on and so forth. In this sense, we are talking about spiritual ascension, but I don't think the desire to ascend mount woo woo is going to get anyone anywhere, except for maybe stuck. When belief structures which no longer serve us are noticed and inquired into, they are transcended and left behind. If the belief structures still serve us, even if harbored unconsciously, not likely they'll be going anywhere anytime soon. All very much self regulating and very much beyond one's control. Nevertheless, I wouldn't discount the power of intention and application of will to achieve various ends. Often in pursuit of such ends is where becoming conscious takes place... It's simple. Don't resist. Focus on the process; you can't control outcomes. Buckle in and enjoy the ride.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 24, 2019 1:34:34 GMT -5
I think you were pretty spot on with the destroying mind fallacy. If we look at the person as a conditioned entity, we could say conditioning is observed by unconditioned consciousness. This conceptual split gives rise to the illusion that one is separate from the other, or even better, embodies the illusion that what you are prior to enlightenment is separate from what you could be after. Obviously, you don't need to remove the person in order for there to be enlightenment. Ramana still woke up every day and engaged in dialogue with other people, and this was obviously a big tendency of his. He may have even had a habit of picking his nose, and I don't think stopping his nose picking is a precursor to anything. I believe we spoke previously about conscious and unconscious tendencies, the latter of which I would call vasanas which could be uprooted to bring one closer to God or a life in harmony with oneness, the embodiment of realization. Uprooting vasanas isn't about Self knowledge, it's about the absence of avoidance of self knowledge, the absence of your mind functioning unconsciously to avoid already existing emotions. That absence is brought about through making the mind conscious. So, we have the already debunked split between the unconditioned consciousness and the conditioned consciousness, and yet, another apparent and experiential split between a person conditioned to be unconscious of itself, who thus possesses the potential to achieve greater consciousness through loss of unconsciousness. Could an argument be made that you get there through Self abidance? I spose, but then we're equating the Self with the observer and calling the conditioned person not Self. All is the Self. It's true you aren't a person. But from another angle it's also true you aren't not a person either. The person is an expression of Self and there is no True Self to abide in. There is nowhere to hide, and no need to either. All is amicably, and sometimes un-amicably, One. I think I'm kind of on your side in this debate. It's what Laffy argues. He postulates there's "Realization," which is noticing you are not the seaprate self, but you're still a drip, and then there's "Awakening" where you become more "saintly." I'm neither. But think I'll skip the big "R" component. I believe in many instances there's proprtional relationship between it and psychopathy. Maybe too strong a statement there. To me awakening happens before self-realization - although, as a phase, it's not necessary - and it's a shift in perception as to one's sense of self and reality. Awakening is a matter of degree and can be as simple and subtle as someone starting to understand that the world isn't what they thought it is. Self-realization changes the game in terms of our relationships to other people and the world generally, but saintliness is ultimately about our actions and reactions to what's happening around us. Saintliness can never be referred to absent some relative system of value, but what's realized in self-realization really has nothing to do with that, and those systems can be as much an obstacle to realization as any other form by way of our attachments to them. While there does seem to me to be a natural gravity toward becoming conscious of our relationships post SR, it's entirely possible for people to live quite ethically and love with profound depth, passion and conscience without SR ever happening. Conversely, SR is no guarantee that someone will fall in love with the world. There's simply no predicting the details of a post-SR life, as there is no relationship between the relative and the absolute.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 24, 2019 1:43:42 GMT -5
I think I'm kind of on your side in this debate. It's what Laffy argues. He postulates there's "Realization," which is noticing you are not the seaprate self, but you're still a drip, and then there's "Awakening" where you become more "saintly." I'm neither. But think I'll skip the big "R" component. I believe in many instances there's proprtional relationship between it and psychopathy. Maybe too strong a statement there. I see a continued increase in consciousness between the relationship of my conditioning with the ever changing conditions in consciousness. While each of the two is essentially consciousness, as I become more aware, I also see myself getting closer to God. This has a lot more to do with a developing and processing than it does with simply realizing I wasn't separate from God in the first place. Of course consciousness doesn't increase, the person I appear as becomes less unconscious, and accordingly, there is less identification of consciousness with thoughts and feelings. Life unfolds more smoothly because the mind isn't unconsciously wired to resist it's own happenings which occur spontaneously based on appearing conditions, which on the ultimate level, you yourself create. I find myself less willing or even less able to behave in a way which would lead to my own degradation, which is to say, arises out of an unconscious need to avoid how I'm feeling. And so on and so forth. In this sense, we are talking about spiritual ascension, but I don't think the desire to ascend mount woo woo is going to get anyone anywhere, except for maybe stuck. When belief structures which no longer serve us are noticed and inquired into, they are transcended and left behind. If the belief structures still serve us, even if harbored unconsciously, not likely they'll be going anywhere anytime soon. All very much self regulating and very much beyond one's control. Nevertheless, I wouldn't discount the power of intention and application of will to achieve various ends. Often in pursuit of such ends is where becoming conscious takes place... Yeah, I completely rezz with those first two paragraphs. It's like yer writing my diary for me. Beliefs still happen after SR, but they happen differently. The way I'd describe it is that if you ever bother to look into them then things get real clear, real quick, which is precisely what Ramana was trying to get people to do by facing them with "who is it that has this question?". My recollection and observation of other's is that the exact same process can happen for someone pre-SR, but it will always happen in the context of the sense that someone is tapping you on the shoulder from behind and running away before you can get a glimpse of them.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 24, 2019 1:49:03 GMT -5
You don't believe individual minds exist but you also believe they are completely necessary? It's a logical fallacy you could address. Ok, and I'm just saying people can not just be more present, but also more conscious in their functioning. I prefer a world that functions more consciously than the one we currently inhabit, and I would hope that folks posting on this forum would feel the same. I, of course, understand some folks actually want the opposite, which is how the mop flops I spose. It's not that they want the opposite, it's that they fully understand what a distortion and disturbance the desire to want the world to be other than how it is, is. And there's a third movement going on: folks that genuinely believe that they're right about how the world needs to change for what they're convinced is the greatest good. The way I interpreted what lopez referred to is as the simple recognition of the first noble truth.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 24, 2019 1:52:48 GMT -5
I agree with this, but it's not what I meant. I'm saying Ramana was a conditioned person just like me and you.What was he conditioned by? He left home when he was still a teenager. The patch of ground where he layed down and closed his eyes?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2019 3:02:59 GMT -5
It's not that they want the opposite, it's that they fully understand what a distortion and disturbance the desire to want the world to be other than how it is, is. And there's a third movement going on: folks that genuinely believe that they're right about how the world needs to change for what they're convinced is the greatest good. The way I interpreted what lopez referred to is as the simple recognition of the first noble truth. And would you say that every man that has ever died, passionately believed that his good was the greatest?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2019 3:09:00 GMT -5
It's not that they want the opposite, it's that they fully understand what a distortion and disturbance the desire to want the world to be other than how it is, is. Axooly, there are people on this forum that actively campaign against greater consciousness. Regardless, the desire for the world to change hardly necessitates unease. Change is the only constant, and so one might argue to not want change is more of an affliction. In practical terms, I think folks who consciously engage the enterprise of desire or manifestation will enjoy seeing how things unfold and playing their part in the grander scheme. To engage a desire for change unconsciously, on the flip side, will bring suffering at some point down the line, as its arising stems from already existing disharmony. Right. And what do you really know of the changes outside of your direct experience?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2019 3:11:11 GMT -5
What was he conditioned by? He left home when he was still a teenager. Conditioned by his experience. Ok. And by conditioned, you mean having learnt to respond?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 24, 2019 7:44:36 GMT -5
And there's a third movement going on: folks that genuinely believe that they're right about how the world needs to change for what they're convinced is the greatest good. The way I interpreted what lopez referred to is as the simple recognition of the first noble truth. And would you say that every man that has ever died, passionately believed that his good was the greatest? I'm certain from what some of them have said that they had their doubts, especially in the last few days or hours.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2019 7:48:23 GMT -5
I think I'm kind of on your side in this debate. It's what Laffy argues. He postulates there's "Realization," which is noticing you are not the seaprate self, but you're still a drip, and then there's "Awakening" where you become more "saintly." I'm neither. But think I'll skip the big "R" component. I believe in many instances there's proprtional relationship between it and psychopathy. Maybe too strong a statement there. To me awakening happens before self-realization - although, as a phase, it's not necessary - and it's a shift in perception as to one's sense of self and reality. Awakening is a matter of degree and can be as simple and subtle as someone starting to understand that the world isn't what they thought it is. Self-realization changes the game in terms of our relationships to other people and the world generally, but saintliness is ultimately about our actions and reactions to what's happening around us. Saintliness can never be referred to absent some relative system of value, but what's realized in self-realization really has nothing to do with that, and those systems can be as much an obstacle to realization as any other form by way of our attachments to them. While there does seem to me to be a natural gravity toward becoming conscious of our relationships post SR, it's entirely possible for people to live quite ethically and love with profound depth, passion and conscience without SR ever happening. Conversely, SR is no guarantee that someone will fall in love with the world. There's simply no predicting the details of a post-SR life, as there is no relationship between the relative and the absolute. I giraffed you then. My first. How does it feel? This talk here, not your response per se, is like what happens in my head. I big tangled ball of yarn that you believe you're untangling but the opposite is happening.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 24, 2019 7:53:24 GMT -5
To me awakening happens before self-realization - although, as a phase, it's not necessary - and it's a shift in perception as to one's sense of self and reality. Awakening is a matter of degree and can be as simple and subtle as someone starting to understand that the world isn't what they thought it is. Self-realization changes the game in terms of our relationships to other people and the world generally, but saintliness is ultimately about our actions and reactions to what's happening around us. Saintliness can never be referred to absent some relative system of value, but what's realized in self-realization really has nothing to do with that, and those systems can be as much an obstacle to realization as any other form by way of our attachments to them. While there does seem to me to be a natural gravity toward becoming conscious of our relationships post SR, it's entirely possible for people to live quite ethically and love with profound depth, passion and conscience without SR ever happening. Conversely, SR is no guarantee that someone will fall in love with the world. There's simply no predicting the details of a post-SR life, as there is no relationship between the relative and the absolute. I giraffed you then. My first. How does it feel? This talk here, not your response per se, is like what happens in my head. I big tangled ball of yarn that you believe you're untangling but the opposite is happening. This "giraffe" is what the LOA folks would call a "co-creation". It's not like I've ever layed out some sort of clear vocabulary map, rather, I've found "awakening" to be a useful term in some of the dialogs with some folks here over time. Sorry for any confusion that this might have caused.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2019 8:01:39 GMT -5
Ramana still woke up every day and engaged in dialogue with other people, and this was obviously a big tendency of his. He may have even had a habit of picking his nose, and I don't think stopping his nose picking is a precursor to anything. You mean others just saw him appear to do those things and assumed someone with a name and body called Ramana was doing those things just as they themselves thought they were also doing things. This feels right.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 24, 2019 9:31:47 GMT -5
You mean others just saw him appear to do those things and assumed someone with a name and body called Ramana was doing those things just as they themselves thought they were also doing things. This feels right. I think a more accurate way to have stated this is, "You mean others just saw him appear to do those things and assumed that he was a separate volitional person, called 'Ramana,' who was doing those things just as they themselves thought that they were separate volitional persons also doing things." This may be exactly what Satch meant, but it wasn't totally clear in the way that it was worded.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 24, 2019 9:39:51 GMT -5
I think a more accurate way to have stated this is, "You mean others just saw him appear to do those things and assumed that he was a separate volitional person, called 'Ramana,' who was doing those things just as they themselves thought that they were separate volitional persons also doing things." This may be exactly what Satch meant, but it wasn't totally clear in the way that it was worded. this took me a sec to see exactly what you meant here .. ah, ok, so, with precision, we get to preserve doership as a useful social construct. Aces!
|
|