|
Post by Reefs on Jan 9, 2020 23:46:08 GMT -5
Right. On the one hand, you know (intellectually) that you cannot know if she is real; but on the other hand, on a visceral level ("deep down"), you can't help but treat her as if she is real. That's a textbook case of a split mind. It's not the caliber of astute. it's a steady kenning, it never turned out to be erroneous. she is real is a kind of posit(assumption). The point is that taking her for real is automatic and most natural. Its effortless. Now, that doesn't make it true, of course. I understand that. But do you ever go thru an entire day not taking her for real? I doubt it, it actually would take an enormous amount of mental effort to do so. You would have to live totally in your head all the time since only as long as you consciously keep reminding yourself that you cannot know can you keep that up. Once you stop doing that, you are back to your natural default position. Which means this specific realization is a mental position only. And so, once you are fully immersed in the moment (not in your head anymore), let's say when you play with her, you'll forget what you have realized and start acting naturally again (taking her as real as yourself) as though you never actually had that realization. Now lets be clear. I am not saying that realizing what you have realized means not engaging with her (as Figgles has been wrongly assuming). Not at all. What I am saying is that your realization give you an extra option to interact with her. And while theoretically that extra option is available at all times, in actuality, it almost never is. Because, when push comes to shove, the natural option (taking her for real) always seems to trump the extra mental/theoretical option (not taking her for real, or for neither real nor not real). That's why I have been saying that your realization has no actual real life consequences except for philosophical discussions like this one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2020 0:05:44 GMT -5
It's not the caliber of astute. it's a steady kenning, it never turned out to be erroneous. she is real is a kind of posit(assumption). The point is that taking her for real is automatic and most natural. Its effortless. Now, that doesn't make it true, of course. I understand that. But do you ever go thru an entire day not taking her for real? I doubt it, it actually would take an enormous amount of mental effort to do so. You would have to live totally in your head all the time since only as long as you consciously keep reminding yourself that you cannot know can you keep that up. Once you stop doing that, you are back to your natural default position. Which means this specific realization is a mental position only. And so, once you are fully immersed in the moment (not in your head anymore), let's say when you play with her, you'll forget what you have realized and start acting naturally again (taking her as real as yourself) as though you never actually had that realization. Now lets be clear. I am not saying that realizing what you have realized means not engaging with her (as Figgles has been wrongly assuming). Not at all. What I am saying is that your realization give you an extra option to interact with her. And while theoretically that extra option is available at all times, in actuality, it almost never is. Because, when push comes to shove, the natural option (taking her for real) always seems to trump the extra mental/theoretical option (not taking her for real, or for neither real nor not real). That's why I have been saying that your realization has no actual real life consequences except for philosophical discussions like this one. I cerebrate I don't have to dissent here.There is no authentic world consequences as a result of seeing through the vacuousness abaft the appearances. Figgles would definitely concur with you here. The question of whether my daughter is REAL or not doesn't even emerges for a second when I am verbalizing with her or visually examining her. But If someone questions me whether I ken of his/her existence, I would definitely verbalize 'No, I definitely can't ken,because there is a more preponderant possibility that you could be a mere figment of my projection'. If you descry the way we grow up from our childhood, we definitely start to believe in a material world(world subsist in itself). But a day comes, question raises, whether I am living in a material world or this world is appearing to me. I concur that this question doesn't come to a mundane man, but a person like me who commenced descrying the truth of inner somehow influences the outer would definitely arises. Once this question emerged, I commenced to contemplate as to how my perception works, Consequently I have kenned that I have never optically discerned a world which subsists independent of my perception. Immediately after this quandary the question of whether other individual who are appearing to me is genuine or a mere engenderment of me would definitely arises.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 10, 2020 0:40:47 GMT -5
The point is that taking her for real is automatic and most natural. Its effortless. Now, that doesn't make it true, of course. I understand that. But do you ever go thru an entire day not taking her for real? I doubt it, it actually would take an enormous amount of mental effort to do so. You would have to live totally in your head all the time since only as long as you consciously keep reminding yourself that you cannot know can you keep that up. Once you stop doing that, you are back to your natural default position. Which means this specific realization is a mental position only. And so, once you are fully immersed in the moment (not in your head anymore), let's say when you play with her, you'll forget what you have realized and start acting naturally again (taking her as real as yourself) as though you never actually had that realization. Now lets be clear. I am not saying that realizing what you have realized means not engaging with her (as Figgles has been wrongly assuming). Not at all. What I am saying is that your realization give you an extra option to interact with her. And while theoretically that extra option is available at all times, in actuality, it almost never is. Because, when push comes to shove, the natural option (taking her for real) always seems to trump the extra mental/theoretical option (not taking her for real, or for neither real nor not real). That's why I have been saying that your realization has no actual real life consequences except for philosophical discussions like this one. I cerebrate I don't have to dissent here.There is no authentic world consequences as a result of seeing through the vacuousness abaft the appearances. Figgles would definitely concur with you here. The question of whether my daughter is REAL or not doesn't even emerges for a second when I am verbalizing with her or visually examining her. But If someone questions me whether I ken of his/her existence, I would definitely verbalize 'No, I definitely can't ken,because there is a more preponderant possibility that you could be a mere figment of my projection'. If you descry the way we grow up from our childhood, we definitely start to believe in a material world(world subsist in itself). But a day comes, question raises, whether I am living in a material world or this world is appearing to me. I concur that this question doesn't come to a mundane man, but a person like me who commenced descrying the truth of inner somehow influences the outer would definitely arises. Once this question emerged, I commenced to contemplate as to how my perception works, Consequently I have kenned that I have never optically discerned a world which subsists independent of my perception. Immediately after this quandary the question of whether other individual who are appearing to me is genuine or a mere engenderment of me would definitely arises.
You make a very important point here. As you say, the question of whether your daughter or the world is real or not does not arise in the moment that you are engaging with what appears. It is taken to be real. Since the realization of what you are is happening in that same moment then why does figgles put such importance on the post moment question of discussing/contemplating (which you can and do participate in also) whether the world is real or not as if it is the experience in the moment. She is treating the post moment discussion as if it is critical in the realization of what you are in the moment. This is what I call intellectual enlightenment. The sage sees the world and interacts with the world like anyone else except that there is the direct knowing that one is unlimited, free from the bondage of action and is not confined to the limitation of world. That reality requires no post moment discussion. It is like experiencing the pleasant warm feeling of the sun on your face but then having a discussion about where this warmth comes from, understanding how radiated heat travels through space from the sun and stimulates cells in your skin to register as heat signals which travel to your brain and arguing that you need to understand that before you can experience the reality of the sun on your face. I feel exactly the same way about this idea of seeing through the SVP. It has no relevance for the present moment realization of what you are. If you are awake you don't care a hoot about SVP or not SVP! You accept whatever arises and that may be a personal sense of self and engagement with what appears to be a real world or it may be pure objectless awareness. Who cares if one is at peace? It's all the same.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2020 1:18:14 GMT -5
I cerebrate I don't have to dissent here.There is no authentic world consequences as a result of seeing through the vacuousness abaft the appearances. Figgles would definitely concur with you here. The question of whether my daughter is REAL or not doesn't even emerges for a second when I am verbalizing with her or visually examining her. But If someone questions me whether I ken of his/her existence, I would definitely verbalize 'No, I definitely can't ken,because there is a more preponderant possibility that you could be a mere figment of my projection'. If you descry the way we grow up from our childhood, we definitely start to believe in a material world(world subsist in itself). But a day comes, question raises, whether I am living in a material world or this world is appearing to me. I concur that this question doesn't come to a mundane man, but a person like me who commenced descrying the truth of inner somehow influences the outer would definitely arises. Once this question emerged, I commenced to contemplate as to how my perception works, Consequently I have kenned that I have never optically discerned a world which subsists independent of my perception. Immediately after this quandary the question of whether other individual who are appearing to me is genuine or a mere engenderment of me would definitely arises.
You make a very important point here. As you say, the question of whether your daughter or the world is real or not does not arise in the moment that you are engaging with what appears. It is taken to be real. Since the realization of what you are is happening in that same moment then why does figgles put such importance on the post moment question of discussing/contemplating (which you can and do participate in also) whether the world is real or not as if it is the experience in the moment. She is treating the post moment discussion as if it is critical in the realization of what you are in the moment. This is what I call intellectual enlightenment. I definitely don't think Figgles wouldn't dissent here.
I won't accede here. Kenning others are real or not doesn't impact anything in our life. But Kenning you can not do anything to dispense the particular situation in which you are in would put you in a surrender mode. But as long as you held the notion of 'doing a to dispense b' you keep on taking the action and that would never pull you out. Likewise, seeing through the illusion is not in vain. It impacts the experience. You are engendering your experience, you would reconstitute when you see through the illusion.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 10, 2020 1:29:44 GMT -5
I won't accede here. Kenning others are real or not doesn't impact anything in our life. But Kenning you can not do anything to dispense the particular situation in which you are in would put you in a surrender mode. But as long as you held the notion of 'doing a to dispense b' you keep on taking the action and that would never pull you out. Likewise, seeing through the illusion is not in vain. It impacts the experience. You are engendering your experience, you would reconstitute when you see through the illusion. Kenning? I think you mean knowing. Interestingly where I originated from in Scotland, to ken is a dialect which means to know or to understand, as in, do you ken what I'm saying? If you go into the surrender mode you don't need to start looking for illusions to see through. From the absolute perspective there is no doer but from the localized personal self perspective there is a doer so all one can say is that you are both doer and non doer as you are both limited and unlimited.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2020 2:02:36 GMT -5
I won't accede here. Kenning others are real or not doesn't impact anything in our life. But Kenning you can not do anything to dispense the particular situation in which you are in would put you in a surrender mode. But as long as you held the notion of 'doing a to dispense b' you keep on taking the action and that would never pull you out. Likewise, seeing through the illusion is not in vain. It impacts the experience. You are engendering your experience, you would reconstitute when you see through the illusion. Kenning? I think you mean knowing. Interestingly where I originated from in Scotland, to ken is a dialect which means to know or to understand, as in, do you ken what I'm saying? Perfectly. yes.
You can't go into surrender mode, it's not that easy.
You know all your doing is done automatically. But still you would not endeavor to eradicate something out of your experience. That's the illusion.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 10, 2020 2:11:05 GMT -5
You can't go into surrender mode, it's not that easy. On the contrary, it's the easiest thing you can do. But you have to keep on doing it. If you try and push a heavy object with one push you won't succeed but if you relax and then go back with another push it will start to move.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 10, 2020 4:42:42 GMT -5
The point is that taking her for real is automatic and most natural. Its effortless. Now, that doesn't make it true, of course. I understand that. But do you ever go thru an entire day not taking her for real? I doubt it, it actually would take an enormous amount of mental effort to do so. You would have to live totally in your head all the time since only as long as you consciously keep reminding yourself that you cannot know can you keep that up. Once you stop doing that, you are back to your natural default position. Which means this specific realization is a mental position only. And so, once you are fully immersed in the moment (not in your head anymore), let's say when you play with her, you'll forget what you have realized and start acting naturally again (taking her as real as yourself) as though you never actually had that realization. Now lets be clear. I am not saying that realizing what you have realized means not engaging with her (as Figgles has been wrongly assuming). Not at all. What I am saying is that your realization give you an extra option to interact with her. And while theoretically that extra option is available at all times, in actuality, it almost never is. Because, when push comes to shove, the natural option (taking her for real) always seems to trump the extra mental/theoretical option (not taking her for real, or for neither real nor not real). That's why I have been saying that your realization has no actual real life consequences except for philosophical discussions like this one. I cerebrate I don't have to dissent here.There is no authentic world consequences as a result of seeing through the vacuousness abaft the appearances. Figgles would definitely concur with you here. The question of whether my daughter is REAL or not doesn't even emerges for a second when I am verbalizing with her or visually examining her. But If someone questions me whether I ken of his/her existence, I would definitely verbalize 'No, I definitely can't ken,because there is a more preponderant possibility that you could be a mere figment of my projection'. If you descry the way we grow up from our childhood, we definitely start to believe in a material world(world subsist in itself). But a day comes, question raises, whether I am living in a material world or this world is appearing to me. I concur that this question doesn't come to a mundane man, but a person like me who commenced descrying the truth of inner somehow influences the outer would definitely arises. Once this question emerged, I commenced to contemplate as to how my perception works, Consequently I have kenned that I have never optically discerned a world which subsists independent of my perception. Immediately after this quandary the question of whether other individual who are appearing to me is genuine or a mere engenderment of me would definitely arises. ஹஹா, நீங்கள் இந்த த்ரூ கூகிள் மொழிபெயர்ப்பை அல்லது ஏதாவது (தமிழிலிருந்து ஆங்கிலத்திற்கு) இயக்கினீர்களா? I appreciate your honesty, Gopal. And given that you've never made any claims of being self-realized, I have to acknowledge that your conclusions are correct, given your particular perspective (SVP). So in that sense, I basically agree with what you are saying.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 10, 2020 7:30:12 GMT -5
Does your daughter exist when you are in your office and are thinking about her? Not only when I am in office, even while I am infront of her, I am not sure whether she exist because I have no way to know her existence. Yes, I am thinking about her sometimes because there is a deep down assumption in me that says to me that she is real.
if she exists, where is she when you are in the office? if she doesn't exist, where is she when you are looking at her?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 10, 2020 9:51:41 GMT -5
It's not the caliber of astute. it's a steady kenning, it never turned out to be erroneous. she is real is a kind of posit(assumption). The point is that taking her for real is automatic and most natural. Its effortless. Now, that doesn't make it true, of course. I understand that. But do you ever go thru an entire day not taking her for real? I doubt it, it actually would take an enormous amount of mental effort to do so. You would have to live totally in your head all the time since only as long as you consciously keep reminding yourself that you cannot know can you keep that up. Once you stop doing that, you are back to your natural default position. Which means this specific realization is a mental position only. And so, once you are fully immersed in the moment (not in your head anymore), let's say when you play with her, you'll forget what you have realized and start acting naturally again (taking her as real as yourself) as though you never actually had that realization. Now lets be clear. I am not saying that realizing what you have realized means not engaging with her (as Figgles has been wrongly assuming). Not at all. What I am saying is that your realization give you an extra option to interact with her. And while theoretically that extra option is available at all times, in actuality, it almost never is. Because, when push comes to shove, the natural option (taking her for real) always seems to trump the extra mental/theoretical option (not taking her for real, or for neither real nor not real). That's why I have been saying that your realization has no actual real life consequences except for philosophical discussions like this one.Excellent points.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 10, 2020 9:56:40 GMT -5
The point is that taking her for real is automatic and most natural. Its effortless. Now, that doesn't make it true, of course. I understand that. But do you ever go thru an entire day not taking her for real? I doubt it, it actually would take an enormous amount of mental effort to do so. You would have to live totally in your head all the time since only as long as you consciously keep reminding yourself that you cannot know can you keep that up. Once you stop doing that, you are back to your natural default position. Which means this specific realization is a mental position only. And so, once you are fully immersed in the moment (not in your head anymore), let's say when you play with her, you'll forget what you have realized and start acting naturally again (taking her as real as yourself) as though you never actually had that realization. Now lets be clear. I am not saying that realizing what you have realized means not engaging with her (as Figgles has been wrongly assuming). Not at all. What I am saying is that your realization give you an extra option to interact with her. And while theoretically that extra option is available at all times, in actuality, it almost never is. Because, when push comes to shove, the natural option (taking her for real) always seems to trump the extra mental/theoretical option (not taking her for real, or for neither real nor not real). That's why I have been saying that your realization has no actual real life consequences except for philosophical discussions like this one. I cerebrate I don't have to dissent here.There is no authentic world consequences as a result of seeing through the vacuousness abaft the appearances. Figgles would definitely concur with you here. The question of whether my daughter is REAL or not doesn't even emerges for a second when I am verbalizing with her or visually examining her. But If someone questions me whether I ken of his/her existence, I would definitely verbalize 'No, I definitely can't ken,because there is a more preponderant possibility that you could be a mere figment of my projection'. If you descry the way we grow up from our childhood, we definitely start to believe in a material world(world subsist in itself). But a day comes, question raises, whether I am living in a material world or this world is appearing to me. I concur that this question doesn't come to a mundane man, but a person like me who commenced descrying the truth of inner somehow influences the outer would definitely arises. Once this question emerged, I commenced to contemplate as to how my perception works, Consequently I have kenned that I have never optically discerned a world which subsists independent of my perception. Immediately after this quandary the question of whether other individual who are appearing to me is genuine or a mere engenderment of me would definitely arises. So this raises a question for me. Do you have a fundamental view of life, of the universe, of how the universe operates? (Of course there is a follow up question).
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jan 10, 2020 10:53:05 GMT -5
I have no idea. All I know is that I am. Why you have no idea? How come? You said that you are not the doer. You are observing as a passive witness. Right? So who is creating this movement of knowing/Perceiving in your awareness?
You know nothing else exist in the world other than awareness, If so, who can create that perception other than awareness? eh?
Really by this logic it would make more sense that surely something OTHER than awareness “creates perception.” If you’re in the audience as a passive witness watching a movie, and you’re seeing every moment of it for the first time, would you conclude that you created it? You’d conclude that it was created by not-you, and by something not in the movie. Who did create it? Who knows? Maybe you could look it up on the Internet for a movie, but we can’t do that with life.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 10, 2020 11:26:26 GMT -5
That Tamil/English dictionary of yours getting a workout? Why? "Caliber, astute, kenning, erroneous, posit" is not your usual 'caliber' of vocabulary.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 10, 2020 11:37:43 GMT -5
Why? "Caliber, astute, kenning, erroneous, posit" is not your usual 'caliber' of vocabulary. ''cerebrate'', ''descry'', ''abaft''..... My own dictionary is getting a workout! I particularly enjoyed this... ''I concur that this question doesn't come to a mundane man''
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 10, 2020 11:39:23 GMT -5
I cerebrate I don't have to dissent here.There is no authentic world consequences as a result of seeing through the vacuousness abaft the appearances. Figgles would definitely concur with you here. The question of whether my daughter is REAL or not doesn't even emerges for a second when I am verbalizing with her or visually examining her. But If someone questions me whether I ken of his/her existence, I would definitely verbalize 'No, I definitely can't ken,because there is a more preponderant possibility that you could be a mere figment of my projection'. If you descry the way we grow up from our childhood, we definitely start to believe in a material world(world subsist in itself). But a day comes, question raises, whether I am living in a material world or this world is appearing to me. I concur that this question doesn't come to a mundane man, but a person like me who commenced descrying the truth of inner somehow influences the outer would definitely arises. Once this question emerged, I commenced to contemplate as to how my perception works, Consequently I have kenned that I have never optically discerned a world which subsists independent of my perception. Immediately after this quandary the question of whether other individual who are appearing to me is genuine or a mere engenderment of me would definitely arises. You make a very important point here. As you say, the question of whether your daughter or the world is real or not does not arise in the moment that you are engaging with what appears. It is taken to be real. Since the realization of what you are is happening in that same moment then why does figgles put such importance on the post moment question of discussing/contemplating (which you can and do participate in also) whether the world is real or not as if it is the experience in the moment. She is treating the post moment discussion as if it is critical in the realization of what you are in the moment. This is what I call intellectual enlightenment. The sage sees the world and interacts with the world like anyone else except that there is the direct knowing that one is unlimited, free from the bondage of action and is not confined to the limitation of world. That reality requires no post moment discussion. It is like experiencing the pleasant warm feeling of the sun on your face but then having a discussion about where this warmth comes from, understanding how radiated heat travels through space from the sun and stimulates cells in your skin to register as heat signals which travel to your brain and arguing that you need to understand that before you can experience the reality of the sun on your face. I feel exactly the same way about this idea of seeing through the SVP. It has no relevance for the present moment realization of what you are. If you are awake you don't care a hoot about SVP or not SVP! You accept whatever arises and that may be a personal sense of self and engagement with what appears to be a real world or it may be pure objectless awareness. Who cares if one is at peace? It's all the same. That's because you don't accept the potential of seeing through illusions in terms of SR. You think all that's required for SR is to meditate until you have the proper experience.
|
|