|
Post by zendancer on Jan 10, 2020 15:05:34 GMT -5
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. What is required is to realize you are prior to experience. Satch, I'm not trying to give you a hard time; I'm just trying to understand what you've written. Isn't experience an aspect of what you are? If what you are is prior to experience, then there would be two things--something prior to experiences and experiences. When I realized that I am THIS, THIS included everything--both the awareness of "what is" as well as "what is." The observer and the observed were discovered to be one. The way you write about being prior to experience makes it sound like you conceive of yourself as some sort of disembodied observer watching a movie. Is that what you mean, or do you see the movie, the screen, the projector, and the one who sees the movie all the same one?
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jan 10, 2020 15:19:41 GMT -5
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. I see this issue somewhat differently, but that may be because I had a very "hard-core" sense of selfhood prior to seeing that who I thought I was had never existed. This may vary from human to human, depending upon what kinds of thoughts s/he were attached to prior to seeing through the illusion of a personal identity. In my case, seeing through the illusion of the SVP had profound consequences in daily life. After realizing that there was no separate entity at the center of whatever was happening, and also realizing that there is only THIS, these things happened: 1. I could finally relax and live life free from existential questioning. The search for truth came to an end. 2. I no longer cared very much what happened next. The realization eliminated a lot of attachments, desires, expectations, and various ideas and past patterns of thought. 3. I felt at-one with THIS. It's hard to describe, but it's like a felt sense of oneness with "what is." Or, like always being at home no matter what happens. 4. A huge amount of past self-referential thought simply ceased to occur. 5. Psychologically, inside and outside disappeared, and life became a kind of unending unobstructed flow. 6. I became almost totally focused upon whatever is happening in the moment. I could probably think of some other things of a related nature, but in general, I felt like a fish that had finally escaped from its aquarium and found it was now living in an ocean. Haha! As I say, people may respond differently depending upon what they realize or experience, and what kind of thoughts they were previously attached to, but for some of us, the importance of seeing through the illusion of the SVP cannot be overstated in the effect it can have upon daily life. Who wouldn't be changed so drastically after a face to face with God? Besides, it makes it easy to tell who has and who hasn't. Matt 7:15-20 :-)
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 10, 2020 21:53:56 GMT -5
What is required is to realize you are prior to experience. That's all? Oh yes. That's all!
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 10, 2020 21:55:25 GMT -5
What do you think meditation or self inquiry is if not surrender? Meditation is mostly a mind game. Self inquiry is an inquiry into the self. It may or may not lead to surrender. There's no difference between meditation and self inquiry if you accept that meditation is to abide in non-dual awareness where it's not possible to play any kind of game.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 10, 2020 21:56:02 GMT -5
Correct. It is not a doing which is why it's the easiest thing to do. 😀 It is why it is impossible to do. If you think that you will remain in the state of ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 10, 2020 21:58:55 GMT -5
It is why it is impossible to do. Yes. It is impossible to either do or not do via individual effort. It either happens or it doesn't happen, but it certainly can't be willed. No it cannot be willed which is why it's the easiest thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 10, 2020 22:24:47 GMT -5
What is required is to realize you are prior to experience. Satch, I'm not trying to give you a hard time; I'm just trying to understand what you've written. Isn't experience an aspect of what you are? If what you are is prior to experience, then there would be two things--something prior to experiences and experiences. When I realized that I am THIS, THIS included everything--both the awareness of "what is" as well as "what is." The observer and the observed were discovered to be one. The way you write about being prior to experience makes it sound like you conceive of yourself as some sort of disembodied observer watching a movie. Is that what you mean, or do you see the movie, the screen, the projector, and the one who sees the movie all the same one? I see it all as one but I don't need to tell that to one who is realized because they know that. I have nothing to say to anyone who is Self-realized. Anything I say is addressed to the seeker. If I say that one is prior to experience then I am addressing a seeker. It's a different truth for the seeker who needs to turn away from experience to the ground of Being and realize that Being is fundamental. Meditation practice is the discrimination between unchanging background awareness and changing phenomena. They are treated as if they are separate but that is only for the seeker. When the I dissolves into the spiritual heart to reveal the real I and the mind is destroyed then everything is Being, both unchanging and changing. Nirvikalpa by itself is not realization. Only Sahaja is, where pure awareness and phenomena are seen as nothing other than the Self. Awareness is the Self, Ego is the Self, the world is the Self. When I say go back to pure awareness because that is your true nature prior to experience I am addressing only the seeker. The realized don't need to be told about the experience of the world after Realization. What would be the point? Similarly the seeker doesn't need to be told about the experience of the world after Realization. What would be the point, particularly since most seekers are wasting their time with endless gossip about non-duality instead of doing a practice that will take them to that direct experience, so why waste one's time talking about the end of practice when the real practice hasn't even begun yet?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 10, 2020 22:32:19 GMT -5
Satch, I'm not trying to give you a hard time; I'm just trying to understand what you've written. Isn't experience an aspect of what you are? If what you are is prior to experience, then there would be two things--something prior to experiences and experiences. When I realized that I am THIS, THIS included everything--both the awareness of "what is" as well as "what is." The observer and the observed were discovered to be one. The way you write about being prior to experience makes it sound like you conceive of yourself as some sort of disembodied observer watching a movie. Is that what you mean, or do you see the movie, the screen, the projector, and the one who sees the movie all the same one? I see it all as one but I don't need to tell that to one who is realized because they know that. I have nothing to say to anyone who is Self-realized. Anything I say is addressed to the seeker. If I say that one is prior to experience then I am addressing a seeker. It's a different truth for the seeker who needs to turn away from experience to the ground of Being and realize that Being is fundamental. Meditation practice is the discrimination between unchanging background awareness and changing phenomena. They are treated as if they are separate but that is only for the seeker. When the I dissolves into the spiritual heart to reveal the real I and the mind is destroyed then everything is Being, both unchanging and changing. Nirvikalpa by itself is not realization. Only Sahaja is, where pure awareness and phenomena are seen as nothing other than the Self. Awareness is the Self, Ego is the Self, the world is the Self. When I say go back to pure awareness because that is your true nature prior to experience I am addressing only the seeker. The realized don't need to be told about the experience of the world after Realization. What would be the point? Similarly the seeker doesn't need to be told about the experience of the world after Realization. What would be the point, particularly since most seekers are wasting their time with endless gossip about non-duality instead of doing a practice that will take them to that direct experience, so why waste one's time talking about the end of practice when the real practice hasn't even begun yet? Okay. I understand your point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2020 0:06:07 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.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2020 0:12:01 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. 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. Self-Realized? I have never come under your category of self-realized. What's Self-realization? knowing who they genuinely are, eh? If so, I know myself not only to be a perceiver but additionally to be an engenderer those perceptions, I consider the people those ken this truth as Self-Realized. As for as I ken, Nobody in this forum except me and Enigma knows this truth. So for me, me and Enigma are the only people are self-realized.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2020 0:13:19 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. 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). A simple distinction between me and other people would be, for them universe is a dead material, for me macrocosm is alive which engenders and perceives. Whatever you perceive is not subsist independent of you, it's being engendered while you are perceive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2020 0:20:19 GMT -5
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. Whatever is being perceived is engendered by my consciousness. Consciousness engenders and perceives. It's engendering while it's perceiving. When I optically canvass a movie, movie is being engendered which doesn't differ from the authentic life, but one story pellucidly places as a passive witness and another story places me as a active witness. This is withal best example of why story ultimately decides how we feel.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2020 0:21:15 GMT -5
Why? "Caliber, astute, kenning, erroneous, posit" is not your usual 'caliber' of vocabulary.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2020 0:23:07 GMT -5
"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''
abaft=beyond.
God! thanks for giving me an opportunity to teach a vocabulary to an English man.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2020 0:23:52 GMT -5
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.
Your vocabulary has definitely improved, but your misuse of the double negative continues unabated.
|
|