Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 6:15:12 GMT -5
Clarity is the solution (gopal) Seeing through illusions is the solution (Enigma) Do you know the above two quote says the same? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 6:26:20 GMT -5
What I am saying is that suggesting that 'things' appear in consciousness without understanding how 'things' appear in consciousness doesn't cut the mustard, especially when there is no realization had of what consciousness is .You still haven't explained how anything appears . You mention a perceiver brings about the appearance of the moon . How does one do that? You will find by my given examples and given experiments that such a theory doesn't add up and yet you carry on regardless . Perhaps you need to address such things otherwise your conversational view points have no foundation . The realization of what you are is beyond objectivity .. The waking world and what appears of it is just what you are relating to it .. Maybe you need to tell me what you believe consciousness is, because I don't understand why appearances need to be explained as to how they appear.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 6:55:52 GMT -5
What's the difference? Doesn't absence of suffering mean no suffering? Maybe you think presence, as you use the term here, is the opposite of absence, as in absence of suffering? How could you think that? The absence of suffering is a given when a sense of well being is present. It seems to be you are talking Enigma's lines back to him. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 6:57:04 GMT -5
Yes. If Peace is an experience, folks are going to be looking for a special, magical experience, but one is actually looking for oneself, which is really the realization of what one is not. It all gets phrased in positive terms by the teachers because mind can't handle the notion of it's own absence as the presence that is sought. But peeps can handle the absence of mind if you teach them to meditate. Did you not think of that? They have already experienced some peace in their lives from time to time. What of it? They will have used the word. It's in the dictionary. Now when they meditate they will tell you they feel peace. All is well. Magic is unnecessary. that's not the peace, that's what being pointed to you so far. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 6:59:59 GMT -5
Sat: Can you explain what it is that you don't understand about what E. is saying? It seems perfectly clear to me. During ordinary everyday life after SR, there can be thoughts ABOUT peace, etc., but if the mind is NOT reflecting, then there is no imagined peace, self, Self, or any other thingness, etc. There is just ____________________, doing whatever it does as a unified whole. The absence he speaks about is the absence of either an observing self or an observed other. There us simply a flow of being. When the mind is quiescent, there is no intellectual abstract knowing. Everything is known directly through the body (gnosis) without reflection. E. uses terminology a little different than you, but he's clearly pointing to the same thing. We don;t talk much about this, but after SR, personal selfhood usually returns, but it is never thought about in the same way as before because it is then understood to be nothing more than a convenient way of referring to the body/mind. One no longer believes that s/he is an entity inhabiting a body that is separate from the totality of __________. As E. constantly says, SR is not an acquisition; it is a loss. It is seeing what is NOT true. CC experiences, by contrast, involve a different kind of seeing--a seeing of what IS infinite--, and that kind of seeing is also non-conceptual. E. only writes about SR because he has no interest in CC experiences. He can correct me if I'm wrong about this. You've got it eggzakly right. I see CC experiences as a bit dangerous because so many peeps seem to attach to them and even draw erroneous conclusions from them. I often get the impression that Sasquatch and I are talking about the same thing. It's not so clear we're talking from the same place. What is this CC experience? It's very obvious you and Satch are not talking the same. Are you trying to reconcile with Satch? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 7:01:04 GMT -5
The idea there to really look at is the one that says happiness/peace/love/ananda is ever ' derived' from action /thought. If well being is arising in experience, it may indeed look as though it was derived from something happening in experience, but appearances really don't have that kind of innate, creative power, do they? If peace/happiness is what you are, the seat of being, regardless of the seeming circumstances surrounding it's arising in experience, it was never actually 'derived' from something, in the first place. Rather, it IS what you are. to divide well being up into two categories; that which is 'derived' from action/though and that which is not, is to miss the sole/common source of all well being. It's mind that does that. No way! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 7:07:03 GMT -5
It's not appearances that have the power to create happiness and unhappiness. It's mind that does that. Mind doesn't actually create happiness. How could it if happiness is fundamental to who/what you are? Mind is sort of like the gate or switch that can shut if off though (temporarily). Mind creates unhappiness, in which case, it's simply the impediment to the happiness that is always fundamentally there, just waiting to shine through. Story is being imagined according to what kind of feeling you should have. Unhappiness story is different from happiness story and this is different from happiness story. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 7:17:22 GMT -5
IOW, it's really about the absence of that obscuring. That's what I've been saying. I don't understand how you conclude that. The distinction remains that one is conditional and the other is not. Perhaps you mean to say they are similar in that they are both the same feeling, to which I say you don't understand the conditional, dynamic nature of all feeling. No feeling can be made to be unconditional. If it's arising, In the moment it is, it doesn't matter why, unless your intent is to hang onto it. You are holding the feeling of peace as separate from that which you are. It's not. In any moment When you feel good, (and shades of well being), what you fundamentally are, is shining through. When you feel less than good, or in a state of dis-ease, that which you are fundamentally, is temporarily being obscured. The experience of Feeling good/well being, is your indicator that your fundamental nature is not being obscured. It doesn't matter what thought you entertained (or didn't) that gave rise to that sense of well being, in the moment that it is, the ground of your being is arising in experience, unfettered. You think peace to be some kind of good feeling. Aren't you? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 7:19:30 GMT -5
Maybe you need to tell me what you believe consciousness is, because I don't understand why appearances need to be explained as to how they appear.Well as you and G man have been relating to the waking world and one's imagination / dream characters as being similar . I have been constantly pointing out the differences between that which is conjured up through imagination and that which is not . You have been speaking of a bus existing because the bus driver perceives it .. I have constantly asked how does he do that . You don't answer, G man doesn't answer and yet the answer is at the heart of the quandary . I have asked you to do an experiment and see if you can manifest something of the waking world in the same way as you can in your imagination . You simply can't do it can you . So if you don't understand why appearances need to be explained in context, relating to what is real and what is a figment then I can't help you . In regards to consciousness I have no realization of what consciousness is and I rarely use the word unless relating to what another has said about it . I have asked you the same question many times, have you realized what consciousness is? If you believe in objective reality, then what we both have been talking about doesn't make any sense. Because other individual is real or not question would arises only if you understand everything just appear. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 7:20:12 GMT -5
I don't seem to have any beliefs in this context, and I can't relate to real/unreal in this discussion. I tried and it just turned into more of a disaster. You might not know if you wife is real butt you have already admitted that you guess she is .. You really can't have a guessing belief about what is real and what is not while declaring you can't relate to what is real and what is not . You don't relate to your wife in the same way as you do the pink elephant do you .. Can you marry a pink elephant ? You never got round to answering why you married you wife? Both are appearing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 7:22:07 GMT -5
Nope. I would hope my sense of humour is funnier than that. What I see there has nothing to do with Spiritual Enquiry, it's just noise, drama. I don't mind some of that - it's part of the camaraderie of the site, especially from posters who take the time to write considered on-topic posts. But when the noise starts to drown out the quality posting, I feel like I should try and do something about it. I've already banned 3 people for pushing Gopal's cultural buttons. I feel like you going back in there is an attempt to push my button. I don't have the time to track every post that happens here. Even if I gave 5 hours a day to it I still couldn't keep up. If there's something you want me to look at, post me a link. Also "unmoderated" doesn't require my attention by definition. Well, it's most obviously a request. In another post you seemed to imply you thought you could be banned for discussing spiritually related topics that are not in-line with the majority of posters here. This is not the case. I don't favour one belief system over another. Are you - at some level - wanting to get banned so that you can get yourself good and righteously worked up about it? You said something about wanting to make some point about something. What was it? I presume it wasn't the above. I'm almost sure you don't want me to tell you what I find "offensive", "inappropreate", "condescending" and deliberetly miss-representing certain points that have been made, by me and others, because I assume you don't have the time and the interest to read about it in a 1000 page long novel, written by me for the sake of keeping track regarding that kind of issue, and if I'm wrong I owe your wife a (fake) diamond ring...at least. You are not understanding what kind of offensive comment you are making here. You are deliberately writing something to pull the attention of the readers. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 7:32:05 GMT -5
Are you asking me what I think or are you speculating about what I think? Absence of bananas does indeed mean no bananas. But is peace absence of suffering? You could say peace is characterised by an absence of suffering. But to define it as an absence tells me this is all dry theory. It's in line with the way you focus on the impersonal and the denial of experience. I guess you hate being a peep huh? Are you asking me if I hate being a peep or are you speculating about it? There's no theory involved here. I've been trying to get across the idea that for suffering to end, nothing more is needed than for suffering to be absent. (I think I'm beginning to see why Tenka resorts to Tenkatologies) Perhaps you're thinking that the end of suffering is not enough, and something must come along to make one feel good. That presupposes that no-suffering is a neutral state. That would only be true if suffering were only happening half the time for the average peep. It's happening all the time. (See head banging analogy)Folks are always seeking something better. This seeking IS suffering from an objective perspective. Subjectively it will range from happiness to unhappiness, but there is struggle in all of it. Point being that the absence of that struggle is enough. That's the way satch and Figgles are believing to be the case. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 7:33:26 GMT -5
Existence and consciousness are the same to me, though neither is an individual entity. I don't do bliss bunny. The individuation arises (and falls) within you. You are existence itself, which transcends the individual. Do you need teacher quotes for that? Of course you don't do bliss. You are a dry theorist in an attractive package, that's all. What ? You just change your signature 'I am here to teach and I don't want anyone's advice and I don't read what you write, I always want to teach, that's what I am here'. So people would not be bothering you. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 7:34:37 GMT -5
Are you asking me if I hate being a peep or are you speculating about it? There's no theory involved here. I've been trying to get across the idea that for suffering to end, nothing more is needed than for suffering to be absent. (I think I'm beginning to see why Tenka resorts to Tenkatologies) Perhaps you're thinking that the end of suffering is not enough, and something must come along to make one feel good. That presupposes that no-suffering is a neutral state. That would only be true if suffering were only happening half the time for the average peep. It's happening all the time. (See head banging analogy)Folks are always seeking something better. This seeking IS suffering from an objective perspective. Subjectively it will range from happiness to unhappiness, but there is struggle in all of it. Point being that the absence of that struggle is enough. Don't ever leave this forum while I'm here. I need you. You are the best example I know of what can go wrong when someone takes an interest in non duality but mistakes it for psychology. He is in peace but you clearly not, Atleast you could have considered that and start to pay attention to him,What do you say? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 7:35:31 GMT -5
Are you asking me if I hate being a peep or are you speculating about it? There's no theory involved here. I've been trying to get across the idea that for suffering to end, nothing more is needed than for suffering to be absent. (I think I'm beginning to see why Tenka resorts to Tenkatologies) Perhaps you're thinking that the end of suffering is not enough, and something must come along to make one feel good. That presupposes that no-suffering is a neutral state. That would only be true if suffering were only happening half the time for the average peep. It's happening all the time. (See head banging analogy)Folks are always seeking something better. This seeking IS suffering from an objective perspective. Subjectively it will range from happiness to unhappiness, but there is struggle in all of it. Point being that the absence of that struggle is enough. Feelings are an inherent facet of experience. If suffering/seeking/struggle is not present, there are some very specific feelings that rise to the surface, naturally. It's not about the absence of struggle not being enough, it's just that that's only half the story. If it's feelings, then it moves between the opposites. |
|
