|
Post by tenka on Oct 13, 2018 5:39:14 GMT -5
We need to establish what properties Self has of the mind . The 'you' of this world, is but a character arising within that which you actually are; Being. .. All this floaty arising stuff is toadally misleading . Your giving the impression as I have always said that things just arise like some hot air balloon without taking into consideration how any appearance comes into being . The conversations I have tried to discuss along these lines are not even normal conversations there just wild theories that pertain to tank births and such likes . I think this is a good opportunity to make sense of what is the nature of what is manifest and what appears but I won't get my hopes up . How does a character arise eggsactly? You haven't even addressed what properties Self has of the mind, which was the purpose of the post . What properties are of the character in relation to Self of the mind? Is it a real character that is consciously aware or is what you are as an individual consciously aware, can you separate the character with what you are, can you separate the taste / flavour of an orange from an orange?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 13, 2018 5:53:19 GMT -5
The self of the world is indeed not separate from what you actually are, (Self/Being) and therefore, it's not wrong to say, All is Self, including the appearing character. Thus we can also say that 'the nature' of all, including the appearing person/character is noneother than Self. Where folks are going wrong is in ascribing 'qualities' to Self such as: conscious/alive/responsive. "Being" is not a quality...and the moment we start talking about the qualities 'of' Being, we've entered into talking about experience. .. No this is where folks are going right . Self is everything, your just putting Self into this box . I had this chat with sifting in the same regard . Self is what you are and what you are is conscious of this world .. Lets drop the Self word and just use 'what we are' I did so for a while and it didn't go down well, Satch bless him even pointed out that this means absolutely nothing to him .. but perhaps it might make some sense now . I think peeps can think that Self is this something that cannot be this or that and it is toadally incorrect . There is what we are of the mind and beyond and it depends on whether there is experience of what we are of the mind or not . It's that simple .. There is nothing more or less of what there only is .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 13, 2018 5:59:39 GMT -5
Yes. That doesn't mean though, that you know the tree is experiencing/perceiving, is actually 'alive' or that it is actually 'responsive.' You Do know that it 'appears to be' alive and responsive within the waking dream. .. Your adding a layer / divide to Self and your entertaining as always the quandary that is of your own making . Again I have to point out the necessity to speak about the properties of Self of the mind . If we were to speak of the qualities of cheese and we had to describe the qualities of an edam it would be straightforward wouldn't it . Your adding more layers to the reality we are aware of classing it as a waking dream .. So we have layers of self made quandaries, we have layers of our reality without even addressing the properties of what we are . I speak about foundations and this is the reason for why I do . Lets get the foundation straight and build upon it rather than creating layer cakes without knowing the ingredients .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 13, 2018 6:06:25 GMT -5
Self has no properties, no qualities. It is not a thing/object for which those would apply. .. Self has to have properties if you refer Self to be this or that . You say Self is all there is and you class the waking world as a waking dream . Self therefore must have the qualities / properties that can appear as a waking dream . Self is everything, Self is the quality of a lemon the taste of a lemon, Self is the quality of the Sun, the fire of the sun and the fires properties . If you say Self is consciousness then consciousness has a quality to it . This is why none of this works for me when peeps say things just arise in consciousness like it's by magic and without any substance, it is really bizarre .
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 13, 2018 10:50:04 GMT -5
Self has no properties, no qualities. It is not a thing/object for which those would apply. .. Self has to have properties if you refer Self to be this or that . You say Self is all there is and you class the waking world as a waking dream . Self therefore must have the qualities / properties that can appear as a waking dream . Self is everything, Self is the quality of a lemon the taste of a lemon, Self is the quality of the Sun, the fire of the sun and the fires properties . If you say Self is consciousness then consciousness has a quality to it . This is why none of this works for me when peeps say things just arise in consciousness like it's by magic and without any substance, it is really bizarre . The basic point behind saying I am not the world is to say I am regardless of the world; not in the sense that the world is a thing which I am not, but in the sense that there is no world at all. The illusion that a world exists makes it seem as if saying I am not the world implies a separation duality. In that sense, there is a complete separation between that which is contingent, relative, caused and affected, and called 'dependent arising' in Buddhism; and that which is regardless of such 'arising'. That I Am, which is absent of the world in all respects, and regardless of emptiness - still I am not It, but It is Not.
How can this be understood from the intellectual perspective? The intellectual perspective is imaginative; and the attention is directed outward to the arising of mind senses, within the contingent and dependent. It is quite easy to investigate this, investigate any sensation, and see these have no endurance or content, no self aspect whatsoever. I am not that not because I am separate from it, but because it's arising of interdependence without any existence in and of itself.
So, in this way, saying I am not the world does not mean that the world is a thing which I am not. It means there is no world in and of itself. There is however, that which Is, The Not, which I am not - as if I am It, but in reverse - which literally makes no sense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2018 12:14:47 GMT -5
Self has no properties, no qualities. It is not a thing/object for which those would apply. .. Self has to have properties if you refer Self to be this or that . You say Self is all there is and you class the waking world as a waking dream . Self therefore must have the qualities / properties that can appear as a waking dream . Self is everything, Self is the quality of a lemon the taste of a lemon, Self is the quality of the Sun, the fire of the sun and the fires properties . If you say Self is consciousness then consciousness has a quality to it . This is why none of this works for me when peeps say things just arise in consciousness like it's by magic and without any substance, it is really bizarre . There's a differences between saying that Self expresses AS quality, vs. Self 'has' quality.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 13, 2018 14:23:48 GMT -5
.. Self has to have properties if you refer Self to be this or that . You say Self is all there is and you class the waking world as a waking dream . Self therefore must have the qualities / properties that can appear as a waking dream . Self is everything, Self is the quality of a lemon the taste of a lemon, Self is the quality of the Sun, the fire of the sun and the fires properties . If you say Self is consciousness then consciousness has a quality to it . This is why none of this works for me when peeps say things just arise in consciousness like it's by magic and without any substance, it is really bizarre . The basic point behind saying I am not the world is to say I am regardless of the world; not in the sense that the world is a thing which I am not, but in the sense that there is no world at all. The illusion that a world exists makes it seem as if saying I am not the world implies a separation duality. In that sense, there is a complete separation between that which is contingent, relative, caused and affected, and called 'dependent arising' in Buddhism; and that which is regardless of such 'arising'. That I Am, which is absent of the world in all respects, and regardless of emptiness - still I am not It, but It is Not.
How can this be understood from the intellectual perspective? The intellectual perspective is imaginative; and the attention is directed outward to the arising of mind senses, within the contingent and dependent. It is quite easy to investigate this, investigate any sensation, and see these have no endurance or content, no self aspect whatsoever. I am not that not because I am separate from it, but because it's arising of interdependence without any existence in and of itself.
So, in this way, saying I am not the world does not mean that the world is a thing which I am not. It means there is no world in and of itself. There is however, that which Is, The Not, which I am not - as if I am It, but in reverse - which literally makes no sense.
You said to me you know what you are and you know what your not . Are you talking here about your own thoughts or are you speaking generally? I don't personally have to say I am not the world in order to say I AM regardless of the world . I would just say I am the world and I am also beyond the world . Sounds a lot more simple to understand, it actually means what I say .. I appreciate your clarification on this as I read further down the line as I am replying, I didn't get that impression initially you seemed pretty adamant that you are not this and that and weights just lift etc ..
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 13, 2018 14:27:28 GMT -5
.. Self has to have properties if you refer Self to be this or that . You say Self is all there is and you class the waking world as a waking dream . Self therefore must have the qualities / properties that can appear as a waking dream . Self is everything, Self is the quality of a lemon the taste of a lemon, Self is the quality of the Sun, the fire of the sun and the fires properties . If you say Self is consciousness then consciousness has a quality to it . This is why none of this works for me when peeps say things just arise in consciousness like it's by magic and without any substance, it is really bizarre . There's a differences between saying that Self expresses AS quality, vs. Self 'has' quality. There is only Self . You are dividing Self from an expression ... Who/m or what is expressing that is not Self?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2018 15:00:08 GMT -5
There's a differences between saying that Self expresses AS quality, vs. Self 'has' quality. There is only Self . You are dividing Self from an expression ... Who/m or what is expressing that is not Self? I'm just making a distinction for the sake of indicating that what I really am, cannot be confined to an appearing thing/object...that all things/objects arise within that which I am.
That which is permanent, abiding, unchanging never becomes that which is transient, fleeting, impermanent.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 13, 2018 21:36:52 GMT -5
The basic point behind saying I am not the world is to say I am regardless of the world; not in the sense that the world is a thing which I am not, but in the sense that there is no world at all. The illusion that a world exists makes it seem as if saying I am not the world implies a separation duality. In that sense, there is a complete separation between that which is contingent, relative, caused and affected, and called 'dependent arising' in Buddhism; and that which is regardless of such 'arising'. That I Am, which is absent of the world in all respects, and regardless of emptiness - still I am not It, but It is Not.
How can this be understood from the intellectual perspective? The intellectual perspective is imaginative; and the attention is directed outward to the arising of mind senses, within the contingent and dependent. It is quite easy to investigate this, investigate any sensation, and see these have no endurance or content, no self aspect whatsoever. I am not that not because I am separate from it, but because it's arising of interdependence without any existence in and of itself.
So, in this way, saying I am not the world does not mean that the world is a thing which I am not. It means there is no world in and of itself. There is however, that which Is, The Not, which I am not - as if I am It, but in reverse - which literally makes no sense.
You said to me you know what you are and you know what your not . Are you talking here about your own thoughts or are you speaking generally? I don't personally have to say I am not the world in order to say I AM regardless of the world . I would just say I am the world and I am also beyond the world . Sounds a lot more simple to understand, it actually means what I say .. I appreciate your clarification on this as I read further down the line as I am replying, I didn't get that impression initially you seemed pretty adamant that you are not this and that and weights just lift etc .. This all hinges on whether or not there is a world, so when one says, I am regardless of the world, it can mean that there is a world I am regardless of, or it can mean I am regardless because there isn't a world at all; only an illusion of dependent arising.
The logic of mind is like, if there is no world then why should I care, look after myself, and so forth? But care is a sincere expression of oneself, so to speak. Care isn't a matter of being attached to any 'reality'.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 14, 2018 4:39:53 GMT -5
There is only Self . You are dividing Self from an expression ... Who/m or what is expressing that is not Self? I'm just making a distinction for the sake of indicating that what I really am, cannot be confined to an appearing thing/object...that all things/objects arise within that which I am.
That which is permanent, abiding, unchanging never becomes that which is transient, fleeting, impermanent.
You can't separate Self as the mind-body and Self from the mind-bodies expression . You can't separate Self from the fire from Self of the fire's heat . You can't separate Self of the orange from Self of the oranges flavour . There is only Self, you are saying you can't confine what you are to an appearance but there isn't anything other than that . Your totally hooked up on an appearance isn't what you are . As said, what you are as an appearance isn't anymore or less what you are .. Your putting Self in one box and appearances in another . Until you understand what Self Unity is, your always going to be seeing this not what I am stuff incorrectly .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 14, 2018 5:06:29 GMT -5
You said to me you know what you are and you know what your not . Are you talking here about your own thoughts or are you speaking generally? I don't personally have to say I am not the world in order to say I AM regardless of the world . I would just say I am the world and I am also beyond the world . Sounds a lot more simple to understand, it actually means what I say .. I appreciate your clarification on this as I read further down the line as I am replying, I didn't get that impression initially you seemed pretty adamant that you are not this and that and weights just lift etc .. This all hinges on whether or not there is a world, so when one says, I am regardless of the world, it can mean that there is a world I am regardless of, or it can mean I am regardless because there isn't a world at all; only an illusion of dependent arising.
The logic of mind is like, if there is no world then why should I care, look after myself, and so forth? But care is a sincere expression of oneself, so to speak. Care isn't a matter of being attached to any 'reality'.
Well if there wasn't an environment for us to converse then you wouldn't be able to converse your thoughts that there might not be a world . If there is not a world, then what is there? A dream of a world? It matters not if it's a dream or simply an appearance of something happening for here we are speaking of it as if it potentially isn't here lol .. This is the same problematic scenario I am having with figs when you have peeps saying I AM this and that and yet there is no foundation had in regards to what is present . In regards to caring for your body in a world that potentially doesn't exist is a form of an attachment to that which your caring of / for .
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 14, 2018 6:47:44 GMT -5
This all hinges on whether or not there is a world, so when one says, I am regardless of the world, it can mean that there is a world I am regardless of, or it can mean I am regardless because there isn't a world at all; only an illusion of dependent arising. The logic of mind is like, if there is no world then why should I care, look after myself, and so forth? But care is a sincere expression of oneself, so to speak. Care isn't a matter of being attached to any 'reality'.
Well if there wasn't an environment for us to converse then you wouldn't be able to converse your thoughts that there might not be a world . If there is not a world, then what is there? I guess you did not read what I just said. It does matter that there are attachments. You posit attachment as the reason to care, whereas I claim to care is only natural.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 14, 2018 7:05:42 GMT -5
Well if there wasn't an environment for us to converse then you wouldn't be able to converse your thoughts that there might not be a world . If there is not a world, then what is there? I guess you did not read what I just said. It does matter that there are attachments. You posit attachment as the reason to care, whereas I claim to care is only natural. You can only attach to something that is present . You are present if you are of a real reality or a dream reality, attachment would be either of a dream substance or a real substance . What you call natural is based upon an attachment to what you believe natural is in reflection of what you believe you are and the world / environment that facilitates your thought on these matters . Some peeps don't care about there bodies, is that natural?
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 14, 2018 9:35:24 GMT -5
I guess you did not read what I just said. It does matter that there are attachments. You posit attachment as the reason to care, whereas I claim to care is only natural. You can only attach to something that is present . Basically, there's only attachment to experience, but impermanence makes that futile. ... but 'dream substance' is an oxymoron and what you're calling real has no substance - self-less, anatta, without 'identity' or enduring quality. I am present, though. It's because of the deeper truth that all things are seen with purity of love. People who don't care are probably missing that awareness.
|
|