|
Post by tenka on Nov 5, 2019 6:38:46 GMT -5
It's true that we use concepts to break up oneness into pieces, some of which are witness or self and whatever else. Some of you are playing chess with the pieces, so I suggest collapsing it all back into one. 'One' is a pointer there, right? Could probably equally say, collapse back into 'nothing'. Or 'no-thing'. All are fine, and your point is valid. But to be fair, to say, 'I know I am and appearances are appearing to me but don't know if you are and if appearances are appearing to you', is a very big chess move (and I think it's breaking the rules of the game) To speak of 'awareness' as one conceptual pointer is just that .. .. To say that the witness is a movement of awareness is another and so forth .. Your right in that what E suggests is just another chess move, all that is happening is that the same pieces are being moved and called different names even though one's intention is to squeeze everything into a neat and tidy box .. Last week everything was consciousness and everything arises within or of consciousness, so one now has to relate consciousness and awareness together in some mindful way. Then one has to understand the differences between what you are being present of the mind compared to not where what you are can either contemplate upon these notions or not .. This is where self and no self fits the bill . What we are is still present when there is self and no self, and it's no more or less of a conceptual pointer than saying that the mind is just a movement of thought/s or the witness is a movement of awareness .. Trying to in someway negate self by introducing something else is counterproductive and it reflects the same mentality of the dreamer believing they are seeing through the dream ..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2019 7:27:15 GMT -5
I can feel a Spritualteachers conga coming on ...
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 5, 2019 7:34:53 GMT -5
Sure. Although 'oneness' is affirmative, but when you use it, no-one here is likely to assume you're caught in a mind-trap. So we can say that how the usage of pointers is perceived depends on a number of things, but perhaps most notably, as others have suggested, whether there's a direct reference for what's being talked about, along with the quality of particular pointer, i.e. how skilful or clumsy it is. Really it's through that combination that the intent behind the usage is gleaned, (assuming we come empty). Then we decide whether or not we res with it.
And of course, in any event, a phrase like 'everything is alive' clearly can be a minefield, when we consider that defining the very nature of aliveness itself tends to be quite elusive. That even its subsets like sentience can be problematic. If I remember rightly, it's paraphrased anyway, and at this stage pretty well out of context.
Anyway I'm saying there can be a very fine line between whether we see something as a subtle pointing in the moment, or a potential mind-trap, and whether we see what side of the line we come down on, as being the result of what we are or aren't bringing to the party. Excellent post!
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 5, 2019 7:56:51 GMT -5
I can feel a Spritualteachers conga coming on ... ♫ ...dashing thru ST along the brown bear trail the brambles grow so thick in here I don’t know that to say... the poker table set giraffe stampedes at noon that's what you mostly get in the ST SR-saloon hey, mind hooks here mind hooks there mind hooks all the way oh what fun it is to ride along the brown bear trail hey… ♫
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 5, 2019 8:01:38 GMT -5
So we can say that how the usage of pointers is perceived depends on a number of things, but perhaps most notably, as others have suggested, whether there's a direct reference for what's being talked about, along with the quality of particular pointer, i.e. how skilful or clumsy it is. That's why the only legitimate pointer is meditation practice because it leads to direct experience. That's the direct reference. Meditation practice can lead to direct experience. But I agree, the direct experience (or seeing) is the direct reference. A pointer that is not backed by that direct reference is not a pointer, it's speculation.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 5, 2019 8:28:34 GMT -5
I agree with the remainder of what you say here, but I sometimes see seekers seeking or confirming the experience of unification,(of that which was never in disunion), or objectifying Oneness (what we used to call a 'oneness blob') which is the direct effect of stumbling over the affirmative rather than realizing the negative. Yes of course, it's happening all the time. I think we just disagree whether it's happening in the instances of some of the things Reefs and ZD say when they're talking about stuff. I think the underlying issue is that some peeps here have rather fixed ideas about what can and what cannot be realized/seen directly while at the same time having no actual reference for what's been pointed to/talked about. Now, having no reference wouldn't be a problem if there is an open mind. And having a reference but no open mind can be worked out to some degree. But no reference and no open mind, that's basically the worst case scenario for a spiritual discussion forum.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 5, 2019 8:51:49 GMT -5
It's not that objects are empty. It's that awareness is non localized and without boundaries, but primary, which makes objects look empty. yes okay, but I'm okay with the way that fig uses the concept, which is kind of buddhist. 'Empty of Truth' doesnt work for me. I don't know what it means for objects to 'look empty'. Empty of Truth just means nothing within the dream can reveal a Truth beyond the dream.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 5, 2019 9:17:07 GMT -5
The problem for me is this idea of ' within Being', or ' to Being', or even ' as Being'. It's a double layer. 'As' is the least problematic because it is at least an attempt to collapse the two layers into one. For me, a 'double layer' is not a realization, it is perhaps an insight. A realization should always collapse duality, not create duality. The other problem I have is the age old problem, in that, if appearances appear to/within/as Being, and you don't know if there are any other 'knowers' of appearances, then it means there could be multiple Beings. For me, a realization cannot create the potential of 'multiple Being/s'. It should be a realization of ONLY (One) Being. Yes. That's the POV that Reefs and I have expressed. After it's clearly seen that there is only an infinite oneness, the idea that there is anything other than that can only be an idea. This is why Niz said that stones are alive. The word "alive" captures the essence of what's seen along with words like "unity" "incomprehensible intelligence" "vastness" "love" etc. The idea "I exist, but I don't know if you exist" has already left oneness behind. This is why many ND teachers say, "Everyone and everything is one-with the Infinite." Jesus said, "I and my Father are One" because he had seen the underlying unity of "what is." It's probably also why he reportedly said, "Ye are all gods." If he had said, "I'm a god, but I don't know if anyone else is a god," I would have doubts about him. Agreed. It's not about existence. Nothing in form can be said to inherently exist. It's about illusions. It's about Imagining we know that objects appearing to us are experiencing the world much as we do when nothing in form can reveal that transcendent truth to us.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 5, 2019 9:25:03 GMT -5
Jeff Foster is the guy who most people know about who's written about what happened following his realization. One could argue that he didn't go deep enough, but that argument could be made about anyone. You are assuming he was realized and fell out of it, whereas I assume he never was realized and was deluded into thinking he was after perhaps a powerful satori experience combined with an inclination to teach. I suspect that applies to most ND teachers, except Jeff made an honest admission. Agreed. He tells a story about a powerful experience he had, but experience is not realization.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 5, 2019 9:30:28 GMT -5
yes okay, but I'm okay with the way that fig uses the concept, which is kind of buddhist. 'Empty of Truth' doesnt work for me. I don't know what it means for objects to 'look empty'. Empty of Truth just means nothing within the dream can reveal a Truth beyond the dream. 'emptiness' means that phenomena [that we experience] have no inherent nature by themselves. I still don't get it. Are you saying 'Truth' is prior to/beyond form? So you can't look to experience to realize 'Truth'?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 5, 2019 9:35:13 GMT -5
Yes. That's the POV that Reefs and I have expressed. After it's clearly seen that there is only an infinite oneness, the idea that there is anything other than that can only be an idea. This is why Niz said that stones are alive. The word "alive" captures the essence of what's seen along with words like "unity" "incomprehensible intelligence" "vastness" "love" etc. The idea "I exist, but I don't know if you exist" has already left oneness behind. This is why many ND teachers say, "Everyone and everything is one-with the Infinite." Jesus said, "I and my Father are One" because he had seen the underlying unity of "what is." It's probably also why he reportedly said, "Ye are all gods." If he had said, "I'm a god, but I don't know if anyone else is a god," I would have doubts about him. Agreed. It's not about existence. Nothing in form can be said to inherently exist. It's about illusions. It's about Imagining we know that objects appearing to us are experiencing the world much as we do when nothing in form can reveal that transcendent truth to us. Ah we have a potential problem here. If objects are appearing to you, an experiencer....then is the experiencer an appearance too? So you, Enigma the human being that is experiencing objects, don't know if there are other human experiencers? Or are you saying there could be multiple fundamental Experiencers (though you told me above that there is just one)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 5, 2019 11:01:35 GMT -5
The witness is an idea used to help generate an objective focus outside of the stream of continuous thinking. There isn't even one witness, it's just a mode of attention. The experiencer therefore by using your model is also just an idea (agreed)?, but you favour one idea over another .. When you have a dude favouring one idea over another it really points to there is one that can have preferences .. Awareness itself doesn't have ideas about awareness, nor does it favour one notion over another .. This reflects traits of self denial. self isn't a separate entity as we all know, but within mind there is an awareness of the individual that is absent beyond the mind. There is still what you are present but there is no thought about oneself, so it is foolish to deny self while of the mind and this is the biggest mind trap for most, thinking that self isn't present or is dreamy or illusory . If self isn't a separate entity, then what is it that is conscious and aware in the self?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 5, 2019 11:07:05 GMT -5
There isn't Awareness just being Awareness, and something else that creates or attends. Those Selves and witnesses are movements of Awareness, or whatever you wish to call it. The point is there is just ONE. The one that has attention IS Awareness. As ZD keeps saying, there's just one thingless thing doing everything. .... There are qualities that are of the mind and of what we are of the mind even though there is only what we are .. You want to tie that into one word usage that is 'awareness' . Now in my eyes all you need to do is compare what you are aware of that reflects your individuality and beyond that . There are obvious differences .. I have emphasised that the witness is not some separate dude nor is the self a separate dude that is not what we are in any shape or form .. I have explained this for many years and agree with Ramana's thoughts on how consciousness and awareness and the self all come together so to speak .. But all you are doing is casting out many references and keeping to 'awareness' which doesn't help because only of the mind can one conclude what you have and favour what you have .. Awareness itself like said cannot have preferences, so it's not going to work of the mind . Saying that the witness is a movement of awareness makes no sense, it's just words cobbled together in order to uphold your notion .. Awareness itself doesn't have qualities of movement. Awareness is present in the dream. It is the reason you are conscious and aware. So the idea that there is nothing present that can see beyond the dream is misconceived.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 5, 2019 11:13:15 GMT -5
It's true that we use concepts to break up oneness into pieces, some of which are witness or self and whatever else. Some of you are playing chess with the pieces, so I suggest collapsing it all back into one. Well what you are doing is collapsing what we are into one conceptual pointer . Awareness itself cannot do that. There requires the thought of oneself, there requires the mind, there requires perception, knowing/s and such likes. All your doing is exterminating all that is required to make that one conceptual pointer by passing them off as movements of awareness .. I don't see any benefits from passing off everything as a movement of awareness when the movement of awareness is what enabled you to collapse the concepts into a one neat box ..It's the dreamer thinking his outside the dream mentality and is counter productive .. The benefit is to demonstrate to you that Awareness is also present in the dream, and so it's not true that there is nothing present in the dream that can see beyond the dream.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 5, 2019 11:18:12 GMT -5
.... There are qualities that are of the mind and of what we are of the mind even though there is only what we are .. You want to tie that into one word usage that is 'awareness' . Now in my eyes all you need to do is compare what you are aware of that reflects your individuality and beyond that . There are obvious differences .. I have emphasised that the witness is not some separate dude nor is the self a separate dude that is not what we are in any shape or form .. I have explained this for many years and agree with Ramana's thoughts on how consciousness and awareness and the self all come together so to speak .. But all you are doing is casting out many references and keeping to 'awareness' which doesn't help because only of the mind can one conclude what you have and favour what you have .. Awareness itself like said cannot have preferences, so it's not going to work of the mind . Saying that the witness is a movement of awareness makes no sense, it's just words cobbled together in order to uphold your notion .. Awareness itself doesn't have qualities of movement. Awareness is present in the dream. It is the reason you are conscious and aware. So the idea that there is nothing present that can see beyond the dream is misconceived. what's the link/connection between the quality of being aware/conscious in the dream, and awareness beyond the dream?
|
|