|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Mar 27, 2019 18:32:55 GMT -5
What seems to be popular these days in various non-dual circles is an explanation of self-realization as "just the beginning" of a long process of the destruction of personality tendencies... at the end of which is real enlightenment.
There is also talk of after realization happens, it then later "comes down into the heart" or some such and then the "energetic" awakening is the real awakening.
And there is talk of how you must take your realization and "integrate it" into the real world.
I disagree with all of these ways of putting things, and I think they are a way to run away from the stark truth of non-doership and non-individuality. Who is there to deliberately 'integrate' anything? Who is there to be the recipient of some energetic awakening?
The mind -- if we posit the mind for discussion's sake -- may be said to grow quieter over time with realization, and this can increase mental pleasure and decrease emotional obstacles, but that doesn't affect realization. Realization is perfect and pure eternally.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 3:34:12 GMT -5
What seems to be popular these days in various non-dual circles is an explanation of self-realization as "just the beginning" of a long process of the destruction of personality tendencies... at the end of which is real enlightenment. There is also talk of after realization happens, it then later "comes down into the heart" or some such and then the "energetic" awakening is the real awakening. And there is talk of how you must take your realization and "integrate it" into the real world. I disagree with all of these ways of putting things, and I think they are a way to run away from the stark truth of non-doership and non-individuality. Who is there to deliberately 'integrate' anything? Who is there to be the recipient of some energetic awakening? The mind -- if we posit the mind for discussion's sake -- may be said to grow quieter over time with realization, and this can increase mental pleasure and decrease emotional obstacles, but that doesn't affect realization. Realization is perfect and pure eternally. Who is there to run away from non-doership and non-individuality?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Mar 28, 2019 3:44:21 GMT -5
I disagree with all of these ways of putting things, and I think they are a way to run away from the stark truth of non-doership and non-individuality. Who is there to deliberately 'integrate' anything? Who is there to be the recipient of some energetic awakening? Depends on your definition of what S.R. is and what it means. To some it is just the realization that the personhood is an illusion (which isn't how I see it at all) It's so much more than that. To speak about integration, then again it depends on what one has realized. You see for myself I say (as peeps know) that there is only what you are, so whatever is associated to the personhood is what you are also, what you are is also what is beyond the personhood. If you have experienced non functional awareness like I have where there is no thought of oneself (as self) or as anything that can be associated with, then there has to be integration at some point of the 'real world' so to speak from the realization that there can be awareness of I AM that doesn't relate to self and awareness of I AM that can. So there has to be a starting block of what realization you had and then take it from there. There are peeps speaking of there are loads of different realizations and there is talk of there being only one .. I can only go by my own obviously but it doesn't make sense to me for S.R. to only mean this per se, relating to the illusory personhood when I see it as so much more.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Mar 28, 2019 7:12:44 GMT -5
Who is there to run away from non-doership and non-individuality? Seekers.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Mar 28, 2019 7:15:07 GMT -5
I disagree with all of these ways of putting things, and I think they are a way to run away from the stark truth of non-doership and non-individuality. Who is there to deliberately 'integrate' anything? Who is there to be the recipient of some energetic awakening? Depends on your definition of what S.R. is and what it means. To some it is just the realization that the personhood is an illusion (which isn't how I see it at all) It's so much more than that. To speak about integration, then again it depends on what one has realized. You see for myself I say (as peeps know) that there is only what you are, so whatever is associated to the personhood is what you are also, what you are is also what is beyond the personhood. If you have experienced non functional awareness like I have where there is no thought of oneself (as self) or as anything that can be associated with, then there has to be integration at some point of the 'real world' so to speak from the realization that there can be awareness of I AM that doesn't relate to self and awareness of I AM that can. So there has to be a starting block of what realization you had and then take it from there. There are peeps speaking of there are loads of different realizations and there is talk of there being only one .. I can only go by my own obviously but it doesn't make sense to me for S.R. to only mean this per se, relating to the illusory personhood when I see it as so much more. Right, well, I'm suggesting that a realization which does not eliminate the illusion of doership does not deserve the term 'self-realization.' What more do you see SR as?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Mar 28, 2019 8:05:38 GMT -5
Depends on your definition of what S.R. is and what it means. To some it is just the realization that the personhood is an illusion (which isn't how I see it at all) It's so much more than that. To speak about integration, then again it depends on what one has realized. You see for myself I say (as peeps know) that there is only what you are, so whatever is associated to the personhood is what you are also, what you are is also what is beyond the personhood. If you have experienced non functional awareness like I have where there is no thought of oneself (as self) or as anything that can be associated with, then there has to be integration at some point of the 'real world' so to speak from the realization that there can be awareness of I AM that doesn't relate to self and awareness of I AM that can. So there has to be a starting block of what realization you had and then take it from there. There are peeps speaking of there are loads of different realizations and there is talk of there being only one .. I can only go by my own obviously but it doesn't make sense to me for S.R. to only mean this per se, relating to the illusory personhood when I see it as so much more. Right, well, I'm suggesting that a realization which does not eliminate the illusion of doership does not deserve the term 'self-realization.' What more do you see SR as? The integration that what you are is both the personhood and not the personhood also reflects upon being the doer and not the doer at the same time. It really depends on the environment / non environment, mind and no mind, self and no self awareness. From what I gather from some peeps S.R. means / reveals that what you are is not this . Integration is that you ARE this and this and this and this ... there is not the impression that I AM not this and this and this. S.R. fully integrated in the real world using your term as I see it is when there is united integration that reflects that there is only what you are as everything, not only in bit part/s. S.R. itself in a roundabout way allows one to 'be' what they are prior to being manifest, it is not a revelation had that explains to you that just because there is the awareness of self doing, that this is therefore illusory. I actually see why this can be seen to be like this but 'being' what you are prior to self aware manifestation has no correlation in seeing self aware manifestations as being illusory in anyway. As mentioned on another thread you cannot separate or divide God from God's form. Gods form does not exist as an appearance on it's own merit. The form is God, there is only God. The first understanding of S.R. as said can reflect the realization that God is beyond form, the second integrated understanding is that God is also form. (using the God term in reflection of 'what you are'.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Mar 28, 2019 8:15:52 GMT -5
Right, well, I'm suggesting that a realization which does not eliminate the illusion of doership does not deserve the term 'self-realization.' What more do you see SR as? The integration that what you are is both the personhood and not the personhood also reflects upon being the doer and not the doer at the same time. It really depends on the environment / non environment, mind and no mind, self and no self awareness. Got it. Thanks for the description.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 8:28:02 GMT -5
What seems to be popular these days in various non-dual circles is an explanation of self-realization as "just the beginning" of a long process of the destruction of personality tendencies... at the end of which is real enlightenment. There is also talk of after realization happens, it then later "comes down into the heart" or some such and then the "energetic" awakening is the real awakening. And there is talk of how you must take your realization and "integrate it" into the real world. I disagree with all of these ways of putting things, and I think they are a way to run away from the stark truth of non-doership and non-individuality. Who is there to deliberately 'integrate' anything? Who is there to be the recipient of some energetic awakening? The mind -- if we posit the mind for discussion's sake -- may be said to grow quieter over time with realization, and this can increase mental pleasure and decrease emotional obstacles, but that doesn't affect realization. Realization is perfect and pure eternally. What is the difference between seeing the world as illusion and the psychological defense mechanism called denial? Is there an actual person that is bothered, concerned, whatever, by this teaching that offers up an impure and temporal version of realization?
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Mar 28, 2019 8:47:07 GMT -5
What seems to be popular these days in various non-dual circles is an explanation of self-realization as "just the beginning" of a long process of the destruction of personality tendencies... at the end of which is real enlightenment. There is also talk of after realization happens, it then later "comes down into the heart" or some such and then the "energetic" awakening is the real awakening. And there is talk of how you must take your realization and "integrate it" into the real world. I disagree with all of these ways of putting things, and I think they are a way to run away from the stark truth of non-doership and non-individuality. Who is there to deliberately 'integrate' anything? Who is there to be the recipient of some energetic awakening? The mind -- if we posit the mind for discussion's sake -- may be said to grow quieter over time with realization, and this can increase mental pleasure and decrease emotional obstacles, but that doesn't affect realization. Realization is perfect and pure eternally. What is the difference between seeing the world as illusion and the psychological defense mechanism called denial? Cool question, actually! I like the connection. Denial is a failure to recognize something true to protect the ego. But that the world is unreal is true. So seeing the world as illusion cannot be denial. By that definition, it is actually the "commonsense view" that is denial. No. But I will continue to speak as if there is one.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Mar 28, 2019 8:48:23 GMT -5
The integration that what you are is both the personhood and not the personhood also reflects upon being the doer and not the doer at the same time. It really depends on the environment / non environment, mind and no mind, self and no self awareness. Got it. Thanks for the description. So am I correct in saying that you automatically believe that the personhood is illusory, the doer is illusory and the form of your experience is not what you are because of what I have said in that the realization gives one an knowing that what you are is beyond the personality, the doings and is beyond form?
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Mar 28, 2019 9:01:16 GMT -5
Got it. Thanks for the description. So am I correct in saying that you automatically believe that the personhood is illusory, the doer is illusory and the form of your experience is not what you are because of what I have said in that the realization gives one an knowing that what you are is beyond the personality, the doings and is beyond form? To be technically accurate, it's not that I would say that I am not these things or that I am these things, but rather the duality of being or not being those things is wrong. The idea of such things is wrong. The very "I" that could be these things or not be those things is wrong. There is a holy silence in which all these different beliefs and their contraries are incomplete and inaccurate.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Mar 28, 2019 9:16:11 GMT -5
So am I correct in saying that you automatically believe that the personhood is illusory, the doer is illusory and the form of your experience is not what you are because of what I have said in that the realization gives one an knowing that what you are is beyond the personality, the doings and is beyond form? To be technically accurate, it's not that I would say that I am not these things or that I am these things, but rather the duality of being or not being those things is wrong. The idea of such things is wrong. The very "I" that could be these things or not be those things is wrong. There is a holy silence in which all these different beliefs and their contraries are incomplete and inaccurate. But where does the realization play into all this because this is where are beliefs about S.R. stems from, it is the comparison had of self and no self, mind and no mind, duality and non duality.. There is the realization had that what you are is beyond the dual mind reality so you automatically believe that the duality of being or not being these things is wrong. Where my integration explanation comes to the fore is that there is both an 'I' and not an 'I' There is no denying that there is self awareness because you are aware of that fact. self awareness does pertain to 'I am'. As said to the frog, ramana's self realization doesn't make the frog self realized so there has to be some association to ramana and to the frog, we do associate so because the environment allows I AM to be aware. What do you associate your self awareness with? God? Self? Consciousness? Are you the totality of this association?
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Mar 28, 2019 9:32:41 GMT -5
To be technically accurate, it's not that I would say that I am not these things or that I am these things, but rather the duality of being or not being those things is wrong. The idea of such things is wrong. The very "I" that could be these things or not be those things is wrong. There is a holy silence in which all these different beliefs and their contraries are incomplete and inaccurate. But where does the realization play into all this because this is where are beliefs about S.R. stems from, it is the comparison had of self and no self, mind and no mind, duality and non duality.. Actually there are no beliefs per se. All specific beliefs would be wrong. What there is is a connection to something beyond beliefs, and that is where the words flow from. The self cannot be an object of awareness. The self which is an object of awareness is precisely what is seen to be illusion. What do you mean "pertain"? What does "pertain" mean in this context? Actually there is no Ramana, Ramana's realization, or frog. Whose self-awareness? This question cannot be answered because there one cannot think the true "you" of this statement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 9:49:26 GMT -5
Who is there to run away from non-doership and non-individuality? Seekers. Oh ok, thanks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 10:02:38 GMT -5
So am I correct in saying that you automatically believe that the personhood is illusory, the doer is illusory and the form of your experience is not what you are because of what I have said in that the realization gives one an knowing that what you are is beyond the personality, the doings and is beyond form? To be technically accurate, it's not that I would say that I am not these things or that I am these things, but rather the duality of being or not being those things is wrong. The idea of such things is wrong. The very "I" that could be these things or not be those things is wrong. There is a holy silence in which all these different beliefs and their contraries are incomplete and inaccurate. Holy silence does not make what is not it, wrong, inaccurate nor incomplete. Only a person can do that.
|
|