Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2019 23:15:50 GMT -5
Why do say so? There appears to be an assumption of sorts being made. If appearances are said to appear, then the category of appearances is being 'bought into.' That category (like all categories) rests on the assumption of a separate I. The very meaning of an appearance is founded on a subject/object split. What appears by definition appears to a subjective consciousness -- it is "appeared to" or "cognized" or else it couldn't be known. This is why in Vedanta there is the talk of the 'burnt rope' ego etc. -- the ego post-realization. If there is said to be a world post-realization, then an ego must remain in some sense to cognize it. There is no such split exist. That's my point! Someone is not perceiving, that someone is created by LOOKING, Looking creates the looker.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 3, 2019 23:15:53 GMT -5
Would you at least agree that the Recognition of Oneness (many names to represent this) occurs on an ~individual~ basis? (The Recognition of satchitananda is "his", not mine or anyone else's. Is nontransferable). That is, in some sense, the consciousness of sca blends with Consciousness. Yes I would agree. I have always said that the ego attains the same unlimited value as Consciousness in full awakeness. The ego knows that it is awake. This is where I disagree with the nondualists and it's why I associate myself more with tantric Shaivism than extreme nonduality in terms of its explanation of reality. I would word it differently. Ego only has a certain capacity, always a limited capacity. Ego is a tiny "container", like a thimble in relation to an Olympic size pool. The thimble cannot conceive of the Olympic pool. So ego cannot be or cannot become enlightened. Ego is not the True Self. But in some sense the "personal" identity can shift from ego(thimble) to the Olympic pool, and this is what blends with Consciousness, or Self. Now, here is where it gets tricky. Let's say this blending is SR, or enlightenment, or awakening, let's call it the Top of the Mountain. I get the sense that most here consider this is a once and done (non)experience (whether or not they have non-experienced it). However, I also think most people here will say that one ~comes down from the Top of the Mountain~, that one doesn't live there. Now, ego cannot reach the Top of the Mountain, ego is in fact an obstruction to ToM. But yet, as we agree, something of the personal "blends with Consciousness/Self", sca is SR, not Tom, D!ck or Harry. I would say ego cooperates in the "Consciousness in full awakeness". That's about the best I can put into words. And yes, I have read some Kashmir Shaivism, and find it a pretty good "map". ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To connect this to the other post, energy is the link between ego and Top of the Mountain, negative entropy is the link. Negative entropy is what allows the blending. And not being able to maintain this "state", is why we come down from the Mountain Top.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 3, 2019 23:16:49 GMT -5
It's not speculation. There is only awareness. Nothing else. Then create me infront of you as your next perception, I would like to meet you. Touche.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2019 23:24:10 GMT -5
Saying that perceiving appearances requires perceiving an I/self is a bit of a stretch. The assumption of the separate I, yes, is based on the same assumption of the subject/object split. They are illusions based on and maintained as beliefs in the mind. The ideas arise in consciousness as either assumptions or separate thoughts and, due to the power of the conditioning in their support, are believed. Do you still believe there’s an I even now, and that there are only temporary cessations while in samadhi? I neither believe that there can be said to be an I even now nor that there can be said to be appearances. And what “I believe” is therefore not the right way of even putting it. It’s not really about what “I believe.” The “assumption” of the I IS the assumption of the subject, which follows from the assumption of an object (appearance). Subject and Object both doesn't exist in it's own right. Only perceiving is happening in which this looker is found.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Dec 3, 2019 23:26:20 GMT -5
Ego is not the True Self. But in some sense the "personal" identity can shift from ego(thimble) to the Olympic pool, and this is what blends with Consciousness, or Self. True Self excludes nothing including the ego. If you drink some sugared water it is one experience. You don't separate the sugar from the water even though you can make a distinction between sugar and water.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 3, 2019 23:31:20 GMT -5
Ego is not the True Self. But in some sense the "personal" identity can shift from ego(thimble) to the Olympic pool, and this is what blends with Consciousness, or Self. True Self excludes nothing including the ego. If you drink some sugared water it is one experience. You don't separate the sugar from the water even though you can make a distinction between sugar and water. OK, I can essentially agree. But ego in some sense submits, is "tamed", ~sacrifices~ itself.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Dec 3, 2019 23:33:07 GMT -5
True Self excludes nothing including the ego. If you drink some sugared water it is one experience. You don't separate the sugar from the water even though you can make a distinction between sugar and water. OK, I can essentially agree. But ego in some sense submits, is "tamed", ~sacrifices~ itself. It is in the sense that ego cannot overshadow awareness which is fundamental.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2019 0:03:20 GMT -5
I'm an American from the south, much like your are from the south of India! Okay, I love reading your English, mostly I can't your lines without Tamil dictionary here.
Definitely! But enjoyment includes the event of my spectacle is flying in the air all the time, mostly I wouldn't be having any hair next year, it would all be plucked out, and my face full of scratches with her nail. Sitting place is my head, jumping place is my stomach and chest while I am lying on the bed.
Nowadays when I see some Father in my life, they look like a Angel to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2019 0:05:09 GMT -5
The crux of the matter is the "I" to which appearances are appearing. That "I" disappears in deep sleep and consequently so do the appearances. It too must be an appearance that comes and goes. Are you the disappearing "I"? Are you not the disappearing "I"? Trying to answer these questions can become a riveting hobby. Your "I" wouldn't disappear, It is there and having different form of perceptions which you can't recall. If you had disappeared, then you wouldn't have returned again to the life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2019 0:11:27 GMT -5
The crux of the matter is the "I" to which appearances are appearing. That "I" disappears in deep sleep and consequently so do the appearances. It too must be an appearance that comes and goes. Are you the disappearing "I"? Are you not the disappearing "I"? Trying to answer these questions can become a riveting hobby. The I that appears and disappears in not the crux of Gopal’s issue, at least I don’t think. What Gopal actually is is backing up a little further and is stepping back out of mind where such a illusion (i.e., “I”) forms. The thinking being written out still has some residual slimy I-stuff sticking to it. yes
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2019 0:26:02 GMT -5
I tend to treat appearances differently, and don't lump cognitive mental processes in with simpler 5/6 senses type stuff. Clearly, a tree can be seen without thinking/believing/assuming there's an "I" looking at it. Yes, there's our disagreement. Once you say "a tree is seen," that "is seen" is necessarily by an "I" which sees it. Trees aren't seen in some kind of generic consciousness; the seeing is always to an individual point of view. The tree is always seen by a specific body-mind. Well, neither, really. I don't assume there's an I right now -- but neither do I assume there are appearances of any kind... that whole framework is a misconception. And in fact it's not even really about what "I" "assume" at all. I mean, sure, but I think I'm going a bit further than many on this point. It's really not accurate to say, as many do, "Yes, of course, of course, we're all the thingless thing, but now what about life?" There is no "what about life" that remains, technically. I mean, we can talk that way if we also admit that in some sense we're talking absolute gibberish; or that in some sense we're simply not talking at all. No, No, No. Careless looking would assume an I. That looking itself is I. There is no I which is looking at the perception, But but Looking creates this I. The reason is, knowing is happening in awareness(I), the term awareness can be used for the process of knowing 'something'.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Dec 4, 2019 0:48:21 GMT -5
If appearances are said to appear, then the category of appearances is being 'bought into.' That category (like all categories) rests on the assumption of a separate I. The very meaning of an appearance is founded on a subject/object split. What appears by definition appears to a subjective consciousness -- it is "appeared to" or "cognized" or else it couldn't be known. This is why in Vedanta there is the talk of the 'burnt rope' ego etc. -- the ego post-realization. If there is said to be a world post-realization, then an ego must remain in some sense to cognize it. There is no such split exist. That's my point! Someone is not perceiving, that someone is created by LOOKING, Looking creates the looker. No matter how you dance and in what sequence you put it, if there is looking, there is looked-at and looker. That's the point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2019 1:08:31 GMT -5
There is no such split exist. That's my point! Someone is not perceiving, that someone is created by LOOKING, Looking creates the looker. No matter how you dance and in what sequence you put it, if there is looking, there is looked-at and looker. That's the point. There is no such two different thing exist, you assume such thing and gotten your own theory from there. There is only one, that's perceiving, and from there perceiver and perceived are assumed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2019 1:37:35 GMT -5
The I that appears and disappears in not the crux of Gopal’s issue, at least I don’t think. What Gopal actually is is backing up a little further and is stepping back out of mind where such a illusion (i.e., “I”) forms. The thinking being written out still has some residual slimy I-stuff sticking to it. Either that or he’s still drinking the green radioactive juice stuff and he’s just punch drunk. 😅 My mistake. I thought he was interested in looking into the mouth of creation. Only things that can be eaten (appearing/disappearing) are needing to do so. yes, I was. But you talked about disappearing I, that's what someNothing says that's not what I was talking about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2019 1:48:53 GMT -5
Right, I'm suggesting all those things cannot be said to be appearing. I'm not sure it's all worth arguing about. It's not really something that's a matter of logic. There's no objection here to this pointing, but then again, the subject/object split is right at the crux of the existential matter .. so, in terms of pointing, there's an alternative approach, and it will sound in the presentation as the opposite to where you're coming from. Viewed one way, in terms of the concepts, there's no denying the duality of experience, or, in a passive sense, the duality of perception. And, I take your meaning in denying that appearances are appearing as a denial of that duality, in favor of nonduality. But, then again, there is another meaning available here, one in which there is no division between the happening and the one experiencing the happening, one in which there is no division between the perception, and the perceiver. So, no "I" perceiving or experiencing, only, perception and experience.
I'd suggest that this presentation is potentially useful in terms of addressing inquiry while a person is eyes-open, and engaged in action. "Losing oneself" in an activity is a common experience that can be leveraged to get the point across. But, it's an incomplete approach, as it doesn't address what can be encountered in deep meditation, as the world falls away. Personally, I found the two different approaches to be complimentary.Yes, this is the same problem for Satch as well.
|
|