Thank you for your posts Donald!
I'll try to explain what is going on with some of the guides at the moment.
Some of them wonder if you see what we are pointing to or if you have an intellectual understanding.
So, what we would like you to do is to describe how do you see a self is an illusion here and now, using your own words.
In other words, what do you see when you look? How would you describe what can be seen right now that lets you know a self is an illusion?
Don't you agree from reading the thread yourself, that what is being asked for is already there?
It seems a little confusing from this perspective, considering that what is being asked for has already been delivered repeatedly.
IF it has not, then please explain what you are looking for as clearly as possible, with examples.
Admittedly "my" words could be lost in the sea of quotes, but it is there very clearly and plainly from this vantage.
The words, phrases, concepts and examples that have been used all seem satisfactory, some even relatively original considering the nature of words and concepts.
The realisation has been broken down into direct bytes of experience:
There is perception X
There is process A
etc...
Its been conceptually explained and elaborated on in several modalities.
Including being described from the understanding that there is no separate identity other than as an idea, conceptual construct, or appearance, within what is arising.
In defining our terms, in the way I've explained the use of the concepts of "real" and "true", identity is real as a phenomenon, it just has no truth or validity. Its an imputation, reification, or appearance.
Perhaps we are talking about different understandings of how things exist.
Perhaps we simply communicate using different styles or modalities.
From here, there is no need for validation or questions. It really is just a big cosmic joke, and the identity has been seen to be the punchline.
This realisation is very simple; there is nothing but what is in its totality and the "identity" (a word that suits the way things exist much better than "self") is not separate from the totality.
Some call it adveita, some call it non-duality, some call it Zen, some call it mahamudra, some dzogchen, some Vipassana, some arahantship, some kabbalah, some gnosis, some call it nothing, because its just what is.
Nothing sensible can really be said about it in words that can't be inverted if the inclination arises.
Identity is a conceptualised construct, and it has existence as exactly that; only when it is imagined to exist. Its not the doer, or the knower, but it is a " tool" or interface or aspect of the reality as a whole.
Identity does exist. Its just not a separate or intrinsic feature to what is arising. It may be there or not.
Identity is an interpretation within arising phenomenon; an interpretation that imputes an overlay within what is arising, that functions as a temporal and apparently separate interface that functions as a toolbox to communicate, interact, etc within the totality of arising.
The way that semantics corrupt the actuality of experience makes it tricky to communicate with any kind of accuracy on this subject.
What is is.
What else need be seen?
I will try to dig out the extra tasty chunky crayons, but in the meantime could you provide examples of what is supposedly missing please?
Thanks!
