|
Post by Figgles on Mar 18, 2019 18:27:35 GMT
Lately, both over on ST and in some other conversations I've been having, I'm seeing a preponderance of emphasis upon the stories/experiences surrounding awakening/SR. More and more I am coming to see that not only are these stories not important, but in the telling and re-telling of them, folks who are reading along/listening often come away with the mistaken idea that something very specific must 'happen', must be experienced, in order for awakening/SR to be. And that's simply untrue. The one who tells and re-tells his experiential story over and over again in great detail, using the exact same wording/terms verbatim each time, has clearly identified with not only the experience that happened, the one he so tightly correlates with whatever realization he thinks he's had, but that re-telling also further serves to solidify the massaged ego, the sense of personal importance and specialness that comes with having an experience that is by most considered to be 'other-worldy, mystical, woo-woo, special, transcendent.' In short those stories need to be "put down." (ZD, if you're reading, no doubt about it, your acronym spurred this thread ) The very idea that SR/awakening has an experiential component, defies the fact that awakening/SR is a seeing through of what is not so. The seeing of what is not so, may not happen in one fell swoop, or perhaps it does, but then ego rises up to re-instigate itself. Irregardless, the focus upon 'how' it happens is not only a distraction, oft is completely misses the most important point; What I am is not a thing that arises within experience, thus, the Truth is not to be found within an experience, regardless of how awe-inspiring it may be.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 19, 2019 2:22:30 GMT
Lately, both over on ST and in some other conversations I've been having, I'm seeing a preponderance of emphasis upon the stories/experiences surrounding awakening/SR. More and more I am coming to see that not only are these stories not important, but in the telling and re-telling of them, folks who are reading along/listening often come away with the mistaken idea that something very specific must 'happen', must be experienced, in order for awakening/SR to be. And that's simply untrue. The one who tells and re-tells his experiential story over and over again in great detail, using the exact same wording/terms verbatim each time, has clearly identified with not only the experience that happened, the one he so tightly correlates with whatever realization he thinks he's had, but that re-telling also further serves to solidify the massaged ego, the sense of personal importance and specialness that comes with having an experience that is by most considered to be 'other-worldy, mystical, woo-woo, special, transcendent.' In short those stories need to be "put down." (ZD, if you're reading, no doubt about it, your acronym spurred this thread ) The very idea that SR/awakening has an experiential component, defies the fact that awakening/SR is a seeing through of what is not so. The seeing of what is not so, may not happen in one fell swoop, or perhaps it does, but then ego rises up to re-instigate itself. Irregardless, the focus upon 'how' it happens is not only a distraction, oft is completely misses the most important point; What I am is not a thing that arises within experience, thus, the Truth is not to be found within an experience, regardless of how awe-inspiring it may be. Unplanned trips to Ignoristan definitely reads like a story. The final bridge to cross is to let go of the mind-created 'spiritual' self wandering about in the imaginary Ignoristan. That is all. I wonder. I've heard of Uzbeksitan, Kyrgzstan, Tajikstan, Turkemenistan, Kazakstan, Afghanistan, and now Ignoristan...I wonder which serves the tastiest vodka?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2019 3:00:05 GMT
Lately, both over on ST and in some other conversations I've been having, I'm seeing a preponderance of emphasis upon the stories/experiences surrounding awakening/SR. More and more I am coming to see that not only are these stories not important, but in the telling and re-telling of them, folks who are reading along/listening often come away with the mistaken idea that something very specific must 'happen', must be experienced, in order for awakening/SR to be. And that's simply untrue. The one who tells and re-tells his experiential story over and over again in great detail, using the exact same wording/terms verbatim each time, has clearly identified with not only the experience that happened, the one he so tightly correlates with whatever realization he thinks he's had, but that re-telling also further serves to solidify the massaged ego, the sense of personal importance and specialness that comes with having an experience that is by most considered to be 'other-worldy, mystical, woo-woo, special, transcendent.' In short those stories need to be "put down." (ZD, if you're reading, no doubt about it, your acronym spurred this thread ) The very idea that SR/awakening has an experiential component, defies the fact that awakening/SR is a seeing through of what is not so. The seeing of what is not so, may not happen in one fell swoop, or perhaps it does, but then ego rises up to re-instigate itself. Irregardless, the focus upon 'how' it happens is not only a distraction, oft is completely misses the most important point; What I am is not a thing that arises within experience, thus, the Truth is not to be found within an experience, regardless of how awe-inspiring it may be. ZD's musings about seeing through how the universe works and modifying certain views about the phenomenal world has nothing at all to do with SR. Before realization there is Maya. After realisation there is Maya also. These conversations about seeing through the false are false in themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 19, 2019 19:10:57 GMT
Lately, both over on ST and in some other conversations I've been having, I'm seeing a preponderance of emphasis upon the stories/experiences surrounding awakening/SR. More and more I am coming to see that not only are these stories not important, but in the telling and re-telling of them, folks who are reading along/listening often come away with the mistaken idea that something very specific must 'happen', must be experienced, in order for awakening/SR to be. And that's simply untrue. The one who tells and re-tells his experiential story over and over again in great detail, using the exact same wording/terms verbatim each time, has clearly identified with not only the experience that happened, the one he so tightly correlates with whatever realization he thinks he's had, but that re-telling also further serves to solidify the massaged ego, the sense of personal importance and specialness that comes with having an experience that is by most considered to be 'other-worldy, mystical, woo-woo, special, transcendent.' In short those stories need to be "put down." (ZD, if you're reading, no doubt about it, your acronym spurred this thread ) The very idea that SR/awakening has an experiential component, defies the fact that awakening/SR is a seeing through of what is not so. The seeing of what is not so, may not happen in one fell swoop, or perhaps it does, but then ego rises up to re-instigate itself. Irregardless, the focus upon 'how' it happens is not only a distraction, oft is completely misses the most important point; What I am is not a thing that arises within experience, thus, the Truth is not to be found within an experience, regardless of how awe-inspiring it may be. ZD's musings about seeing through how the universe works and modifying certain views about the phenomenal world has nothing at all to do with SR. Before realization there is Maya. After realisation there is Maya also. These conversations about seeing through the false are false in themselves. I think I agree up until the 'seeing through the false'. In coming to see Maya AS Maya, isn't that pretty much what happens? (I would substitute 'seeing thru the false' though with seeing there is no ' fundamental, independent existence' to that which arises. We see that the totality of the phenomenal world is an arising of Being, that all that appears arises 'dependent upon' Being.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 19, 2019 19:11:17 GMT
I wonder. I've heard of Uzbeksitan, Kyrgzstan, Tajikstan, Turkemenistan, Kazakstan, Afghanistan, and now Ignoristan...I wonder which serves the tastiest vodka? Hold on!! Looks like we may need that tub....
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 21, 2019 2:42:36 GMT
With regard to stories.... I see solipsism is back again for another engagement on ST. Time bound nonsense. Another example of mind wanting more. Pffft..... WTFU Yup.
And because I wasn't allowed to post this there, I'm gonna post it here....(just because it really made me laugh. )
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2019 6:45:02 GMT
We see that the totality of the phenomenal world is an arising of Being, that all that appears arises 'dependent upon' Being. Yes indeed. Maya means that which is not. So in a state of ignorance one takes Maya to be real because there is identification with it and ignorance of the unbounded. With knowledge you see that Maya is not that which is. Being is and Maya just arises in it and as you say is dependent upon Being. So Maya doesn't disappear after SR. That's what I would call seeing through the false even though I dislike that phrase because it's usually presented as seeing through illusion(s) which implies that some things are illusions and some things are not, but in fact all of Maya, all changing phenomena which appears is an illusion simply because only Being/Awareness is unchangeably real. But there's more because with the end of separation it's seen that Maya is also Brahman. Nirguna Brahman (without form/qualities) and Saguna Brahman (with form/qualities).
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 21, 2019 16:34:10 GMT
Yes indeed. Maya means that which is not. So in a state of ignorance one takes Maya to be real because there is identification with it and ignorance of the unbounded. With knowledge you see that Maya is not that which is. Being is and Maya just arises in it and as you say is dependent upon Being. Well said. Whew. This is nice to have what I've been saying NOT be resisted... and even mirrored back, perfectly. Yes, we're on the same page here and seems to me, this is a pretty basic seeing when it comes to awakening/Truth realization. Which is why it's baffling that a few over on ST, who present themselves as SR, don't seem to grasp this. Exactly. And it still to some degree, captures and captivates interest. Again on ST, the question keeps being put forth; If you've seen it's all just arising appearance, why do you continue to engage with what appears?...as If 'ignoring it all' is an option. Yes. Agreed. So to you does that equal certain knowing that appearing others (and objects) are absolutely conscious, perceiving, experiencing, feeling, etc.? Seems to me long ago when the 'not knowing' convo started, you were in agreement that it is not known, but it makes no difference because there is nothing to do except engage with/go along with Maya as it presents.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2019 17:05:49 GMT
So to you does that equal certain knowing that appearing others (and objects) are absolutely conscious, perceiving, experiencing, feeling, etc.? Seems to me long ago when the 'not knowing' convo started, you were in agreement that it is not known, but it makes no difference because there is nothing to do except engage with/go along with Maya as it presents. Yes, you have summed that up perfectly. You cannot really know anything about objects or apparent others, but you still engage. That's all that one can say. You can only really know yourself. I have to be honest and say this question about appearances doesn't really interest me and I suspect that deep down it doesn't interest you either except when you (and I) engage with others who want to discuss the subject. I don't need to analyze it or question it. It's just what's happening. It's life. I engage with the play of Maya and there's no conflict. Those who want to endlessly discuss it will never run out of word lawyering opportunities. I enjoy a good argument/discussion as much as anyone else does, but fundamentally for me there is no existential angst surrounding the subject. There is no answer I'm seeking from such a discussion. So it's just fun really. And it's good to share, but I have no idea why.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 21, 2019 19:26:52 GMT
Yes, you have summed that up perfectly. You cannot really know anything about objects or apparent others, but you still engage. That's all that one can say. You can only really know yourself. Yup. Precisely. It's coming up because there's folks who have not seen that, who are insisting that they CAN and DO know. Which means, they're in a state of ignorance, taking Maya to be real/actual because there is identification with it and ignorance of the unbounded.
|
|