Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2019 14:09:27 GMT
Musical interlude.....
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 6, 2019 15:53:35 GMT
You have made the intellectual discrimination with conviction between unchanging and changing. There is nothing 'intellectual' at all in the seeing through of identification with that which appears...that which is limited/bound. And that 'end of identification' is really what's at the helm of the discrimination between that which exists in it's own right and that which arises dependent upon that. To see that there is no separation between Being and that which arises to/within Being does not mean going back to identification with ephemeral arisings as you seem to be suggesting. Oh my goodness....so you equate realization with a practice that offers a direct experience? Realization cannot be practiced into Being, regardless of how much the person might hope that is so. The distinction between that which is foundational and that which arises dependent upon that, is not 'separation.' In SR there is nothing that requires 'integration.' "Abiding in Source" is not something that comes once there is SR. The realization of Self = the end of abidance in mind/appearances. It's a profound shift that 'abides' all arising experience. I am actually NOT 'resistance to practice' per se, at all. My point is simply that practice does not cause SR. I meditated for years, starting way back in my teens and am pleased to see both my teens now gravitating towards meditation regularly. The direct experience of the transcendent/true nature does not require a practice, process or conscious quieting of mind once mind has been seen for what it is and has thus, taken a back-seat. Once that has happened, 'true nature' is always at the forefront. The sages and the scriptures have also affirmed that no effort is necessary...that there is no path.....why do you resist that? Nisargadatta
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 6, 2019 15:59:00 GMT
Well at least you didn't talk about f****** golf! "the jiva, which is in bondage through mental identification with the body, etc., should put forth effort in the form of reflection on the Self in a gradual and sustained manner; and when thus the mind gets destroyed, the jiva would become the Self." Ramana Maharshi ...and.... you don't like fucking golf because...You can't fucking play golf? (spontaneous response ) Jiva Shmiva.... more nonsense based on your particular thought pattern. Have you ever considered that Mind perceives that which is beyond I AM as a void? Maybe you're simply caught in the net. Funny...hubby was just saying this about some dudes he knows who turn their nose up. So true.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 6, 2019 16:03:26 GMT
You're disturbing my perpetual bliss! While perhaps no outright bliss....Here's one that might invoke a chuckle:
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 6, 2019 16:06:55 GMT
You have made the intellectual discrimination with conviction between unchanging and changing. It's a legitimate first step of self-examination, but you are stuck there and you are mistaking it for realization because there is no practice to have the direct experience. You are living this separation which you think is oneness and it is reflected in your compulsive obsession with affirming your own state and forcing others to prove to your satisfaction that they are also realized, which you are not. Without practice there is no integration because there is no abiding in the source which leads to the dissolution and destruction of ego which then becomes the totality of freedom as a living reality which cannot be spoken about. Your compulsive intellectual inquiry is a reflection of your own seeking and you are using this forum as a vehicle for it. You need to closely examine what you mean by sharing, because it is not that at all. Without practice you lack the direct experience of the transcendent which is your true nature. Your resistance to practice is based on misconceived ideas about the limited self and your own misunderstood ideas about non-duality. There are no ideas about nonduality, only the experience of the nondual. Although awakening can happen spontaneously, for most, practice is essential. The sages and the scriptures have affirmed this. Why do you resist? What you call intellectual discrimination is simply a statement of not knowing being used to counter the logic and intellectual arguments of others who insist they know something. Yes. It's pretty wild how that continually gets missed and turned around. In reading through past posts I came upon Laughter's initial arguments. He saw the not knowing as a 'seekers position,' which makes it pretty clear what he means by not knowing and what we're referencing are worlds apart. When I have time, I'm gonna start a thread to outline what not knowing is really in reference to. Seems strange to have to do that at this stage of the game, but seems to be necessary.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 6, 2019 16:07:35 GMT
Yeah sure, flail away.... Why are you so afraid of typing out the word- FUCK- in your posts? Do you THINK if you type the letter F, followed by a shitload of asterisks that you've somehow arrived at a special state of holiness? That's a better example of the blind TRYING to lead the so-called blind. I typed FUCK but my Tapatalk app substituted asterisks. Let's see how I get on if I use the browser. Well fuck me! That's the spirit!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2019 16:10:48 GMT
I typed FUCK but my Tapatalk app substituted asterisks. Let's see how I get on if I use the browser. Well fuck me! That's the spirit!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2019 16:42:49 GMT
You have made the intellectual discrimination with conviction between unchanging and changing. There is nothing 'intellectual' at all in the seeing through of identification with that which appears...that which is limited/bound. And that 'end of identification' is really what's at the helm of the discrimination between that which exists in it's own right and that which arises dependent upon that. To see that there is no separation between Being and that which arises to/within Being does not mean going back to identification with ephemeral arisings as you seem to be suggesting. Oh my goodness....so you equate realization with a practice that offers a direct experience? Realization cannot be practiced into Being, regardless of how much the person might hope that is so. The distinction between that which is foundational and that which arises dependent upon that, is not 'separation.' In SR there is nothing that requires 'integration.' "Abiding in Source" is not something that comes once there is SR. The realization of Self = the end of abidance in mind/appearances. It's a profound shift that 'abides' all arising experience. I am actually NOT 'resistance to practice' per se, at all. My point is simply that practice does not cause SR. I meditated for years, starting way back in my teens and am pleased to see both my teens now gravitating towards meditation regularly. The direct experience of the transcendent/true nature does not require a practice, process or conscious quieting of mind once mind has been seen for what it is and has thus, taken a back-seat. Once that has happened, 'true nature' is always at the forefront. The sages and the scriptures have also affirmed that no effort is necessary...that there is no path.....why do you resist that? Nisargadatta It's easy to find quotes from Nisargadatta to suggest that there is no need for practice but unfortunately he's not a consistent and reliable teacher. I can show you quotes where he obviously does say the practice is important. He himself practiced consistently for 3 years until he was realized and he speaks of his progress during that time. You are wrong to say that the sages and scriptures do not recommend practice. You are just dead wrong! I could provide plenty of evidence but I just can't be bothered. As for your comments to my post, I tried a few times to write a reply and I just had to give up because what you're saying is just mental gobbledygook. It's just wordplay that has no basis in actual experience. You're telling me that there are no practices for the realized and I know that because it's the end of practice. I'm talking about seekers and you keep talking about what you imagine to be realization. What a complete waste of time! I'm talking about getting on an airplane to fly to the Bahamas and you're telling me that in the Bahamas you don't need any airplanes. Good God!
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 6, 2019 21:03:40 GMT
It's easy to find quotes from Nisargadatta to suggest that there is no need for practice but unfortunately he's not a consistent and reliable teacher. I can show you quotes where he obviously does say the practice is important. He himself practiced consistently for 3 years until he was realized and he speaks of his progress during that time. So, if he's not a reliable teacher, why tell me that he at times says practice is important? You're contradicting your point about him being unreliable in touting that as though it means something...same with his talk about practicing himself. I've never said per se, that they do not recommend practice. Again, one of those straw-men you continually like to argue against. My point has always been that practice does not 'cause' SR. Even the most diligent of plans to practice is not going to cause a seeker to SR.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 6, 2019 21:29:10 GMT
The above quotes from Reefs are very telling.
In the first, where he directs me to 'look at what objects look like before mind declares them as inanimate,' he firstly (and wrongly) assumes that objects ARE declared to be 'inanimate.'
In seeing the inherent emptiness of all appearances, appearances are neither deemed to be 'animated or inanimate...alive nor dead.' Rather, they are seen to be empty and devoid of ALL certainly known quality/property, straight across the board. Just because I argue against matter/form as absolutely 'alive,' does not mean that I am asserting 'deadness or for objects to be inanimate.'
Secondly there, he wrongly assumes that 'something' Truthy/Absolute is there to be seen, and thus, known for certain to be, prior to mind's assignation of property/quality. In short what he fails to see is that perception = creation. The moment there is something that 'looks like' anything at all, appearance has arisen. Even if one were to see a field of energy of sorts (which interestingly enough, I have...I used to work with 'thought-forms...astral plane manifestation, etc.) that TOO is an appearance arising in consciousness, thus, empty and devoid of Truth or as Reefs used say, devoid of "Truthin."
The "it's all alive" argument is only applicable/relevant where one is asserting "it's all dead/inanimate." And no one has claimed that. What is being said is that any and all assignation of quality/property, is itself of the realm of appearance, even though it may indeed seem to be 'transcendent' of that which appears.
In short, transcendence of the ordinary way of seeing is being conflated with absolute transcendence/awakening. True transcendence lies beyond all experience...even those really awe inspiring ones that seem to be very different from Joe average is having.
|
|