|
Post by Figgles on Jan 19, 2024 20:31:14 GMT
Absolute/ultimate Truth trumps AND includes relative, experiential content. Relatively speaking, as the story goes, yes, this "me character" is owner of her home and the money in her bank account and will stand up if an apparent other tries to take it away. That facet of the story is not at all at war with or in contradiction to the realization that "ultimately/actually" all of that is appearance only....none of it inhernetly exists....none of it represents ultimate/Absolute Truth, and the Truth of the matter is that fundamentally, there are no "others"....there is "fundamentally" only singularity/Oneness.
Your expectation that all behaviors relating to what appears must dissolve in the realization that "ultimately, all otherness is appearance only," is a denial of the relative...the denial of experience/appearance.
There is no need to deny an appearance so long as it is clearly seen to BE an appearance only....absent inherent existence....absent fundamental, abidance/existence.
That said, there ARE certain facets of relative, experiential content that change/shift in SR. Any idea that has it's basis in fundamental separation will no longer have anything from which to stand upon. The mere "appearance of" otherness, of distinction, multiples, does NOT have the mistake of separation inherent to it.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 19, 2024 20:46:56 GMT
You still are not grasping what that term "separation" is really referencing.
Until the erroneous identification with being a volitional, individuated entity dissolves, there is imagined separation in play. So long as the locus of seeing is primarily still with the appearing, experiential entity...the "me character," then, by virtue of that, separation...the SVP, is still in play.
Again Tenka, your unwillingness to go along with the terminology and definitions inherent to Nonduality talk, make for a difficult conversation.
This exemplifies perfectly the lengths the SVP will go to to keep itself in the game. There is obviously some sort of 'glimmer' there though, or it's unlikely you'd keep feeling drawn back again and again to conversations about Nonduality/Truth...mind/ego/SVP must be getting an inkling that there is validity to the pointers and it's rearing up against that, in fear.
A mind-held conceptual belief that you, as an existent person are unified with/connected to all else, is NOT what the pointer "not-two/Oneness/not separate" is indicating.
The idea that as an existent person, you are an "extension" of that which fundamentally abides/Sources all else, is nothing more than a new age notion that allows an imagined volitional, existent person to have his cake and eat it too.
Unless and until the me character and all other appearing characters are realized to be "experiential content"....appearance only, absent inherent existence in their own right, separation continues to remain in play.
Direct seeing/imminent knowing is prior to the overlay of thought "about" it.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 21, 2024 23:23:36 GMT
That's cool Gopal. Some obvious clarity/shift in seeing there.
Just a little shift further...beyond...prior to, and it will be revealed that while there is appearance arising/experience, really, there is no one/no-thing that can be found that is "the experiencer." (nothing existent to which experience belongs to).
There is no you/what/who THAT IS "experiencing/an experiencer." The sense of being a me/someone/person THAT is having an experience, is relative only....Absolutely speaking, ultimately speaking, there is no existent "experiencer/perceiver"....no something/object THAT perceives/experiences....just arising perceivables....arising experiential content....arising/appearing, to no-one/no-thing.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 28, 2024 9:59:04 GMT
Beautiful response, Satchi.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 31, 2024 18:00:27 GMT
Oh yes, agreed, very much so. But an immediate arising, then quickly ebbing irritation AT a circumstance, object or person that temporarily obstructs the flow of intention, is quite different than the mind overlay of resentful, blameful judgment that assigns fundamental responsibility/blame.
The irritation is AT the something that obstructs/thwarts intent, but it's couched within a primary, abiding acceptance/realization of fundamental perfection, which includes circumstances and people/things that sometimes obstruct intent, thwart preference.
Absent the overlay of judgment of the separate, volitional person, the "no/don't like this" response only extends so deep. It takes an SVP to drag that "no/don't like this" deeper into the assignation of fundamental blame.
Think of it this way: Fundamental blame = the "no/don't like this" part, but there's a mental overlay of judgment, resentment that gets heaped on top. There is a 'story' involved when there is blameful anger, that says "this should not have happened, and something deeply, fundamentally 'wrong/bad' has occurred" and it's there is fundamental fault/responsiblity assigned to that person, thing, circumstance.
It might seem like a distinction without any importance difference, but it really is the difference between acknowledging and responding to something 'not liked,' and then moving on in the next moment, not carrying it, no resentment that simmers away in mind, vs. responding to something 'not liked' and then ruminating about it, assigning blame, resenting the very fact that it happened and in general, that shitty things happen.
Blameful anger is sticky...has staying power...often deepens with time...it does not relent, but festers into resentment. Mere irritation/frustration where there is no SVP, just quickly arises in one moment, gone the next. It does not set in or fester...there's no ruminating about 'what should have been...fundamental wrongness.'
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 31, 2024 18:49:16 GMT
If it's so that the drive to chase/seek has been quelled, and there really IS a complete absence of seeking where it was there before, I'd say there is no imagined "separate me" in play there. You don't get an absence of seeking unless there is an absence of SVP. Just the way it goes (again, there are some tangible impacts that seeing through separation has upon experience). And really, yours is but a conceptual knowing only....you conceptually "know" that there is no separate "me" but you are still imagining that there are existent entities, each experiencing a discrete and unique window of perception. Remember, it's been your assertion for several years now that all things, objects, people, even a paper-clip, sock, a rock, is known for Absolute certain to behaving it's own unique, discrete experience...that each appearing person, object thing, is in fact, a "perceiver/experiencer." That "Absolute/existential" knowing equals the "existence of" singular, perceiving entities. That right there ZD, equals "fundamental separation."
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 31, 2024 18:50:25 GMT
How about "fundamental condemnation"?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 31, 2024 19:01:11 GMT
If you have truly realized that there is no one who is fundamentally "responsible," plain and simply, negative judgments towards them, can only go so deep. Those of us who have asserted that "blameful anger" no longer has anything from which to arise upon, post SR have been very precise and careful to denote precisely what we mean by that specific term. All you're really doing now in introducing your own term "rage" into the discussion and saying similar stuff about it no longer arising in SR...you're now pretty much just word-lawyering. What the point really is is that the 'depth' of judgment lessens/lightens in SR.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 31, 2024 19:08:37 GMT
Who precisely ARE "these people"? If you're talking about folks on these forums, I can't think of one who speaks from a said position of wakefulness, but who is absent that reverence that you speak of. E for one, had perhaps the deepest and most profoundly expressed reverence and humility, and he also said he no reference for CC/Kensho.
To BE awake to the dream is to see and know the fundamental perfection of it all....there is awe, reverence and gratitude pretty much built into that! It's the 'mind-informing' component of the seeing through/absence of fundamental 'badness/wrongness.'
And...kind of interesting, that you insist you and Reefs are unique in your feelings of reverence, humility, gratitude, awe and yet you are the two over there who the moment your views are challenged to strongly, you feel the need to block/ban that person from the forum. perhaps "kensho/CC" and the realization you guys say you came away with means the sacred ideas become even more sacred....in greater need of protecting at all costs?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 4, 2024 22:18:47 GMT
You've pretty much brown-beared the perspective that comes hand in hand with the "me character" right out of the realm of appearance there, Reefs.
The perspective where there is an active sense of doership, is the perspective of a 'separate' volitional person. Once separation has been seen through/realized as false and is now absent, indeed, that sense of doership is gone, along with the sense of being a some-thing that has inherent existence and can volitionally choose and "control" outcomes as a "deliberate creator."
But what remains is still a perspective/limited window relative to the appearing me character/person/body-mind. It's just that now, in SR, that is couched within the impersonal perspective/seeing, which transcends it. Remember, "transcendence" does not deny apparent me character and apparent you characters, those are "included" within that impersonal perspective....now, re-framed due to the absence, where previous there was an erroneous presence.
I might be wrong, but methinks Reefs makes a distinction between the perspective of an individual vs. the perspective of "a person." She conflates "personal" with "SVP."
Most who engage in Nonduality talk make a distinction between "an appearing person/me character/you character," and an imagined "separate, volitional entity/person."
The impersonal vantage point is where seeing shifts to in SR....that "place/non-place" of seeing becomes the abiding/primary locus of seeing, but it does not completely cancel out the apparent me character and the apparent, discrete, bounded window of perception that comes hand in hand with that, that becomes secondary to/couched within that overriding impersonal view.
The two vantage points are not at war with other....the impersonal locus of seeing that is "beyond/prior to" the appearing person/me character/personality and apparent window of perception, abides and serves as the ground to all that arises....including the personal viewpoint which appears within/to that ground of unfettered awareness.
|
|