|
Post by Figgles on Mar 14, 2024 20:05:32 GMT
Reefs is confused about this...those who try to use her words to understand, are bound to themselves get confused.
Post SR, a personal perspective remains. What goes is erroneous identification with person-hood....what goes is the mistake of taking the me character/body/mind as fundamental to Awareness vs. the other way around.
The relative experience/beleif that seeing/being aware is actually, fundamentally, the domain of physically appearing eyes....brain...etc, in SR, gets re-framed in the higher/Primary seeing that is happening from 'beyond/prior to' that apparent experience of being a human who operates through a brain and sees through a limited viewpoint of personhood. There is still the relative experience of body/mind...seeing through physical eyes, etc. but it's all now "couched within" the higher seeing of beyond/prior to....Awareness.
And that is the unrealized viewpoint aka "I am an extension of Source." It preserves an existent entity/person while it also conceptually acknowledges a something greater that I am "connected to." That is not Nonduality, it's New Age spirituality....purely a conceptual understanding....not a realized seeing/knowing.
You are actually spot on in your questioning here Tenka. You've ascertained the flaw in Reefs ontology. For there to exist, actual alignment/mis-alignment....merging, connecting/unifying, or not, there has to be an 'existent' someone/something that can actually stand fundamentally "apart from" Source. There is no such thing and seeing that is precisely what SR/waking up IS!!
So kinda cool, auspicious perhaps...that you're able to see that flaw and asking that very question of Reefs.
The delusion lies in mistaking the "experience" of personhood/me character with the "existence" of an actual, fundamentally substantive "entity/person."
Relatively speaking, yes, you may at times find me referencing this "me character" as a person who does stuff.....takes actions that cause/create other stuff to appear, but all of that is part and parcel of the play...there is a higher seeing within which all that 'play' is couched....all of it is absent the assignation of inherent existence...it's clear all of it is arising within to/not separate from abiding Awareness.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 15, 2024 4:34:08 GMT
It doesn't make sense because you have no reference for any other position of seeing. To you there is only the relative realm. Your position is akin to one who is looking at this pic below and only having reference for the old woman and thus, declaring that all that talk about the young, pretty woman doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 28, 2024 17:48:51 GMT
I really like how you've put that.
If we're going to frame the delusion of separation/the SVP viewpoint as "a distraction" from the Truth that is otherwise, laid bare, self-evidently obvious, then Indeed, buying into the idea of "the machine," equals presence of delusion/distraction, but by the same token, it's important to see and note that those ideas about LOA/deliberate creation having fundamental validity, supposed Absolute, certain knowledge of discrete, unique, multiple perceivers/experiencers, eyes that apparently see, "look back at me," held as an Absolute Truth, are, all, as delusion based, erroneous beliefs, also "distracters."
Again, thought/ideation itself, in general, is NOT the problem. Specifically, Erroneous/false thought/beliefs/ideas ARE. That's really what the SVP (and all fundamental separation IS) an erroneous idea (that arises of an erroneously imagined position of seeing) that then shapes and gives rise to other erroneous ideas that then shape senses/experience.
Truth talk that is uncompromising will always by virtue of that unwillingness to pander at all to delusion, necessarily directly challenge/strike down any and all ideas that have delusion as their basis that get presented as Truth.
I understand how friendships on a Nonduality forum might at times interfere and bring with it a willingness to compromise to some degree, but it's important to see and acknowledge if/when that is happening. If think on ST, what with the lines being drawn over the years between the "in" group and the "out" group, the lingering tendency amidst those who remain tight, is to support at all costs vs. take that uncompromising position.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 1, 2024 22:19:32 GMT
Well, for starters, the term "dual" as in "non-duality" is a reference to the fundamental nature of things...the fundamental, actual Truth.
If Oneness has been realized, then that so called "dual world" that the seeker imagines, is no longer in play...if SR is the case, then the Truth has been revealed that the world and all it's things are non-separate expressions within/to awareness...all one "thingless/thing." "Duality/fundamental separation" is no longer imagined, thus, is no longer experienced in abiding SR.
In SR, it's revealed that nothing within the story...nothing in the apparent world is actually "causing/creating/attracting" anything else.
Consider the movie playing out on the screen. Is any of that drama, the state of being of a particular character "actually" causing/attracting anything else that appears upon that screen?
That idea that "your being attracts your life," is false in several ways. First of all, you are not a some-thing/some-one that "Has" a being....that would equal two/duality. Fundamental being does not change, thus, what you'd have to be referencing there is none-other than "state" of being, which relatively speaking, experientially speaking, within the story, does apparently shift and change as the story unfolds.
But it's important to see that experiential state of being is itself "an appearance/manifestation" and not causal/attracting anything else to appear/arise, despite the unfolding, sequential aspect of the story, seemingly suggesting that it is.
Wake up and it's crystal clear that all the ideas/beliefs that had separation at their crux, have gone poof!
One of those ideas is that some-thing appearing within the story is actually "attracting" anything else to appear in the story, and that includes all mental/emotion "states" of being.
It's fair to say that state of being and appearing conditions in tandem with or downward in the story (future) are often correlated, in that patterns can be observed but it's important to see that that in no way indicates the actuality of "causation/attraction."
The idea that something appearing within the movie is actually causing/attracting something else that appears in the movie disappears once the movie is seen to be a movie appearing on a screen. And of course, all of that is but a pointer...an imperfect metaphor for the Truth of things.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 3, 2024 19:10:10 GMT
Post SR, there is also an "apparent self/me character which operates in the world, experiences choice, acts."
No. There is a "self." But that "self" is not separate, not volitional, not inherently existent. The "me character" and all other characters within experience, are "appearance only," which means they all arise temporally, ephemerally, within/to that which abides unwavering, unchanging.
Your question is misconceived because inherent to that question is a misconception/mis-understanding about what SR actually is.
You are confusing relative falsity/truth with fundamental falsity/Truth. Mistaking an orange plastic bag floating across my hedges for my cat does not entail an existential fallacy/delusion, whereas mistaking my cat or any other apparent some-thing for having it's own, fundamental, inherent existence, does.
I do understand though how you could come away from ST very confused, what with those there who present themselves as SR, but still themselves very much conflating Absolute Truth with relative truth...all the nonsense where LOA/deliberate creation somehow survives the seeing through of separation, volition, causality, time/space.
SR does impact experience in such a way that certain relative ideas (the ones that hinged upon the mistake of separation/the SVP) dissolve.
Once all separation has been seen through, the experiences of moving through time, choosing freely, acting/doing, still remain, but all of that is now clearly known to be a facet of the story only....in terms of what is actually, fundamentally so, there is clarity as to the illusive nature of those facets of experience. Thus, you're not going to have someone arguing for the fundamental Truth of something like "Law of Attraction" which serves to answer the existential question of "how/why" what appears in experience, does so as it does.
That idea that says "it's deficient" is your own personal judgment, based upon personal conditioning. The fact that you have no reference for a realized "fundamental perfection" that includes/allows, even embraces any and all potential "distortions/relative blind spots" is YOUR blind-spot.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 3, 2024 19:54:35 GMT
You are confusing relative knowledge with Absolute seeing/realization.....a nice/good dream with awakening To the dream....an experience of relative conscious awareness as to "what's going on" with the shift in primary locus of seeing to beyond/prior to.
That shift to "beyond/prior to" dissolves those deep, personal judgments that you are applying to conditionings.
You are upholding a personal ideal of an "in the dream" perfection, whereas SR upholds a realized, fundamental perfection.
It's only in apprehending that fundamental perfection that your deep, personal judgments about "in the dream perfection" will ease.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 3, 2024 20:14:22 GMT
Nice.
Without a doubt, SDP is looking at SR from a position of full immersion within the dream/through the eyes of an imagined, separate, volitional person and placing the judgments inherent to such, upon experience, deeming anything other than full, personal, relative clarity/absence of distortion in all moments, to be "not good enough."
It really is quite a powerful demonstration of how the vantage point of separation obscures the Truth and makes for erroneous, misconceived questions. If the position from which the question arises is itself erroneous, of course the question itself will also be.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 3, 2024 22:15:48 GMT
SDP, I really DO understand why you're confused. ZD and Reefs present themselves as authorities on Nonduality and I think you've bought into that presentation. They are not. They are both very confused, in different ways, which is interesting.
ZD conflates waking up/SR with awakening to the consensus trance. And even if he simply stuck with being awake TO the consensus trance, he is still lacking clarity. His inquiry into mind seems to me to be quite shallow for someone who speaks so often about minding/ideation and the lack thereof.
Reefs on the other hand, at least conceptually, seems to for the most part grasp that there is a difference between wakefulness to the consensus trance (relative conscious awareness of mind's content and what's going on in experience) vs. SR.
But where she falters is in recognizing the impacts of SR upon experience. Somehow Reefs believes that it can be simultaneously True that there is an absence of all separation, no SVP, no actual causation within the dream, no actual time/space, no actual volition, AND there can be "mis" alignment between the me character and Source, volition from which to direct/control focus, and causation within the dream, in that a feeling state is "causal/creative" to an ensuing manifest condition/thing.
She's unclear on the fact that as mind is informed post SR, certain relative ideas that hinged upon the erroneous SVP, and that serve to answer existential questions, get seen as false.
Anyway, it's obvious SVP that you are very focused upon relative clarity...on being as consciously aware as possible re: E's "what in blazes is going on." And there's nothing wrong with that. Being aware of mind content and mind's machinations is not completely divorced from SR....the shift in locus of seeing that is SR has a way of illuminating mind's content. But the idea of perfect, relative clarity of mind/body (purification) as some kind of necessity, is plain and simply seen through in SR.
As Muttley said, that kind of purification may indeed happen, but it's not a given nor a necessity.
|
|