|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 7, 2021 21:27:58 GMT
Sure. A deeply mystical experience is a good example....many come away from it believing it to be transcendent of the story/dream, a glimpse beyond, but so long as it's an experience....so long as there is content, it's not actually 'beyond the dream' at all. Intuitive knowings are another 'in the dream' experiential happening that sometimes gets conflated with transcendent of the dream. Like mystical, woo-woo experiences, it seems to be beyond, simply for the fact that it's outside of so called normal, mundane experience. Can I ask... when you saw through the "separate person", did you feel something? Did you feel what you might call intense happiness, equanimity, or love? Yes. In that profund shift....in the seeing through, there's an immediate absence where previous there was some-thing, and it would be strange if that didn't make for an experiential feeling/registering of such....however, the feeling itself is not the 'realization/seeing through', and it's important not to see that. But, If SR did not impact experience, there wouldn't be such a big deal made of it all. For many, like myself, that very first, initial seeing through was a glimmer/glimpse that was not abiding, which means the shift in position of seeing, then shifted back, the sense of being a separate someone/something,re-asserted itself into experience...this is where it's important to conceptually understand the difference between realization as a loss/seeing through, vs. experiential insights/mind's conception of the absence....there's a very good chance that if/when the SVP does reassert itself following a temporary seeing through of the SVP, that the feelings/experiential aspects surrounding that glimmer/glimpse are going to be conflated with the realization itself. That's when we get folks speaking as though from the position of full SR, making assertions about now having answers to existential questions |
|
Esponja
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,727
|
Post by Esponja on Oct 8, 2021 2:40:15 GMT
Can I ask... when you saw through the "separate person", did you feel something? Did you feel what you might call intense happiness, equanimity, or love? Yes. In that profund shift....in the seeing through, there's an immediate absence where previous there was some-thing, and it would be strange if that didn't make for an experiential feeling/registering of such....however, the feeling itself is not the 'realization/seeing through', and it's important not to see that. But, If SR did not impact experience, there wouldn't be such a big deal made of it all. For many, like myself, that very first, initial seeing through was a glimmer/glimpse that was not abiding, which means the shift in position of seeing, then shifted back, the sense of being a separate someone/something,re-asserted itself into experience...this is where it's important to conceptually understand the difference between realization as a loss/seeing through, vs. experiential insights/mind's conception of the absence....there's a very good chance that if/when the SVP does reassert itself following a temporary seeing through of the SVP, that the feelings/experiential aspects surrounding that glimmer/glimpse are going to be conflated with the realization itself. That's when we get folks speaking as though from the position of full SR, making assertions about now having answers to existential questions Yes, my experience is, at first glimpses, now it’s almost permanently there, as in, I can get caught up in mind or me for a short time but it is quickly seen through or if there’s some kind of trigger/suffering I’ll use enquiry, but I can’t unknow it now. I have realised what a ‘mess’ I really was and I’d consider myself one of the sane ones 🤣. So much of the ego’s projection or feelings of inadequacy have now disappeared and I am present mainly with less thought and more intuition. Am in a state of alert attendance to my thoughts as they can soon get wrapped up in story but my love of ‘truth’ overrides it. There’s still a lot of conditioning happening, still a ‘me’ that has some desires. Generally, I come back to the Truth though. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 15, 2021 2:59:22 GMT
True "surrender" that is synonymous with "fundamental allowance/acceptance," hinges upon an absence vs. the presence of "a mind movement of willful ignoring."
A willful avoidance of absorption in thought involves personal judgment, resistance and effort. In other words, the very sense of "trying to ignore all thoughts other than the thought of surrender," is a re-affirming of the separate person.
It's a nice idea that if you can "practice" willfully ignoring certain thoughts in favor of others, that's it's much like exercising a muscle and at some point, true interest in those 'wanted/desired/approved' thoughts will reign supreme and the interest in those lesser deemed thoughts will cease, but really, sincere interest is not under the control of the personal will like that.
Seekers would do far better to simply get crystal clear about what their true interest really are, and proceed from there. There are lots of folks who say they interested in Nondual awakening/SR, but who really are only interested in relative betterment of experience. Nothing wrong with that interest fwiw.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 18, 2021 21:04:08 GMT
Hmmm....this very much reads as though you are objectifying/reifying/conceptualizing "existence/Being." There ultimately is no-one, no-thing who/that "IS" perceiving...rather, just perception itself, absent a 'me' behind it. That's really what SR is all about...seeing through the 'what' erroneously imagined to be behind perception, experience, knowing, seeing.
Clearly, you have not gone "elementary/fundamentally" deep enough. You are still mistaking 'the arising/appering sensed me/I' as something elementary/fundamental, when it is not....it is itself a perceivable/appearance only.
What you really are is not "alive." "Aliveness" is a sense/quality that arises within to that which you really are..."not objectified/non-conceptual awareness." There is no actual "you" who/that IS aware. That's merely a sense/perception and it gets seen through in SR.
Yes, "existence is" undeniable, but the Truth of that is not going to found IN experience, rather, fundamental 'isness,' lies beyond the experiential. If you're looking TO experience, you're looking in the wrong direction.
You are quite literally telling seekers to keep seeking within the dream-scape for that which lies beyond.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 21, 2021 22:33:41 GMT
Yes, of course, but that's a complete waffle from what you previously said. (Bolded below) (This exemplifies the problem with trying to dissect pointers from a position of mere mind-enlightenment vs. the real deal....you're trying to talk about something you don't actually have reference for).
So, what it is? Can you describe/talk about the rose if asked, or not? Can you remember it? UG says, "yes." He says the moment it becomes necessarily, it's all right there. You are obviously confused.
And here you are below, explaining that the natural state is very normal...no mystical qualities at all...completely unadorned by quality/property...
But here, below, you are ascribing the very same reveal of "aliveness" that you attribute to your CC/Kensho experience... Didn't you describe Kensho/CC as awe-inspiring...mystical...something that only those who experience CC/Kensho have reference for...
For one who insists there are no words/concepts to convey this seeing, you seem overly fond of the term, property/quality; "alive." It's clear you have no reference for seeing the phenomenal absent the SVP and thus, you are assigning an overlay of quality/property upon it and failing to see it for what it is. Just because it's a quality that you deem to be positive....(beauty), does not make it any less an overlay imposed by mind.
To see completely absent a mental overlay...completely devoid of all personal judgment, labelling, added quality/property, is to see neither ugliness nor beauty. There is neutrality...an absence.
Now you've really gone off track...
So if UG was abidingly in this 'natural state,' and what you say above (the seeing of true beauty) goes hand in hand with such, how is it he saw and complained so much about an 'ugly world'?
Also, as I asked previously, if UG was always in this state, always seeing nothing but true beauty, wouldn't that equal what you call "full alignment"...and thus, according to your LOA belief that full alignment only creates wanted/desired manifestations, what's up with UG's falling and being bed ridden for weeks before he died?..how about his general grumpiness...? How does all that measure up with his supposed abiding in the 'true beauty'... natural state?
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 23, 2021 19:49:53 GMT
Yes, it makes sense you'd quite like UG....he's not actually pointing at all to Nonduality, but rather, his talk is completely based upon 'in the dream insight' only.
The quote referenced below is the perfect example. His reference there to the 'body as immortal,' is based upon science...philosophy, not a seeing from beyond all appearance.
You also erroneously uphold the body as something that is somehow important when it comes to Truth. I think the difference though between you and UG, is that you outright profess to be pointing to the nondual, where from what i can see, he doesn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 24, 2021 6:10:37 GMT
While intermittent experiences of 'flow' are cool and very pleasurable, and while they may even ignite interest towards delving deeper, like any extremely pleasurable experience, cosmic consciousness experience and Kensho experience included, they can be a major distraction. Best not to get too enamored with any experience in particular. Art, music and poetry are wonderful avenues FOR pointing, but so long as the SVP is still present...so long as the one engaging the art, music or poetry is still a seeker engaged in seeking, the intended pointer just plain and simply is going to get missed...and often in that process, a self-identified person just find yet another phenomenal appearance to cling to, to further & more deeply, anchor within the dream. What's not so rare is one who thinks he's thinking correctly and clearly, when he isn't. Important to be aware that that's something quite prevalent....quite possible.....even probable, so long as there is strong impetus to defend in the dream views. Kensho/CC/mystical, metaphysical, woo-woo explosion!   |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 29, 2021 21:44:22 GMT
This is just not so. "Beyond the mind" means seeing from "beyond the realm of all appearance." It's true, the appearing world can indeed be seen/looked at from a position of beyond, but unless the separate person has been seen through, it's far more likely that even quiet observation of the world, will be happening from the position of taking oneself to BE an appearing thing that is observing other appearing things. If the simple act of watching/observing truly equalled a seeing from "beyond the mind," then every moment of observing, watching, looking at the phenomenal world, would equal being free. The SVP subtly insinuates itself, even in the quietest of moments, unless there's been the shift in seeing that is awakening. Big difference between observing the appearing world AS an SVP, vs. observing as no-thing, from no-where.  You think there IS 'a how'? |
|
Esponja
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,727
|
Post by Esponja on Oct 31, 2021 23:59:51 GMT
Last week I was thinking about how non-duality could be used by the mind as a form of escapism, sweeping feelings under the carpet.
Sailor Bob would always say to use enquiry but I’ve heard teachers, such as Jac O’Keefe, say that if something has a stickiness to it, it’s worth seeing if it needs attention. The modality I use in my work is amazing for that but doesn’t this just keep the seeker seeking forever and a day?
Once the illusion has been seen through, isn’t it enough to use the quickest means possible (self-enquiry) to come back into presence?
My experience is that the energy in the belief of a separate Esponja is less strong over (relative) time. Even as I type this, I see that the time story and causation is a nonsense and yet.
From this place, the need to do anything is also seen through. There are times however, where it feels more real and perhaps working on that conditioning is valid?
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 12, 2021 19:36:48 GMT
No. That would render what you really are to be 'a thinker....a doer.' Thought arises within/to that which abides, non-separate from, distinct and yet not-separate.
This is a very clear indicator ZD, that you are still identified as 'the one that thinks....a some-thing that does stuff.'
There IS thought arising, there is doing appearing, but ultimately, there is no 'thinker/doer.' When you ascribe 'doing/thinking' directly to 'Self,' you objectify that which defies all objectification, all conceptualization.
The absence of a thinker/doer gets seen with crytal clarity when the SVP gets seen through! That's what it means to see through the SVP--there is now an absence of identification with thought and all arisings, all appearance, which means, the 'thinker/doer' is now seen to be something that was erroneously imagined.
If you are going to render all thought to equal 'imagined,' you leave no room for realizing/recognizing erroneous thoughts/illusions/delusions, such as the illusion of separation....such as the imagined 'doer/thinker.'
Again, you are objectifying/conceptualizing that which defies such. You've so obviously identified with the "I/me" sense....that "I/me" sense in SR, also gets seen to be an ephemeral arising that is distinct from the abiding ground, yet not separate from it.
There is no-thing that is fundamentally/ultimately "making" statements...rather, statements being made, is an arising appearance only, within/to that which abides.
You're trying to make conceptual sense of that which defies such capture.
The question "What is it that asks questions and wants answers," is ultimately a misconceived question....it's a question that if inquired into earnestly, may lead to the seeing that there never was and never is an "It" that asks...that rather, the questions arise absent anyone/anything THAT asks.
There is no "thing/it/what/someone" that "wants,"....seeing through the "wanter/doer/seer/be-er," is what's at the root of SR.
All you've done is trade in one form of identification for another. You previously identified with the appearing body/mind character, now you identify with/as a tangibly felt/experientially known, 'field of being' that 'does stuff, thinks stuff, asks questions, etc.'
You're still not seeing 'from' the place/non-place beyond where it will be revealed that you as a 'field of being,' that 'does stuff,' is also an empty appearance arising within that which abides...within/tothat which defies all conceptualization.
|
|
You think there IS 'a how'?