Esponja
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,727
|
Post by Esponja on Dec 13, 2021 22:13:03 GMT
You don't need to assume yourself to be separate you for manifestation. Desire happens and manifestation follows. Desire is arising all the time no matter you believe yourself to be a separate individual or not. No. "Desire" per se (a deep, need-based wanting/yearning for things to be something different than what they currently are) no longer arises once the separate entity has been seen through. In seeing through separation, personal values, likes/dislikes continue, but the fundamental perfection of it all shines through which means, that underlying Truth of perfection becomes primary over the transiently, appearing story. Desire then, is replaced with naturally arising intent/interest/expectation that are absent the craving and yearnings that have separation at their helm. For strong 'desire' to arise, there must be deep, "fundamental" resistance to what is currently appearing in play. Yes and even at times when old programming takes over or energy gets pulled into story it is soon recognised and presence is available. I don’t have many desires however, there is still interest in the pandemic story and a yearning for people to choose freedom. That’s a strong story but when I look, I see, it’s just that. A projection into a non-existant future and ultimately if all turned to sh*t a knowing of it’s perfection.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 14, 2021 1:01:30 GMT
...."big difference"..... Jeezus Reefs....you're as bad as Flippin' Fauci! You begin with a strong, robust and entirely confident, bullet-proof assertion: "Adya doesn't even use those words!" ZD agrees, "exactly" and says that is for a "very good reason." It doesn't get much more definitive than that...according to you two woo-woo-Kensho-nauts, not only does Adya apparently NOT use those words, there's a good reason he doesn't. The bit about 'good reasons he doesn't,' pretty much seals the deal...it implies that "If" Adya were to use those terms, it would somehow impugne his overall message. But then, I post a whole slough of quotes that render the assertions completely false, and instead of simply letting it go...or admitting you were w-w-w-r-r-ong....you double down and add a nonsense qualifier to try to prop up your limp noodle assertion. Ego hates to admit to being mistaken....just keep moving those goal-posts and you never have to!
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 14, 2021 1:24:44 GMT
The idea that there are "Numerous/various" erroneous ideas that obscure Truth/freedom is itself a red flag...brings to question YOUR depth of understanding, actually ZD.
There is but one, singular falsity...mistake of mind... that the entire gamut of delusions ride upon and that is: Fundamental separation. Once that is completely seen through, the whole house of cards comes down as it no longer has anything upon which to stand.
Indeed there are numerous, variable delusions that we can talk about as though they are individuated and singular, but every one of them has the illusion of separation at it's basis.
Again, this demonstrates your waffling stance on causal paths/processes/practices. You pay lip-service to the idea that there is no causal path on one hand, but then here, on the other, you suggest that the presence vs. absence of psychological baggage might be of importance where SR/waking up to the Truth of nonduality is concerned.
Psychological clearing/lightening of baggage is something completely different than the transcendent shift in seeing that = SR. The absence of psychological baggage, while conducive to relative peace/freedom, does not equal wakefulness/SR. This is again, the distinction between awakening to the consensus trance vs. awakening to the dream. Awakening to the dream involves a profound shift in locus of seeing, from 'within' the play of appearances, to 'beyond.' So 'beyond' in fact that to even call is a 'locus of seeing,' is inaccurate.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 14, 2021 1:36:25 GMT
No doubt about it....where the idea that others who look up to you are reading along... an egoic fear of losing face is strong, there will be all sorts of gyrations and adjustments to try to make excuses and such. To be honest, I haven't looked deeply enough into the Foster situation to be able to offer a strong opinion about that....BUT, I can say that your little past double-down, lame excuse re: your completely false initial assertion about Adya not using the term "dream," IS a prime example of just that. News-flash; Folks will likely respect you far more for simply admitting you were wrong, (when and where you've clearly been proven to be wrong) than if you do a "yeah, but..."...and move the goal-post to try to save face.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 14, 2021 3:06:18 GMT
The Ruthless Truther's from what I could see, had mistaken the conceptual idea of "no me," with SR. I think the various labels such as "neos," over-complicates things. Either, there's been a shift in seeing from an imagined conceptual entity/someone TO beyond, (an awakening/SR) or there hasn't. And wakefulness, (that seeing from beyond) is always a NOW thing. It's not some sort of ongoing 'state' as talking about it, might imply. Either there is wakefulness/seeing from beyond, here and now, or there isn't.
If the illusion of selfhood was still in play, then what you are terming "seeing through the illusion of thingness/knowing what a tree really IS," was relative knowing only....not actually absolute knowing/seeing from beyond....as, with the illusion of separation/SVP still intact, it was therefore, necessarily tainted by the illusion of separation.
Subject/object collapse necessarily means collapse of the separate entity. It's entirely possible to have a momentary absence, but the moment the SVP reinstates itself, the temporary absence/seeing through of thingness,is gone, and separation is reinstated. All you're left with then, so long as the SVP remains, is an empty conceptual idea about what a tree is.
It can be no other way. It's a nonsense to suggest you can see beyond/prior to the person AND simultaneously see through the eyes of a person. When you told your wife, you now 'knew' what a tree actually was, you were speaking from the vantage point of a person who now knows something new.
Acquired knowledge is always relative knowledge....the absolute knowing of fundamental Truth is always a present moment, NOW knowing/gnosis...it's not an acquisition or holding onto of material, relative knowledge...Absolute knowing/Truth, is direct and evident here and NOW...or, it's absent.
What IS "the illusion of selfhood," other than "the illusion of separation"? How could the entity/illusion of selfhood get completely seen through without the profound shift in seeing through the eyes of an entity, to beyond the entity? The seeing through of the illusion of separate things..thingness = the seeing through of a separate me that interacts with a separate something-other...they are all one & the same delusion!
I don't think you actually grasp what it means to 'see through' the illusion of selfhood...or of seeing through thingness. Fwiw, selfhood IS 'an illusion,'....it's not actually there....'thingness' on the other hand, does appear...but things do not exist in their own right.
That said, if the illusion of selfhood goes, hand in hand with that is the seeing that all appearance is arising within/to, dependent upon that which abides. Either separation is still in play, or it's not. It's all about where seeing is happening from.
From that seeing/awareness 'beyond,' it's clear there is no separate, volitional person and part & parcel of that clarity is seeing that no-thing exists separately, in it's own right, from that.
Wow...that says everything, really ZD. There is but ONE fundamental illusion and that is "separation." All the other delusions arise of that singular mistake of mind.
His shrug might very well have been the equivalent of that holding up of a single finger dealy you are so fond of. Again, on one hand you say words cannot and do not convey Truth, but then on the the other, you somehow know for certain that another is not SR because he doesn't use the exact same verbiage that you do to answer a singular pointed question you've contrived as a litmus test for him?
Ultimately, whatever conceptual answer one gives to the question "what am I," it's going to fail...miss the mark. Silence really IS the best answer to any existential question considering that ALL existential questions are ultimately misconceived.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 14, 2021 5:01:46 GMT
Hmmmm.....Not really so very different from this:
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 14, 2021 20:21:24 GMT
This demonstrates your confusion. When it comes to the illusive nature of time/space, we are talking something different than lines of longitude/latitude, which really is nothing more than an applied model.
Sense of time passage is inherent to the overall experience of an unfolding story. There IS a sense/experience of an unfolding story...that unfolding...sequential, 'this leads to that' experience/sense, itself, is NOT being imagined....you are not 'imagining' the present arising thought of past events. If a thought/idea is presently arising, it IS presently arising. You want to sweep away all experience by denoting it as "imagined." Not only is that misconceived, but it's not necessary for freedom. Experience itself 'aint the problem....mistaking it for Truth, is.
What's imagined is 'an existent' past/future.
But what i think you are missing, is that "What is," includes present moment imaginings.
Again, you are suggesting that Truth can be found within experience. The ambiguous boundaries between hand/wrist/arm are not an example of what is meant by "absence of fundamental separation."
This gross misconception says everything ZD. "Oneness" is not pointing to conceptual unity nor an underlying 'material' connectivity or singular substrate that runs common to all appearing things, rather, it points completely beyond the realm of perceivables to an absence....it's entirely non-conceptual...Oneness is NOT a something that can be 'perceived,' as 'unity/connectivity' can be.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 14, 2021 20:54:00 GMT
This is incredibly revealing.
What you are positing is an 'either/or' situation. Either, there's an experience of "being a perceiver" who/that is perceiving objects/things that are separate, OR, that subject/object experience collapses, but in that collapse, there is no knowing of 'bird'...no ability to communicate or express 'bird.'
Essentially then, you are suggesting that there is no such thing as abiding SR...abiding nondual awareness.
Truth: Recognition and communicating all happen, absent an actual 'recognizer/communicator'. It's ALL just happening. Experience post SR is absent identification with 'an experiencer'!
Being awake/SR means there's been a profound shift in the place (non-place!) from which seeing is happening....it's the end of the sense/experience of being a separate someone....a perceiver/experiencer who/that perceives a world of separate things. That does not mean that there's no longer an ability to recognize or label things. Recognizing and labelling objects does not equal the presence of a sense of separation.
Remember, 'distinction' does not equal 'separation.' Again, this is why it's so important to see all appearance as empty and devoid of Truth. You don't need for 'things/objects' to cease to appear....to cease to be recognized and communicated about, rather, you need to realize the inherent emptiness of objects/things. That realization does not mean that objects/things cease to appear or cease to be recognized!
All that needs to be realized is that appearances are not separate from the ground upon which they arise. "Suchness" then, both includes and transcends distinction....there's no need to do away with distinction once it's clearly realized to be empty appearance only...not separate from abiding awareness.
The way you've described things above there, there is no way to function normally without a sense of being a separate entity/person who/that 'experiences' a separate world of things. And that is just plain and simply wrong. Post SR, as mind is informed, the experience of 'being a perceiver/experiencer/person who/that perceives separate things/objects,' ceases, but that does not mean that the appearance of 'distinct' things/objects ceases. You seem to think that absent taking yourself to be 'a perceiver/experience,' that there can be no perception/experience. Again, not so.
You've clearly yet to see the very important difference between mere distinction vs. fundamental separation. "Fundamental separation" is the mistake of mind that = being fast asleep...that equals taking yourself to be a separate something (a perceiver/experiencer/a doer).
Once that mistake of mind is no longer in play, appearing object/things are no longer regarded/experienced as being 'separate/out there/fundamentally apart from.' All distinction is surface only..and there is no need to do away with distinction in order for liberation/freedom to be.
"Suchness" does not come and go as you are describing...it's what is, here and NOW, abidingly IF separation/SVP is absent. In abiding wakefulness, the SVP..the sense of being a separate someone, does not come and go, instead, the SVP is 'abiding absent.'
Ultimately, the entire show is all unfolding, absent an experiencer, absent a doer...and in SR, that absence impact experience in such a way that there's no longer identification with/as 'being an experiencer/doer,'
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 14, 2021 23:38:18 GMT
And yet, you use that supposed 'direct perception' to argue for your present absolute knowing that rocks, socks and people are conscious, alive, experiencing, perceiving. If you can't remember the seeing/apprehension, then how is it informing your present moment knowing about a sock...a rock? When you say a rock is known to be conscious, perceiving, experiencing, aren't you harkening back to 'the memory' of your Kensho/CC?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 15, 2021 18:49:32 GMT
Perfectly put.
In particular, the bolded hits the nail on the head; It's entirely possible that suchness might initially be apprehended in a moment (state/mystical experience) where the boundaries of form fall away, BUT "suchness, thusness, what-is-ness" is not dependent upon that....appearing/perceived form is not 'other than/separate from,' the only thing/non-thing there is. The boundaries of form do not need to fall away for it to be crystal clear, all boundaries..all distinction is but, "empty appearance only."
It's actually THAT seeing/realization that = the apprehension of suchness/thusness.
The world does not need to disappear to be free from it....freedom from the world of and all it's shiny things does not depend on shiny things diappearing, but rather, upon a shift in vantage point that sees beyond those shiny things. The shiny things and objects don't have to disappear from sight to simultaneously see beyond them....to see they are arising within/to abiding awareness, not separate, not 'fundamentally' other than....
|
|