|
Post by Figgles on Mar 5, 2023 22:06:49 GMT
Yeah, the precise term ZD used was "True nature." Which is then the equivalent of him saying that your true nature is suffering and ignorance. And agreed....what kind of Truth is that? As I said a few posts ago, ZD's problem is that he has not yet seen through ALL perceivables...however subtle....he assigns substance/existence to the appearing person, in the form of the body. He believes the human body to have an existence substance beyond it's appearance...in fact, he takes all apparent form to have existent, perceivable substance beyond it's appearance and that's how he arrives at his Absolute knowing that all things, shoes, people, even a paperclip are having their own unique, individualized point of perception....thus, their own unique experience. He says he knows that because of his CC/kenshos whereby he experienced/realized a "unified field of energy" that lies beyond the apparent form of all perceivables. He's created a middle-layer between abiding/unchanging awareness and form...a sort of 'energy' that he perceives that he has mistaken as being 'fundamental.'
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 5, 2023 22:23:26 GMT
This is where you go wrong, because you have no reference. That abiding, fundamental awareness, that lies unchanging, does so even amidst seeing and engaging with appearing objects. That's what abiding SR is!....Fundamental awareness is primordial/primary and simultaneously abides personal vantage point, engagement with objects, arising thoughts...feelings, all of it.
That is what the shift of SR IS!....primary locus of seeing shifts to beyond the personal locus of seeing, to still include personal locus of seeing. The two do not compete...they merge, with unchanging awareness remaining primary.
No one is denying the experiential sense of being thirsty, getting up to get a drink. But when primary locus of seeing is shifted to 'beyond/prior to' that experience is couched within that higher/greater vantage point. The two are merged. The experience of being a person is absent the delusion of the person as fundamental to/giving rise to the experience.
Yeah, Beingness per se, is not a some-thing that could 'want' anything....it's beyond attribute...without property. The interest/want for a drink is an appearance that arises from the ground of Being...as is the sense of being the one who is the 'doer' inherent to getting the glass...drinking, etc.
Ultimately though, the person is not actually the ground Source of likes/dislikes/preferences....all facets of experience are appearance only and that includes the person who seems to be giving rise to consciousness....to likes....to personality.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 5, 2023 22:37:26 GMT
Ah, but what ZD is suggesting when he invokes "an observer" complicit with "the observed" is the very same "distinguishing." Ultimately, there is not "an" observer inherent to observation/seeing/being aware. As long as that goes unrealized, separation is still in play.
Of course being awake, living day to day in abiding SR does not mean carting around a mental distinguishing of the absolute from the relative...that would be ridiculous, not to mention exhausting. That is a very early on type of practice that some engage in post getting a glimmer and trying to maintain it...nothing wrong if that's where you are, but indeed, that is not what it means to 'be awake/SR.'
However, in abiding SR there remains an absence of 'identification' with that which appears, with abiding awareness remaining primary. That does NOT though equal the holding of mental distinction between that which appears and that which abides, in mind. It really is an absence of delusion/illusion.
It's very difficult to talk about that absence of identification with perceivables and the shift in locus of vantage point to 'beyond' without talking about the distinction between relative/Absolute...that which is temporal/changing and is devoid of it's own inherent existence vs. that which abides.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 5, 2023 22:41:04 GMT
Yes, SR/being awake really does have impact upon experience...suffering ends. Fundamental blaming is a form of suffering.....fundamental blaming only happens when separation is being taken as actual.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 15, 2023 20:58:32 GMT
Hehe....Not only is the Truth (which indeed is not a conceptual idea that lends itself to comprehension, but rather, it's a realization...a seeing through of what is "not so" vs. a conceptual seeing of what IS so) 'not necessary' for what you believe you came here to do, the Truth will pull the rug right out from under that mind-based belief and reveal it has no actual legs. And....'going after' the Truth, if that's what happens, isn't subject to ideas like "I shouldn't do this." One who is sincerely seeking Truth, is beyond those kinds of mind-based judgments....a sincere, honest, earnest interest in Truth will always win out over those kinds of beliefs. What you are saying there is akin to; It isn't necessary for getting rid of the monster under my bed, to see that there is not actually a monster under the bed. Seeing that would 'interfere' with successfully addressing/dealing with the monster under the bed...and I really want/need to deal with that monster under the bed.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 23, 2023 17:38:08 GMT
The question asked from the relative, in the dream/seeker position simply addresses what arises experientially; Rocks do not appear to BE having an experience, bodies that are seemingly alive and sentient DO.
From that position of relative experience, all there is to go on is what arises/appears experientially. Direct perception/direct experience of bodily senses and stuff relative to the "me character" are known in a different way than the apparent perception of a "you" character.
So within that relative context, there is no way to 'directly know' the perception/experience of apparent sentient people. To "directly Know" their perception would also be to completely, directly "Know" All content. Even the best supposed psychics don't experience the content of another's experience in the same complete and direct way they known 'their own.'
But from Absolute, transcendent context/position of seeing, the view of all that shifts radically as fundamental separation...the SVP gets seen through. In that absence it becomes crystal clear that consciousness is not arising within to any apparent thing/object, but rather, all apparent things/objects arise within consciousness.
Consciousness is the ground Source of all temporal appearance, however nuanced, however subtle. Consciousness can and does continue to abide even in the absence of any arising appearance, but there is no arising appearance that can even temporally appear, even for an instant, absent the ground of abiding consciousness.
In this shift that is SR, it's realized that while there may have previously been an experiential sense of 'being a someone/something that experiences,' ultimately, there is no such some-thing....An experiencing/perceiving me--entity, was only ever erroneously inferred due to a limited/bounded vantage point.
Thus, from the transcendent position of SR, the very question, that relatively speaking seemed to have merit, about whether or not appearing people, appearing rocks, are "experiencers/perceivers," collapses....it gets seen as misconceived.
There simply IS no answer to a misconceived question. Such an answer if somehow arrived at, will itself be a misconception.
The very question of "objects/things" that ARE "experiencers/perceivers".....that ARE giving rise to consciousness, just dissolves.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 23, 2023 17:59:46 GMT
The relative conversation of being unsure has nothing to do with the transcendent seeing/convo...it has everything to do with an ability to simply look/see...what in blazes is going on...what can I know for certain...vs. what am I surmising?
Plain and simply, everyday experience of a rock does not generally include that rock seeming to be conscious, aware, having an experience. But the experience of a person who sits before me, does.
It's entirely possible that one might have an experience whereby there is some sort of "aliveness...energetic vibe"...perhaps even some kind of mystical experience whereby a rock is experienced as alive, conscious...and that's where we get mystics or perhaps even scientists talking about such things as rocks and seemingly inert objects/things, being conscious/alive, etc.
That's all relative, in the dream seeing/knowing though.
In the shift that is SR, it's seen that no apparent object/thing HAS inherent, separate existence in it's own right....it's brief, temporal appearance depends completely upon the ground of consciousness....as an expression OF consciousness, there is no fundamental separation....but where lots of folks go wrong here is they make an object out of "consciousness" assigning it the property/quality of "being conscious...being an experiencer....being a perceiver."
Whereas, if the seeing through/absence sticks, and the seeing remains prior to mind/beyond mind, there is no such erroneous assignation...."consciousness as the abiding ground to all appearance," remains 'something' that can only be pointed to....completely non-conceptual....thus, absent any assignation of any property or any conceptual quality.
To say that via transcendent seeing/realization you now know for certain that a rock IS a conscious perceiver/experiencer is to take a pointer and drag it right back into the dream, now mistaking that pointer for a transcendent Truth, when in actuality, it's anything but.
SR reveals there are no "perceivers/experiencers," that while perception/experience does arise, the seeming perceiving/experiencing is being done by no-one....no-thing. Ultinmately there is no "perceiving/perceiver" just immediate, direct perception and the content of that. Abiding that is unwavering awareness/consciousness, as ground.
That does not mean that that ground 'infuses itself' into each apparent object/thing.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 23, 2023 18:19:08 GMT
Ultimately, there is no "that which identifies."
Where identification is happening, it does very much 'seem as though,' there is a something/someone/entity in play that is doing that and doing ALL myriad of things...thinking....experiencing....perceiving, even.
All of that gets seen through in SR.
Seeing all experiential content as "appearance only...absent it's own inherent existence," is not at all a "reduction" of "the world."
Nothing is being taken away there, but an erroneous delusion is being removed. The one that gave the appearing world inherent existence in it's own right....the delusion that equalled the mistake of fundamental separation...the delusion that gave legs to the imagined SVP.
"Mountains are Mountains again," does not mean that there's a going back to once again mistake an appearing mountain for having separate, inherent existence. It does mean that there is no mental holding apart of 'that which sees/witnessing' and 'that which appears,' but it also does not mean that identification with appearance enters back in either.
At full circle, there's no need to deny, reduce or categorize the apparent mountain in any way, as at that point, the delusion that assigned it it's own inherent existence is no longer in play.
At 2nd mountain position, it was initially necessary to adopt a vantage point that created a temporary/conceputual/ distance between 'seeing' and 'objects seen,' but once the "seer/witness" itself is seen through, that conceptual distance collapses and "seer" is replaced with simply "seeing/awarenss," no-one/no-thing that is "doing it." And in that, the appearing mountain and awareness of the mountain, are funamentally one....But that does not mean "exactly the same." If not for apparent/temporal "distinction" there could be no experience at all.
An appearance as it appears, IS an expressed distinction within/to abiding awareness. If not FOR it being distinct, there would be nothing to see...zero experiential content. But, SR reveals that while distinctions DO appear, ultimately, they arise within awareness...an expression of awareness.
AT 3rd mountain, where mountains are once again mountains, it's all seamlessly One (this is a pointer...it's pretty much impossible to accurately describe how life is experienced when separation is no longer in play!)...no mental overlay of holding an appearance mentally/conceptually "apart from," awareness of it....BUT, there is no going back to 1st mountain where there was "identification" with an appearance.
There is no longer a primary sense of being an intermediary/entity that is doing stuff...experiencing....perceiving...even though, experientially, doings, experience and perception continues on so long as experience continues on...
The apparent "me character" is no longer mistaken as evidence of an existent entity that is the experiencer/perceiver. THAT right there is the most significant ramification of 2nd mountain/no mountain realization. All other delusions, time, space, volition, causation, dissolve in that realization.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 23, 2023 18:33:01 GMT
Yes! And the relative question about "my consciousness" vs. "your consciousness"....my direct experience vs. your indirect apparent experience is one that is wholly relative...has nothing to do with Nonduality. In the realization of Oneness, individualized conscious experience, is of the realm of perceivables...experiential content. To ask an existential question about dream-content always indicates a misconception.
The very idea that there IS a "my consciousness" vs. "your consciousness," has nothing to stand upon when it's realized that all experiential things/objects arise dependent upon an indivisible consciousness/awareness that is not bound....not limited.....that stands alone even in the absence of any-thing appearing. Whereas any-thing that appears, cannot stand alone...If it's arising/appearing, it is dependent on the abiding ground.
Some seemingly want to say that this realized absence of inherent existence re: perceivables is no longer relevant at 3rd mountain/full circle position, but that is plain and simply a nonsense.
It's true, that absence is not carted around in mind as some kind of conceptual knowledge, but as an absence, where previously there was a presence/delusion/illusion in play, it completely changes everything.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 23, 2023 18:39:08 GMT
Can we ever say with absolute certainty that something that is an appearance, is appearing, when it's not appearing?
This seeing is available even for the seeker...prior to the shift that is SR. Just look. It's right there in plain sight. What can be/is known for certain? (not much!)
Even purely, relatively speaking, certain knowing is always direct, imminent, present. Right here and now; what do you know for certain? You know 'what' is presently arising/appearing, and you know there is awareness/seeing of that. You know the awareness OF the content is not itself content....it's the ground to the content....anything more said, will be a step into surmising.
|
|