farmer
Full Member
Carrys Purses
Posts: 167
|
Post by farmer on Apr 24, 2024 0:12:34 GMT
But what’s up with you, other dude? I’m good.. and still in the States, btw Same 'ole guy. "carrying purses?" .. .. just werkin' werkin' you know? Trucks linin' up these days? Lookin' forward to lake season up here, but gotta' mow the lawn tomorrow. I’m not biased against men . and what’s called masculine/feminine seems like an unnecessary divide.. but then I have enjoyed a unique perspective on this issue for a while now
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 24, 2024 2:45:02 GMT
Does that mean it's a "bad thing"? Doesn't that itself invoke "judgment and comparison"? Because it is a fact that the clarity inherent to waking up does indeed impact experience in some very specific ways, there is bound to be at least some degree of focus upon behaviors that suggest the involvement of a (s)elf identified person...some degree of focus upon apparent hypocrisy and walk/talk inconsistency....just the way it goes when deep conversations about Truth occur. If there truly is an absence of (s)elf identification, then there should also be an absence of anyone gittin' their panties tied up in tight knot. It's important to see that your own judgments re: judgments about what one says and then what he does, are the very same ilk as what you are calling "bad/wrong." Sure, anytime you label something as good or bad you’ve made a judgement call… but that wasn’t my point really, I was just saying that the cessation of such thinking is ‘better’ from a “Truth” standpoint (as you like to call it) But “comparisons” is even more important to understand I think… if you ever think of another person (anyone.. past or present) (like some revered ‘spiritual teacher’, for example) as being either above or beneath you… then you’re not clear on the truth of the matter, as yet So expressions like “oh, so and so is as clear as day!” or “ooof that one is clear as mud!” seems like nonsensical personal opinions/judgements/comparisons to me. Comparisons between yourself and others though, even if "spiritually speaking," need not equal an "above or beneath" facet. After all, if you've seen through the existent "me person/you person-entity" then all ideas of "above/below" would also be seen through, no? Like it or not, as we engage in conversation about Truth on forum or in person, and resonate with some espoused pointers and not so much with others, in tandem with that, we are judging the "espousers" of those pointers...some will hit as full of shit, or somewhere in between while some might hit as crystal clear. There is no problem with the discerning of such.
|
|
|
Post by ghostofmuttley on Apr 24, 2024 9:54:13 GMT
Same 'ole guy. "carrying purses?" .. .. just werkin' werkin' you know? Trucks linin' up these days? Lookin' forward to lake season up here, but gotta' mow the lawn tomorrow. I’m not biased against men . and what’s called masculine/feminine seems like an unnecessary divide.. but then I have enjoyed a unique perspective on this issue for a while now Well, you know what the French say about it, right?
|
|
|
Post by ghostofmuttley on Apr 24, 2024 9:56:15 GMT
Hello Farmer!! How's things? Things are impermanent and ever changing… But I’ve even lost interest in weed, if you can believe it. Yes, definitely can. Also, glad to hear it. Looking back perhaps I wasn't the best internet friend I could have been by not expressing some sort of concern last year. I have failed.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 24, 2024 16:59:06 GMT
Same 'ole guy. "carrying purses?" .. .. just werkin' werkin' you know? Trucks linin' up these days? Lookin' forward to lake season up here, but gotta' mow the lawn tomorrow. I’m not biased against men . and what’s called masculine/feminine seems like an unnecessary divide.. but then I have enjoyed a unique perspective on this issue for a while now What, you mean a man who likes to carry a bag that some might call "a purse" doesn't have to get his wienie and knackers chopped off in order for it to be okay? It's the oddest thing how the ones who used to be all for muting those mind-made divides have now propped them up and fortified them....
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 1, 2024 19:39:16 GMT
Yes! Which means, SR is not "transforming" a relative knowing that each body/mind is a unique, discrete, perceiving entity, into an Absolute knowing of the same, rather, it's a seeing through of the attribution of inherent existence re: the appearance/experience of numerous, multiple, discrete, unique "perceivers/experiencers."
But, the question as to "how you're planning to die," was not asked from that same context from which you are now using the pointer of immortality/never born/so never dies....rather, it was asked from the relative position....the same position from which YOU judge Niz and others for having died of/with cancer.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 1, 2024 19:51:17 GMT
If that were actually so, that "in the end you always bring it back to truthin" then you would have admitted a long time ago the erroneous nature of your "Absolute, certain, realized knowing" of multiple, discrete, unique perceiving/experiencing entities.
In "bringing it back to truthin," your take on LOA/deliberate creation would also be revealed to be based on the erroneous idea of separation....an SVP who has volition to choose where to place focus....on causation within the movie/dream/story, on something other than "One seamless movement."
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 1, 2024 20:04:11 GMT
How could there be "Self Realization" (which means clearly seeing/knowing there is but one, singular movement...no volition, no doership, no causation, most importantly, "no separation") and yet still continue to spend your life trying to "BE" in alignment with Source?
SR dissolves the delusion of being a some-one/some-thing that could ever be "in or out of" alignment. SR is the realization that there is but One, singular, thingless thing.....that there is no separation between the apparent me character, or anything else at all, and "Source."
What you are suggesting is some strange sort of SR, whereby there is one moment, zero separation in play, but in the next, there can be some kind of gap in alignment between what you are, and "Source."
SR impacts the "relative realm"....in that sense, SR references the relative and Absolute. To "realize" Self is to dissolve the false idea of being a some-thing that could ever be "mis-aligned" with Source. The apparent me character is none-other than Source, expressed, no? It's all One...there can be no actual "mis-alignment"...wherever it "seems as though" there is misalignment, that is but a delusion/illusion.
Yes, and the exact same can be said about "alignment/mis-alignment." Both the idea of "further" and "alignment" invoke the idea of being a separate someone/something that can be closer/further to/from THIS. In abiding SR, both of those ideas goes up in smoke.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 3, 2024 19:37:02 GMT
Ah but, when there's the shift in locus of seeing that is SR, that changes "how it is seen," there is in tandem with that, also a shift re: some of "what is seen."
When the primary view of the world and all it's things is now from the position of "beyond/prior to," vs. primarily "through the eyes of a separate person," the previous "what" that was seen, included a separate person and all the erroneous "stuff" that was included in that erroneous viewpoint.
Again, there are some very important shifts in terms of "what" is seen, post SR. Not everything changes by any means, but all apparent things/conditions that had erroneously imagined separation inherent to them, are no longer in play. From this new vantage point, it's clear, a large portion of what the SVP "thought" he was seeing, he actually was not....he was merely, erroneously, assuming/surmising based upon that erroneous vantage point.
Again Reefs, you are failing to see/acknowledge that while SR per se, is indeed at it's crux, a profound shift in locus of seeing from "in the dream" to "beyond," the impacts of SR, include certain shits re: what is sensed/seen/experienced.
I think your failure to see those impacts of SR is what's behind your continued insistence that somehow LOA/deliberate creation/deliberate creator, can remain intact and untouched as an existential answer to the question of "How/why stuff appears as it does."
You posit a strange sort of transcendent seeing/Realization of Self that abides as a conceptual knowing only, but that has no actual impact upon experience.
Experience IS very much impacted by SR/awakening, but perhaps not in the ways you think. Many ideas/beliefs held to be relatively true previously, will now no longer have any basis by which to stand....others will continue, but now absent the overlay of erroneous, inherent existence/substance.
For ex: You don't fully see through the SVP, only to resurrect it within a belief that says you are a person who can volitionally choose where to place focus for the purpose of deliberately creating/controlling outcomes.
The realization of Oneness is at odds with a belief in an existential answer that includes "causality/volition/time-space" as actual.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 3, 2024 19:47:12 GMT
If all that is so, then what's up with those CC/Kensho experiences that you regard to be part and parcel of 'complete' SR? There are text wall after text walls on ST describing such "events" from start to finish, as memory unfolds a "recalled" story that has then been upheld as an integral and necessary facet to SR.
How is that so different though than your own upholding of a "CC/Kensho EVENT" that you insist to be integral to "full/complete" SR?
It is so that the Truth is not a newly acquired, additive knowing. But you are the one who insists that it was during a Kensho event that you acquired the new knowledge that rocks, socks and people are all unique, discrete, existent perceivers/experiencers. How do you square that up with what you're now telling SDP?
SR IS indeed 'here and now'...."imminent" as I like to say. And that means all "Absolute/realized" Truth, is also evident, here/now/imminently.
What that says about your supposed Absolute, realized knowing that all appearing objects, body/minds are all discrete perceivers/experiencers, is that if so, would mean, you also by virtue of being "imminent" would mean you also know the imminent content that is "perceived/experienced."
To imminently know "of" perception/experience, is to imminently know the content of such.
|
|