|
Post by Figgles on Jan 11, 2024 0:22:42 GMT
Existential Truth/knowing is not in the same realm as relative knowing. The so called "subconscious" is still "in the dream," and however deep you apparently go, it's content cannot be relied upon to lay bare the Truth. The Truth is what shines through, ineffably, non-conceptually, once the lie is seen through.
You're still fully immersed in the lie, believing that it's Truth when it's not.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 11, 2024 1:33:49 GMT
Wow...so you are equating the "false sense of self," with relative distinctions between appearing me characters? Again...distinction is NOT separation.
The very idea of trying to pin down "why/how" the mistake of separation happens hinges upon the erroneous invoking of "cause/effect." You just can't seem to get away from the idea that there is something that "causes" SR....and here, something that causes/results in identification with a separate person/entity.
Being fast asleep....imagining yourself to be an existent something/someone in it's own right = a vantage point that is erroneously limited/bound. Whereas SR/being awake is a seeing through/absence of that existent someone/something...and that seeing through involves a radical shift in locus of seeing from the apparent eyes of the limited person, TO "beyond."
Relative Conditionings are neither causal to delusion/being fast asleep nor are they causal to waking up. You just gotta get outta the dream though to see this! It's all about where seeing is happening from....if it's through the eyes of a limited person, that's fast asleep...if it shifts to beyond, you're awake!
Nonduality is not about differentiating between various experiential content...it's about the locus of seeing shifting to "beyond" that which appears, to a primary locus of seeing that is beyond all appearance.
Differentiating between direct, imminent experience, absent judgments about it vs. abstract thought applied to what appears is 'in the dream'.....Nonduality is all about seeing from beyond the dream. There's still a dream, it's just that the primary locus of seeing is no longer bound up "within" it.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 11, 2024 1:44:52 GMT
You're just word-lawyering now ZD. "My life was going smoothly...I was driven to resolve flaws in my life." There's a contradiction there. You're very good at glossing over/denying mind content/feelings.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 11, 2024 21:21:20 GMT
A "glorious" sense of confusion? That's sounds like gilding-the-lily, after the fact. To truly feel a sense of deep confusion re: existence = some degree of emotional unrest, no? Again, I think some in this convo have not looked deeply enough into mind content/feelings...what's at the crux of that existential seeking movement/drive to know.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 15, 2024 3:15:57 GMT
If "there is only what we are" is just another way of saying "I am all of it," then surely that which IS conceptual, comprehensible, imaginable, temporal, is not excluded?
Interesting that you are making a distinction between the pointer "what we are," and "THIS." For you do they each mean something different?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 16, 2024 5:46:39 GMT
So....when you shared that experience where you bitched out your wife for putting stuff down the garburetor and plugging it for the umpteenth time....of berating and then reporting that cement pouring dude, that was all just part and parcel of that "joy in helping others find and feel joy, happiness, freedom, peace, equanimity...? This is a stellar example ZD of your famous waffling....one moment you're stating that life pretty much remains the same...complete with the possiblity of ALL emotions/feelings, even those that dip way low into despair and blameful anger....and the next, as above, you are waxing on about a perpetual state of no-mind where there's only joy and happiness and overt kindness exhibited to your fellow man.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 17, 2024 21:05:13 GMT
If what you are indicating is "not-two" that is not so at all. What Cheri is talking about is "having a better dream"...what Nonduality talk is about is "waking up to the dream." Her approach and goal is the equivalent of Jed mcKenna's "human adulthood." He very accurately makes the distinction between that and what he called Truth realization..which = SR/enlightenment/waking up. What she is prescribing, IS "a practice." She is trying to reverse engineer the changes/shifts that happen post SR. She's coming from a purely psychological/self help modality....an intent to "improve quality of experience." That is different from Nonduality, whose aim is to realize experience along with all judgments about it, to be empty, appearance only arising within/to abiding Awareness...all fundamentally One, seamless... It is true that in the realization of that, the dream DOES indeed improve...suffering is gone.....equanimity prevails, but that shift/change hinges upon a realized seeing through/absence and is not in the hands of the person. The relative improvement that one might experience as he attempts to control focus in the ways she describes, will not have that absence inherent to it, and thus, will be temporal...will come and go....thus, what you'll have is perhaps an improvement of relative peace....relative/conditional happiness. Nothing to sneeze at, but it's NOT the abiding shift we call "SR/waking up." You're merely splitting hairs there ZD...word lawyering to try to make your prescribed practice something other than a practice. Do you really think it's any different just because you change the wording to 'activity.' There is still someone imaginary present who is doing the activity for the purpose of gaining something....improving the quality of experience. What you're not seeing though, is that is ALSO eliminates all intent towards controlling/changing outcomes via controlling mind...thoughts....focus. Waking up to the Truth of Oneness eliminates the one who "could" control focus, thereby supposedly controlling outcomes. Focus/attention is no longer something that belongs to the me character....the me character is itself a facet of experience...'content'...and not the 'focuser' it was once thought to be. You need to be more specific here. I tried to open a really tight jar lid this morning, and I expended a fair bit of physical "effort" in doing so, before it eventually popped open. It's specifically an "effort" expended towards controlling thoughts/mind and thereby controlling the unfolding of the dream that we're talking about in terms of "absence of effort." That's a context mix. You're using an experience to describe what 'an absence' is like. In actuality, freedom includes all effort.....even an experience where apparent limitation arises. The freedom lies in the realization that while limitation does still appear, it ultimately has no inherent existence...is appearance only...a facet of experience.....a facet of the dream-scape. And then, it will be seen as the delusional mind-game it really was, all along! A quote below taken from a reddit poster as he writes about McKenna's distinction between Truth realization vs. human adulthood. Your focus is a mystical version of human adulthood ZD, NOT Nonduality as you mistake it to be. Your view is actually very similar to SDP's, save for the fact that you add in a conceptual grasp of "oneness" that equals a "Oneness blob" and not the actual, non-conceptual apprehension of "_________________" I think the person who wrote the quote below, completely nails it: HA is a superfluous Jedverse concept that pleases – and appeases – conventional spiritual seekers.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 17, 2024 21:53:27 GMT
Yes, I've always found it strange that ZD won't go along with you at all on the distinction between generally 'being conscious' vs. 'being consciously aware of what's going on.....aware OF mind's content/machinations.'
Being aware OF mind content, of course, pertains to the self-help/personal growth that you are interested in, which I am quite sure is the equivalent of what Jed McKenna means by "human adulthood."
And it's strange that ZD won't go there, because he often demonstrates a falling short when it comes to being aware of what goes on in mind relative to feelings/emotions....blameful anger and such. He would do well to spend some time looking "AT" mind content imo.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 19, 2024 21:28:02 GMT
Further ZD. You are still objectifying/conceptualizing THIS as being a "something" that is "the doer."
When you say that THIS is what looks out of every set of eyes, you are revealing that you've not yet realized that human eyes are not "actually/fundamentally" the locus of seeing/looking/awareness. Seeing via human eyes is appearance only. The actuality is that seeing via human eyes is an arising appearance within/to abiding awareness.
The human as a seer, has no inherent existence....to say that it does, because THIS has 'taken the form of' the human, is nothing more than a conceptualized version of One/not-two.
You are invoking conceptual "Oneness/unity" only...you are declaring that which appears as being infused with THIS and then, therefore, as being THIS. It's the "extension of Source" ontology. That's not what the pointer "Oneness" is actually pointing to.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 19, 2024 23:44:13 GMT
You are so clearly conceptualizing THIS as a some-thing/substance, that "takes form" and via that, can then "do/undertake" actions, can experience, can perceive.
You are erroneously invoking separation in that conceptualization.
The apparent human form, is not "infused with" THIS, it IS THIS. You create a "something other" than THIS, when you suggest that THIS "takes the form of" a human, and then that human is what 'wake up...does stuff....takes action, etc.'
That conceptualization of 'something other' than THIS, is what is meant by "imagined separation."
|
|