|
Post by Figgles on Jan 21, 2024 23:02:56 GMT
A true, realization (seeing through/absence) that stands beneath that pointer, will take care of this erroneous, separation-based sense/idea that still has imagined two-ness inherent to it.
If it's all essentially THIS, no separation, then what's with the "AS THIS" qualifier you continually apply to the me character? The character IS not operating AS THIS...the character "IS" This...it might seem meaningless and not important, but imagined separation is far more subtle than many think.....it's sneaky...when you speak of an appearing character, that does stuff, AS THIS, you are invoking a fundamental difference of ground between THIS and the appearing character.
Your model posits the appearing me character as 'an extension of' THIS, which invokes the Oneness blob, which is a mere concept of Oneness vs. a true realization/seeing through/unveiling of Truth.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 23, 2024 20:53:36 GMT
If he is positing THAT as having caused/catalyzed awakening, then by virtue of that, is not actually fully awake/seeing from a locus that is 'beyond/prior to' experience.
Waking up fully means seeing through the idea that anything one does leading up to awakening, was the 'cause' of it.
There is conceptual groking of that, and there is the realized 'knowing/seeing' of that, that is something entirely different. And it's true, even the conceptual groking has an effect on relative experience in that it has a way of shutting down negative ruminations of mind, but that is merely a relative "betterment" of experience and not to be conflated with actually waking up/SR.
"Facts" are not "realized." Rather, "facts" are relative knowings. A "realization" is a seeing through/absence, and not the taking on of new knowledge. (yes, mind is informed, but that falls under 'impact of SR' and is not the seeing through itself). This dude it seems has mistaken a conceptual grasp for the shift in locus of seeing that is SR.
Evidence right there ZD that for you, "cause/effect" is alive and well, even though you've supposedly seen through separation...and even moreso, you apply it to awakening....you believe that something appearing in the dream can "cause" you to awaken to the dream. That erroneous idea gets revealed as false in SR.
There..again....you are invoking "causation"...cause/effect. SR is acausal. That means that regardless of what's happening within experience, waking up is not the effect of any of it. Sometimes you write stuff that seems to indicate you agree with this absence of causation and then other times, you're right back here, invoking causation.
again, you are conflating concept that relate to Nondual pointings with actual realization/seeing through/the profound shift in locus of seeing that IS "SR."
Just because the ideas/concepts that are inherent to Nonduality teachings/talk-points are becoming more popular does not necessarily mean that actual "awakening" IS. Anna Brown for one talks a real good talk, but recently she's been invoking the appearing person as some sort of creative/catalyzing/causal entity, and whenever that happens, it's a clear indicator that one is still imagining an existent separate, volitional person, complete with existent cause/effect.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 23, 2024 22:03:30 GMT
Because, waking up to the Truth...realizing Self....abiding Nondual awareness, is not like other, relative learning/acquisition of knowledge/know-how.
And....everything within the dream, all experiential content, even including appearing people who seem to be devoid of identification that heaps on the mental overlay of judgment that IS suffering, affirm the multiplicity, that ultimately, is appearance only, but that gets mistaken for fundamental separation.
Experience cannot be relied upon to tell you the Truth of the matter....experience and all it's content must be transcended in order to see clearly/realize the fundamental/existential Truth.
There is nothing that a sage can demonstrate via his behavior that will directly convey the absence of inherent existence relative to his world. A world of things continues to appear even after seeing that ultimately, fundamentally, there is but One thingless/thing.
Appearances continue to appear and in that appearing, they compel engagement. You cannot directly experience the absence of inherent existence that another who appears in your reality, has realized. To a seeking mind, it will very much appear as though the sage is still experiencing a world and all it's things...cause the world and experience does not end in awakening!....you cannot directly see/know the realized "absence" of existence that he previously, erroneously, imagined to BE and that is no longer in play.
Indeed, to some degree, you may be able to observe difference in behavior, but that alone does not tell you whether one is actually awake or not.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 27, 2024 19:59:19 GMT
But, you've also insisted that being awake might still include abject despair...deep depression to the point where one feels the need to end his life. So what's up with that?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 30, 2024 0:38:39 GMT
You can be irritated with an arising situation or behavior that thwarts a preference/interest without assigning fundamental responsibility/blame to someone/something that is involved.
A frustrated feeling might arise as there's an intent that is thwarted, but so long as there's no SVP in play, there's nothing there to anchor the frustrated feeling into place, as such, it will arise and then pass, easily.
But where there is an SVP in play, the mental overlay of separation that comes hand in hand with imagined separation, adds the layer of assigned fundamental blame on top...that overlay deepens the discordant feeling and anchors into place, and there is judgment assigned at the fundamental level....hence, "blameful anger."
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 30, 2024 0:49:03 GMT
Yup. Part and parcel of the human experience is a movement between liking/preferring some of the stuff that appears, not-liking other stuff that appears....and with that, the surface, ebbing/flowing enjoyment and disappointments that accompany 'winning some/losing some.' None of that is a problem.
A problem only arises when there is identification with separate personhood....where there is an erroneously imagined, volitional entity in play. It's that erroneous assignation of volition/responsibility/fundamental blame that = "blameful anger."
The assignation of fundamental responsibility involves a false buy-in to; separation,causation, volition, inherently existent entity/person, and with that, the very up/down movement of life as described above, is itself deemed to be 'wrong/bad/not as it should be.'
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 30, 2024 1:04:42 GMT
Tell that to this guy; To deny arising feeling/emotion as "imaginary" is to adopt a brown-bear position. You are denying a facet of experience. There is no need for that. The distinction between a mere, transitory arising of feeling frustrated vs. an arising of blameful anger IS quite stark. One involves an SVP, the other does not. You misunderstand ZD. To say that in SR, blameful anger no has any legs from which to arise, is not the same as saying: Anger is unacceptable. No one is judging the arising of blameful anger as not acceptable. The point is that where/when it's arising, you can know there is an SVP in the mix. The "living Truth" may indeed be a pointer and thus, "beyond imagining," but if we're talking about experiential feeling/emotion, that is a different matter. The up/down movement of life, ya win some, ya lose some, is just a commentary on how experience moves. Separation is "imaginary"....it doesn't actually appear..it is erroneously inferred. But a simply commentary on the way feeling states move up/down as some intents are supported, other thwarted by manifest conditions, is not "imaginary"....certainly not in that same way. If you insist on calling all feelings "imaginary," then you must blanket all arising perceivable/experiential facets the same...no? The commentary on the absence of blameful anger in SR does not equal "judging anger as wrong/bad." It's just a noticing of what becomes absent when imagined separation...imagined, inherently existent, personally responsible, fundamentally volitional/blameful entities are imagined to exist.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 30, 2024 1:09:06 GMT
Pretty much, yes!
Blameful anger has nothing from which to arise upon when there is no one/no thing TO pin the blame on!
Yet, there can still be a momentary arising/falling of frustration...annoyance, as a particular interest/intent is momentarily thwarted.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 30, 2024 1:12:51 GMT
Tsk, tsk ZD....look at you there, drawing an imaginary boundary between a circumstance where all imaginary boundaries vanish, vs. one where they remain.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 30, 2024 1:17:11 GMT
You mean.....it helps to "draw a boundary" between those? And...your response to Farmer pertains to his comment, how?
|
|