|
Post by Figgles on Jan 31, 2024 18:14:04 GMT
I think you are demonstrating the true meaning of "spiritual bypassing" here, ZD.
Your view is that awakening doesn't really change feelings/emotions/judgments at all....all the same feelings and responses continue to arise, but there's simply a conceptual understanding/acknowledgment in play that says after the fact; No problem, 'cause it's all THIS...no "me" behind it.
Being free/liberated means that the depth of judgment/emotional discord, only extends surface deep. Fundamentally, perfection has been realized as Truth.
Awakening DOES impact experience because what was previously present, is now absent, and it was a specific absence that E was attempting to convey when he spoke of an instance following awakening when he actually 'wanted' to assign blame to someone, but it was evident, there plain and simply was no "one" TO assign that blame upon.
When it's truly realized that volition was only ever imagined, that there is no chooser, no doer, that there is no existent entity who is directing his/her life, then who/what is there "to blame/assign fundamental, existent responsibility" to?
That absence of an SVP, absence of those erroneous ideas/senses/beliefs that went hand in hand with the SVP, really does mean an absence of the mind content/ideas that are the crux of arising blameful anger.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 31, 2024 18:23:40 GMT
You don't recall his story about berating his wife over the garburetor issue...or yelling at and then reporting the dude for his poor concrete pour at a job site?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 31, 2024 18:39:18 GMT
And that is precisely the distinction being made between the irritation/frustration that simply arises and immediately dissipates in SR, vs. the "blameful anger" of an SVP.
Irritation that quickly dissipates is absent the imagined separation that is inherent in what is being designated as "blameful anger."
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 31, 2024 19:14:46 GMT
I agree.
Would like to know specifically who these folks are that ZD is referencing, that he think are SR, but are somehow devoid of humility, gratitude, awe and reverence.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 31, 2024 19:21:34 GMT
A conceptual grasp is not the same as actual realization. An 'effect' of a mystical experience is one thing, but an awe, humility and reverence that has a realized absence at it's helm, something quite different.
An awe that hinges upon an erroneous belief that is mistaken for an actual realization is still awe, but it's subject to changing/disappering if/when the erroneous idea it hinges upon, is eventually seen through.
True wakefulness and the awe/reverence that comes with it, does not hinge upon a conceptual knowing...a conceptual idea, like the one you came away from your mystical experience/CC with.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 31, 2024 21:00:07 GMT
Most of what you describe there falls under the umbrella of 'becoming more conscious of mind's content and machinations,' and it's an integral facet of becoming/being a mature, self-aware human adult. It's inherent to waking up to the consensus trance, which again, does not equal 'waking up to the dream/SR.' But absent the abiding shift in locus of seeing that is SR, it's the next best thing. Being more conscious, being aware of mind's content/machinations does tend to make for a relatively 'better' experience and that is nothing to scoff at.
SR naturally takes care of those erroneous beliefs that hinge upon mistaken identification, that drag feeling responses down into the depths of the emotional scale and anchor them there, as you describe.
What's absent in SR though, is all the focus upon "replacing beliefs" for the purpose of future "personal growth."
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 10, 2024 19:46:20 GMT
You are reifying separate entities here, ZD...speaking from a position of identification with the apparent, discrete, individuated consciousness/person, as you conceptually "connect it" with your conceptualization of "Truth/reality."
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 13, 2024 0:45:49 GMT
That is a conceptualization of "consciousness" if I've ever heard one!! To attribute a measurable "vastness" directly to consciousness like that, as though it is an attribute/property/quality and then to directly compare consciousness to "Space and time" which are mere ideas that arise within consciousness....a clear-cut case of reification/conceptualization/misconception.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 10, 2024 17:43:39 GMT
One who says he's "apprehended the Infinite/Oneness" but has no direct reference for the realization/seeing through of selfhood, may indeed have had a glimmer/glimpse where selfhood temporally was absent/seen through, but it's clear by virtue of no reference for selfhood as illusive, that there was a full reverting back into the locus of seeing where limitation/boundedness reign.
That's what the mistake of taking yourself to be an SVP IS! ...it's mistaking the apparent body/mind/me character/person for having inherent existence...for being what you fundamentally are...that is the epitome of "identifying with limitation/boundedness."
The idea that you can on one hand be in full realized knowing that what you are is infinite, but then also, simultaneously, still be identified with the bounds/limitation of apparent body/mind/(s)elf, is akin to saying you can realize Oneness and still have the illusion of separation remain in play. You are positing a paradox...an oxymoron.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 10, 2024 17:56:10 GMT
ZD, having reference for "the Infinite/Oneness" while an SVP remains intact is akin to having a brief glimmer of the duck, but then reverting back to the bunny, unable to directly see the duck, and in that, you now can conceptually recall what the duck looked like, sort of, but everything you now express about it, is from the vantage point of only being able to see the bunny. You can likely talk a good talk about the image of the duck, but it's now from a conceptualized memory/idea about it vs. the direct apprehension/knowing/seeing. Note, this is but an analogy/metaphor and it falls short in pointing to realization/seeing through/SR as both the seeing of the bunny and the duck are conceptual/experiential seeings, whereas the realization of Oneness/seeing through separation--the SVP, is entirely non-conceptual and based on the very locus of seeing 'shifting' from a position of within experience, to beyond/prior to. In abiding SR, the primary locus of seeing remains there. There is still a personal/limited locus of seeing of the "me character" but that is now clearly an arising within/to that overriding, primary locus of seeing that is beyond/prior to. The two are not at all at war with each other so long as the "beyond/prior to" seeing remains primary. "Falling back asleep" happens as the primary locus of seeing shifts back to the me character/person. In that, a previous glimmer/glimpse, where a temporal shift happened can still be recalled, but that "recall" by virtue of not being direct/imminent as "realized knowing" always is, can only be "conceptual/experiential."
|
|