q
Junior Member
Posts: 66
|
Post by q on Feb 12, 2024 14:16:09 GMT
Gurus don't have mental attachments. That is what freedom is all about. Just becuase you dress up yours as something noble and all wrapped up in spiritual garb doesn't change the fact that its an attachment. Let it go. By what means are you able to denote the assertion of what you deem to be "a guru" and thus, "not an attachment" from an assertion is IS an attachment? How certain are you of your ability to know for certain that an assertion = attachment and when it does not? Absence/Emptiness is not an assertion. All realized Sages have found and promote non-attachment to ALL mind content in order to realize and abide in one’s Silent, Still, Aware Absence…the Natural state. Without detachment from all mental concept’s, however lofty, it is impossible to come empty to any moment. Little children and Sages do this naturally.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 12, 2024 17:59:05 GMT
By what means are you able to denote the assertion of what you deem to be "a guru" and thus, "not an attachment" from an assertion is IS an attachment? How certain are you of your ability to know for certain that an assertion = attachment and when it does not? Absence/Emptiness is not an assertion. All realized Sages have found and promote non-attachment to ALL mind content in order to realize and abide in one’s Silent, Still, Aware Absence…the Natural state. Without detachment from all mental concept’s, however lofty, it is impossible to come empty to any moment. Little children and Sages do this naturally. Agree with all you say there. Of course, "absence/Emptiness" is not in and of itself, "an assertion." But the moment words are used to point on a forum where there's an intent to point away from delusion TO Truth, it's not wrong to call that "an assertion." This is getting silly. My question was in response to this assertion of YOURS: It's very clear you are convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that my pointer about "absence of Absolute-ness/existence" when it comes to appearing people, appearing things, demonstrates an attachment on my part....an egoic clinging to an idea that satisfies mind....that's really what "attachment" to ideas is about, after all. My question is, again, by what means do you know for certain that my pointers represent such attachment? For what it's worth, again, the idea that all experiential content is empty and devoid of inherent existence..empty of Truth, is not in any way "satisying to mind." I'd be interested to hear more about how that idea could even BE "an attachment" or a "sacred idea." On the other hand, the idea that says you CAN and DO know for Absolute certain that all appearing people are inherently existent/actual experiencers/perceivers IS satisfying to mind. Just look at all the rebelling against the assertion of emptiness that's gone on re: the issue of "experiencers/perceivers"! "Sacred ideas" and "ideas that one clings to/attaches to" are those ideas that serve to keep the SVP relevant. The pointer of emptiness of inherent existence does no such thing. I would say that not only are YOU attached to the idea that each appearing person is Absolute known to be an actual/existent perceiver/experiencer, but you also seem to be attached to the idea that all my pointers are nothing more than egoic, BS assertions that have mental attachment behind them. Can you see how the two ideas go hand in hand? If it's true that my pointers are all nothing more than egoic rambling, then your sacred belief in inherently existent "experiences/perceivers" is safe.
|
|
q
Junior Member
Posts: 66
|
Post by q on Feb 12, 2024 19:47:51 GMT
"Sacred ideas" and "ideas that one clings to/attaches to" are those ideas that serve to keep the SVP relevant. Yes. Here's the example again. Notice how the idea here is used to form and justify (keep alive) a purely conceptual self-image and the subsequent behavior coming out of it? I would completely agree with that IF we were not talking specifically about a forum supposedly dedicated to Truth "at all costs." That's what a sincere interest towards Truth entails....complete willingness to hold your views up to the glaring light of scrutiny, even when it gets uncomfy. a forum supposedly dedicated to truth at all costs. Where did you get that particular idea from other than from your own mind? You can point me to nothing on ST that even remotely suggests this. This is strictly an idea your mind has imagined, and one that you are presently identified with and attached to. Your own words here show that quite clearly.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 12, 2024 22:06:01 GMT
"Sacred ideas" and "ideas that one clings to/attaches to" are those ideas that serve to keep the SVP relevant. Yes. Here's the example again. Notice how the idea here is used to form and justify (keep alive) a purely conceptual self-image and the subsequent behavior coming out of it? I would completely agree with that IF we were not talking specifically about a forum supposedly dedicated to Truth "at all costs." That's what a sincere interest towards Truth entails....complete willingness to hold your views up to the glaring light of scrutiny, even when it gets uncomfy. a forum supposedly dedicated to truth at all costs. Where did you get that particular idea from other than from your own mind? You can point me to nothing on ST that even remotely suggests this. This is strictly an idea your mind has imagined, and one that you are presently identified with and attached to. Your own words here show that quite clearly. Plain and simply, a sincere willingness to leave no stone unturned/no idea left as sacred/sacrosant, re: the seeing through separation....waking up, is "what it takes"...absent that degree of sincere interest and unwavering willingness to face the fear of loss of self, with courage, the SVP wins out. 'Ol Jed is saying the very same thing there....Truth at all costs...the willingness to leave no stone unturned...willingness to give up every sacred idea. All of those quotes are alluding to the same sincere willingness to examine every sacred idea....to inquire into every crevice to ferret out false, erroneous ideas...those places where relative appearance has been mistaken for Truth. One who says they are intent upon Truth, who partakes on a Nonduality forum, will demonstrate the degree of his earnestness and dedication to that end, by his willingness or lack thereof to have his assertions/post content challenged and probed. Those who shy away from pointed challenge are doing so for a reason. & the necessity of a willingness to pursue "Truth at all costs" is not just a mind-derived idea...It's a direct seeing....essentially, based on seeing through separation....There's also memory...harkening back to my own attempts to keep a certain, few sacred ideas in play. Absent a sincere willingness to 'go all the way....to push through that discomfort....to aim for Truth at all costs, mind WILL find a way, sneaky as it is, to keep certain ideas/beliefs/senses, sacred. It's just what the seeking mind/SVP, does. Denying that propensity of the seeking, egoic mind doesn't make it go away. In fact, as you continue to insist that the apprehension of Truth "does NOT" require that unwavering, sincere willingness to "give it all up"....(Truth at all costs) you are aptly demonstrating my point. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too....waking up really does mean "all or nothing." Either the entirety of experiential content/perceivables is seen as empty and devoid of inherent existence, or you're still fast asleep, mired in the dream. [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 12, 2024 22:24:22 GMT
a forum supposedly dedicated to truth at all costs. Where did you get that particular idea from other than from your own mind? You can point me to nothing on ST that even remotely suggests this. This is strictly an idea your mind has imagined, and one that you are presently identified with and attached to. Your own words here show that quite clearly. A quote straight from the moderator's mouth; Reefs is going even further there, than what I say....going as far as to say that even if a challenge of pointer is delivered in a manner that seems rude and nasty, those who are truly "thirsty" for Truth, who have a sincere interest in Truth, will relish the challenge....take the offering.
|
|
q
Junior Member
Posts: 66
|
Post by q on Feb 12, 2024 22:38:14 GMT
Yes. Here's the example again. Notice how the idea here is used to form and justify (keep alive) a purely conceptual self-image and the subsequent behavior coming out of it? a forum supposedly dedicated to truth at all costs. Where did you get that particular idea from other than from your own mind? You can point me to nothing on ST that even remotely suggests this. This is strictly an idea your mind has imagined, and one that you are presently identified with and attached to. Your own words here show that quite clearly. Plain and simply, a sincere willingness to leave no stone unturned/no idea left as sacred/sacrosant, re: the seeing through separation....waking up, is "what it takes"...absent that degree of sincere interest and unwavering willingness to face the fear of loss of self, with courage, the SVP wins out. 'Ol Jed is saying the very same thing there....Truth at all costs...the willingness to leave no stone unturned...willingness to give up every sacred idea. All of those quotes are alluding to the same sincere willingness to examine every sacred idea....to inquire into every crevice to ferret out false, erroneous ideas...those places where relative appearance has been mistaken for Truth. One who says they are intent upon Truth, who partakes on a Nonduality forum, will demonstrate the degree of his earnestness and dedication to that end, by his willingness or lack thereof to have his assertions/post content challenged and probed. Those who shy away from pointed challenge are doing so for a reason. & the necessity of a willingness to pursue "Truth at all costs" is not just a mind-derived idea...It's a direct seeing....essentially, based on seeing through separation....There's also memory...harkening back to my own attempts to keep a certain, few sacred ideas in play. Absent a sincere willingness to 'go all the way....to push through that discomfort....to aim for Truth at all costs, mind WILL find a way, sneaky as it is, to keep certain ideas/beliefs/senses, sacred. It's just what the seeking mind/SVP, does. Denying that propensity of the seeking, egoic mind doesn't make it go away. In fact, as you continue to insist that the apprehension of Truth "does NOT" require that unwavering, sincere willingness to "give it all up"....(Truth at all costs) you are aptly demonstrating my point. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too....waking up really does mean "all or nothing." Either the entirety of experiential content/perceivables is seen as empty and devoid of inherent existence, or you're still fast asleep, mired in the dream. [/quote] Nope. That’s just more of your same ole mind contrived idea of things. Nothing you just posted said or justified “at all costs”. But keep clinging away. Maybe it’ll occur to you yet what attachment to an idea really means. We can only hope. 😊
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 12, 2024 22:49:10 GMT
Nope. That’s just more of your same ole mind contrived idea of things. Nothing you just posted said or justified “at all costs”. But keep clinging away. Maybe it’ll occur to you yet what attachment to an idea really means. We can only hope. 😊 Justified? In equating those quotes with "at all costs" I am describing to you what I mean when I use that term...and demonstrating that it's a basic tenet when it comes to being a sincere seeker of Truth. You're doing that thing folks do when they're trying to win an argument at all costs.... ....refusing to adopt my explained definition of a term, adhering to your own, despite the fact that I continue to clarity over and over.... whatever i offer up to further explain, gets ignored/denied. I'll try again; A "sincere interest in Truth at all costs," means "an interest in Truth that is so sincere, that there is willingness to leave no stone unturned....a willingness to inquire into and examine every idea that is held to be Truth." All of those quotes are pointing to that degree of sincerity/willingness.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 12, 2024 22:58:53 GMT
Nope. That’s just more of your same ole mind contrived idea of things. Nothing you just posted said or justified “at all costs”. But keep clinging away. Maybe it’ll occur to you yet what attachment to an idea really means. We can only hope. 😊 Jed's "dumping on cherished beliefs," is the equivalent of doing dharma battle against cherished beliefs...That's "Truth at all costs"....one who is 100% sincere, will be okay with and up for the challenge of having his cherished beliefs "dumped on". This isn't rocket science q. Even if you are absent that degree of sincerity yourself, surely you can grasp the general idea of what it means to be sincere and perhaps even eager to hold your most cherished views up to the light of challenge..?
|
|
q
Junior Member
Posts: 66
|
Post by q on Feb 13, 2024 2:23:47 GMT
Jed's "dumping on cherished beliefs," is the equivalent of doing dharma battle against cherished beliefs...That's "Truth at all costs"....one who is 100% sincere, will be okay with and up for the challenge of having his cherished beliefs "dumped on" Do you really believe that?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 13, 2024 6:19:54 GMT
Jed's "dumping on cherished beliefs," is the equivalent of doing dharma battle against cherished beliefs...That's "Truth at all costs"....one who is 100% sincere, will be okay with and up for the challenge of having his cherished beliefs "dumped on" Do you really believe that? It does not require 'belief' to see that the term "I am up for having having my cherished beliefs dumped on" is essentially saying the same thing as "I am up for having my most cherished beliefs challenged," and that being up for said challenge indicates an interest in "Truth at all costs." (The "cost" of course in this case, being the potential loss/seeing through of sacred ideas). I find it extremely odd that anyone would argue otherwise. Can you describe what you see to be the important difference between those various terms? Please be aware, we are entering into word lawyering territory at this point. Is it specifically the "Truth at all costs" term you take issue with? How about "being up for having cherished beliefs dumped on"...? how does that sit? How about "I am up for engaging in dharma battle re: cherished beliefs"? That one, okay?
|
|