Esponja
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,727
|
Post by Esponja on Jan 5, 2023 0:11:49 GMT
Damn...that was beautifully put. If ever there were a post to go out on..... ππΌππΌππΌππΌ
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 7, 2023 21:01:20 GMT
Shouting does not necessarily indicate a sense of fundamental wrongness/separation. All sorts of behaviors can still arise, absent the peace/stillness of being, getting touched/disturbed.
It's tempting to observe behaviors, particularly those that very much might 'seem to' us to indicate that the deeper waters are being stirred, to declare, "aha...this means locus of seeing has shifted to an SVP," but there's no way of knowing that for certain just by looking on...short of someone telling you his is suffering, feeling separate, you are merely surmising about the degree of 'upset' that's involved there.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 7, 2023 21:17:38 GMT
Actually, not bad questions. Many seekers misunderstand what is meant by an absence of a separate person. It does not mean absence of an appearing, experiential person/body/mind...there is still a me character, complete with likes/dislikes that is directly experienced.....not by a someone/something though....it's just all an appearance arising, within the ground of awareness. The vantage point/place/locus of seeing shifts in SR, from what seems to be the eyes/body of a person, TO beyond/prior to....but still, the personal, experiential vantage point remains as an appearance... it's just now absence that erroneous sense of being grounded in a body, and instead, the ground of awareness is the primary 'vantage point.' The two go hand in hand....awareness is primary....and the personal/experiential viewpoint is secondary...no longer that separation based sense of the person being in the driver's seat. But, that does not mean at times when a sense of not liking something arises, that there can't still be a momentary, conditioned impetus to behave in a way that expresses momentary frustration. The difference between the sage who has an outburst... is that it will be very short lived....just one moment of frustration expressed, and then it immediately falls (to use Satchi's analogy...the elastic band is briefly stretched and then immediately, snaps right back). So no, the locus of seeing/abidance in awareness is not at odds with the personal viewpoint....it's not that it's an 'either/or' situation....the personal viewpoint is 'couched within' the transcendent viewpoint.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 7, 2023 21:26:32 GMT
Sure. Experience still arises, complete with personality, personal likes/dislikes.
This is your mistake. You've taken the words, "there is no separate person" to mean something it doesn't. While there is no separate person, no separate people, there is still 'the appearance' of people...the appearance of a me character. It's just that the locus of seeing in SR has shifted from the previous (erroneous/mistaken) sense of being 'within' the person, to beyond the appearing person...beyond ALL appearance.
An appearance is devoid of it's own inherent existence...an appearance is temporal....it does not abide...it comes and goes, in contrast to the abiding ground of awareness, (which is where seeing is actually happening from) which is not temporal...not ephemeral....abides without change.
(S)elf is realized not a belief. The realization of Self means that awareness is primary and the personal viewpoint is now secondary. That though does not mean that the appearing me character/person can't now and again feel a moment of being pissed off. Again, the key is that that sense of being pissed off, with separation/SVP absent, no longer has anything from which to gain a foot-hold and anchor in...thus, it just arises and passes on through...no stuckness.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 7, 2023 21:28:12 GMT
"How can there be a raging storm in the ocean with huge waves crashing against each other yet only a few feet under the surface it is perfectly calm? So in that case you could say the ocean is both still and dynamic simultaneously. If you fundamentally identify with the waves that's one thing but if you fundamentally identify with the stillness under the surface that is another thing." - Satchi
that was perfectly put!
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 7, 2023 21:56:05 GMT
Right. But that does not mean that you are actually/really/fundamentally, a temporally appearing some-thing. The sage that says, "I am the shoe," does not mean that the shoe defines "what" he is....what he's really saying is that the shoe appears within/to that which exists.
the seeker that says "i am all of it," is mis-taking the shoe to have it's own inherent existence... It involves a conceptualization of "the abiding ground," and then that idea of 'what the abiding ground is,' is imagined as 'making up/comprising' (as though it is a tangible substance) appearing objects/things. In actuality, all objects/things appear within the abiding ground. Not the other way around. The body does not get "infused with" some imaginary substance or energy that is erroneously believed to be what is referenced by "abiding ground/awareness."
All the trouble starts when people who 'think' they are awake, mistake their conceptual ideas for Truth.
Yes, what you really are, is not limited...temporal....does not come and go...is not 'a thing/object.' What you are is ground to all those appearing things...what you are gives rise to/expresses those distinctions.
What Nonduality is all about is clearing up that delusion...clearing up that very erroneous idea there you are expressing...that there is a fundamental/actual divide/separation between that which abides and that which appears. Nonduality says they are One...the ground abides and expresses AS distintion, which is temporal, ephemeral, changing in relation to the ground that never wavers.
That's really what the 'dream' term is pointing to...the temporal/ephemeral, empty of existence nature of all that appears.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 16, 2023 4:19:03 GMT
If letting go happens naturally, then it's not an action....rather it's the absence thereof....an absence of interest in mindfully pursuing the trajectory of minding that is now no longer happening, simply because the interest to do so, is not there.
I assure you, if there is interest to engage an idea...a line of thought....an intent/interest to engage/follow a particular trajectory of minding, plain and simply, it's gonna happen.
In any given moment, highest interest is always winning out in terms of mind's content...mental engagement.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 16, 2023 4:30:43 GMT
Yes. The sage sees that regardless of what's arising, it's ultimately all God/Godding. Which means taking a bodily condition or any other condition, and singling it out as evidence of "mis-alignment" (distance between 'me' and 'Source') is a nonsense.
Even in the deepest of delusion, 'distance/mis-alingment' between/with the apparent person and Source, is never anything more than a mistake of mind....an illusion. It's all "what you are"...even when separation is imagined, that imagining is God/Godding. Hence, E's, 'God falls into his dream' pointer.
Separation....actual/fundamental distance, is only ever a delusion/illusion.
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Jan 16, 2023 17:36:25 GMT
If letting go happens naturally, then it's not an action....rather it's the absence thereof....an absence of interest in mindfully pursuing the trajectory of minding that is now no longer happening, simply because the interest to do so, is not there. I assure you, if there is interest to engage an idea...a line of thought....an intent/interest to engage/follow a particular trajectory of minding, plain and simply, it's gonna happen. In any given moment, highest interest is always winning out in terms of mind's content...mental engagement. Yes, it's not an action.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 16, 2023 18:21:52 GMT
If letting go happens naturally, then it's not an action....rather it's the absence thereof....an absence of interest in mindfully pursuing the trajectory of minding that is now no longer happening, simply because the interest to do so, is not there. I assure you, if there is interest to engage an idea...a line of thought....an intent/interest to engage/follow a particular trajectory of minding, plain and simply, it's gonna happen. In any given moment, highest interest is always winning out in terms of mind's content...mental engagement. Yes, it's not an action. Right. So what you are seeing then, when relatively speaking, is seems as though you are "choosing" not to follow along with an impetus to try to change/thought feeling so that a future manifestation won't be affected negatively, is an absence of interest in meddling into 'creation.' While it might seem as though that absence hinges upon your seeing that IF you go ahead and meddle, the manifestation gets f-ed up, that's plain and simply not how absence of interest works. In short, I think you are a hairs-breadth away from seeing through the SVP....not just conceptually grasping that there is no separate, volitional person, but the actual absence thereof. It's as though there is still the merest tether of an idea that mind is hanging to...the one that says, what the person does or does not do, "creates" future manifestations. Even when the SVP gets in there and seemingly 'meddles,' (as in imagining yourself to be a deliberate creator....imagining personal self to be controlling/creating/causing what happens next) in actuality, the sum total of all that, is inseparable....nothing happening in that equation is actually lying causal/creative to anything else.
|
|