|
Post by Figgles on Apr 25, 2024 21:42:01 GMT
My focus upon this fwiw, is not merely for the sake of mincing words/words lawyering. It's a very important point that I'm trying to make. It's all too common in Nonduality circles for thought per se, to get an unfair "bad rap." (Does that work better than the term 'vilification'?) So long as there is awareness of mind's machinations and mind's involvement, as it arises, if/when and where it arises, thought per se, is unproblematic. It's only when conceptualization/thinking is mistaken for realized, non-conceptual seeing that there's a problem. The term "TMT" in these convos only applies in a meaningful way when we are trying to point to non-conceptual awareness and mind keeps asserting itself with a conceived notion, which of course, can only ever fall short of what is actually being pointed to. There's a couple of you on ST that use that term to squirm away from direct, pointy questions. It's used to deflect the challenge when you know your position has been upended and revealed to be shite.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 25, 2024 22:05:55 GMT
All valid, pointiest of pointers from that position of "collapse" that lies beyond all perceivables... that "greasy spot" E used to talk about. When Gopal speaks of the up/down movement of an emotional "roller-coaster" he is speaking from a context that includes the phenomenal, unfolding story...he's speaking from a position of seeing that is beyond the phenomenal, as he's clearly able to look at 'the unfolding story and it's content,' whereby he can then, comment on that obvious, evident, experience facet (up/down movement between feeling polaries). When you tell him there is ultimately "no ride," you are switching context to the furthermost realized absence of all distinction and refusing to engage him within the context he is speaking from. It's classic "brown-bearism," where the ultimate, realized Truth is used to deny relative, experiential facets of experience and general experience/phenomenal realm, itself. Seeing the dream-scape for dream-scape, does not bring a screeching halt to the dream. It does render the falsely imagined "dreamer/entity/person" though, absent. You are clearly very mixed up and this is evidenced by your mixing/jumping contexts. I think that is one the most poignant litmus tests when it comes to where one is really at....is there context mixing and context leaping involved as one challenges and defends his position..? Thinking back, a better pointing would have been to suggest that there is no rider, only the ride, but that even conceiving of what appears as a "ride", is too much of an abstraction. Why is it "too much of an abstraction"? What's the downside to going "that far" into abstraction or as you've now denoted it as "too much thinking"? Where's the problem in observing and denoting an 'up/down' play between polarities when it comes to experienced emotions/feelings? That's the part you are not explaining. [/div][/quote] I think this is the crux of it. The brown bear IS wrong! You have to look at what he "means" by those words....not just the words/terms themselves. The brown-bear has mistaken the absence of inherent existence re: the arising world and all it's things for an absence of an apparent world...an absence of apparent things. When you negatively judge a certain degree of thought/ideation within the context of talking about the ways in which appearances arise and unfold within the story, you are erroneously conflating thought/ideation with delusion. Thoughts/ideas are only delusional when they are false...when ideas/conceptualizations are mistaken for the Truth. That which obscures Truth (fundamental separation) is not even relatively (t)rue. That's what makes separation a delusion/illusion.
|
|