|
Post by Figgles on Apr 28, 2024 17:48:51 GMT
I really like how you've put that.
If we're going to frame the delusion of separation/the SVP viewpoint as "a distraction" from the Truth that is otherwise, laid bare, self-evidently obvious, then Indeed, buying into the idea of "the machine," equals presence of delusion/distraction, but by the same token, it's important to see and note that those ideas about LOA/deliberate creation having fundamental validity, supposed Absolute, certain knowledge of discrete, unique, multiple perceivers/experiencers, eyes that apparently see, "look back at me," held as an Absolute Truth, are, all, as delusion based, erroneous beliefs, also "distracters."
Again, thought/ideation itself, in general, is NOT the problem. Specifically, Erroneous/false thought/beliefs/ideas ARE. That's really what the SVP (and all fundamental separation IS) an erroneous idea (that arises of an erroneously imagined position of seeing) that then shapes and gives rise to other erroneous ideas that then shape senses/experience.
Truth talk that is uncompromising will always by virtue of that unwillingness to pander at all to delusion, necessarily directly challenge/strike down any and all ideas that have delusion as their basis that get presented as Truth.
I understand how friendships on a Nonduality forum might at times interfere and bring with it a willingness to compromise to some degree, but it's important to see and acknowledge if/when that is happening. If think on ST, what with the lines being drawn over the years between the "in" group and the "out" group, the lingering tendency amidst those who remain tight, is to support at all costs vs. take that uncompromising position.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 28, 2024 17:29:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 27, 2024 18:16:50 GMT
Damn, dude....
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 26, 2024 22:45:42 GMT
|
|
|
Quotes
Apr 26, 2024 4:47:23 GMT
Post by Figgles on Apr 26, 2024 4:47:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 26, 2024 4:43:55 GMT
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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 21:27:55 GMT
Preaching to a choir though that is still to some degree, vilifying thought...? The reference to an experiential, up/down play between polarities of feeling is "Too much Thought" for what, exactly? Why is it "Too" much? The context of the convo is the up/down nature of experiential feeling...it necessarily involves ideas/thoughts....we are after all, talking "about" the "way" experience unfolds. "TMT" is not a vilification of thought .. but, ironically , you thinking of it that way .. IS a vilification of thought! The denoting of "too much" equals a negative judgment of what is deemed to be excessive thought. To negatively judge something is a sort of 'vilification' (to speak ill of) no? If that word is too strong, then let's just go with "negative judgment." If I tell you you've consumed "too much" beer for example, I am negatively judging that "excess amount" of beer that I think is bad for you or in some other way, "not good." You've expressed the idea that speaking of the up/down movement of experiential feeling/emotion, as the story unfolds, to be "too much thinking." Why is it "too" much? "Too much" thought, for what exactly? There are indeed those times in Truth-talk where mind needs to take a back-seat so that conceptual grasping towards a pointer to Truth is halted, however, as I've explained, the context of a shared observation of an up/down movement, relative to experiential feelings/emotions, IS the context of conceptual seeing/understanding...thought IS very much involved and that's okay. As you see it, What's the problem with denoting the up/down (rollercoaster movement) of arising, experiential feelings within experience? Why is it "too much thinking" to express that observation? "Too much" for "what" exactly? What is the ideal you are upholding there by which you judge that particular line of thought/idea to be "too much"?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 25, 2024 17:54:30 GMT
Amen, Lolly. Could not agree more.
|
|