|
Quotes
May 12, 2024 18:27:06 GMT
Post by Figgles on May 12, 2024 18:27:06 GMT
I think if you're gonna take issue, this particular one, with it's characterization of sought for/yet imminently unfound Truth, making you "miserable," per se. But clearly in some cases, that is so.
|
|
|
Quotes
May 12, 2024 18:23:48 GMT
Post by Figgles on May 12, 2024 18:23:48 GMT
Well, no, "we've all been there" is a mistaken projection, a limitation. For some of us, even the shadows of the truth were beautiful before we realized it. Getting pissed off is an optional sidetrack that doesn't always have to happen. And for what it's worth, I don't see that particular quote as even necessarily speaking about the person "getting pissed off." The terminology in that one is "having your illusions shattered," and some emotional pain inherent to that... while perhaps a little on the melodramatic side if for you there was no sense at all of anything "shattering in a hurtful way," per se, taken as a general pointer to the dissolution of illusion, and the loss of some previously held ideas re: the me character, some that could be said to be quite "sacred," I'd say there's not too much there to quibble with.
|
|
|
Quotes
May 12, 2024 18:21:09 GMT
Post by Figgles on May 12, 2024 18:21:09 GMT
Well, no, "we've all been there" is a mistaken projection, a limitation. For some of us, even the shadows of the truth were beautiful before we realized it. Getting pissed off is an optional sidetrack that doesn't always have to happen. The so called "shadows of the truth" may have hit as beautiful, but can you sincerely say that having your views re: those incomplete seeing/insights challenged, didn't piss ya off...even a little?
|
|
|
Quotes
May 12, 2024 6:24:09 GMT
Post by Figgles on May 12, 2024 6:24:09 GMT
|
|
|
Quotes
May 11, 2024 20:20:41 GMT
Post by Figgles on May 11, 2024 20:20:41 GMT
|
|
|
Quotes
May 11, 2024 20:13:22 GMT
Post by Figgles on May 11, 2024 20:13:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 11, 2024 19:21:17 GMT
That ok. Meditate on this; Prior to the Truth setting you free, it pisses you off mightily. Is that what you did to your children? Piss them off so they could see “your“ truth? Wouldn’t be surprised if so. btw. I’m gonna post your book under spiritual authors on ST. Pics and all. Peeps need to know about what entities are on the other side and how you can communicate with them. Hope you don’t mind. While I have generally come to expect a certain degree of anger when seekers get their views challenged, I am kind of surprised JLY with the level of nastiness you bring here. There's a palpable, very personal vitriol you express towards to me, regardless of how steadfastly I remain focused upon post content only. Along with this suggestion that my own kids are pissed at me, that I push my views upon them, you've also made the assertion that I am immoral and an opportunist in continuing to sell my book (a memoire detailing how the experience of communion with my brother, following his death, brought me peace and dissolved the profound grief re: death)...and the list goes on. Seriously dude, there IS gold there, if you were to sit, in sincerity to inquire into that anger you feel towards me.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 11, 2024 19:06:41 GMT
These are actually great questions, asked from a seeker's position, however, in that shift to "beyond" that is SR, those questions are clearly illuminated as having been entirely misconceived. The "recognition" of "realization/seeing through," is the absence/seeing through itself....the apprehension of the ground of awareness that stands alone...that requires nothing else, other than itself, to BE, and the primary locus of seeing to have now shifted TO that ground, with the personal viewpoint now an arising within/to that...secondary. In terms of the shift itself, clarity...unobstructed seeing, really is self-evident. Inherent to that "realization" that equals the unobstructed view, is now the absence of the imagined "some-thing/some-one" that was the obstructing factor. That shift dissolves both the imagined, existent entity that was previously deemed to be "the recognizer, doer, perceiver, experiencer," in that the "whom/what" to which "realization" could be attributed TO is dissolved. The mind-informing aspect or experiential "registering" that a shift has happened, of course, necessarily involves mind/minding, ideas, thoughts, knowings that are of an additive nature, but those are not to be confused with the profound shift in locus of seeing itself, that is the "realization/unobscuring of" Self. It's very difficult to answer the misconceived questions of the seeking position because those questions have inherent to them an imagined, existent entity. Whatever pointers are offered, will necessarily also then have that erroneously imagined entity central to them, as the imagined entity attempts to grasp them. This is why it is so crucial there be deep honestly and sincerity in play re: this inquiry/seeking process. (Unfortunately, not in the hands of the seeker!) Absent that, what we have is a sort of doubling-down of the imagined existent person.....an intent/movement in play to at all costs, protect and preserve that imagined, existent "me." This absence of sincerity is demonstrated in the deep level of anger and vitriol that so often arises in these convos as seeker's delusions get pointed out. The imagined SVP/egoic mind will do pretty much anything to try to keep itself relevant, when the seeking for Truth is devoid of that "all or nothing"...."Truth at all costs" drive/intent. Those who believe they are interested in Truth but who poo-poo the sentiment of "Truth at all costs," would be far better imo, if their interest could shift instead to self help/a better dream. That's really what they're after anyway, even if they cannot see it. Very trippy. Thanks for sharing. What of the I AM? What is its nature? Is it limited to just you and you alone or does everyone share in it? To be fair, it's not really a term I use to talk about Truth. My take on the way Niz uses it, is that it's the knowing itself/direct sense re: being unbounded awareness. I think that's why he says there is "beyond/prior to" the I am. That question you are asking re: whether or not knowing of being, knowing you are the ground of existence is "limited" to just this body/mind or whether it applies to others, assumes apparent body/minds to be the source of such. SR reveals that apparent mind/bodies appear within/to Awareness, and not the other way around, as the non-SR think. The question itself is thus, misconceived. You are fishing for an Absolute answer to what can only be the question of a seeker. In terms of experience, if we take the unfolding story, as it goes, along with a directly experienced me character, there are indeed "other apparent" characters, and relative to them, it does very much appear as though there is there, also, sense of being/awareness. The real problem with the whole "I DO know for Absolute certain that other people are discrete, existent, perceivers, experiencers," is that the question itself, to which that answer arises, is misconceived. As I keep saying, from the purely personal vantage point (pre-SR) Solipsism is unassailable. There is certain knowing of perception happening, only in imminent perceiving. And along with that imminent knowing of perception then, is also certain, imminent knowledge of "what is" appearing. In SR though, the main tenet of Solipsism, an existent "my mind" in relation to a "your mind" is seen through. Thus, SR and Solipsism are not compatible. To know for certain, even relatively speaking, THAT Figgles is an experiencer/perceiver, would also necessarily entail knowing for certain "what" figgles is imminently experiencing. That's just how it goes.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 11, 2024 17:49:31 GMT
This dude was someone I took a liking to early on in the whole Covid BS cycle. I find him a very credible source. vid below is great summation of where we're currently at.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 11, 2024 17:34:09 GMT
That instruction to "take a step back," is of course, a concession to mind...to the imagined separate entity...limited viewpoint...(s)elf identified person. At that juncture, there is still, after all, an SVP in play....an existent entity is being imagined in the experience of the "me character." Inevitably, Nonduality as it addresses the seeker, is filled with those types of concessions as there is not yet a direct reference for "absence of existent entity/absence of SVP." The shift from the imagined position of seeing via the eyes of a person to beyond/prior to, is not actually a "step taken" by a someone at all, and in a true and abiding shift to "beyond" that Truth will easily and effortlessly reveal itself. If one should find himself confused or confounded by the instruction to "step back," best to think of it as a mere shift in from seeing is happening from. Feet/shoes/stepping really NOT necessary at all. How is the shift to "beyond" recognized as having occurred, and whom/what recognizes it having happened? These are actually great questions, asked from a seeker's position, however, in that shift to "beyond" that is SR, those questions are clearly illuminated as having been entirely misconceived. The "recognition" of "realization/seeing through," is the absence/seeing through itself....the apprehension of the ground of awareness that stands alone...that requires nothing else, other than itself, to BE, and the primary locus of seeing to have now shifted TO that ground, with the personal viewpoint now an arising within/to that...secondary. In terms of the shift itself, clarity...unobstructed seeing, really is self-evident. Inherent to that "realization" that equals the unobstructed view, is now the absence of the imagined "some-thing/some-one" that was the obstructing factor. That shift dissolves both the imagined, existent entity that was previously deemed to be "the recognizer, doer, perceiver, experiencer," in that the "whom/what" to which "realization" could be attributed TO is dissolved. The mind-informing aspect or experiential "registering" that a shift has happened, of course, necessarily involves mind/minding, ideas, thoughts, knowings that are of an additive nature, but those are not to be confused with the profound shift in locus of seeing itself, that is the "realization/unobscuring of" Self. It's very difficult to answer the misconceived questions of the seeking position because those questions have inherent to them an imagined, existent entity. Whatever pointers are offered, will necessarily also then have that erroneously imagined entity central to them, as the imagined entity attempts to grasp them. This is why it is so crucial there be deep honestly and sincerity in play re: this inquiry/seeking process. (Unfortunately, not in the hands of the seeker!) Absent that, what we have is a sort of doubling-down of the imagined existent person.....an intent/movement in play to at all costs, protect and preserve that imagined, existent "me." This absence of sincerity is demonstrated in the deep level of anger and vitriol that so often arises in these convos as seeker's delusions get pointed out. The imagined SVP/egoic mind will do pretty much anything to try to keep itself relevant, when the seeking for Truth is devoid of that "all or nothing"...."Truth at all costs" drive/intent. Those who believe they are interested in Truth but who poo-poo the sentiment of "Truth at all costs," would be far better imo, if their interest could shift instead to self help/a better dream. That's really what they're after anyway, even if they cannot see it.
|
|