|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 27, 2021 17:07:28 GMT
I am not angry at all. I am displeased with myself for wasting my time in exchanges that lead nowhere. "ephemeral arising in consciousness" ... "illuminates the inherent divinity of all of it" ... you keep using cliches. This is the difference between you and laughter, that brings you closer to zendancer. You hide your confusion with cliches, while laughter with rationalizations. I am not saying that you realize that you're confused. You don't because you don't follow your own advice to shut-up your distorted thinking and beliefs, and tap your inner guidance. What seems to you as my confusion is your projection, coupled with an unwillingness to confront what it is that we're pointing to. On ST you connected "The only thing I know is that I know nothing" with "infinite knowledge", and finally, here, you describe exactly what you're referring to: By the way, knowledge about reality increases neither by sudden illumination, nor by accumulation, but by progressive unveiling of details. There is an inherent contradiction in your thought process. While I can understand the fine distinction between an accumulation and a progression, "The knowledge that you know nothing" can never be achieved with an endless incremental process of learning different somethings.  That, in and of itself isn't necessarily definitive as to whether or not you are confused. What is definitive, however, is that you are unconscious of the contradiction - or, at the very least, the significance of that contradiction. In this sense, there is no reality, and everything you've ever learned is ultimately only a relative creation of mind. Name one thing you've learned that isn't ephemeral. This has nothing to do with any belief, it's simply an observation. You talk about my beliefs: name them, what, exactly are you referring to? You've made your beliefs quite clear, and it is those beliefs that form the basis of your delusion. "Reality", is beyond belief. Quite literally. Does that sound to you as if I've stated a belief?  Damn, really well said, all of that. Those 2 quotes are so good they're making it to the quotes section!  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 27, 2021 17:13:02 GMT
You don't understand the basic premise of my posts: I state my opinions with no pretense to convince anybody of anything. The only recommendation I make to whomever is to tap their own inner-guidance, while ignoring all gurus, dogmas, their own expectations and beliefs. I bounce my opinions off others just to get symbolic messages. I am a bouncing wall for them as well. I explained my beliefs many times, but it doesn't matter what I'm explaining but what the other understands. Almost every time you make an argument, in this post too, it shows me that we don't understand each other. We don't have to. So, your quoting "Seth" is different from us quoting Niz or Adya or Tolle, right? See now, we both have these reciprocal opinions about one another along these lines, but the difference between you and I seems to me that I can understand why you think that, because I understand what a pointer means to me. But your notion of intuition, this is quite interesting. What if your intuition, is wrong? Do you understand that this is the reciprocal to you opining that my pointers are a belief? If you've never doubted your inner guidance, then you are missing a major opportunity friend.  There is no capacity of mind that cannot deceive: not intellect, not emotion, and not what you consider to be intuition. Find out for yourself that your self-hypnosis can deceive. That might sound like an impossible task, but I assure you, it's quite possible. Perfectly put. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 30, 2021 20:03:14 GMT
What Watts is saying above, while important in terms of being awake to the consensus trance and being aware of the machinations of mind, has nothing to do with waking up/SR, which requires seeing the entirety of perceivables as empty arisings within to that which abides.
Also noted, he is not suggesting that in seeing the real world as a 'marvelous system of wiggles...in which we describe things and events in the same way we would project images on a Rorschach blot' that there's an inability in that seeing, to also, simultaneously, denote a rose as a rose.
To be aware of mind's labels and machinations does not mean that all labelling and movements of mind, thereafter, forever cease. It's more than enough to BE aware of the labelling and machinations. That awareness in many cases DOES impact the movements of mind, but not necessarily. Moreover, the impact can be noted in the 'depth' of the machinations..namely the depth of mind's judgments and assignations of wrongness.
While it is important to talk about being aware of mind's machinations as being so is the lynch-pin of being a mature, well-balanced person, it's also important not to conflate that becoming aware/waking up to the consensus trance, with awakening to the Truth/SR.
It's entirely possible to be deeply aware of mind's machinations, but still completely asleep to the inherent emptiness of all perceivables/all appearance.
I think being awake to the consensus trance/mind's machinations can make for a bit of sticky place actually, in terms of waking up to the emptiness of all of it...the assignation of importance to direct experience/direct knowing over mind's overlays and the ability to remain aware of where mind is applying those overlays upon direct experience can 'seem' to be transcendent, and within the dream, it IS, but it's not "actually" transcendent at all of the dream itself.
Again, Niz's "All perceivables are stains," speaks perfectly to the shift that has to happen, from being awake to the consensus trance/being aware of mind's machinations/labels/overlays upon direct experience, TO being awake to the dream in it's entirety.
The direct experience of a world before labels/minding about it enters in, is NOT the equivalent of seeing beyond/prior to ALL experiential content...all perceivables.
A direct experience of a world is still "a stain" upon the abiding, unchanging ground of emptiness, upon which all perceivables arise/appear.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 31, 2021 18:48:28 GMT
If there is agitation amidst an intent to "be present," then clearly there are competing intents in play...split mind. The wanting to be present and the wanting to engage mind, (be immersed in thought/ideation) are at odds. Where the strongest interest/intent is to be present, that's what will happen, where the strongest interest is to think/engage mind, that will happen.
The one who is trying to get in the way of naturally arising intent/interest, to control that, is noneother the separate person with his judgments about what is 'best/good/necessary, etc.'
It's that very judging/seeking mechanism that needs to get seen for what it is.
It's never specifically the cessation of thought/minding that is important, it's awareness of what mind is doing/not doing that is. Freedom/liberation does not depend on the absence of thought/minding, but it does depend upon awareness of thought/minding...a spaciousness between minding and awareness of minding. Being asleep = a complete entrenchment in the process of minding...no spaciousness...no awareness of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 10, 2022 18:07:47 GMT
Many fail to see the importance of being consciously aware of mind's machinations. Muttley seems to be one of them in his assertion that my talk/interest in the issue of whether or not causation actually appears, is nothing more than hyper-minding.
The idea that getting clear on that which is truly arising/appearing vs. where mind is entering in to add an overlay, to imagine something to be appearing, that is actually not, is TMT, is ludicrous.
While conscious awareness of mind's machinations per se does not equal the shift in locus of seeing that is SR/awakening, in terms of relative freedom, it really is the next best thing, and in the absence of SR/wakefulness to the dream, it's what a truly sincere seeker will be focused upon.
But what about those who present themselves as already SR, but who are still insisting that separation and the other erroneous ideas that piggy-back on that delusion/illusion, Do arise/appear in experience? Is it possible to be awake...for the locus of seeing to primarily be happening from the ground of unbounded awareness and somehow still not be conscious to what in blazes is going on....what is truly appearing and where is mind adding stuff in...erroneously assuming something to be appearing/arising that is not actually there?
As I see it, if one is still imagining that causation per se is actually appearing, and they have somehow failed to see that mind has entered in to add an overlay of assumption upon what is otherwise simply the experiential sense of 'this leads to that,' then by virtue of still buying into the idea that causation is happening in the dream, he's still buying into the idea of separation itself.
Plain and simply, from the context of talking Truth, you don't get one happening in the dream "lying causal to" another, unless you also have one happening existing separate from another.
And if heaven forbid, you are like Satchi, and still believing that prior to mind erroneously imagining the illusion/delusion of separation, that fundamental separation is actually arising, making an appearance....and mind's imagining is based on that appearance of separation, well, that indicates there is simply no reference at all for the Truth of "Oneness."
Oneness is not obscured by something that actually appears in/as experience, rather, it's erroneously assumed/imagined based upon mistaking the appearance of distinction for fundamental separation. That's why separation is referenced as an illusion/delusion. Just like the rope you mistake for a snake that was never actually appearing, the non SR mistake distinction for separation.
Bottom line, awareness of where mind is imagining stuff vs. directly perceiving arising/appearance is VERY important...not TMT at all (Muttley!)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2022 3:54:40 GMT
Many fail to see the importance of being consciously aware of mind's machinations. Is that something you do? Do you actively and intentionally engage in being conscious of mind's machinations? |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 11, 2022 4:00:38 GMT
Many fail to see the importance of being consciously aware of mind's machinations. Is that something you do? Do you actively and intentionally engage in being conscious of mind's machinations? There's no longer any need to intentionally engage in, remain/Be conscious of mind's machinations when the locus of seeing shifts from 'in mind...in the dream,' to beyond mind. From that un-entangled vantage point, it's all very clear. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2022 4:06:59 GMT
Is that something you do? Do you actively and intentionally engage in being conscious of mind's machinations? There's no longer any need to intentionally engage in, remain/Be conscious of mind's machinations when the locus of seeing shifts from 'in mind...in the dream,' to beyond mind. From that un-entangled vantage point, it's all very clear. Okay so you are advocating this practice for the ignorant? |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 11, 2022 21:53:57 GMT
There's no longer any need to intentionally engage in, remain/Be conscious of mind's machinations when the locus of seeing shifts from 'in mind...in the dream,' to beyond mind. From that un-entangled vantage point, it's all very clear. Okay so you are advocating this practice for the ignorant? I "advocate" inquiry for anyone truly interested in being consciously aware of mind's content. That generally means at least the modicum of clarity required to see that perhaps there is important stuff, going unseen. The thing is though, anyone truly, sincerely interested in such clarity is not really going to require someone to advocate to them that they should do, for inquiry to just naturally happen, |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2022 1:43:50 GMT
Okay so you are advocating this practice for the ignorant? I "advocate" inquiry for anyone truly interested in being consciously aware of mind's content. That generally means at least the modicum of clarity required to see that perhaps there is important stuff, going unseen. The thing is though, anyone truly, sincerely interested in such clarity is not really going to require someone to advocate to them that they should do, for inquiry to just naturally happen, That second sentence cleverly gets you out of having to sound like you are pro practice and a doer. Nice one! |
|
That, in and of itself isn't necessarily definitive as to whether or not you are confused. What is definitive, however, is that you are unconscious of the contradiction - or, at the very least, the significance of that contradiction.
There is no capacity of mind that cannot deceive: not intellect, not emotion, and not what you consider to be intuition. Find out for yourself that your self-hypnosis can deceive. That might sound like an impossible task, but I assure you, it's quite possible.