Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Quotes
Jun 18, 2024 7:02:55 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2024 7:02:55 GMT
(Movie Scene: Dark Knight Rises ~ In the Pit Prison) Scene: Man: You do not fear death. You think this makes you strong. It makes you weak. Bruce: Why? Man: How can you move faster than possible? Fight longer than possible? Without the most powerful impulse of the spirit? The fear of death. Bruce: I do fear death. I fear dying in here, while my city burns. And there is no one there to save it. Man: Then make the climb. Bruce. How... Man: As the child did. Without the rope. Then fear will find you again. Screenplay by: Jonathan Nolan, Christopher Nolan ----- Some "spiritual" people say they have transcended the fear of death. If so, okay, great. But be honest. Have you? As Nisargadatta said, it's the earnestness that matters. I think the distinction between a fear of death and a natural impetus towards protection of life and body/mind is an important one. An impetus towards (s)elf protection does not necessarily mean the presence of existential fear. Maybe we could say that there is Love, and it can manifest as 'fear' when there is false identification. That is, when you don't know what you really are. ? So maybe underneath fear, is love. One thing I like about that clip is that it stirs me up. I was watching a woman's videos on youtube about non-duality (she's had some kind of realization), but it was about the void, nothing exists, death of self, no desires. It didn't sound too appealing. I might prefer Gopal's rollercoaster.  |
|
|
|
Quotes
Jun 18, 2024 18:03:53 GMT
Post by Figgles on Jun 18, 2024 18:03:53 GMT
I think the distinction between a fear of death and a natural impetus towards protection of life and body/mind is an important one. An impetus towards (s)elf protection does not necessarily mean the presence of existential fear. Maybe we could say that there is Love, and it can manifest as 'fear' when there is false identification. That is, when you don't know what you really are. ? So maybe underneath fear, is love. Sure, if we're using the term "Love" in a pointery way vs. a reference to personally approving of something, that works for me. It's fair I think to say that pointers to the absence of need-based desires, references to the void, emptiness, are not meant to appeal to persons and their mind-based judgments. But important too for the message/messenger not to conflate "absence/emptiness/void" with a negation/denial of the experience of life, which is of course, complete with ups/downs between feeling states as personal judgments continue to arise and be applied via minding, to apparent conditions. |
|
|
|
Quotes
Jun 26, 2024 2:30:07 GMT
Post by Figgles on Jun 26, 2024 2:30:07 GMT
Where there is an absence of knowledge re: whether I am or whether I am not the body....(the realized absence is NOT acquired knowledge!) there's also an absence of the erroneous idea that consciousness is "within" some-thing, including the apparent body.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Quotes
Jun 27, 2024 1:18:38 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2024 1:18:38 GMT
Where there is an absence of knowledge re: whether I am or whether I am not the body....(the realized absence is NOT acquired knowledge!) there's also an absence of the erroneous idea that consciousness is "within" some-thing, including the apparent body. Well then, you're gonna have to take that up with Niz whose quote that is. |
|
|
|
Quotes
Jun 27, 2024 6:09:23 GMT
Post by Figgles on Jun 27, 2024 6:09:23 GMT
Where there is an absence of knowledge re: whether I am or whether I am not the body....(the realized absence is NOT acquired knowledge!) there's also an absence of the erroneous idea that consciousness is "within" some-thing, including the apparent body. Well then, you're gonna have to take that up with Niz whose quote that is. Niz often spoke to where a seeker sat...made concessions to mind/ego/the SVP, in order to facilitate conceptual understanding.....I'm quite sure he was well aware he was doing that and did not himself mistake those concessions for Absolute Truth...the seeker on the other hand....  ....it's very clear you've taken the idea of consciousness as residing 'within' the human body as Truth. You like that quote because you think it augments or even proves out your belief in that idea. It doesn't. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Quotes
Jun 27, 2024 12:13:30 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2024 12:13:30 GMT
Well then, you're gonna have to take that up with Niz whose quote that is. Niz often spoke to where a seeker sat...made concessions to mind/ego/the SVP, in order to facilitate conceptual understanding.....I'm quite sure he was well aware he was doing that and did not himself mistake those concessions for Absolute Truth...the seeker on the other hand.... ....it's very clear you've taken the idea of consciousness as residing 'within' the human body as Truth. You like that quote because you think it augments or even proves out your belief in that idea. It doesn't. Yes, my experience is that we are both human and being for a span of time, as did Niz and countless other non-dual teachers. You and E. are the only two that have a different "theory" about it and use the term "concession to mind" to get around any statement you can not grasp because you have no reference for it. All good. Believe as you need to. But the day you are actually "out of your mind" you will have a far different view of Life here and now. I promise. Until then, take two meditations and preach away as needed. :-) |
|
|
|
Quotes
Jun 27, 2024 17:22:51 GMT
Post by Figgles on Jun 27, 2024 17:22:51 GMT
Niz often spoke to where a seeker sat...made concessions to mind/ego/the SVP, in order to facilitate conceptual understanding.....I'm quite sure he was well aware he was doing that and did not himself mistake those concessions for Absolute Truth...the seeker on the other hand.... ....it's very clear you've taken the idea of consciousness as residing 'within' the human body as Truth. You like that quote because you think it augments or even proves out your belief in that idea. It doesn't. Yes, my experience is that we are both human and being for a span of time, as did Niz and countless other non-dual teachers. Precisely! THAT, IS "Your experience" And your very mention of "for a span of time," is a reference to the temporal, ephemeral, appearance only, nature of the experienced, human body. Truth lies beyond/prior to all and any experiential content. Realization is a shift in position of seeing (even calling that shift a position though, IS a concession to mind...the shift really is beyond ALL fixed positions...it's position-less) that is beyond/prior to ALL appearance/experience/perceivables. I've never denied that there is an experience of "being human"....that's always been your straw-man take on my pointings. My point is that no facet of experience, however convincing it may be, is Truth, or inherently exists in it's own right. The "human being," you insist exists, is an appearance arising within consciousness, not the other way around. What Niz is pointing to in those above quotes is the absence of inherent existence of the human body/mind and of ALL appearing content...ALL perceivables as being empty of "substance." You've yet to realize that absence of substance. And I'd say the seeker Niz was speaking to as he made that concession to mind as he referenced "inner vs. outer," also had not. Mind simply does not understand that "realized absence." We can point in hopes that mind will be transcended and the pointer will be followed to it's intended 'destination' but there are of course, no guarantees. Seems most often, mind grabs hold of that pointer and conceptualizes the hell out of it.  Interesting, so are you now claiming to have direct reference for the shift in seeing that is SR/abiding wakefulness? From your past sharings, that would be something new, no? Fwiw, the seeing of that emptiness of "substance" that Niz is referencing...and that I continue to point to (as you say, preach about! ) as I challenge your attempts to reify the apparent person as having inherent substance/existing in it's own right, does not involve "theorizing" at all. It truly is a realization/seeing through that has inherent to it a profound shift in locus of seeing from "in the dream" to "beyond." It is in fact "your" attempts to reify and prop up the apparent human being as having inherent substance/existence that is "mind-based"... A shift in seeing to "beyond/prior to," or as you say "out of mind," and "here and now" clearly illuminates the emptiness of substance re: all appearance. |
|
|
|
Quotes
Jun 27, 2024 17:33:45 GMT
Post by Figgles on Jun 27, 2024 17:33:45 GMT
JLY: Yes, my experience is that we are both human and being for a span of time, SR means a shift in primary locus of seeing to that which abides....that which exists independent of all content and does not appear but for a "span of time".... and then "disappears" The sense of being a human/person/body-mind is experiential...it comes and goes...even without the death of the apparent body...the so called 'end' of human life, that "sense" can be temporarily suspended. In that temporary suspension, what remains? THAT's what you've yet to apprehend in something more than just a fleeting/glimpsing manner. That's what is realized as 'the ground' to the entirety of the appearing world...that is what exists and abides regardless of whether or not there are perceivables/perception...and that 'grounded in awareness' is what becomes abiding and the primary 'place' of seeing when SR is the case. (And...that does not mean that the "experience of" being a person/human no longer arises...the human/body/me character and all it's senses, continues to appear, but now it is "couched within" that primordial vantage point of/ground of awareness...and is absent the previous "identification" by mind, it erroneously garnered). |
|
|
|
Quotes
Jul 2, 2024 3:26:27 GMT
Post by Figgles on Jul 2, 2024 3:26:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Quotes
Jul 3, 2024 19:57:37 GMT
Post by Figgles on Jul 3, 2024 19:57:37 GMT
That is a very nice and somewhat different way to point to "absence of Absolute knowing."
|
|
....it's very clear you've taken the idea of consciousness as residing 'within' the human body as Truth. You like that quote because you think it augments or even proves out your belief in that idea. It doesn't. 
