|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 10, 2020 20:57:28 GMT
Good lord ZD, you are speaking of "the infinite" as though it is a tangible, perceivable thing/place that you can visit. It's not. It's a pointer, only. "Vastness" is really just another pointer indicating an absence of limitation. Whereas you are assigning 'vastness' as a property of THAT. All properties lies within the dream-scape only. If you're talking Truth, then all properties/qualities must be left behind.
"The infinite" is just more imperfect words, pointing to an absence of actual separation, limitation, boundedness. It's not a 'thing' that can be conceptalized or experienced in the way you are suggesting.
There are all sorts of experience one might have, deeply mystical and transcendent 'seeming' experiences had, as mind interjects itself to conceptualize that absence left in the wake of seeing through the illusion of separation/limitation. Such experiences might include a sense of dissolving into a sea of unity, a self-less flow with all that is, an experience of feeling unbounded, free, completely at one with the totality.
The problem is, that this type of experience, like all experience, is temporary. Unless an actual shift in seeing has happened, unless there's been an actual seeing through of separation, limitation, fundamental boundary, (which is NOT an experience) all you've had is a mystical experience. Xuch an experience will eventually dissipate, leaving you once more feeling and experiencing limitation, bounded to a personal self.
Realization/seeing through/absence on the other hand, does not come and go. The absence of separation 'abides' all experience, very much changing the way the entire world of things is seen, regarded, and yes, even experienced. Realization does indeed impact experience, but the experience itself is not the realization. Realization always results in an absence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 11, 2020 20:28:24 GMT
Any resolve that does anything other than illuminate the question as misconceived, is a trip right back into story-land. If you come away with a pat answer to an existential question, then you have not transcended the story. The question of whether the appearing person you see is representative of independent existence in it's own right, beyond arising as an appearance to/within you, is resolved via realization, when it is clearly seen to be misconceived, NOT when you arrive at absolute knowing of "yes." Right. Realizations are always seeing throughs, negations of previously held to knowings about the realm of perceivables. Ya mean this Suzanne Segal?  I always figured "Reefs" was a reference to the coral reefs of the ocean, but now I'm starting to wonder if it's short for "reefer."   |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 11, 2020 20:32:35 GMT
Bingo.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 11, 2020 22:37:24 GMT
That's simply the nature of all mind states. They come and go. This is a good example of how folks erroneously conflate a relative state of equanimity with actual SR/freedom and then experience extreme disappointment when that state inevitably changes. What you deem to have been 'lost' due to a failure to see through the illusion of selfhood, is just the normal ebb/flow of a state, which is something entirely different than the absence, the unconditional peace, inherent in SR.
It sounds to me as though she saw that reality was not what she thought it was, but then mind filled in that absence with another thought about what reality was. It's the same thing with you. You speak about seeing that reality was not what you thought it was, but now you KNOW reality is a 'vibrant field of aliveness.' This is the 'realization': You see that reality cannot be captured or defined BY anything that you can think. Full stop.
Unless the absence remains an absence, no SR.
Again, true enlightenment is NOT a state of mind. It's freedom FROM mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 11, 2020 22:51:32 GMT
Her descriptions of what you are pointing to are the best, even though you deem her account to be very odd, that she still had too much minding going on, still sought answers to existential questions, experienced depersonalization disorder, split mind, mental illness, steeped in woo-woo, and hung up on appearances? With all that going on, I find it extremely odd that you'd not find her description to be at least somewhat 'tainted'...?  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 11, 2020 23:02:42 GMT
Whatever is remembered, and can be described, IS the content! The kind of mental functioning necessary for there to be memory of an event, described content, includes the sense of existence. If there is some degree of memory of 'an event' involved, you can bet there's a sense of existence/I am still involved. Otherwise, there'd be nothing at all TO remember. Well...duh. Yes! This is why it is said that the perceivable world/universe is an 'appearance only' within/to awareness. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 11, 2020 23:10:42 GMT
That's just an identity swap. If the false sense of self as a thought structure, collapses but then just gets replaced by yet another thought structure, that's not actually 'realization.' Realization is a seeing through that results in an absence. Not the presence of some new knowledge.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 12, 2020 16:48:31 GMT
There's the problem. Enlightenment/SR/awakening does not = a special experience. This is why the sharing of woo-woo experiences can so often lead seekers astray and imo should be kept to a bare minimum. Special, mystical, awe-inspiring experiences are more often than not, obstacles to SR. The pull of them is strong because there are such powerfully good feelings involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 12, 2020 17:17:42 GMT
What though is depression so deep that one finds life to utterly intolerable that he needs to kill himself in order to escape, but a very clear/concise example of what it means to be identified with separation, limitation, boundedness?
The idea that 'life is intolerable and I must escape' is a mental overlay that has the delusion of separation all over it.
To say that it is 'possible' that such a mental overlay dependent upon delusion can co-exist with SR is essentially to say that SR can coexist with the delusion of separation. That the realization of Oneness can co-abide alongside the delusion of separation. It's a nonsense.
Just because a dude who says he's a sage, wrote a book about his sage-hood experience, does not necessarily means he's actually a sage.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969 
|
Post by Enigma on Jan 12, 2020 23:41:37 GMT
What though is depression so deep that one finds life to utterly intolerable that he needs to kill himself in order to escape, but a very clear/concise example of what it means to be identified with separation, limitation, boundedness? The idea that 'life is intolerable and I must escape' is a mental overlay that has the delusion of separation all over it. To say that it is 'possible' that such a mental overlay dependent upon delusion can co-exist with SR is essentially to say that SR can coexist with the delusion of separation. That the realization of Oneness can co-abide alongside the delusion of separation. It's a nonsense. Just because a dude who says he's a sage, wrote a book about his sage-hood experience, does not necessarily means he's actually a sage. Yeah, I had to do some Spock style eyebrow raising when I first read that enlightened masters suffer existential crises. If that's not a red flag I don't know what is.  |
|
