|
Post by Gopal on Jun 30, 2023 6:35:47 GMT
The one who never attain clarity can not know what I am talking about. Okie Dokie. Somethin' tells me you didn't use the chat-bot for that one. Nope, I did not.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 3, 2023 17:14:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 7, 2024 5:05:04 GMT
An explanation about an absence is not itself, the absence. To talk about Truth necessarily means the invoking of the presence of minding/conceptualizing about that which is itself, not an object in mind/not a concept...most certainly NOT an "existential belief."
But the use of that fact to argue against Nondual pointers, clearly indicates a failure to realize what's being pointed to.
The seeing through of existential belief and the conceptualization of that...attempt to talk about/convey that, does not constitute the taking on of another existential belief.
The realization of Oneness comes hand in hand with clear seeing that talk about it, is not IT.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 7, 2024 17:33:44 GMT
You know "THIS is it," when mind is no longer erroneously looking "beyond" THIS for Truth. That was the mistake! Seeking for something more...something else....some-thing "other than" what imminently IS.
The Absolute Truth shines forth imminently, directly in the absence of mind seeking "something other than/beyond" what imminently IS.
When you posit the "vast intelligence" as being "the Absolute," you are so very clearly conceptualizing the pointer "Absolute." It's no wonder you're confused as hell, even on the mere concepts involved in Nonduality....you've seemingly put your trust in ZD...you take his word as gospel and he himself is very confused...he's mistaken mysticism....an in the dream awakening to the consensus trance, for SR/full awakening.
I DO think he's had glimpses of "beyond/prior to," but it's clear his locus of seeing has shifted back and he's seeing through the eyes of the person...the personal viewpoint is his primary locus of seeing.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 7, 2024 17:52:56 GMT
Amazing how at times as you rail against Nonduality, you sometimes stumble into offering up a quote that is more than apt. Indeed, the burning of all concepts DOES leave the seeker very little wiggle room when trying to argue for his inherent existence/identity. And yes, that absence of concept to cling to DOES indeed "negate" the false, erroneously imagined separate, inherently existent (s)elf/I/me person.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 7, 2024 18:14:20 GMT
You have zero reference for what is meant by "the illusory, separate dream character," because you are imagining yourself to be one and you are taking that imagining to be Truth.
It's akin to not being able to see the trees for the forest....or going 'nose-blind' to a horrible stench in your own home.
You think you can have your cake and eat it too....remain identified with/as an inherently existent "someone/something," and still BE free from the confines of identification with limitation/boundedness. It doesn't work that way. The existence/actuality of limitation/boundedness must be seen through to be free of it. The limited/discrete/bounded consciousness of the apparent body/mind, must be seen as appearance only in order to not BE bound within it.
And it's not good enough to simply hold a conception of yourself as a body/mind/person as being "an extension of Source." That is the epitome of trying to have your cake and eat it too....it's a way to hang onto identification with the limited/bounded body/mind, me character, AND simultaneously also identify with/as something greater. It's nothing more than a mind-game. Nothing short of seeing the apparent body/mind, me character as an arising/appearance within/to Awareness will do.
Then, when you say, "I am the body," you are not claiming/identifying with limitation/boundedness. You are acknowledging the fundamental singularity of that which abides and that which temporally, ephemerally, appears.
I've noticed that generally the more one dissects into parts and creates levels/hierarchy within the apparent person (spirit/soul/energy etc. that "embodies" the object/body) the greater the structural tenacity there seems to be to the imagined SVP.
Attribute is not a problem so long as it's clearly seen to be appearance only. Otherwise, just as Reefs has done, attribute gets mistaken for Absolute, realized Truth and we have folks claiming that SR includes Absolute knowing that all objects are conscious experiencers/perceivers...or in other words, Absolute knowing that consciousness IS limited/bounded to and by, a particular appearing thing/object....person.
She tries to get around that by suggesting that each appearing person is an "extention of Source," and as such, possesses the "qualities/attributes" of Source, but that only digs the identification/separation hole deeper....quality/attribute is not fundamental...not abiding, but rather, a facet of the temporal...the changing....experiential content.
The moment one starts talking about the qualities and Attributes of the Absolute, you know they've licked a pointer.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 12, 2024 22:50:04 GMT
Or, you can back even further, inquire even deeper to examine the very idea that something is actually 'being/getting DONE' in an apparent decision. Making decisions, choosing, all facets of the dream. There is no actual existent chooser...nothing actually "being" done/caused/created/catalyzed by anything or anyone as a choice is apparently made. Ultimately, just all one singular, seamless expression.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 14, 2024 5:46:15 GMT
In other words, SDP is not interested in waking up to the dream....realizing that the world he is so fully immersed within is an appearance only, he's instead interested in staying immersed/asleep within the dream, having the best dream he can fathom.
Cool experiences are great, but seeing prior to ALL experience is something else entirely.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 14, 2024 5:56:36 GMT
It's very clear Tenka, that you STILL mistake yourself to be a separate entity. You believe that you, as an individuated someone/human, have "actual" volitional power to choose and to catalyze/create/impact what comes next within the story/experience, no?
The fact that you scoff when the pointer of absence of doership comes up, speaks volumes.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 14, 2024 6:22:25 GMT
It sounds as though you had a momentary shift to 2nd mountain/there is no mountain position, that shifted right back to 1st mountain/(s)elf position.
That reference you had when you "reengaged with the world," for absence of family....absence of world, in the apprehension of pure awareness/fundamental being, is what's meant by "informing of mind." The fact that you felt sad though and cried, is another indicator that your 2nd mountain glimmer, was just that, and the shift was incomplete. If it had been complete and the shift that is SR had stabilized, you would have clearly seen that the family you love is an expression of what you call "beingness" in the above quote.
It's true, fundamental being/the ground stands alone, whereas appearing family arise within/to that, dependent upon it...and cannot stand alone. That "not able to stand alone" is what is meant by "absent inherent existence in it's own right." Being exists absent appearance but appearance cannot appear absent the ground of being.
Well, in your banging on, you're exhibiting hypocrisy, 'cause when you wrote about "absence of family...absence of world" above, you invoked a concept to describe an absence.
What it's clear you don't get Tenka is that in full SR, 3rd mountain position integration, the shift in locus of seeing does not come and go....that view from the position of unfettered awareness remains primary....when (s)elf arises/appears along with the accompanying personal, apparently limited vantage point, that is couched within primary awareness. The two vantage points coincide together, with the ground of awareness remaining primary.
What you describe is a brief, fleeting transcendence of mind that immediately shifted back into the dream, and stayed there. Sounds like you had a glimmer of the vantage point that is "beyond/prior to mind," but then went right back into mind...back into dream-land, and remain there, but with memory/recall of that non-conceptual glimmer.
|
|