|
Post by Figgles on Jan 14, 2024 6:32:14 GMT
Yup. Tenka's stance on this issue is akin to someone who knows nothing at all about horticulture, hanging out on a horticulture forum, trying to debunk what avid and years long horticulturists are saying, and all the while refusing to adopt and go along with the generally agreed upon definitions of the various terms used in horticulture. It's a level of arrogance and stubborness you just don't see too often.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 14, 2024 6:36:20 GMT
I think it was ZD who first went along with your "there is only what you are," and that was a mistake because on your part, it never was the equivalent of what Nonduality is actually pointing to.
Your "there is only what you are," highlights the WHAT. Which means it conceptual only. Nonduality dissolves the existent "what" and renders it appears only. But you don't have reference for that dissolving.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 17, 2024 21:59:07 GMT
But, prescribing "being attentive" for the purpose/goal of controlling future outcomes. That right there involves a misconception...the delusion of imagined separation. Absent that delusion, there is no interest in controlling the unfolding reality in that way.
The degree of "importance" that is assigned to "what occurs/appears," does not disappear post SR, but it is vastly reduced....reduced to a degree that from a current position of having it mattering above all else, you cannot even imagine.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 17, 2024 22:10:22 GMT
Focus/interest is not actually 'causal/determinate' as she is erroneously indicating there....it just looks that way from the vantage point of an imaginary existent entity who supposedly HAS control over focus...direction of attention....his interests. Plain and simply, as baggage lightens, interests, direction of focus/attention is naturally impacted and there will shifts re: interests/where mind gravitates to. You cannot actually parse apart perceived "quality" of life and focus of attention. Nice trick if a person can do it! (They really can't...not in the person's hands....regardless of how it may seem). Highest interest dictates attention. Try as you might, you cannot buck that. Attention follows interest. Always. It's fair even to say that Interest/attention are pretty much one & the same!
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 16, 2024 22:15:00 GMT
Reefs specifically denoted "humans" as having direct access to "the infinite" and thus, being different than AI.......thus, he was indeed referencing that which is "finite,"...the realm of appearance....apparent limitation, and that's what Gopal responded to. To say that a human "has access to the infinite" is to mix context and in doing that, it reifies the "human" as a separate entity that is "connected" to a something called "the infinite." Interesting how you'd correct Gopal on that one, but leave Reef's contextual mess alone. And really, the "universe IS alive" but the machines are finite? Is "alive" being used there as a pointer or an attribute/property? Either way, sounds like a contradiction....lack of clarity.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 19, 2024 19:54:07 GMT
That's an example of trying to have yer cake and it too. It's the suggestion that there can be individuated, existent entities in their own right, complete with personal volition to cause/create their own experience, AND a fundamentally shared substrate by which those discrete, existent entities, are thereby "connected/unified." That's not what the pointer "Oneness/not separate" is pointing to. A manifestation "of" consciousness does not mean that it's Truth that every object/thing that manifests IS "conscious, alive, experiencing/perceiving." Consciousness is not a some-thing that HAS the attribute of "being alive...perceiving...experiencing"...Consciousness is not 'a something THAT experiences/perceives.' Rather, percpetion/experience arise within/to Consciousness. This entire passage is a stellar example of what it meant by "conceptualized Oneness." Fundamental Oneness does not equal the idea of all appearing things/objects/conditions/thoughts, as "interconnected." That is mind attempting to put it's stamp on what can only ever be a seeing from beyond/prior to appearance. That idea reifies "discrete/limited consciousness-es" as fundamentally existent/actual. In short, it's invoking separation and denoting it as 'actual/Truth.' Conceptual unity, however "profound" it may seem to be, is not the same as the realiztaion of "not-two." An experience whereby distinctions between the me character and other characters, object/things, dissolves, is a mystical experience. All very cool and fine, and as an insight, it can and often does impact experience relatively speaking, but it's not what is meant by "SR/waking up." That very nicely describes a common New Age belief. And lays the groundwork for LOA/deliberate creation...all sorts of other 'in the dream' woo-woo/mystical belief. This is 'additive knowledge' not 'seeing through/absence' which is inherent to Truth "realization." The moment atoms and subatomic particles enters into the convo, you can most likely rest assured that we're in the new age spirituality realm, trying to merge science with the mystical...most definitely NOT the "Nonduality/Truth" realm. All cool if your interest is New Age Spirituality, but if it's Nonduality, all of that gets filed under "appearance only."
JLY....I've noticed that you too, instead of sharing your own seeing, choose instead to resort to the authority of another...in this case, to a chat-bot....why not just share things as YOU see them? Invoke your own authority instead of another's....ultimately, that's what's necessary even if it's just to clearly see and be aware of mind's content/machinations.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 19, 2024 20:01:32 GMT
JLY, It is so that in the informing of mind post SR/awakening, the impact upon mind and experience can indeed "make it sound" at times as though there's been a "realization" of additive knowledge such as described in that AI-chat bot assertion. But regardless of how it may sound, it really is so important to see the distinction between a true "realization/seeing through" that equals an absence, vs. an additive knowing/mind informing.
In one case there's a loss....truly an absence where previous was a presence of erroneous knowing...in the other, there is something 'new' known...an impact upon experience...the experience of the world is re-framed, now with that previous, erroneous mistake of mind, removed.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 19, 2024 20:58:28 GMT
For you, JLY:
"Another one of the great misunderstandings about awakening or enlightenment is that it is some sort of mystical experience. We might expect an experience akin to union with God: a merging with the environment or a dissolving into the ocean. This is not the case. Nor is awakening the same as suddenly having a tremendous amount of cosmic insight--insight into the way the whole universe is constructed, insight into the inner workings we think is reality.
....mystical experiences are beautiful. they are in many ways the highest and most pleasurable experiences that a 'me' can have. The 'me' is always seeking union. Many of the spiritual practices people engage in are actually meant to produce mystical experiences of this variety, whether we're talking about an experience of merging or visions of deities or feeling like our consciousness is expanding through space and time. But again, mystical experiences are not the same as awakening. "
Adyashanti
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 22, 2024 19:57:21 GMT
Well, yeah, actually, they ARE.
The brown-bear position has mistaken emptiness of inherent existence for a complete denial that appearances appear. It's the ultimate in conceptualizing a pointer, really. They've taken a fundamental absence and applied it at the relative level to deny the appearing, experiential world.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 10, 2024 17:06:35 GMT
I'd be willing to bet ZD, Muttley won't point this out to you, but fact is, he is making a clear distinction there between "insight" vs. "realization/SR."
The context within which you speak of 'each human as unique,' relative to clarity, is the personal/informed mind, "insight" context.
Indeed, the personal, experiential, mind informed "insights" that occur following SR or even a temporary glimmer/glimpse of Truth, are numerous, but those "insights" as mind is informed of the absence/seeing through of "realization" are not equal to the "seeing through/realization/absence" itself. You don't seem to have a reference for that important distinction...and that explains why you've mistaken experiential "aliveness" for transcendent, prior to mind, apprehended "Truth."
If "SR has not occurred," then there can be no true "knowing with certainty" that THIS is unified and infinite. That 'knowing/seeing' is not a conceptual-substantive knowing, but rather, it is a prior to mind/beyond mind seeing/realization...a seeing through, absence of limitation/boundary.
A "knowing" that THIS is infinite without a seeing through of fundamental limitation/boundary, is nothing more than a conceptual knowing and when it comes to Absolute certainty re: "Truth" conceptual knowledge does not cut it.
It's important to be clear as to what constitutes "a realization/seeing through" vs. what constitutes mind informing "insights." One is transcendent seeing /realization and the other is an experiential impact that comes hand in hand with that.
|
|