|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 10, 2024 17:28:27 GMT
It might indeed "seem" that way from a position of having had glimmers/glimpses of the absence of separation but without a true abiding shift in locus of seeing to "beyond/prior to." You are clearly conflating mind's informed "conceptions" of those glimmers/glimpses with the shift in locus of seeing that is SR. The apprehension of #1 without #2, is a clear indicator that SR has no happened and rather, conceptual understanding has been mistaken for SR. Pointing to the Truth is the equivalent of "giving you grief"?  Thanks for sharing....explains why you wanted me to remain banned/blocked from ST. Surely even just based on logic one can see the error of your assertion; That which obscures Oneness/Infinite from shining forth is noneother than "the illusory SVP." If the SVP illusion is still in play, then Oneness/Infinite is still obscured. You've mistaken a conceptual, experience based knowing for "realization/seeing through." (All realization is at it's crux, a seeing through of delusion/illusion and in that, the Truth naturally reveals itself.) Agreed. But mysticism is not Nonduality....a CC/Kensho is a mystical experience. SR is not a mystical experience, but rather a profound shift of locus of seeing that corrects a fallacy....that dissolves previously imagined, fundamental separation. You seem yourself to be saying the Christian priest in the videos is not SR because he still believes there is a 'somewhere' he needs to get to...no? What that means is that while he's had plenty of experiential, mind-expanding, awe-inspiring "insights," he has yet to "realize" the absence of separation/fundamental Oneness. You are still not grasping the distinction between "a CC/Kensho event" vs. "realization/seeing through." They are not one & the same. Kensho/CC is but an "initial glimmer." It is "incomplete" and in that incompleteness, if one stops there, he's still fast asleep in the dream. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 10, 2024 17:35:00 GMT
So are you in agreement then that conceptual understandings re: Nonduality pointers may indeed be "on a spectrum" but SR is not?
I DO agree with you that so called "mental/mind enlightenment" does often get a bad rap, and really, compared to average Joe, fully caught up in the consensus trance, that should not be the case. Again, I think we're talking the equivalent of McKenna's "human adulthood" vs. "fast asleep/fully immersed in delusion." Absent full SR, of course the next best thing is "human adulthood/relative conscious awareness as to mind content/ general awareness of WIBIGO."
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 10, 2024 21:48:12 GMT
 It's funny stuff to point out that so long as there is still a "separate" self in play, apprehension of Oneness, is not? Damn near freakin hilarious, I tell ya!  Ah yes....that special brand of patience and tenacity that means he cannot tolerate the most civil of direct challenges to his pov....such a rare and special breed of patience that he blocks/bans those who dare to directly challenge him....such great a tenacity that one who dares to challenge his views is characterized by him as "giving him lots of grief." 
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 1, 2024 18:50:26 GMT
The pointer "there are no others" is not a declaration of relative connectivity/unity. It's a pointer to fundamental Truth...to absence of "fundamental separation, boundary, limitation, inherent existence" regarding all that appears...all objects, things and yes, people/characters. It's a pointer to there being no-thing "other than" THIS...a pointer that levels the totality of any-thing at all that arises/appears within experience, as absent it's own inherent existence.
What this means is that the use of that pointer to prop up a supposed Absolute, certain knowing of discrete, unique perceivers is the epitome of an erroneous conceptualization of said pointer.
It baffles the mind that anyone would use that pointer of "no others" to then turn around and reify "other/discrete/unique" perceivers/experiencers, as they observe multiple characters/people in relation to their "own" directly known/appearing me character.
No "other" is pointing to the fundamental nature of apparent distinctions...it's a pointer that is pointing "beyond" the relative/appearance/experiential content...it's a pointer that preserves apparent distinction while affirming fundamental Oneness. It in no way affirms the existence/Truth of discrete, unique, individuated "perceivers/experiencers." Those remain of the relative...experiential content. Any knowledge of unique, discrete perceivers/experiencers, is "in the story/relative" knowledge, only.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 7, 2024 3:10:51 GMT
If we're talking something more than self-betterment, relative clarity, in other words, Truth... SR, waking up is so much more than simply "conceptually identifying" distorting ideas/thoughts. One can conceptually grasp that "limitation/boundedness" is a "so called" distorting thought without actually "realizing" absence of limitation/boundedness.
The identification of a distorted thought/idea by an SVP, is inherently anchored in by that imagined SVP. There may instances where the idea has less pull or where it can be conceptually kicked to the curb, but unless and until the SVP is absent, that "cut" hasn't actually been made.
The SVP and distorting thoughts/ideas (false, erroneous ideas) go hand in hand.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 7, 2024 3:21:01 GMT
what IS, is a pointer to that which cannot be captured by relative terms such as "reliable." The SVP though, IS indeed, very reliable in it's drive towards capturing that which cannot be captured by mind, via concepts. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 7, 2024 3:43:38 GMT
Regardless of how many ornaments, souls, bangles, stuffed-to-the-brim-suitcases, you saddle upon the apparent individual person, that does not change the person from being anything other than an appearance only.
You cannot make the apparent person existent/possessing of inherent, Absolute substance by ascribing it more facets/parts.
And the "soul" idea is just that...the ascribing of another "part/facet" to the experiential "me."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2024 19:06:12 GMT
You cannot make the apparent person existent/possessing of inherent, Absolute substance If an appearance can see/hear/read your words and respond to them in context, then they are definitely perceiving entities, whether you like it or not. Don't like my avatar? You seem awfully sensitive about your non-perceiving "appearance". Why is that? Its just a non-perceiving empty appearance, right? So, who cares? Do you think any legitimate non-dual teacher would be concerned about their appearance being on the internet? I seriously doubt it. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 8, 2024 3:29:16 GMT
You cannot make the apparent person existent/possessing of inherent, Absolute substance If an appearance can see/hear/read your words and respond to them in context, then they are definitely perceiving entities, whether you like it or not. By what means do you know for Absolute certain that your posts are actually being read, that your words are being heard, or your actions seen? Relatively speaking, as the story goes, that is what's experienced, and we look to experience for relative verification, but even relatively speaking, you cannot know for certain, and if we're talking Truth (Absolute knowing) experience cannot be relied upon for that Absolute, certain knowing/realization. "Perceiving entities" are a facet of the dream-scape, but the shift in locus of seeing that is SR, reveals that which lies prior to/beyond all apparent entities and prior to "perception" itself. Perceiving beings, people, (objects if that is what you experience) are all "appearance only," absent inherent existence. Whatsa matter Rick, the horses arse 'aint workin' for ya?  It's extremely odd that you'd be interested in using my pic, copied from my facebook page, as your own avatar. There's a strange, creepy, icky vibe I get from the fact that that floats your boat. What's up with that? I have at times used personal pics of myself for my avatar, but at this time, am choosing instead to feature my art. It's possible I might change my mind at some point, but that's my decision to make, not yours. If you think SR means no longer feeling creeped out at times, or caring about safety, privacy, getting hacked, etc, then you clearly don't really understand what SR means and what the experiential impacts are. Realizing the inherent absence of existence re: the apparent me character, thus, seeing that there is actually no existent "perceiving entity" behind perception, does not equal a complete absence of caring/interest in the personal story and how it unfolds. You can feel free to keep the horse's ass as your profile pic or choose another, but please stop using my image for YOUR avatar. Thank you. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2024 12:42:41 GMT
By what means do you know for Absolute certain that your posts are actually being read, that your words are being heard, or your actions seen? For one thing, by the reactions words can provoke. You are one of the more reactive ones around. In fact, I could pretty much make to react on command. Notice how reactive you were to my dharma queen avatar. Boy did that get your goat. Not sure why you felt a need to remove a pic of your own book on your own forum though. That was really weird, but telling (as you like to say). Respect for your personal boundaries? You mean like you respect the personal boundaries of others on the ST forum? And don't give me the "it's a forum supposedly dedicated to truth at all costs" b*llshit because that* is not at all what the ST forum masthead states it's mission is. That little bit of BS is all out of your twisted imagination. Now, stop being an blowhard and realize that it is you who doesn't have a clue to what it means to be living eternal awareness in temporary physical form. Go meditate on ocean/wave analogy 101 and see if the universe might help you out with a realization about that. Maybe then you would understand what those quotes you post really mean. *This board is intended for anyone with a sincere interest in a spiritual path or teacher and is not limited to those interested in spiritual teachers reviewed at Spiritualteachers.org. Only members may post. Think of this place as a virtual ashram and consider these words by Richard Rose: "We need a spot on earth upon which to meet. A homing ground, but not an intellectual prison. A library and clubhouse of philosophers. A place with quiet rooms where a person can be alone if he desires. A clearinghouse of contacts, or a place where a cardfile might be kept with names of those who wish to be contacted.... Many people with philosophic drive feel no compulsion to mingle with anyone except their colleagues. But these people must be unaware of future growth opportunities for themselves, and they must be unaware that they must help others in order to grow themselves."[/quote] |
|
I think that even mental enlightenment gets a bad rap. Not to say the traps you id about it aren't a thing, but still, even with the hard, discontinuous breaks of realization, there's still a relevant spectrum. 
