|
|
Post by Figgles on May 11, 2024 2:35:54 GMT
If "It" is still a something that is perceivable, observable, another step back/prior to must be taken.Another step, back/prior to must be taken...by whom? Who or what is it that must take another step back? That instruction to "take a step back," is of course, a concession to mind...to the imagined separate entity...limited viewpoint...(s)elf identified person. At that juncture, there is still, after all, an SVP in play....an existent entity is being imagined in the experience of the "me character." Inevitably, Nonduality as it addresses the seeker, is filled with those types of concessions as there is not yet a direct reference for "absence of existent entity/absence of SVP." The shift from the imagined position of seeing via the eyes of a person to beyond/prior to, is not actually a "step taken" by a someone at all, and in a true and abiding shift to "beyond" that Truth will easily and effortlessly reveal itself. If one should find himself confused or confounded by the instruction to "step back," best to think of it as a mere shift in from seeing is happening from. Feet/shoes/stepping really NOT necessary at all.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2024 12:47:59 GMT
Another step, back/prior to must be taken...by whom? Who or what is it that must take another step back? That instruction to "take a step back," is of course, a concession to mind...to the imagined separate entity...limited viewpoint...(s)elf identified person. At that juncture, there is still, after all, an SVP in play....an existent entity is being imagined in the experience of the "me character." Inevitably, Nonduality as it addresses the seeker, is filled with those types of concessions as there is not yet a direct reference for "absence of existent entity/absence of SVP." The shift from the imagined position of seeing via the eyes of a person to beyond/prior to, is not actually a "step taken" by a someone at all, and in a true and abiding shift to "beyond" that Truth will easily and effortlessly reveal itself. If one should find himself confused or confounded by the instruction to "step back," best to think of it as a mere shift in from seeing is happening from. Feet/shoes/stepping really NOT necessary at all. How is the shift to "beyond" recognized as having occurred, and whom/what recognizes it having happened? |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 11, 2024 17:34:09 GMT
That instruction to "take a step back," is of course, a concession to mind...to the imagined separate entity...limited viewpoint...(s)elf identified person. At that juncture, there is still, after all, an SVP in play....an existent entity is being imagined in the experience of the "me character." Inevitably, Nonduality as it addresses the seeker, is filled with those types of concessions as there is not yet a direct reference for "absence of existent entity/absence of SVP." The shift from the imagined position of seeing via the eyes of a person to beyond/prior to, is not actually a "step taken" by a someone at all, and in a true and abiding shift to "beyond" that Truth will easily and effortlessly reveal itself. If one should find himself confused or confounded by the instruction to "step back," best to think of it as a mere shift in from seeing is happening from. Feet/shoes/stepping really NOT necessary at all. How is the shift to "beyond" recognized as having occurred, and whom/what recognizes it having happened? These are actually great questions, asked from a seeker's position, however, in that shift to "beyond" that is SR, those questions are clearly illuminated as having been entirely misconceived. The "recognition" of "realization/seeing through," is the absence/seeing through itself....the apprehension of the ground of awareness that stands alone...that requires nothing else, other than itself, to BE, and the primary locus of seeing to have now shifted TO that ground, with the personal viewpoint now an arising within/to that...secondary. In terms of the shift itself, clarity...unobstructed seeing, really is self-evident. Inherent to that "realization" that equals the unobstructed view, is now the absence of the imagined "some-thing/some-one" that was the obstructing factor. That shift dissolves both the imagined, existent entity that was previously deemed to be "the recognizer, doer, perceiver, experiencer," in that the "whom/what" to which "realization" could be attributed TO is dissolved. The mind-informing aspect or experiential "registering" that a shift has happened, of course, necessarily involves mind/minding, ideas, thoughts, knowings that are of an additive nature, but those are not to be confused with the profound shift in locus of seeing itself, that is the "realization/unobscuring of" Self. It's very difficult to answer the misconceived questions of the seeking position because those questions have inherent to them an imagined, existent entity. Whatever pointers are offered, will necessarily also then have that erroneously imagined entity central to them, as the imagined entity attempts to grasp them. This is why it is so crucial there be deep honestly and sincerity in play re: this inquiry/seeking process. (Unfortunately, not in the hands of the seeker!) Absent that, what we have is a sort of doubling-down of the imagined existent person.....an intent/movement in play to at all costs, protect and preserve that imagined, existent "me." This absence of sincerity is demonstrated in the deep level of anger and vitriol that so often arises in these convos as seeker's delusions get pointed out. The imagined SVP/egoic mind will do pretty much anything to try to keep itself relevant, when the seeking for Truth is devoid of that "all or nothing"...."Truth at all costs" drive/intent. Those who believe they are interested in Truth but who poo-poo the sentiment of "Truth at all costs," would be far better imo, if their interest could shift instead to self help/a better dream. That's really what they're after anyway, even if they cannot see it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2024 18:13:40 GMT
How is the shift to "beyond" recognized as having occurred, and whom/what recognizes it having happened? These are actually great questions, asked from a seeker's position, however, in that shift to "beyond" that is SR, those questions are clearly illuminated as having been entirely misconceived. The "recognition" of "realization/seeing through," is the absence/seeing through itself....the apprehension of the ground of awareness that stands alone...that requires nothing else, other than itself, to BE, and the primary locus of seeing to have now shifted TO that ground, with the personal viewpoint now an arising within/to that...secondary. In terms of the shift itself, clarity...unobstructed seeing, really is self-evident. Inherent to that "realization" that equals the unobstructed view, is now the absence of the imagined "some-thing/some-one" that was the obstructing factor. That shift dissolves both the imagined, existent entity that was previously deemed to be "the recognizer, doer, perceiver, experiencer," in that the "whom/what" to which "realization" could be attributed TO is dissolved. The mind-informing aspect or experiential "registering" that a shift has happened, of course, necessarily involves mind/minding, ideas, thoughts, knowings that are of an additive nature, but those are not to be confused with the profound shift in locus of seeing itself, that is the "realization/unobscuring of" Self. It's very difficult to answer the misconceived questions of the seeking position because those questions have inherent to them an imagined, existent entity. Whatever pointers are offered, will necessarily also then have that erroneously imagined entity central to them, as the imagined entity attempts to grasp them. This is why it is so crucial there be deep honestly and sincerity in play re: this inquiry/seeking process. (Unfortunately, not in the hands of the seeker!) Absent that, what we have is a sort of doubling-down of the imagined existent person.....an intent/movement in play to at all costs, protect and preserve that imagined, existent "me." This absence of sincerity is demonstrated in the deep level of anger and vitriol that so often arises in these convos as seeker's delusions get pointed out. The imagined SVP/egoic mind will do pretty much anything to try to keep itself relevant, when the seeking for Truth is devoid of that "all or nothing"...."Truth at all costs" drive/intent. Those who believe they are interested in Truth but who poo-poo the sentiment of "Truth at all costs," would be far better imo, if their interest could shift instead to self help/a better dream. That's really what they're after anyway, even if they cannot see it. Very trippy. Thanks for sharing. What of the I AM? What is its nature? Is it limited to just you and you alone or does everyone share in it? |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 11, 2024 19:06:41 GMT
These are actually great questions, asked from a seeker's position, however, in that shift to "beyond" that is SR, those questions are clearly illuminated as having been entirely misconceived. The "recognition" of "realization/seeing through," is the absence/seeing through itself....the apprehension of the ground of awareness that stands alone...that requires nothing else, other than itself, to BE, and the primary locus of seeing to have now shifted TO that ground, with the personal viewpoint now an arising within/to that...secondary. In terms of the shift itself, clarity...unobstructed seeing, really is self-evident. Inherent to that "realization" that equals the unobstructed view, is now the absence of the imagined "some-thing/some-one" that was the obstructing factor. That shift dissolves both the imagined, existent entity that was previously deemed to be "the recognizer, doer, perceiver, experiencer," in that the "whom/what" to which "realization" could be attributed TO is dissolved. The mind-informing aspect or experiential "registering" that a shift has happened, of course, necessarily involves mind/minding, ideas, thoughts, knowings that are of an additive nature, but those are not to be confused with the profound shift in locus of seeing itself, that is the "realization/unobscuring of" Self. It's very difficult to answer the misconceived questions of the seeking position because those questions have inherent to them an imagined, existent entity. Whatever pointers are offered, will necessarily also then have that erroneously imagined entity central to them, as the imagined entity attempts to grasp them. This is why it is so crucial there be deep honestly and sincerity in play re: this inquiry/seeking process. (Unfortunately, not in the hands of the seeker!) Absent that, what we have is a sort of doubling-down of the imagined existent person.....an intent/movement in play to at all costs, protect and preserve that imagined, existent "me." This absence of sincerity is demonstrated in the deep level of anger and vitriol that so often arises in these convos as seeker's delusions get pointed out. The imagined SVP/egoic mind will do pretty much anything to try to keep itself relevant, when the seeking for Truth is devoid of that "all or nothing"...."Truth at all costs" drive/intent. Those who believe they are interested in Truth but who poo-poo the sentiment of "Truth at all costs," would be far better imo, if their interest could shift instead to self help/a better dream. That's really what they're after anyway, even if they cannot see it. Very trippy. Thanks for sharing. What of the I AM? What is its nature? Is it limited to just you and you alone or does everyone share in it? To be fair, it's not really a term I use to talk about Truth. My take on the way Niz uses it, is that it's the knowing itself/direct sense re: being unbounded awareness. I think that's why he says there is "beyond/prior to" the I am. That question you are asking re: whether or not knowing of being, knowing you are the ground of existence is "limited" to just this body/mind or whether it applies to others, assumes apparent body/minds to be the source of such. SR reveals that apparent mind/bodies appear within/to Awareness, and not the other way around, as the non-SR think. The question itself is thus, misconceived. You are fishing for an Absolute answer to what can only be the question of a seeker. In terms of experience, if we take the unfolding story, as it goes, along with a directly experienced me character, there are indeed "other apparent" characters, and relative to them, it does very much appear as though there is there, also, sense of being/awareness. The real problem with the whole "I DO know for Absolute certain that other people are discrete, existent, perceivers, experiencers," is that the question itself, to which that answer arises, is misconceived. As I keep saying, from the purely personal vantage point (pre-SR) Solipsism is unassailable. There is certain knowing of perception happening, only in imminent perceiving. And along with that imminent knowing of perception then, is also certain, imminent knowledge of "what is" appearing. In SR though, the main tenet of Solipsism, an existent "my mind" in relation to a "your mind" is seen through. Thus, SR and Solipsism are not compatible. To know for certain, even relatively speaking, THAT Figgles is an experiencer/perceiver, would also necessarily entail knowing for certain "what" figgles is imminently experiencing. That's just how it goes. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 11, 2024 19:21:17 GMT
That ok. Meditate on this; Prior to the Truth setting you free, it pisses you off mightily. Wouldn’t be surprised if so. btw. I’m gonna post your book under spiritual authors on ST. Pics and all. Peeps need to know about what entities are on the other side and how you can communicate with them. Hope you don’t mind. While I have generally come to expect a certain degree of anger when seekers get their views challenged, I am kind of surprised JLY with the level of nastiness you bring here. There's a palpable, very personal vitriol you express towards to me, regardless of how steadfastly I remain focused upon post content only. Along with this suggestion that my own kids are pissed at me, that I push my views upon them, you've also made the assertion that I am immoral and an opportunist in continuing to sell my book (a memoire detailing how the experience of communion with my brother, following his death, brought me peace and dissolved the profound grief re: death)...and the list goes on. Seriously dude, there IS gold there, if you were to sit, in sincerity to inquire into that anger you feel towards me. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2024 15:07:25 GMT
To know for certain, even relatively speaking, THAT Figgles is an experiencer/perceiver, would also necessarily entail knowing for certain "what" figgles is imminently experiencing. That's just how it goes. Why would I need to know the details of your life to know that you, like me, and everyone else, exist presently as an expression of universal consciousness whose ground of being is the same one Absolute? ----------------------------------- Question: From a non-dual perspective is the following statement true or false? "To know for certain, even relatively speaking, THAT Figgles is an experiencer/perceiver, would also necessarily entail knowing for certain "what" figgles is imminently experiencing. That's just how it goes." ChatGPT: "From a non-dual perspective, the statement is generally considered false. Non-duality emphasizes the interconnectedness and unity of consciousness, where individual identities and experiences are seen as manifestations within the larger field of universal awareness. Knowing someone as an experiencer or perceiver doesn't necessarily entail knowing the specifics of their immediate experiences, as these experiences are shaped by individual perspectives, conditioning, and the dynamic nature of consciousness. Non-duality invites a shift from focusing solely on individual experiences to recognizing the underlying unity that transcends personal identifications and limitations of knowing. ----------------------------------- Your statement is fine as a statement of your personal belief system, but please don't mistake it for non-dual understanding. It isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 12, 2024 18:55:29 GMT
To know for certain, even relatively speaking, THAT Figgles is an experiencer/perceiver, would also necessarily entail knowing for certain "what" figgles is imminently experiencing. That's just how it goes. Why would I need to know the details of your life to know that you, like me, and everyone else, exist presently as an expression of universal consciousness whose ground of being is the same one Absolute? "exist presently"?  I've been using the term "exist" in this convo to be mean, "existent in it's own right." The term "inherent existence in it's own right" means fundamentally substantive...the ground to all...that ground "abides/unchanging." The real question we're quibbling over has always been "Do you know for Absolute certain that other appearing people are perceivers/experiencers." You say yes, do you not? Certain knowledge of perception/experience is always imminent and direct and along with that knowing is necessarily, also the content of perception/experience. To know perception is happening it to also know the perceivable. Do you really need a computer to tell you the answer to that? Just look. Your supposed "certain knowing" that I am experiencing/perceiving is an assumed knowing, based upon my responses to you. Isn't that entirely different than your own direct/imminent knowing that perception/experience is arising? Figgles apparent sentience, is part and parcel of your perception. (And yes, inherent to my saying this to, there is an assumptive, relative knowing that you ARE reading my words... ..that knowing though, is devoid of Absoluteness.) Experientially, relatively, My responses, my apparent perceptions/experiences can only ever BE "an appearance" within your mind-scape. You don't have direct/imminent reference for Figgles sentience/perceptions/experiences. Relatively speaking, as the story goes, yes, it's not false to say "i know that person walking down the street is experiencing /perceiving," but that knowing is assumptive in comparison to the direct/imminent knowing you have of your own perception/experience. No, that's the conceptual version. And it makes sense that ChatGPT would spew that out as it's a rather rampant mistake made by seekers to conflate conceptual/experiential "connectivity" with "fundamental singularity." There's an awful lot of BS being spewed over the internet re: Nonduality, by seekers who erroneously think they've "got it." That one doesn't even make sense. Inquire into this; By what means do you know in a given moment that perception is happening re: the Rick character? Is there anything within your experiential content per se or is the imminent, direct, self-evident knowing built into the perceiving itself? And in that perceiving, notice how there is a "something" however subtle a sense of arising feeling it may be, that is "a perceivable." Absent an observable/imminently known perceivable, there is no actual knowing of perception. Now look at your knowing of "my" perception/experiencing. What's it based upon? It does more than that. It doesn't just "invite" a shift away from individual experiences, it reveals the very idea of "other" upon which the idea of multiple, discrete individuals and their unique experiences hinges upon, to be fundamentally a delusion/illusion. The "Absolute knowing" of discrete, unique, individual perceivers/experiencers is a reification of fundamental "otherness/multiple existences." That's what "separation" references and that what the realization of Nonduality dispels. Individuated, existent entities = a delusion. YOUR statement is one of personal belief. You "assume" the "other" is perceiving/experiencing based upon the appearance of such. There is no personal belief inherent to the seeing through of fundamental separation/discrete objects/thing/persons having their own inherent existence. All object/things and yes, even people, all arise dependent upon the abiding ground of awareness. You as a person and your experience of that and all other people, arise "within/to" Awareness. The seeker still believes that awareness arises within the person. That's the delusion that gets seen though in the shift that is SR. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 12, 2024 19:27:19 GMT
ChatGPT: "From a non-dual perspective, the statement is generally considered false. Non-duality emphasizes the interconnectedness and unity of consciousness, where individual identities and experiences are seen as manifestations within the larger field of universal awareness. Knowing someone as an experiencer or perceiver doesn't necessarily entail knowing the specifics of their immediate experiences, as these experiences are shaped by individual perspectives, conditioning, and the dynamic nature of consciousness. Non-duality invites a shift from focusing solely on individual experiences to recognizing the underlying unity that transcends personal identifications and limitations of knowing. Herbert, this propensity you have for seeking existential/fundamental answers from ChatGPT is about as misguided as it gets. If somehow you were able to see the complete and utter folly in seeking Truth from a computer program, that alone might start the sand-castle a-crumbling down. The very idea that a machine could provide non-conceptual clarity within a dharma discussion/debate itself, demonstrates a looking/seeing that is entirely in the wrong direction....completely mired still, within the dream-scape. Instead of posing your questions to ChatGPT, why not get real quiet and inquire within, using those questions as a point of inquiry/meditation? |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 13, 2024 5:39:02 GMT
That ok. Meditate on this; Prior to the Truth setting you free, it pisses you off mightily. Is that what you did to your children? Piss them off so they could see “your“ truth? Wouldn’t be surprised if so. Mmm-kay....I think I'm getting it now. Any woman whom you deem to be the cause of your feelings of anger now, reverts you straight, right back to that so called, "manipulating narcissistic character" whom I'm quite sure you would characterize as a "she-devil, made by God, to be avoided." Sad as it is, I think you are carting around a whole wheelbarrow of emotional hurt, on the heels of a relationship with your child's mother, gone bad, and projecting that onto this discussion, suggesting out of the blue, that my kids are "pissed" at me. So odd. But now that you've shared this stuff, not quite, as. |
|
I've been using the term "exist" in this convo to be mean, "existent in it's own right." The term "inherent existence in it's own right" means fundamentally substantive...the ground to all...that ground "abides/unchanging."