|
Post by Figgles on Jan 13, 2020 1:05:20 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. ...a different sort of 'red flag' I know, but it made me giggle.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 28, 2020 21:42:57 GMT
Ultimately, (if/when awakening/SR happens), it's seen that there is actually no path at all, no tradition at all that to 'leads to/causes/catalyses' realization of Truth.
In saying 'One size does not fit all,' you might as well be saying that the paths seekers take are as varied as each appearing seeker himself.
If what she said makes perfect sense, why are you here making the point of 'many pathways'? Seems to me, if you've truly seen that you cannot practice your way to being what you already are, you'd be pointing beyond ALL paths.
This again ZD demonstrates why I've come to question your message. You SAY you've realized no path, but still remain an advocate of particular paths/practices...you SAY you've seen that Truth can only be pointed to, that it's 'non-conceptual' and yet you argue for a particular experience as Truth.
The Truth, like it or not, does not come in varying sizes and shades. It's uncompromising. "Different strokes for different folks" does not apply where we're talking "Truth."
It's only 'strange' if you think that it's possible at times, for paths/practices to cause SR. Once you've seen that there are no paths...there is nothing happening or appearing within experience that can 'cause' awakening, you no longer have to reconcile the idea that some SR without doing anything while others have to work hard for it, or have some particular experience to achieve it.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 28, 2020 22:10:30 GMT
Not to be confused with awakening/SR. One can become aware of the consensus paradigm, and still be fast asleep. The two are actually unrelated. In actual awakening, all paradigms are seen through. There is not one that is 'more true' than any others. Awakening is beyond the dream, seeing through paradigms is still in the dream. Not what I'd call the most 'flowing' dialogue by any means but seems like a nice enough fellow. Seems to me though he's talking self help there much more than Truth.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Jan 29, 2020 16:02:57 GMT
Ultimately, (if/when awakening/SR happens), it's seen that there is actually no path at all, no tradition at all that to 'leads to/causes/catalyses' realization of Truth. In saying 'One size does not fit all,' you might as well be saying that the paths seekers take are as varied as each appearing seeker himself. If what she said makes perfect sense, why are you here making the point of 'many pathways'? Seems to me, if you've truly seen that you cannot practice your way to being what you already are, you'd be pointing beyond ALL paths. This again ZD demonstrates why I've come to question your message. You SAY you've realized no path, but still remain an advocate of particular paths/practices...you SAY you've seen that Truth can only be pointed to, that it's 'non-conceptual' and yet you argue for a particular experience as Truth. The Truth, like it or not, does not come in varying sizes and shades. It's uncompromising. "Different strokes for different folks" does not apply where we're talking "Truth." It's only 'strange' if you think that it's possible at times, for paths/practices to cause SR. Once you've seen that there are no paths...there is nothing happening or appearing within experience that can 'cause' awakening, you no longer have to reconcile the idea that some SR without doing anything while others have to work hard for it, or have some particular experience to achieve it. I guess he doesn't really believe everything he's saying.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 29, 2020 20:00:34 GMT
I wonder ZD, do you have any reference at all for realization that truly does leave absence in it's wake? ...a coming to see that the very idea of 'a goal/an attainment' was misconceived, because realization is not the gaining of new knowledge, be it intellectual, so called body based or intuitively based knowledge, but rather the seeing through of ALL mind content?
In short, do you grasp what is being referenced/pointed to by the terms 'not knowing'....'absence'?
Regardless of the fact that the seeker, as he pursues paths and practices is indeed trying to attain a resolve to relative unhappiness or a resolve to intellectual curiosity, SR results in an absence not an attainment for the person.
If one finds a satisfying answer/resolve to what they, as a seeker were looking for, then that clearly is NOT SR. What the seeker thinks he's after and what SR actually reveals are not the same.
For example, they continue to feel compelled to travel around, attending Satsangs and spiritual workshops, following various spiritual gurus?
Keep in mind, relative satisfaction with life is not to be conflated with SR/freedom. No doubt about it though, in the absence of SR, relative satisfaction is nothing to sneeze at.
Just because one is no longer interested in specifically pursuing answers to existential questions does not equate to 'freedom.' Unless and until there is wakefulness from the dream, a seeing the dream as a dream, the dream, even if one facet of it is no longer capturing attention, has still gotcha.
Freedom means 'freedom from the dream/story.' And you have to wake up to see the dream as a dream for that to be.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 31, 2020 17:39:18 GMT
So you are also then of the camp that says "Truth" changes according to where you are looking from? The Truth is always the Truth, regardless of whether it has been realized or not. Those sages you are denoting to be 'incorrect' are speaking Truth, capital "T". It's only from the personal perspective where cause/effect can be said to be so...which means we're talking relative (t)ruth only. Move beyond that, to impersonal seeing, and it's crystal clear that nothing within the dream is actually causal or catalyzing. If one meditated for 20 yrs. prior to SR, it's fair to say meditation was 'correlated' with SR, but so long as the Truth has been seen, that correlation is no longer going to be conflated with causation. Paths that lead to/cause SR are appearance only. One may indeed experience pursuing a path and he may recall either a big blast of clarity or clarity creeping in more slowly, but ultimately, all such recall, happens NOW in the present. If you've clearly seen that all there really is, is NOW, then it's very, very easy to let those ideas of paths, past experience, go, when speaking about SR/awakening. The only question that is relevant really is: Are you awake NOW? Where you go wrong here is in conflating that something DID happen, with it being 'necessary' to what happened after. Again, that's the personal view that is rife with the idea of 'without this experience, that will not/could not have happened.' It's still very closely tied to the erroneous idea that stuff happening in the dream causes other stuff. You mistook the sense of getting out of your head and 'into the body' for SR. It's not. That sense of 'being in the body' also has to be seen through which is no small thing when you've been relying upon bodily senses, taking them to be transcendent/Truthy. They are not. Truth lies beyond all senses...beyond all experience...beyond all appearances. Seeing through the SVP also means seeing through bodily senses, seeing through cause/effect, seeing through personal volition and the entirety of personal stories. When that happens, there is no longer a looking to experiential content for Truth.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 10, 2020 17:52:39 GMT
ZD, your exclusive emphasis upon 'states and feelings' here, is very telling.
So long as the goal of a seeker is upon attaining a 'permanent state/feeling/sense' he's barking up the wrong tree.
Freedom does not exist in the attainment of a psychological state nor in a feeling sense that all is one. Rather, it's the absence/seeing through of separation, and ultimately, that absence defies any and all descriptions.
You are describing an enlightened mind-state. All mind states come and go, ebb and flow, thus, if you are convinced that you've attained some kind of 'permanent' psychological state, you're kidding yourself.
While there can be said to be a general psychological state of 'equanimity' post SR, this still equals movement in terms of mind states and feelings.
All this focus upon various types of samadhi, CC's, kensho, unity experience, etc, is a distraction. Freedom lies in what is 'absent,' and while that which is absent does impact what is present, so long as your focus is upon what is present in experience, you're pointed in the wrong direction.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2020 6:55:25 GMT
Freedom lies in what is 'absent,' and while that which is absent does impact what is present, so long as your focus is upon what is present in experience, you're pointed in the wrong direction. If this freedom you call an absence impacts on what is present then that must be an experience. What is present from moment to moment is appearing and disappearing and changing and if there is an impact on it, that obviously changes the experience. You are trying to have your cake and eat it. The more fundamental question would be, what is the point of SR if it doesn't have a positive effect on your life as lived in the body?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 11, 2020 20:23:09 GMT
If this freedom you call an absence impacts on what is present then that must be an experience. Well yeah....the impact that the absence has upon experience, is indeed 'experiential' yes. But without that absence, there would be no impacted experience. My point was: Freedom hinges upon an absence. How did you arrive at me saying that SR does not have an a positive impact upon life?
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Feb 11, 2020 21:01:48 GMT
Freedom lies in what is 'absent,' and while that which is absent does impact what is present, so long as your focus is upon what is present in experience, you're pointed in the wrong direction. If this freedom you call an absence impacts on what is present then that must be an experience. What is present from moment to moment is appearing and disappearing and changing and if there is an impact on it, that obviously changes the experience. You are trying to have your cake and eat it. The more fundamental question would be, what is the point of SR if it doesn't have a positive effect on your life as lived in the body? Flawful logic. It is not an experience. It IMPACTS experience. There's a difference.
|
|