Post by Figgles on Sept 12, 2020 17:08:28 GMT
Only in your dogmatic mind-trap. It's just a dream-prison you've imagined up for your straw laffy. Sorry, the bars ain't real.
When it comes to suffering, the bars don't have to be 'actual.' Imagining that they are is more than enough. Absent the realization that all that appears is empty of Truth, empty of independent, inherent existence, the world and all stuff, is experienced as a prison of sorts.
You've read in a comment about how there can come a point where nothing seems sacred any longer with the idea that "all appearences are hollow". You've missed the point that the poem was expressing a burning down of existential falsity, not a rejection of appearances generally. It's not the physical house that burns, it's a metaphorical burning of books. There will always be some false support prior to the final realization where the mind rests, and this can be even the most profound and beautiful notion that any nondual culture has to offer. The poem was an editorial on how the mind can twist the words of someone like Niz or the evil frog into something that they're not, and use that twist to suspend the absence of falsity indefinitely. The fire-cleanse isn't necessarily a universal element of a path, and if you can't relate to it, then you can't relate to it.
Actually, I would say if by 'fire cleanse' you mean a COMPLETE and total burning down/seeing through of the entirety of the phenomenal as empty, then not only are you wrong that I perhaps cannot relate to it, but really, this is the whole point I am trying to make in this conversation...that a 'partial' seeing through just is not going to cut it...that is MUST be total for full awakening to be so.
But again, I reiterate the very important point that a complete and total burning down/seeing through of the phenomenal, does not leave negative judgement in it's wake, even if only towards previously held to existential falsities, for that would mean that judgement/personal valueing itself had somehow survived the 'burning down.'
And of course, the burning down/seeing through all appearance as inherently empty of Truth, includes that as well.
Oh, no, you see, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. As I've said before, many times, you're more than welcome to your opinions. The "argument", in question, is entirely one-sided.
And as I've also already said, the fire-cleanse poem was to dispel you of your giraffe that I hold anything "sacred" -- if you look close at what you're writing now you can see that's another projection -- .. To write more about not-knowing would require more poetry, but you're reading anything I write through the filter of an agenda, so it would be wasted on ya'. Sorry.
And as I've also already said, the fire-cleanse poem was to dispel you of your giraffe that I hold anything "sacred" -- if you look close at what you're writing now you can see that's another projection -- .. To write more about not-knowing would require more poetry, but you're reading anything I write through the filter of an agenda, so it would be wasted on ya'. Sorry.
The absence of holding any idea as sacred, is really just the equivalent of seeing the totality of the phenomenal, (which of course includes ideas, thoughts, even 'awe' itself), as appearance only. Seems to me, you are still holding certain phenomenal arisings as sacred....and that's entirely because you are not clearly seeing the distinction between phenomenal arising vs that which abides. It's a conflation that has rather dire consequences...it's a mistake that equals bondage.
This conflation is what's really at the crux of the "not knowing/I do know/not knowing came to an end" discussion. There's simply a lack of clarity as to that distinction between that which abides...that which arises, non-separately within/to that.