|
Post by Figgles on Oct 7, 2020 17:26:17 GMT
A most excellent way of putting it. Evil frog stuff is good even when it's recycled.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 11, 2020 21:18:53 GMT
Wow...that's interesting. Most sages/gurus speak of existence as that which is fundamentally abiding to that which arises, not itself, an arising/appearance.
But, 'functionality' of a human body really is of the same context as 'sense of self.' Both are arisings/appearances in consciousness, neither having inherent, fundamental existence in their own right.
In such a case though, just because thinking per se has ceased, 'minding has not.' Where there is focus upon a body and it's functions, we're talking about 'in the dream - mind content.' The body and it's apparent functions are part and parcel of the arising, appearing dream content, which arises within to that which fundamentally abides.
The seeing that bodily functions happen absent personal orchestration is still 'in the dream.' To see beyond is to see that bodily function is also an appearance only.
If all ideas/ideation ceases, you are most certainly no longer seeing/looking at bodily function. Absent all ideation, there is only that which abides and that does not include a body and it's functions.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 11, 2020 21:32:34 GMT
In other words, 'the appearing ME character.'
Once again, seeing appearances for appearances, seeing everything that is experienced as 'appearance only,' takes care of this and makes it all very clear. No need to talk about being a something "that projects a self." The personal self/appearing character arises within/to that which abides. No problemo unless it's mistaken to be something more than an appearance, something more than experiential content.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 19, 2020 2:56:14 GMT
What? Individual = Separate, Volitional person?
I can't speak for whatever passage of AW you are referencing, but there most certainly can be an awareness of 'the individual/appearing character/body-mind/person' without the imagining of separation and volition.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 20, 2020 3:39:15 GMT
Thought is not the problem. Identification with a thought, IS.
And that's really all the SVP is, a thought/idea.
Absent that, thought/thinking, the arising of ideas, the arising of mind, still continues on, just fine, it's just that there's no longer identification with a thought/idea...no longer a taking of what you are to be a mere imaginary idea of whatness.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 20, 2020 16:31:24 GMT
This exemplifies my issue with your stance on thought/thinking. You fluctuate between conflating 'incessant thought that has an SVP at it's basis,' with thought that is not incessant, not all encompassing and then admitting a distinction between the two.
You laugh when ND teachers say it's impossible to stop thinking because you are mistaking what they're meaning....they are of course not talking about 'incessant thought of an SVP,' but rather, just basic, normal arising thought/ideation.
What those teachers are most likely also pointing to is that regardless of how hard a human tries, he will never get all thought to cease, nor does he need to...and if when the mind does become silent, it wasn't really the person that 'did' it.
You appear to have a real big ego around your supposed 'ability' to stop thinking at will and around the fact that (you say) you have a very, very quiet mind, don't think very much at all. You've clearly assigned a value to the cessation of thought that really is nothing more than your personal judgement about thinking, as really, thinking per se, is NOT an issue in terms of being free. Indeed, a racing, incessantly busy mind is often the hallmark of the SVP, but even after the SVP is seen through, thinking/thought continues and is not a problem.
Full immersion in "incessant thought" indeed is an indicator of being fast asleep, so of course, it's important to become free 'from' thought. But being 'free from' thought does not mean the end of thought. Thoughts and all other appearances, will continue to arise and appear even after awakening/SR. They are only problematic if/when they obscure the Truth of who/what you really are. Being 'free from' thought just means that the thoughts that arise are not identified with....they are clearly seen to be appearances arising within/to that which abides...and in that, they no longer have any power to limit/bind.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 3, 2020 17:30:20 GMT
What Amit does here is the epitome of the thread title. He's conceptualizing that which is not a concept and imagining that holding that idea in mind, like an affirmation, using that thought/concept to try to mitigate negative feelings, is what it means to be free...for suffering to end.
The idea that it's all One, is not even in the same ballpark as the realization. The realization puts ALL ideas in their place...the end of suffering is not only NOT based upon an idea, it's 'freedom from' ALL ideas...even those ones that make you feel really good...they ALL have to be seen through, all must be seen as empty appearance only, for freedom to be.
"Mitigation" of painful feelings and experiences is fine and so long as one is still entrenched within the dream, to be expected, but all attempts at such, even when seemingly successful, will be fleeting...temporary.
There are all sorts of life-affirming ideas folks use to mitigate negative feelings/experiences....yours is no closer to the Truth than any other idea. When it comes to apprehension of the Truth, nothing short of non-conceptual realization will do.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 4, 2020 22:41:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 13, 2020 21:16:03 GMT
In a true apprehension of the infinite, 'the person' is not the 'locus' of the apprehension...if it is, you're mistaking a mystical experience for a realization. Apprehending the infinite means seeing absent/beyond the locus of the person. The locus of personhood is what gets seen through. It is after all, the locus of personhood...the sense of being a person who sees stuff, that obscures the infinite. Important to see; With the 'person' still fully intact, that interest still is 'a personal interest.' It's just one that the person deems to be 'less selfish' than other interests. So, it's 'the organism' that realizes?...that sees through itself? The organism is 'an empty appearance arising in consciousness.' Thus, you are saying that something that is an empty appearance, realizes it's an empty appearance. "Realization" does not belong or happen to some-thing that appears. An object/me/who/thing that sees stuff, is part and parcel of what gets seen through in SR.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 13, 2020 21:25:23 GMT
I'm far more skeptical of one who speaks of 'understanding' what he is than I am of one who finds it difficult/or impossible to answer that question in words.
The 'solid ground of being,' is after all, a pointer.....it's non-conceptual.....it's beyond 'understanding' via mind...and thus, beyond capture by mere words.
|
|