muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Apr 13, 2020 4:53:04 GMT
 you're making up that I'm some sort of Great Sifty Defender. I'm just expressing my opinion. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 13, 2020 5:05:53 GMT
you're making up that I'm some sort of Great Sifty Defender. I'm just expressing my opinion. Which just happens to align with what you think Sifty's view is and which expresses opposition to mine. Which is fine, but I disagree with some of what you are saying about how seekers/beginners should be spoken to, and fwiw, I don't think your view is completely aligned with Sifty's. (Again, he can correct me if I'm wrong...and no, nowhere in that am I calling him a liar.) |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 13, 2020 5:23:19 GMT
Mind talk, ideas and beliefs are all rendered non-problematic if/when they are seen to be "appearance only," (which necessarily means; empty...devoid of Truth).
It's specifically the illusion of the SVP that must be seen through for freedom to be.
Thought itself, per se, is not the problem. And indeed, it can be said that the SVP is indeed, ultimately, a thought, however, it encompasses much more than what is traditionally regarded to be 'a singular thought,'......sense feeling is also involved...the SVP is a comprehensive idea/experience that is multi-layered.
When seen through, it cuts through a whole host of erroneous thoughts/ideas/beliefs, but in the wake of that, there IS still the arising of thought....but absent the SVP, that thought is not identified with....it's understood to be empty/devoid of Truth, thus, it's all rendered unproblematic and there is no need to eschew, avoid or ignore it. Freedom is not dependent upon ignoring thought.....thought is a perfectly fine and integral facet of experience.
The over-valuing of 'a silent mind' is always a red flag to me. It means that one has tied his freedom or absence thereof to the presence of thought, in general. Thought is not the enemy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 13, 2020 5:38:40 GMT
Perception/observation does not equal 'imagination.' You observe that people appear to you who appear to be experiencing a world. The idea that 'each world is imagined and is uniquely different' IS imagination/surmising.
And by 'silent' you mean, absent thought? Not so. Mind can be bustling and busy and so long as thoughts/ideas have all been seen through, realized to be inherently empty, there really is nothing we perceive that is any more or less 'real' than anything else.
The idea you hold to that there is some stuff that is perceived that is more 'real' than other stuff that is perceived, is a nonsense. This is where the issue of 'illusion' enters in, and the importance of seeing when you are surmising/assuming something that is not actually being observed...but rather, is a trick of mind.
"All perceivables are stains." Niz
That's akin to saying: If we ignore thought/mind's content long enough, that which abides becomes predominant. You can try all you like to ignore the thoughts that arise, but in doing so, you are not any closer to seeing thoughts for what they are....empty....devoid of Truth and that's what it takes to be free.
The realm of hearing/sound is still 'in the dream.' Waking up means seeing from beyond the dream, from beyond ALL senses.
The real challenge inherent in "trying" to wake up, is that the one who wants to wake up, is the one that needs to be seen through.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2020 6:01:20 GMT
What ? I slept and woke up, one thread created with 4 pages?
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 13, 2020 6:50:45 GMT
Kay...this is really funny.  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 13, 2020 7:21:37 GMT
Enlightenment is not the 'ignoring of thought.' Do you regard that to be mere 'opinion'? How 'bout this; Enlightenment is fundamentally an absence. As I see it, I am pointing there and not expressing a mere opinion. That must be 'realized' to be grasped. And in the videos Sifty has posted, I don't see him pointing to an absence at all, but rather, he outright says in one of them, that enlightenment equals the acquisition of direct answers to existential questions. In other words, that enlightenment equals the addition of something known about existence. Yeah....I'm expressing my opinion of his words/teachings. But there is realization behind that opinion. Describing "enlightenment" to someone curious about it can be all over the map, but relate what sifty said in his vid to some of the things you've written about nonattachment over the years. Personally, I wouldn't say something like that because of how it might be misinterpreted, but by the same token, I see were he's coming from and what he's trying to do. Of course it's just an opinion. Otherwise you'd be able to prove that you were enlightened by what you write.  Sorry, but I cannot relate Sifty's advocating of 'ignoring' thought or that enlightenment equals the acquisition of answers to existential questions at all to what I've said about non-attachment. The absence of attachment has nothing to do with eschewing or ignoring thought....or aquiring new knowledge about existence, Rather, the absence of attachment is naturally ensues when thoughts are realized to be empty. One cannot think or DO or learn his way to enlightenment, only realization will do, and while Sifting promises seekers a sure-fire path to that, there is none. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2020 10:43:51 GMT
All good points. There's also a walk/talk issue in that Sifty has one of most active minds I've seen, always seeking the next level intellectually in discussion. His argument will likely be that post enlightenment he's free to engage mind all he wants, but it's the want that comes into question. Why would one want to return to a TMT level of mental function?Yes, and I TMT a lot too! It's fun! |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Apr 13, 2020 22:19:54 GMT
you're making up that I'm some sort of Great Sifty Defender. I'm just expressing my opinion. Which just happens to align with what you think Sifty's view is and which expresses opposition to mine. Which is fine, but I disagree with some of what you are saying about how seekers/beginners should be spoken to, and fwiw, I don't think your view is completely aligned with Sifty's. (Again, he can correct me if I'm wrong...and no, nowhere in that am I calling him a liar.) Never suggested it was.  .. but most of the thoughts you've expressed in this thread are just fadi ng away .. and I'll bet sifty outright ignores (at least most of) them.  |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Apr 13, 2020 22:20:45 GMT
Describing "enlightenment" to someone curious about it can be all over the map, but relate what sifty said in his vid to some of the things you've written about nonattachment over the years. Personally, I wouldn't say something like that because of how it might be misinterpreted, but by the same token, I see were he's coming from and what he's trying to do. Of course it's just an opinion. Otherwise you'd be able to prove that you were enlightened by what you write. Sorry, but I cannot relate Sifty's advocating of 'ignoring' thought or that enlightenment equals the acquisition of answers to existential questions at all to what I've said about non-attachment. The absence of attachment has nothing to do with eschewing or ignoring thought....or aquiring new knowledge about existence, Rather, the absence of attachment is naturally ensues when thoughts are realized to be empty. One cannot think or DO or learn his way to enlightenment, only realization will do, and while Sifting promises seekers a sure-fire path to that, there is none. whatevs' |
|
you're making up that I'm some sort of Great Sifty Defender. I'm just expressing my opinion. 
.. but most of the thoughts you've expressed in this thread are just fading away .. and I'll bet sifty outright ignores (at least most of) them. 