muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Apr 16, 2020 5:38:48 GMT
There is an important difference between saying that sincerity makes for a certain auspiciousness vs. saying that where there is sincerity, the path to enlightenment is guaranteed 'if you just follow these three (two, four, six..?) easy steps....'.... And where Sifting gets it wrong (again) is in saying that the seeker must sincerely 'want' to be enlightened, and he says if so, that guarantees victory.. enlightenment.
The seeker has no actual idea what 'enlightenment' is, thus, his want for that means nothing. From the position of seeking, what we're talking then, is the seekers/SVP's want, and that is always for something personally gained/acquired.
A sincere interest to look unflinchingly at the machinations of mind...to remain as consciously aware as possible to mind's movements, games, ways, is what's required, and even where that is in abundance, actual SR is still not a given/guaranteed.
Great point. That's why words like sincerity, honesty and earnestness are used instead of wants, needs and desires. If one want's to be free, that's great, but stop short of figuring out what that needs to look like. Would the absence of a split-mind suffice?  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 16, 2020 6:33:10 GMT
You advocate sincerity. Sincerity about what? Sincerity as to what you are actually seeking for. Sincerity as to whether there is actual interest in seeing the machinations of mind. It's not. It's just that I'm willing to admit that that's what it is....Sifting is not. There has to be a point? Obviously there is enjoyment had in conversing about/writing about Truth. To ask 'why' is edging into existential territory....such questions are ultimately misconceived. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 16, 2020 6:39:23 GMT
Do you see any important difference between talking about/pointing to Truth vs. thinking you have a recipe for being right? Fwiw, I DO. Yes, I do, and my assessment of which applies to your current set of opinions is quite clearly the latter.  Ok. I don't suspect there is anything I could offer to prove that my greatest interest here is in talking about/pointing to Truth vs. finding a recipe for being right. You think you're right and you seem pretty sure about that. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 16, 2020 6:42:59 GMT
You've mis-characterized my question; He's doing more than just telling folks to ignore thought..he says if you keep ignoring thought (or self-inquiring) clarity will come...that is all it takes to awaken. Do you agree or disagree with that particular assertion? Yes or no will do. It's misleading/misconceived to say "all one has to do" to "realize" as it sets up the false idea that realization is in the hands of the person. It's not. I'm familiar with 'the tiger's mouth.' It is not synonymous with a path/practice that is causal to SR. It speaks to the idea of 'auspiciousness.'  Interpreting the phrase that included the word "guaranteed" in terms of the tiger's mouth aphorism isn't the same sort of hard movement of mind that your analysis of "synonomizing" would suggest. Rather, it's simply a grant of poetic license.  I'm actually trying to ascertain if you truly are on board with Sifting's idea that a path/process to SR can be taught, or if you're just supporting it because I'm challenging it. You and I have been conversing for quite a long time and I'm pretty sure you've argued yourself against some of the ideas Sifty is putting forth..so it's a tad confusing. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 16, 2020 7:24:52 GMT
You keep on trying to contrive these yes/no false dichotomies. It's just prosecutor mind, twirling in the breeze of a dreamscape. Interpreting the phrase that included the word "guaranteed" in terms of the tiger's mouth aphorism isn't the same sort of hard movement of mind that your analysis of "synonomizing" would suggest. Rather, it's simply a grant of poetic license. This conversation below speaks to what I was saying in my previous post; Yeah, it's a helpful tonic for one who is still fast asleep to kid himself that he's 'sort of' awake. Sifting's entire ontology balances ON paradox! It's how he continues to take a stand that the path he's offering is not bogus. The key indicator of a conceptual version of enlightenment, is the insistence upon 'a paradox.' The insistence upon paradox means that one is holding to the idea of two equal Truths; One from the position of the seeker and the other from the position of transcendence. Of course that's a complete and utter nonsense that renders "Truth" absolutely meaningless. (Satch also has talked about 'two truths'). There is but One singular, transcendent Truth and in realizing it, relative truths are now seen to be appearance only. We still continue to engage with 'relative truth' but it's never conflated with "absolute Truth." Absolute Truth trumps relative truth. The idea of "Paradox" means that there's still a war going on in terms of which view is primary; The relative view or the transcendent. There's obviously still a waffling back and forth when one insists there's a paradox in play. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 16, 2020 7:42:40 GMT
This idea that Self realization has anything to do with Faith, flies on the coat-tails of his insistence upon paradox.
No, Self realization is NOT a matter of 'faith' at all. Truth is beyond dispute, beyond question, beyond faith.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2020 11:55:06 GMT
Sincerity as to what you are actually seeking for. Sincerity as to whether there is actual interest in seeing the machinations of mind. How do you know what you are seeking if you haven't found it? And how can you deny a path or practice when you speak of a process of being interested in machinations of mind? Sustained interest in something is by definition sincerity. Sincerity doesn't exist in the abstract. It's about something. Nothing wrong with being interested in the machinations of mind but that won't help you. You have to transcend mind and experience pure Being which is what you're always talking about. It's not. It's just that I'm willing to admit that that's what it is....Sifting is not. So your self help is a path. Obviously there is enjoyment had in conversing about/writing about Truth. To ask 'why' is edging into existential territory....such questions are ultimately misconceived. You have to edge into existential territory in order to be released from it. |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969 
|
Post by Enigma on Apr 16, 2020 14:38:15 GMT
There is an important difference between saying that sincerity makes for a certain auspiciousness vs. saying that where there is sincerity, the path to enlightenment is guaranteed 'if you just follow these three (two, four, six..?) easy steps....'.... And where Sifting gets it wrong (again) is in saying that the seeker must sincerely 'want' to be enlightened, and he says if so, that guarantees victory.. enlightenment. The seeker has no actual idea what 'enlightenment' is, thus, his want for that means nothing. From the position of seeking, what we're talking then, is the seekers/SVP's want, and that is always for something personally gained/acquired. A sincere interest to look unflinchingly at the machinations of mind...to remain as consciously aware as possible to mind's movements, games, ways, is what's required, and even where that is in abundance, actual SR is still not a given/guaranteed. You advocate sincerity. Sincerity about what? How is that self-help different from sifting's so called self-help. If you really believe that there is no path to realization, that it is completely out of your hands, that there is nothing you can do, what is the point in even discussing it? Why would you even have a hunger to debate? Sincerity is not something that can be done. It is present or it is not. There are things that can be done to prepare for the final realization, but that realization requires a complete absence of the one doing, and so we call it grace or whatever. Also, that preparatory doing is a function of one's conditioning and not volition. However, teachings are part of that conditioning, so there is potential value in them. The difficulty with both issues (sincerity and doing) is that they are both conditioning driven rather than driven by an actual person, (SVP) and so everything, including the teaching, is happening very indirectly. In a very real sense, the universe is awakening itself. |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Apr 16, 2020 14:50:00 GMT
Great point. That's why words like sincerity, honesty and earnestness are used instead of wants, needs and desires. If one want's to be free, that's great, but stop short of figuring out what that needs to look like. Would the absence of a split-mind suffice? The absence of a split mind resolves and prevents internally generated conflict. This makes it possible for one to be 'true to oneself'. If you're asking if that's sufficient for SR, I say no, but it may well be a virtual prerequisite. |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Apr 16, 2020 15:17:41 GMT
You keep on trying to contrive these yes/no false dichotomies. It's just prosecutor mind, twirling in the breeze of a dreamscape. Interpreting the phrase that included the word "guaranteed" in terms of the tiger's mouth aphorism isn't the same sort of hard movement of mind that your analysis of "synonomizing" would suggest. Rather, it's simply a grant of poetic license. This conversation below speaks to what I was saying in my previous post; Yeah, it's a helpful tonic for one who is still fast asleep to kid himself that he's 'sort of' awake. Sifting's entire ontology balances ON paradox! It's how he continues to take a stand that the path he's offering is not bogus. The key indicator of a conceptual version of enlightenment, is the insistence upon 'a paradox.' The insistence upon paradox means that one is holding to the idea of two equal Truths; One from the position of the seeker and the other from the position of transcendence. Of course that's a complete and utter nonsense that renders "Truth" absolutely meaningless. (Satch also has talked about 'two truths'). There is but One singular, transcendent Truth and in realizing it, relative truths are now seen to be appearance only. We still continue to engage with 'relative truth' but it's never conflated with "absolute Truth." Absolute Truth trumps relative truth. The idea of "Paradox" means that there's still a war going on in terms of which view is primary; The relative view or the transcendent. There's obviously still a waffling back and forth when one insists there's a paradox in play. Yes, paradox means mind has entangled itself in not only one false idea, but multiple false ideas that do not agree with each other, and is unable to let go of any of them. Yes, it is entirely a product of mind's confusion. |
|
Interpreting the phrase that included the word "guaranteed" in terms of the tiger's mouth aphorism isn't the same sort of hard movement of mind that your analysis of "synonomizing" would suggest. Rather, it's simply a grant of poetic license. 
