|
Post by Figgles on Nov 30, 2022 6:19:40 GMT
No, really, it's not. It actually has nothing at all to do with Nonduality. The idea of an "interconnected" system is a full-on, in the dream idea. It's mind that makes those connections...it's mind that says absent the sun, the Earth is not the Earth that we know. Nonduality is not about a bunch of stuff that is unified/connected. The Truth of Oneness/Nonduality requires a shift in locus of seeing that is beyond mind...beyond those kinds of categorizations, comparisons...ideas. Similarly, don't settle for the "Oneness" of your imagination. (aka; perceived connection/unity between appearing things).
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 1, 2022 0:30:43 GMT
There are no "levels" to Self Realization/wakefulness...there is either wakefulness...the realization of Oneness...Nondual awareness, or there is not. No "in between."
SR is to realize that the very interest in 'getting more chocolates...wondering how many chocolates is best to eat....how to always make sure you have the chocolates you want, which ones are good for you....are all mind-based ideas only. There are no such measuring sticks inherent to SR....in SR, the personal judge/jury that makes those kinds of decipherings, is put firmly in it's place...as part and parcel of the arising story-scape...all arising empty and devoid of inherent existence, dependent upon abiding awareness.
Self Realization means transcending the entire box of chocolates..even the enjoyment of those chocolates.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 3, 2022 3:30:31 GMT
No one 'thinks' that. It's just that realizing there is no separation...that the entire world is appearance only, including the me person/character, "reveals" the Truth--and that is that all those questions you hold and are seeking pat answers to, are misconceived....realization reveals the utter futility of ever asking those questions and holding out for an absolute/certain answer....you are essentially asking how the appearing character in a movie, functions in the movie...after the movie...before the movie....before he appears on the screen...asking why there IS a movie and all the stuff that appears in the movie.
Your questions arise from a locus of seeing that already has it all wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 4, 2022 7:04:55 GMT
Do you have an actual quote where you and E are "riffing' on that idea? I cannot see E suggesting that the arising of thought equals the 'fading away' of reality.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 30, 2023 15:58:09 GMT
So are you saying Tenka that you start off with a foundation where there is more than 'one' fundamentally known consciousness....two of em...3?...how many exactly? All fundamental knowing/seeing...all Truth, is here, now, direct, imminent and One singular consciousness that lies fundamental to all arising experience, is a fundamental knowing/Truth. I don't think you don't likely have reference even for what "fundamental Truth" means. It hinges upon a seeing of what is so, that lies beyond all experiential content....a seeing that is prior to/beyond 'personal' sight.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 30, 2023 16:05:13 GMT
Any reference at all for an awareness/seeing.... that abides, unwavering, unchanging as temporal experience comes and goes?
Before it can be seen that it's fundamentally all one, there must first be a clear distinct delineation seen between that which abides and underlies ALL experiential content and the content itself....in seeing that, and in the primary locus of seeing then shifting, even if just for a moment, to that primal awareness, it is illuminated that the content is appearing within/to that ground....no separation....the content is absent it's own inherent existence....it depends upon that unwavering ground for it's temporal appearance.
This is 2nd mountain position of awakening to the Truth.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 10, 2023 18:15:16 GMT
In the absence of the profound shift in locus of seeing from within to dream, to beyond, (SR/awakening) whereby the primary "place" of seeing becomes beyond/prior to the experience of seeing out of human eyes, imo, that's the best 'in the dream position' that can be....what Jed McKenna refers to as "human adulthood." ....A strong interest in being conscious, for the sheer sake of being conscious, a bent towards seeing what in blazes is going on and strong propensity towards accepting it all, regardless of what's going on.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 10, 2023 18:30:11 GMT
Bingo!
Relatively speaking, experientially speaking, there ARE of course, 'others.' And that relative experience does not need to end for the Truth of no separation to be illuminated/shine through.
"No others" does not mean the end of an experience where there is an appearing me AND an appearing YOU. It's a realization about the "fundamental Truth" of the matter, which is "fundamental" Oneness/absence of separation.
I am growing less and less fond of that term actually, "there are no others," as it really is a context mix. At the level where 'otherness' is experienced, where some-thingness appears, relatively speaking, there IS 'otherness.'
So long as there is an experiential body/mind/me person, there are experiential 'other' people....'you's'....and none of that is a barrier to freedom.
Fundamentally speaking, there can be no actual, abiding 'otherness' because there is not actually two.
"Other" is an experiential, relative term to describe an apparent distinction. Seen for what it is, no problemo.
Observed experiential content is never itself the issue....mistaking that for evidence of fundamental separation, IS.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 10, 2023 18:34:22 GMT
Well said.
This strange bent many on these forums seem to have towards completely negating ALL experiential content in favor of fundamental Truth is odd and ultimately, pointless.
The appearing world of things is not at odds with the fundamental Truth of Oneness. The world does not need to disappear to be free of it...liberated.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 10, 2023 19:43:09 GMT
Those terms, "existence...exist....real," are often problematic in these convos, simply because they hold such different meaning for different folks. As such, I make a point only to use the term 'exists' when I speak about "existence it's own right...that which abides, unchanging as the temporal, ephemeral world arises and falls.
Yup...that's it.
And I've noticed that often those who insist that appearances exist, even in some middle-layer-cakey sort of way, despite their assertions otherwise, ARE still very much "identified" with mind, mind content, perceivables, appearance.
|
|