|
Post by Figgles on May 28, 2024 17:39:10 GMT
Your "True Self" still lies within the confines of the dream. You are mistaking an experiential/perceived "something" for "Truth."
In Nonduality, "True Self", the apprehension of, means going/seeing beyond the confines of the dream....it is not a "something/someone" that arises in perception. It is prior to the perceived, but includes the perceived as temporal, non-separate, non-existent, expression of 'itself.' (It is not "a thing/what/who").
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 7, 2024 20:07:15 GMT
If you had actual, direct, imminent reference for the realization of Oneness, you would not say it's a mere "little bump" in the road.
It is indeed "significant" and enough so as to completely re-frame the entire sense of being a someone who IS "on a road."
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 16, 2024 12:53:59 GMT
Everything you're talking about here is relative context. Mind-body and spirit, everything that appears as "related/connected"....those are relative ideas, mystical insights at best, NOT "realization."
The realization of Oneness is not about "connecting" appearances, it's about realizing that fundamentally/Absolutely, there are not "two"...that all distinction arises within/to Awareness, and is temporal appearance only, absent inherent existence in it's own right.
To see the mind/body as an appearance only, is not to "renounce" body/mind. Again, you've taken your mangled understanding of Nonduality pointers, and created a straw-man argument. You've been told this over and over again, but continue to hold to your erroneous understanding of what's being said.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 16, 2024 13:21:27 GMT
Dude, you are "lol-ing" snidely at your very own misunderstanding. You have no grasp whatsoever, even of a mere conceptual variety when it comes to Nonduality. You erroneously "think" you know what's being said, and you are laughing at that mangled version of Nonduality pointers.
"There are no others" does not mean what you think it does....it's a pointer to the fundamental absence of separation....a pointer to all appearances being empty and devoid of inherent existence...ephemeral, temporal appearance only...and yes, that includes body/mind/persons.
And you're the only one talking about a perpetual bliss bunny state. You've been told over and over that SR does not equal an ongoing, unchanging feeling state of emotions on the high, upper echelons of the emotional scale. Again, you've mangled the message...created a straw man that you then attempt to tear down.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 16, 2024 13:25:08 GMT
You're still asleep in the dream, erroneously believing you've awoken. And in your ignorance, you are snide, arrogant and condescending to those who offer you Pointers to freedom.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 16, 2024 13:34:53 GMT
Yes, there is that recognition, but inherent to that is the realizing that the temporal, as an expression of 'the eternal,' is fundamentally not separate.....that all temporal expression is "appearance only"...which means "absent inherent existence." It's "worn"? By whom/what exactly? The body/mind is an expression...and appearance within the dream of life. SR reveals there is no object/thing/what/who, "IN/contained within" the body. That is an erroneous sense that comes hand in hand with the delusion of the SVP. So what you are is like a cob of corn and the person is the husk/corn silk? This model reifies (S)elf as a something of substance that is "inside" of another appearance....Russian doll-like. Just...No... You've completely glossed over the "not separate" part!
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 16, 2024 13:41:16 GMT
It's not experiential "divides" between apparent objects/things that was ever the problem! It's mistaking that appearance for fundamental separation.
The fact that a baby can distinguish a finger held up to grab hold of it, indicates an apparent denoting of the finger as distinct....
It's only ever "fundamental/existential" separation that is the issue. That's the deluded belief. Apparent distinction/apparent division by which singular objects/things can be denoted from one another, are non-problematic...there is no need to deny apparent distinction.....freedom from the world does not mean denying distinction, it means "realizing fundamental Oneness."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2024 17:29:06 GMT
By the One Knower, of course, but we are at an impasse on this so I'm going to leave it alone. I have a question for you. My son had a sudden and unexpected heart bypass surgery two days ago. Yesterday he was awake and clear enough to tell me he saw himself being operated on from a position above the surgical lights looking down. What is it that Knows and Observes such things from outside and beyond the body and its nervous system? In your opinion?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 16, 2024 18:49:11 GMT
By the One Knower, of course, but we are at an impasse on this so I'm going to leave it alone. Ultimately, "Awareness/witnessing/seeing" is singular and fundamentally existent/actual....but there is no existent "witness" per se...where there is a sensed/perceived "know er/witness,se er/Some-one/thing, an entity that is believed to be the "witness/some-thing that IS itself aware," that constitutes an illusion in need of seeing through. You are looking at a mirage and mistaking it for an actual oasis. There IS no existent witness behind "witnessing/seeing." Awareness is not a some-thing that IS aware. Awareness is not an aware entity. It's just awareness itself. Awareness can stand alone...absent content, or there can be awareness "of" content. Where there is a sense of being a something/someone that IS aware, that is "content." Relatively speaking, as the story goes, as people, we are aware. The unawakened mistake that apparent me character/person, for an existent entity within which, awareness arises. That is adelusion that gets seen through as separation/the SVP gets seen through. Damn...that must have been quite a shock. I'm sorry to hear and I truly hope it went well and he heals quickly and fully. That's cool that he had an out of body experience, like that. I've had several myself, starting when I was very young...during lucid dreaming I sometimes experience a real-time, venturing beyond my sleeping body, seeing and experiencing things that I am later able to verify....so called "astral travel"...that kind of thing. These are mystical experiences that leave one with the "insight" that awareness/consciousness is not dependent upon body/eyes that see, brain, etc. This though, is still an "in the dream" insight and not to be conflated with the shift in locus of seeing to beyond/prior to all appearance, that is SR. That "knowing/observing" from beyond the body, that continues to include a personal/me character reference, is still experiential, a mystical, generally awe-inspiring, but, still, personal experience. In an OBE, there still the personality, history/memory involved, the sense of "me character/story" involved...it is simply in that instance, devoid of the experiential sense of seeing out of bodily eyes and hearing out of bodily ears..of being tethered to an appearing body....it is still "a temporal experience" that is beyond the consensus trance reality, that is "out of body" but not out of the "dream-scape." My deceased loved ones tell me this is what it's like to continue to experience as a me character, post bodily death. After-death experience though, is still "in the dream"....."experiential content/appearance only," and not to be conflated with actual "liberation/freedom/SR." SR is awakening TO the dream...a seeing that is completely beyond the dream....beyond the confines of the me character.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2024 1:17:13 GMT
By the One Knower, of course, but we are at an impasse on this so I'm going to leave it alone. Ultimately, "Awareness/witnessing/seeing" is singular and fundamentally existent/actual....but there is no existent "witness" per se...where there is a sensed/perceived "know er/witness,se er/Some-one/thing, an entity that is believed to be the "witness/some-thing that IS itself aware," that constitutes an illusion The witness isn't personal. The witness is universal. The witness has countless eyes. The witness in me reads the words you wrote. The witness in you is reading my response to those words. Are we two? No, we share the same ability to witness the typed words and respond to them (communicate). Are we otherwise distinct here in duality, in form? Yes. In form and experience, we are distinct, but we are One in ability to witness/watch/perceive/know. Now for me this is an open and shut case, and one not open to debate. I hope you'll understand.
|
|