|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 17, 2024 3:54:58 GMT
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. In actuality, there is no some-thing that is a witnessing entity...no some-thing that is "a witness." Just witnessing. Just seeing....Just Awareness that is aware. Well, you are demonstrating an obvious, delusional grasp of what you conceive Oneness to be, that is devoid of actual realization, that is being mistaken for the real deal. Delusions such as this one, as I see it, are begging to be challenged/debated (all spiritual views, if there is a true and sincere interest in Truth, must be open to debate)....my aim here is Truth at all costs, so it does not matter if one says they are not open to debate.....this is place where erroneous ideas get challenged. Period. This is a perfect example of what it means to head straight back into the dream-scape, to erroneously identify with a concept/object/some-thing/some-one, that has property/quality, the main one being, the ability to "witness/observe." The apprehension of Truth demands that you see ALL dream-scape content for what it is, including the imagined "witness" and all other imagined, entities/doers. Realization reveals that a "witnessing entity" was only ever imagined. There is no such existent some-one/some-thing, and yet, there is seeing....observing.....witnessing...but it's all absent a fundamentally existent object/entity that is A "witness." The "observer/witness" is "the observed/witnessed content," at best....if we look closer, it's not even that though.....an observer/witness of the apparent person/body, is imagined....mind erroneously overlays that idea upon "witnessing/seeing/awareness-aware." Byron Katie would ask; Who/what would you be if you no longer held that idea to be true? (This is a great opportunity to step back and really look "AT" that witness you think exists. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 17, 2024 4:02:17 GMT
q/JLY....you recently posted this Niz quote. The bolded is the equivalent of telling you, you are NOT "a witnessing entity." The "witness" is, at best, of the "world of perceivables/world of thinkables." If we dig deeper, it's clear, it's purely imaginary. Mind cannot fathom that there can be witnessing...seeing....awareness, absent a "someone/some-thing" that IS "aware."
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 17, 2024 20:08:18 GMT
While it is so that Truth cannot be adequately described or talked about in a way that fully captures what's being pointed to, however, there still remain certain descriptions/language of pointing that denote there's been an actual realization of Truth, vs. a mere conceptual grasp that is being mistaken for a seeing that is beyond/prior to the story/dream.
Any type of phrasing/descriptor that references (reifies as fundamentally existent) an entity/someone/something, that IS "itself" aware, or any type of phrasing that references the appearing physical body/mind/person as "an existent extension" of Source, vs. an arising within/to Source, should raise a big red flag.
There was a recent offering up of a description of the body/me character being akin to a 'space-suit' that can be donned or cast off....the "one" who can don it or cast it off, erroneously posited as being an existent "someome/something/entity" complete with all the traits, properties and qualities of Source.
Source, of course is but a pointer to that which defies all conceptual grasp, and thus, the very application of qualities and properties to Source, is a sure giveaway that a pointer has been conceptualized vs. followed to it's intended Non-location.
This idea that there exists some kind of middling "entity/someone" that is transcendent of the human, body/mind, but still falls short of the unfettered, non-conceptual "ground" to all, is precisely what the term "3 layer cake," references as it's pointed out that mind has invoked an erroneous conceptual model of what it "thinks" Nonduality is pointing to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 17, 2024 20:16:22 GMT
Identification with an all powerful, unlimited, "existent some-THING/some-ONE" that somehow, exists in multiplicity, infusing itself within each discretely apparent object/thing/plant/animal/human, thereby rendering each appearance, itself, existent, is still "identification."
Many seekers go from identifying with/as the apparent me character, body/mind, TO identifying with a "something" that is beyond/prior to.
There is no such "something" that lies beyond/prior to, so that should be your first clue that you're mired in concept land and mistaking it for transcendence of the story/dream.
In SR, ALL identification with some-THING-ness, with that which appears, be it a spirit, a ghost, a God, an all powerful unlimited being, dissolves in the seeing through/shift in locus of seeing that is SR.
The realization that dissolves the existential question of 'what/who am I,' does so as it reveals the question itself, was misconceived. That which exists fundamentally, is NOT a "what/who" at all.....the erroneous identification with "what-ness/thing-ness" was the problem all along!
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 12, 2024 16:41:03 GMT
Once again SDP, you demonstrate the problem with trying to understand the pointer of "Not-two/Nonduality" from a position of erroneously imagining yourself, as the appearing character, to "BE" an existent something/someone.
When that delusion/illusion of an existent SVP and of existent, fundamental separation in all it's myriad forms and states, is no longer in play, the Truth is revealed.
What you are designating as the so called "dual world," is realized in SR to not actually BE "duality" per se, but instead "apparent distinction." That which appears has no inherent existent of it's own....it's an expression within/to that which does exist in it's own right.
That "two flows" within the whole you speak of, is not Truth....it's a relative observation within a purely conceptual grasp of "Oneness."
The realization of Fundamental Nonduality is not about conceptualizing a "united" whole. Distinctions need not be resolved with an idea that they are all "connected/united" when it's crystal clear they were never "fundamentally" separate in the first place.
A conceptual grasp of Nonduality is focused within the dream, upon dream-stuff. A realized seeing/understanding the shift in locus of seeing that is SR...a vantage point whereby there's no longer an imagining that awareness is looking through the apparent eyes of the apparent body/mind/person.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 13, 2024 18:07:59 GMT
Yuppers. Polarity is part and parcel of experience. Did you think anyone was saying otherwise?
This insight falls squarely under the umbrella of "in the dream/relative" knowledge and has nothing to do with Nonduality/Truth, other than, polarity can be said to be a facet of the perceivable/experiential realm, thus, is arises/appears, as a seamless expression with/to Awareness....no fundamental separation between the ground of awareness and the expression/experience of polarity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 18, 2024 17:56:23 GMT
SDP, this question you're asking on the heels of ZD's post exemplifies that you are still not grasping the distinction between relative and Absolute....between what appears vs. what is Truth...which to be honest, at this juncture, is kind of shocking.
The realization whereby "doership" is seen through, happens from a different vantage point of seeing than the one whereby relative 'facts' are verified or nullified. The absence of doership references what is Absolutely so, whereas relative responsibility assigned to a particular, appearing character, deals what is experientially/relatively so.
While Absolute Truth transcends relative, experiential "facts," those facts are not necessarily rendered "relatively false," in the higher/transcendent seeing.
Ultimately, it is (T)rue that no one is responsible...no person is actually the chooser/doer of what gets done/actions taken, but relatively speaking, as the dream/story goes, personal responsibility, as a story within the story, still remains a facet of that.
My husband just had a woman plow into him as he was driving through a green light; ULtimately, that was all just part and parcel of "what happened," no one Ultimately, Absolutely to blame....no actual doership if we're talking "Truth," and yet, I'm still fully on board with her admittance of being "at fault" for the accident, thus, the insurance company on her side, paying to fix our vehicle.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 21, 2024 7:14:32 GMT
You're erroneously equating the presence of thought/minding with "being distracted." The two are not synonymous.
In SR, there is no longer an existent entity who could actually BE "distracted".....thoughts/minding is not problematic when there is no longer an existent thinker/minder being erroneous imagined as being source to thoughts/minding...that absence means there is no longer identification with thought content and that makes all the difference.
And again, you are falsely equating thought/minding with "functioning through an SVP."
If the SVP has been truly seen through, truly realized to be an illusion, then there is no longer an SVP being imagined...thus, there is no "functioning through a so called SVP." There never actually WAS any "functioning through an SVP." That was only ever a false idea....imaginary.
Again SDP, you are using Nonduality terminology and pointers without actually having reference for what they mean/are pointing to.
You are erroneously equating a "separate, volitional person" with the apparent me character/body/mind/ego. They are not the same. A me character/body/mind DOES appear....a "separate, volitional entity" never does appear...never did appear. It was only ever imagined. That's what an "illusion" is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 22, 2024 19:24:20 GMT
 Which means your problem with nonduality is that it's pointing to an absence of fundamental duality.  If there are "actual/fundamental processes" in play....if there Truly IS a process of creation that is fundamental to ALL of experience, that would equal "fundamental separation." As for nonduality "sprinkling fairy dust on the present moment," that's just a pissed off egoic mind taking issue with it's misconceived idea about what "ONLY THIS" is pointing to. Does the possibility occur to you at all SDP, that your understandings re: Nonduality/Truth are not accurate?....that you've failed to follow the pointers to their intended target?
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 23, 2024 1:01:11 GMT
This is a contextual mess.
No fundamental separation means it's ALL dependent upon that which exists and abides for it's temporal appearance. The brain is not "immersed" in THIS.....as an appearing expression within/to awareness, no separation, it IS THIS. And that which appears has no fundamental existence.
Relatively speaking, yes, as the story goes, mind 'forms thoughts,' but if we're talking Truth, that's a delusion/illusion that gets seen through in SR. Fundamentally, Ultimately, the idea that thoughts are formed/created by a brain gets illuminated as erroneous. Nothing that appears in the dream is actually creating/forming anything else that appears in the dream.
The whole "brains form thoughts" conversation is relative only. The light of Truth illuminates all such thoughts pertaining to "absolute/ultimate/fundamental" inception, of that ilk, as misconceived.
|
|
