|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 21, 2024 23:44:43 GMT
Look a little closer....deeper;
Even in the movement of focus/attention, the highest interest is playing out.
You don't get to choose your highest interest in a given moment. It simply is what it is.You could 'want' to be more interested in something than what you are, but that does not ensure the interest.
While it might seem as though when it comes to 'where' to place focus/attention there is a teensy bit of volitional wiggle room re: that, there actually isn't. Even the tiniest bit of actual volition on the part of the apparent me charachter, would equal actual separation...would mean a break from the 'One, singular, seamless movement.'
The highest interest in any given moment equals 'where' focus goes. Try as you might, there is no way to "choose" arising interest...thus, you have zero actual control over where to 'place' focus/attention. It might seem as though you are choosing and succeeding at times, but if you look deeper, you're imagining that... attention always lands according to the highest interest playing out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 24, 2024 19:07:28 GMT
To truly see "what an individual/person/discrete human, actually IS," there must first be a profound shift in place of seeing. So long as you are seeing from the position of identifying yourself to be "an" individual, you're not going to be able to apprehend what's being pointed to.
The individual is a temporal, ephemeral expression within what is in actuality, a singular, fundamentally, undivided expression. The overriding expression of all perceivables is ultimately a singular expression..a singular distinction arising within/to the abiding ground of unwavering Awareness.
The experience of the apparently unfolding story is one of inumerable, distinctions, but the entirety of what seems to be a singular, individuated "life experience/unfolding story from beginning to end," is in actuality, singular...undivided....one, seamless movement. When this is realized, it's becomes clear there never was actual volition, causality or even actual 'pasts/future'....time passage is a facet of the unfolding story but SR illuminates it as ultimately, an illusion.
The expression, whether we're talking about the story as a whole, or of apparently singular facets of it, (including discrete people/individuals) have no inherent substance/ground of it's own...some say the expressed, the perceivable, "borrows" it's temporal "appearance/isness" from Awareness (existence itself).
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 25, 2024 17:11:19 GMT
A reference for a temporal "self" is not the same as "identification" with a temporal self.
All of your beef with Nonduality hinges upon your own misunderstanding of what's actually being said/pointed to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 5, 2024 16:58:06 GMT
The "dream" is a dream about a me character and other characters, all who agree on stuff such as 'green means go and red means stop'.....where there is a stable world that is collectively experienced by all who appear within it....
What you are doing SDP, is trying to ascertain the "fundamental Truth" about that dream and it's content, from within the dream...via examining the content.
The Truth about the dream.....about the singular/undivided expression, will not be found from the position of experiencing yourself and others to BE 'existent/fundamental' entities....and cannot be found by looking at/examining the content of the dream. Only realization will do and that means a profound shift from seeing through the eyes of a person to "beyond/prior to."
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 5, 2024 17:09:54 GMT
8 billion dreams is 'dream content.' Whereas the pointer of a singular, undivided dream, is Truth.
Your quest SDP is founded upon a relative, ultimately, misconceived set of questions....you seek to know the "hows/whys" about dream content. Nonduali is an entirely different focus....Nonduality points to "beyond" the appearance of 8 billion dreamers to a fundamental singularity. That does mean a denial or denigration of the dream content....of 8 billions dreamers. It does mean a seeing through of inherent existence of each of those apparent dreamers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 5, 2024 17:16:47 GMT
This is where you go wrong. There is a deeper seeing that you've yet to apprehend....and "existential Truth" that lies deeper...beyond that which you are designating to be existential Truth.
What you've done is akin to someone who can only see the duck in the duck/bunny pic, claiming that the duck is all there is to see....it's quite an arrogant position actually....you don't seem to leave any leeway for the possibility that you're asleep to the Truth that Nonduality is pointing to.
There is a "deeper" reality that you've yet to apprehend.
No, it does not. The personal self is not denied in the realization of Oneness...it is lightened of it's burdensome, illusive, existent limitations/boundaries.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 7, 2024 20:13:10 GMT
Not really, no. The trillions of living things and thus, a trillion "different perspectives," is appearance only...even the directly experienced "me character" perspective falls under "appearance only," and thus, is not an Absolute knowing/realization as is the apprehension of a singular, ground of Awareness that underscores all appearance, including those 'trillions of living things that seem to be experiencing.'
Yes, you're right about that. The way ZD speaks about the abiding, singular ground of awareness, does indeed attribute to it, an ability to think, feel, experience and personally 'know.'
Whereas SR reveals that thinking, feeling, experiencing, personally knowing stuff, are all arisings/appearances....expressions within/to that ground of unchanging Awareness.
ZD insists that abiding, unchanging Awareness posseses the qualities/properties of thinking, feeling, personally knowing, doing, etc, which renders that abiding ground as an entity/some-thing that IS "a thinker/doer/feeler/seer/experiencer/perceiver."
When you turn abiding Awareness into a some-thing like that that is doing/functioning like that, it's a dead giveaway that a pointer has been conceptualized.
It sounds as though you have a reference for a moment of transcendence that collapsed as soon as minding/experience once again arose. That's what's referenced as a momentary "glimmer/glimpse."
What you clearly don't have reference for is an awakening that abides "AS" experience continues to arise. The world does not have to disappear to remain free of it. If you need for experiential content to disappear in order to "transcend" the experiential world, then you're still asleep...still seeing from the perspective of an SVP that is caught up in the dream.
You dis-believe that the transcendent position of seeing can co-abide alongside the arising appearance of the world and all it's things, because you have no direct reference for that. But I assure you, the two really can simultaneously abide/arise. The experiential world and that transcendent viewpoint are not actually at war....in SR, the transcendent position of seeing becomes primary and the 'personal/limited viewpoint' becomes secondary...is "couched within" that transcendent "locus/view."
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 8, 2024 18:07:11 GMT
Just as individual perspectives are ultimately devoid of inherent existence, so too is a "nexus." If it were so that a nexus "exists," that reifies existent individuals that ARE "connected/linked together."
Awareness must shift out of the dream-scape of perceivables completely, to a position of beyond/prior to to see the scope of inclusion regarding ALL experiential content...even that content that seems to have intuitive knowing behind it...even that content that seems to be mystical in nature....even content that warms the heart of inspires awe.
This view you express addresses the illusive nature of inherent existence falsely attributed to apparent individuals/things, but it does not address the illusive nature of an existent connection between those temporal appearances....a "nexus" of connection is in actuality, just another one of those apparent 'things'....a perceivable arising within/to the abiding, unchanging ground of Awareness.
In a true apprehension of Oneness, there is no-thing that requires "connection/unification" because all things have been realized to be absent inherent existence. It was only ever the false attribution of inherent existence to apparent things that was the issue, NOT the "appearance" itself, of things.
Distinction is not the delusion/illusion...rather, fundamental separation IS.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 8, 2024 18:44:30 GMT
In SR/awakening, "here and now" equals a primary groundedness in unwavering Awareness, with whatever is immediately/imminently presenting, directly, NOW, couched within that....the two are not at odds...it is not a case of one OR the other. It is only that way when one is 'practicing' silence/meditation as a means of diverting attention away from the world and it's things and in that absence of focus upon things/the world, there is newfound sense of emptiness and peace.
Many seekers conflate that "experience" of relative empty mind/peace with SR/being awake, with "transcending the world," when in actuality, the transcendence of SR, very much "includes" the world and all it's things....it's just that now, their enduring/abiding, erroneously assigned "substance" has dissolved and in that, the entire world and all it's things is "en-lightened" of it's previous burdens.
You are describing what it's like for a seeker to meditate and in those moments attention upon worldly traumas and feelings of abuse, etc. are not present and conflating that with the "transcendence" inherent to SR/wakefulness to the dream. True awakening is not dependent upon an absence of focus/attention upon worldly things....wakefulness includes the world and all it's things...you don't have deny past traumatic events or even arising feelings of discord to simultaneously BE free of them...to simultaneously BE "transcendent" of the world of perceivables.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 8, 2024 19:05:52 GMT
  You really think Tenka is experiencing "pain and struggle" regarding his exchange with you? Extremely disingenuous...anything BUT "honest." Something to look into for sure. What the heck is wrong with asking another for clarification or justification for an espoused viewpoint about his spirituality? Another point of inquiry you'd well to engage in....look into this belief you cart around that says to challenge another's view is to engage in pain and struggle...and that it's somehow "wrong" to engage in discussions that challenge espoused points of view. Right here and now, as you suggest that Tenka "should" do something different than what he's doing, you are going against your own advice! Can you seriously not see that? If you were practicing what you preach, instead of responding to Tenka in this manner, offering what you see to be a "correction" of his response/behavior, you'd simply turn inwards to ask why it is that YOU are experiencing this situation where another is challenging what....what is the lesson...the guidance there? If you truly believe and live by this idea, why on God's green earth then are you responding to what is only "a prop" in a manner that assumes him to be something more? If Tenka is but a prop whose purpose is to offer you inner, personal guidance only, why are you responding in an outward manner that serves to possibly create a shift in his behavior? Prime example of how you do not practice what you preach Ina...your walk don't match your talk. So why are you not then "only" focused upon 'why you were exposed to the experience of engagement with Tenka'? Instead you are offering an argument against his stance...you are challenging his position.
|
|
