|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 16, 2021 20:13:48 GMT
The perfect term to describe the informing of mind, post SR! Insights are not 'the realization' itself, but in terms of shift in experience, which is very much a facet of awakening to the dream, very important. I think many confuse 'insight' with 'realization/seeing through' as it's easy to do simply because of mind's propensity to assert itself wherever there is a void. Insights DO continue to happen as Self realization informs mind, as the dust settles, so to speak, following awakening, but, important not to conflate those 'mind-informing insights' with the initial seeing through/awakening/shift in locus of seeing. Seems to me, you've been amazingly very stable in your ability to decipher the difference, right off the bat. You are crystal clear as to what constitutes story vs. Truth. I suspect you will notice the lapses getting shorter and shorter, those instances where you perhaps temporarily lose sight of the dream as a dream, and then resettle....From what it sounds like, you are already experiencing that re-settling back into 'the view beyond it all' happening very quickly, and all on it's own, spontaneously, if/when mind starts to churn too deeply into story-land. Insughtful lol😅 Yes, mind wants to ‘know’. It’s still the same bs. Sometimes more subtle but ultimately more mind getting involved. The ‘I got it’ …”I lost it’ energy is still pretty relentless. To the extent where it has me questioning if I made it all up and then frustration kicks in and then wakefulness again 🤷🏻♀️. Not quite what mind imagined awakening to be like at all. It’s all seen as pretty funny. Folk take it all so seriously. I think this quote speaks perfectly to that "I got it--I lost it" deal;
The fact that you ARE aware of that happening, is extremely significant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 16, 2022 19:17:19 GMT
I suspect the generalization there Ramana seems to be making to extend to ALL thinking, reflects more of a language issue than anything else. It's particular quotes like that that confuse seekers.
Thinking per se is non-problematic. It's only 'self-referential thought,' and the incessant nature of that particular kind of thought/ideation after all that indicates that a separate, volitional person is still in the mix.
Thought per se, continues to arise post SR/awakening, but what ceases is the incessant presence of an imagined 'me entity/SVP.'
Arising thought that is free of that delusion, will not be 'incessant' in nature and it won't mar/obscure the abiding ground from shining through.
Thought/ideation that is absent the imagined separate, volitional person simply arises and ebbs on through, easily, effortlessly, unproblematic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2022 0:49:10 GMT
I suspect the generalization there Ramana seems to be making to extend to ALL thinking, reflects more of a language issue than anything else. It's particular quotes like that that confuse seekers. I don't see what's confusing about the silence of Peace. On the contrary, what comes with it is total clarity. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 17, 2022 3:49:43 GMT
I suspect the generalization there Ramana seems to be making to extend to ALL thinking, reflects more of a language issue than anything else. It's particular quotes like that that confuse seekers. I don't see what's confusing about the silence of Peace. On the contrary, what comes with it is total clarity. So are you suggesting that so long as there is arising thought, there is not Peace? Or that clarity cannot abide thinking? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2022 4:29:52 GMT
I don't see what's confusing about the silence of Peace. On the contrary, what comes with it is total clarity. So are you suggesting that so long as there is arising thought, there is not Peace? Or that clarity cannot abide thinking? No |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 17, 2022 19:14:43 GMT
So are you suggesting that so long as there is arising thought, there is not Peace? Or that clarity cannot abide thinking? Can 'total clarity' then also "come with" a mind engaged with thought..a mind immersed in experience? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2022 0:47:41 GMT
Can 'total clarity' then also "come with" a mind engaged with thought..a mind immersed in experience? Clarity is not dependent on thoughts and experiences or the lack of thoughts and experiences. It is the abiding ground from which these experiences appear to arise. Thought is not the enemy. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 20, 2022 18:26:08 GMT
Can 'total clarity' then also "come with" a mind engaged with thought..a mind immersed in experience? Clarity is not dependent on thoughts and experiences or the lack of thoughts and experiences. It is the abiding ground from which these experiences appear to arise. Thought is not the enemy.Agreed. But delusion is. In other words, you do not have to stop all thoughts from arising for clarity to be. But clarity is marred by delusion. That's kind of strange to me that you are directly equating 'clarity' per se, with "the abiding ground." Clarity as I use it, references more the content that is seen, when 'seeing/looking' absent obstacles/delusion that obscure. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2022 2:16:17 GMT
Clarity is not dependent on thoughts and experiences or the lack of thoughts and experiences. It is the abiding ground from which these experiences appear to arise. Thought is not the enemy.Agreed. But delusion is. In other words, you do not have to stop all thoughts from arising for clarity to be. But clarity is marred by delusion. That's kind of strange to me that you are directly equating 'clarity' per se, with "the abiding ground." Clarity as I use it, references more the content that is seen, when 'seeing/looking' absent obstacles/delusion that obscure. Clarity has to do with content? Content is experience and you keep telling me that you cannot trust experience, that experience is not the truth but you seem to be deriving clarity from it? I'll tell you what clarity is. It is to be as you are, in the natural state where there is no concern about content because what you are is prior to content. Knowing that you are the eternal witness is clarity. It is also called wisdom. From that ground state of being, experience arises and it does seem that experiences and actions play out in a way that is "harmonious." |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 21, 2022 3:15:30 GMT
Agreed. But delusion is. In other words, you do not have to stop all thoughts from arising for clarity to be. But clarity is marred by delusion. That's kind of strange to me that you are directly equating 'clarity' per se, with "the abiding ground." Clarity as I use it, references more the content that is seen, when 'seeing/looking' absent obstacles/delusion that obscure. Clarity has to do with content? Content is experience and you keep telling me that you cannot trust experience, that experience is not the truth but you seem to be deriving clarity from it? I'll tell you what clarity is. It is to be as you are, in the natural state where there is no concern about content because what you are is prior to content. Knowing that you are the eternal witness is clarity. It is also called wisdom. From that ground state of being, experience arises and it does seem that experiences and actions play out in a way that is "harmonious." You're making the same illogical leap again that you make with separation when you insist that 'separation must be something more than a concept...other than an erroneous "idea," because SR is not based on holding a particular thought/idea in mind.' No, SR does not equal the arrival at a conceptual thought/idea/understanding, but YES, delusion does equal the mistaking of an erroneous idea for the Truth. Similarly, Yes, conceptual delusion can and does mar clarity, but that does not mean that clarity equals the holding of a particular, conceptual idea. Clarity is just 'clear, unobstructed seeing' as I use the term. |
|
