Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2022 7:00:31 GMT
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. So if I have a wrong idea I'm deluded. If I then have a different idea or no idea then I'm not deluded. But if that idea comes back into my mind I'm deluded again? SR is not to be deluded, so as long as I don't have that delusional idea in my mind I'm Self-realized but as soon as it comes back again I've lost the Self-realization. But you would say that if I'm Self realized I wouldn't have that wrong delusional thought because I'm Self-realized. But what's the difference between being Self-realized and therefore not having that delusional thought and not being Self-realized and having that delusional thought but then not having that thought a few moments later because I'm having a different thought about what I'm going to have for lunch and therefore that delusional thought is not in my mind currently. So as long as I think about what I'm having for lunch I'm not have that delusional thought in my mind I'm obviously Self-realized.
Is that what you're saying?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 21, 2022 20:17:41 GMT
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. So if I have a wrong idea I'm deluded. What else IS the delusion/illusion of "separation" if not an erroneous conceptual idea...a mistake of mind? You yourself have acknowledged that Oneness is realized in SR, no?....and that separation is no longer in play, haven't you? So what IS that previous sense of separation that was in play and that was obscuring Oneness? You argue vehemently that separation is not a conceptual idea, but you fail to answer me when I ask you, "what IS separation"? It seems you believe it's actual and not merely an erroneous imagining? So long as you are mistaking yourself to be a separate someone, existent in a world of separate, inherently existent things, then yes, there is delusion in play. And yes, that mistake of mind is entirely conceptual. It's the equivalent of mistaking the rope for a snake. Can you see that that mistake, thinking that a rope is a snake is conceptual/ideation/thought based? And once the snake has been seen through, has been seen to really, not be there at all, there is no doubt at all about the rope. (The analogy breaks down, is imperfect because both imagined snake and rope are conceptual/experiential/in the story, whereas, Oneness that shines through obviously once imagined separation is seen through, is a seeing from beyond/prior to experience...prior to any story content. You're forgetting the part about the 'seeing from beyond' that illuminates the delusional imagining/idea as false. As I keep saying, SR is not merely a switching out of one idea for another. There must be a shift in locus of seeing. It's only in that shift, that separation....the SVP gets illuminated as false....in that it's seen that there never really was separation....never was an SVP, separation was erroneously imagined only. It's more though than just the absence of that thought pattern/sense/mistake of mind, if there is SR, the place from which seeing is happening from, has shifted from 'within the dream,' seemingly through eyes of a separate person, to beyond. [/span][/quote] That's a really good seeker's question actually. I explained that above...but will elaborate; The difference is that the locus of seeing shifts in SR...and that's why the false idea of separation is no longer in play. Not only is the erroneous structure, pattern of ideation, (that = the false sense of separation), gone in SR, the very locus of seeing, where it previously seemed as though the ground of all seeing was the separate person, has now shifted to beyond. The erroneous sense of seeing through and from the limited eyes of a bounded, existent body/mind, is no longer.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 10, 2022 16:05:36 GMT
No. Oneness includes all that appears...the entire appearing world arises within/to awareness...is thus, couched in fundamental singularity....fundamentally, there is 'not-two.'
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 10, 2022 19:23:45 GMT
And there are indeed self help practices and processes that promise to help with that, but ultimately, what's required for that incessant running commentary/judgment/self-referential mentation to cease, is a seeing through of the one who is imagined to be at the center of it all....the 'thinker.' (also known as the SVP...separate entity).
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 10, 2022 19:29:06 GMT
This seems like a context mix. When you say "actual truth of the matter," are you referencing fundamental Truth, or some kind of objective, "relative truth"?
Relatively speaking, would you say it's (t)rue that planet Earth is round and not flat? You say above that there is "always" a disconnect between what you think you know and the actual truth of the matter.
Does that mean that if you "think" the Earth is round, that you are somehow disconnected from a higher, more true truth?
If we're talking "(T)ruth, then nothing at all you can think or relatively know hits the mark.
But apprehension of that "Truth" does not equal walking around in perpetual "doubt" about relative truths....what I think I know to be relatively true.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 27, 2024 18:16:50 GMT
Damn, dude....
|
|