The Immediacy Of Truth | Spiritualgab

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

The Immediacy Of Truth Jun 6, 2021 19:56:42 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jun 6, 2021 19:56:42 GMT

Andrew: The bolded made me chuckle. I get the impression his perspective hinges on the concepts of 'instantaneous' and 'instantaneousness'. I imagine he says those words a lot

He likely does say those words and similies a lot and there's a reason for that. Those terms are not to be taken conceptually, but rather, as pointers to the actuality of 'what IS.' There is no-thing known beyond THIS instant. All knowing happens now, or not at all...all of which is 'known' to be, here and now, (or not at all).

I think to speak of 'instant' or 'instantaneous' is to put oneself into the context of objectification (nothing wrong with doing that). So to then speak of 'instantaneous isness which can't be objectified' strikes me as a contradiction in terms, and I imagine it goes pear shaped from there.

But maybe I'm doing him an injustice, I haven't listened to him beyond just those few words.

I don't understand the comment about objectification. Truly being present to what actually IS...the ground and what is presently arising/appearing, means 'self as an object,' gets seen as an idea only (if/when that idea is actually, presently arisng, of course). When the idea of 'self as an object' isn't arising, then obviously, there is no objectification.

When he says 'instantaneous' he's not positing a concept...he's pointing to this, immediate, NOW.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

The Immediacy Of Truth Jun 6, 2021 20:17:52 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jun 6, 2021 20:17:52 GMT

Shadowplay: I don’t mind some of Tony Parsons' stuff. I’ve seen him a few times and actually had a conversation on the phone with him in the early noughties. He was actually quite pleasant, reasonable and obliging. JN has picked up from some of TP’s more radical gestures and has really run with it. But in doing so has tipped over (as I see it) into metaphysical solipsism. There can be a fine line between pure non duality and metaphysical solipsism. See my comment to ZD for more on this.

Metaphysical Solipsism may appear to be somewhat transcendent, but, still hinges upon there being a "me/someone" that is perceiving/experiencing. Nonduality does away with all objects of perception/experiencing/seeing/witnessing/observing, to see that experience arises absent an experiencer.

I've come to see that talk about the vast scope of 'not knowing' and that it also applies to the appearance of sentient people and other apparent living things, is a strong litmus test for the presence of a person. The SVP is very intolerant of the idea that sentient people are 'empty appearance only.' It's clear why; When that brick is pulled from the jenga tower, the whole thing topples over. The person cannot abide that.

Reefs: True. You really have to go deep into the details in order to tell the difference and see who is who and arguing for what. And discussions on such a deep level are extremely rare.

Well, yes, they are currently VERY rare over on ST, what with all the LOA and mystical experience talk.

That's why many metaphysical solipsists can go unnoticed for years in non-duality circles. However, ultimately, all this talk - no matter how deep or impressive - doesn't matter. What matters is how these realizations people had affect their day to day life. And that's usually how you can tell the difference. After all, what all genuine ND teachers teach is the natural state. They call it many different names, but ultimately, they teach all exactly the same thing (or no-thing). And you won't see that topic mentioned much (if at all) in a discussion with a metaphysical solipsist.

That's a very new-agey, self-helpy view right there. While SR does indeed inform mind and thereby impact so called 'day to day life,' it's only an SVP that holds the view that "all that matters is the effect on day to day life."

In SR, day to day to life is fundamentally a-okay, full accepted and allowed, regardless of what's appearing. The one who believes that the content of day to day life is "the only thing that matters" gets seen through in SR.

Nonduality is concerned with what is actually True, not with having a better experience.

Clear seeing...Being awake....seeing beyond the false....seeing through the SVP, stands on its own and is not to be conflated with self-betterment teachings like LOA.

The natural state is not about having a more personally satisfying day to day experience, it's about seeing through the erroneous idea that goes hand in hand with a clinging to the idea of being a someone/something that must be satisfied with arising experience.

The very idea that 'personal satisfaction' is what it's all about is what needs to go and what does go, in SR!!!

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

The Immediacy Of Truth Jun 6, 2021 20:29:56 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jun 6, 2021 20:29:56 GMT

Zendancer: Precisely, and I suspect that Adya's idea about a progressive movement from "intellectual enlightenment" through "heart enlightenment" to a "gut-level enlightenment" is pointing to this very issue.

I think you've taken those terms far too literally. He's simply pointing away from conceptualization.

For each human the path of seeking truth and understanding plays out somewhat differently, but "the natural state" seems to be a result of numerous realizations that deepen and become internalized over time until one's way of life becomes quite childlike.

Context mix. Where there is 'natural state,' all those ideas about paths leading to and causation/the result of, etc, etc, are no longer in play. That's what's 'natural' about it...it's a state of being in the world that is absent those erroneous ideas....absent ALL erroneous and false ideas.

The natural state is not 'caused,' by any process or by anything the person tries to do to attain it. It's a state of being that hinges upon a subtraction not an addition of knowledge.

Those adults who exhibit what we call "the natural state" live psychologically in the present moment and do whatever they do without reflection, second-guessing, expectations, worries, doubts, etc. The natural state is, in effect, the embodiment of THIS rather than the inheadiment of THIS.

The very idea that "THIS" can (should be, or needs to be) emodied is a hair-pin turn, right back into the dream. The natural state really is all about an absence of an erroneous/false ideas. The very idea of 'body knowing' as somehow an indicator of transcendence as you've posited many times also needs to be seen through. The body and all it's apparent functions and senses is after all, an empty appearance only.

Esponja
Super Duper Senior Member

Posts: 1,742

The Immediacy Of Truth Jun 7, 2021 1:03:57 GMT via mobile Figgles likes this

Quote

Post by Esponja on Jun 7, 2021 1:03:57 GMT

Jun 6, 2021 20:17:52 GMT Figgles said:

Shadowplay: I don’t mind some of Tony Parsons' stuff. I’ve seen him a few times and actually had a conversation on the phone with him in the early noughties. He was actually quite pleasant, reasonable and obliging. JN has picked up from some of TP’s more radical gestures and has really run with it. But in doing so has tipped over (as I see it) into metaphysical solipsism. There can be a fine line between pure non duality and metaphysical solipsism. See my comment to ZD for more on this.

Metaphysical Solipsism may appear to be somewhat transcendent, but, still hinges upon there being a "me/someone" that is perceiving/experiencing. Nonduality does away with all objects of perception/experiencing/seeing/witnessing/observing, to see that experience arises absent an experiencer.

I've come to see that talk about the vast scope of 'not knowing' and that it also applies to the appearance of sentient people and other apparent living things, is a strong litmus test for the presence of a person. The SVP is very intolerant of the idea that sentient people are 'empty appearance only.' It's clear why; When that brick is pulled from the jenga tower, the whole thing topples over. The person cannot abide that.

Reefs: True. You really have to go deep into the details in order to tell the difference and see who is who and arguing for what. And discussions on such a deep level are extremely rare.

Well, yes, they are currently VERY rare over on ST, what with all the LOA and mystical experience talk.

That's why many metaphysical solipsists can go unnoticed for years in non-duality circles. However, ultimately, all this talk - no matter how deep or impressive - doesn't matter. What matters is how these realizations people had affect their day to day life. And that's usually how you can tell the difference. After all, what all genuine ND teachers teach is the natural state. They call it many different names, but ultimately, they teach all exactly the same thing (or no-thing). And you won't see that topic mentioned much (if at all) in a discussion with a metaphysical solipsist.

That's a very new-agey, self-helpy view right there. While SR does indeed inform mind and thereby impact so called 'day to day life,' it's only an SVP that holds the view that "all that matters is the effect on day to day life."

In SR, day to day to life is fundamentally a-okay, full accepted and allowed, regardless of what's appearing. The one who believes that the content of day to day life is "the only thing that matters" gets seen through in SR.

Nonduality is concerned with what is actually True, not with having a better experience.

Clear seeing...Being awake....seeing beyond the false....seeing through the SVP, stands on its own and is not to be conflated with self-betterment teachings like LOA.

The natural state is not about having a more personally satisfying day to day experience, it's about seeing through the erroneous idea that goes hand in hand with a clinging to the idea of being a someone/something that must be satisfied with arising experience.

The very idea that 'personal satisfaction' is what it's all about is what needs to go and what does go, in SR!!!

How can deep conversations occur when one shuts another down ?
There is nobody to apply loa or who has the need to apply it. Just awareness of what is arising moment to moment. Quite simple.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

The Immediacy Of Truth Aug 20, 2021 23:51:58 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Aug 20, 2021 23:51:58 GMT

Post by siftingtothetruth on 17 hours ago

Someone asks Rupert Spira how there can be multiple experiences or points of view in what is supposedly one consciousness. This video is at .

Spira responds with a series of metaphors. In this video, I argue that these metaphors are not really very good answers to the question posed. I suggest that this kind of explanation to this sort of question misunderstands the real nature of the mind, of advaita and nonduality, and of the mystery of consciousness. If there are questions, there are no answers. If there are questions, there is a questioner. But is there a questioner?

While I very much agree with Sifty's assessment that Spira misses the mark on the questions asked in the video below, the explanation of why that is, is far simpler than the 24 min. explanation Sifty offers.

The very question of multiple, unique consciousness-es, unique experiences/experiencers, hinges upon the erroneous idea that I am, as a person, 'having/giving rise to' an individual, perspective experience.

In clarity, all that can be known is that there is but "a" singular movie/play..."a" singular dream, and within that dream, multiple people/characters, all who appear to be having unique experience, are also appearing.

The only reason there is a question (or a known answer!) about multiple, unique cousiousness-es/ multiple, unique experience/experiencers, is because that which is empty appearance only, is erroneously being taken for something more.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

The Immediacy Of Truth Oct 6, 2022 5:39:44 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Oct 6, 2022 5:39:44 GMT

Laughter: purpose? What would be the problem of doing that, for you?
Back in my existential civilian days. I used to try to shift to the big picture. And then try to keep zooming out. From what we can see of the Universe the Earth is quite rare. From a benighted personal perspective, we can use the lens that the Universe creates these playgrounds, islands of riotous life, probably billions or not hundreds of billions of them right now (although the concept of simultaneity itself, in the big picture is .. different .. no star you see in the sky is now, and all are at different times, looking out is looking back in time, and on massive scales ...). It's like "God is playing dice", on a cosmic scale. What eventually "works", is what eventually "works". Then, on the biggest scale, we can anticipate the eventual heat death of the Universe. If we are here so that the "Universe can know itself", then perhaps, we might extend the life of that Universe by outliving it?

So, the existential civilian, with the most expansive picture, can see a sort of choice buried in a question. It is perhaps easier to perceive this underlying, core question, with a series of multiple questions: do I care if the human race survives, if Earth survives? Is it possible that something of this Universe might outlive it at the end? If so, do I want to be a part of building, of helping and working toward that eventuality?

The easy cop-out, which probably is where most existential civilians land and get stuck is "well, I'm just one person. a speck of dust. it doesn't matter". Those are the grundoons (a term Steve Bannon uses to describe menial manual laborers). Or to use a different metaphor, these are the sticks-in-the-mud. The Hobbits who never leave the Shire.

Now, for those who get past that point, the next inevitable wall is Hamlet, or, a bit more explicitly and on the bright side, Arjuna. This is where the existential civilian either stays a civilian or enlists as an existential warrior. "What am I to do? And why?".

heh heh .. .. the mind has all sorts of survival strategies. As E' used to say, there's no outsmarting the ego ...

Sree:
If you buy this story, then you become a character in it, trapped as a human being on planet earth in a space-time cosmos. It's over. You live out a bug's life in a movie scripted by science. Bug spirituality. You are a bug, Laffy.

Big yup.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

The Immediacy Of Truth Oct 6, 2022 17:19:30 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Oct 6, 2022 17:19:30 GMT

A very insightful post from Sree, here;

I asked a direct question: who is right, Tolle or Krishnamurti? And you tell me (in bolded words above) that they are saying the same thing. Let me try again.

Tolle said that the recognition of thought is not a thought. His use of the word "recognition" needs examination. He pointed out that "The recognition (that there is a voice in the head) is not a thought." How do we recognize that water is not wine?

Please stay with this, for Christ's sake! (As Krishnamurti would say.) Forget about the speaker (sree). He doesn't exist. Just focus on the goddam conversation.

The sloppy use of words is evidence of a deficiency of attention. zendancer suffers from this also when he used the word "imagine" instead of "cognition". And he is a scientist. Good lord!. No wonder settled science is never settled once and for all.

It seems to me that Tolle is equating the word "cognition" with "insight" (Krishnamurti) or "spontaneous enlightenment" (Hui Neng). This is so lame. And he gets away with it performing to fools who have made him a multi-millionaire.

It is true, when it comes to Truth-talk, precise language is of the utmost importance....and that is despite the fact that words themselves cannot completely capture what is pointed to.

Unfortunately, if we're gonna try to talk about/point to Truth, words are all we have.

With that in mind, I agree completely with what Sree is saying about both Tolle and ZD.

But there is usually something more there where sloppy language makes it's way into Truth-talk than merely being sloppy...it can be an indication of confusion, and that's what's at the crux of ZD's word usages for sure. He flip-flops from saying the Truth is entirely non-conceptual...beyond mind, to then asserting that in SR, there is a new addition of something known that was not previously known, and he calls that knowing that "it's all alive, Igor!" a realization.

In Tolle's case, I very much think the sloppy language is a concession to the seekers mind, and not the same indication of confusion as it so clearly is for ZD.

Fwiw, Reefs, who used to be very, very particular about his language, has now also become much more sloppy, and all that started with his insistence that via SR, he now knows that appearing people are for absolute certain, experiencers/perceivers, which makes sense; he had to broaden and change many of his definitions/terms in order to allow for that so called "Truth."

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

The Immediacy Of Truth Jan 27, 2024 23:15:59 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jan 27, 2024 23:15:59 GMT

Muttley:
Certainly this is true in a literal sense. But not a qualitative sense. It is true because there is no "culture" of "neo-advaita".

Surely, you could relate this to something Gurdi' said. I recall reading it in your posts more than once. Something along the lines of "the teaching cannot be codified, and has to emerge differently for every new generation",

Are there any active spiritual figures that label themselves as "neo-advaita"?

The existential truth cannot be expressed in any certain terms. History seems to tell the tale of various ideas and/or practices catching the interest of large groups of people, but these are always situational. It's the damnedest thing, after all. To my eye the culture that seems closest to acknowledging this is (and I say this as an outsider), Zen. As I believe reefs has pointed out in the past, this is the Taoist chord of Buddhism.

"Neo-advaita". I hear a sneer in those words.

As zd pointed the other day ... take the shortcut!

Nice, dude.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

The Immediacy Of Truth Jan 30, 2024 20:10:57 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jan 30, 2024 20:10:57 GMT

JLY:
Right, because there is only one Aliveness (cosmically speaking) which temporarily imparts aliveness to every single thing. To use your analogy, the Aliveness seeing out my eyes is the same Aliveness seeing out yours, and on and on.

One "Aliveness" that "temporarily imparts aliveness to every single thing," sets up a duality...this is the erroneous "extension of Source" theory whereby "Aliveness" is a some-thing/blob that infuses itself into other things, "temporarily" imbueing those things with it's "property/quality" of aliveness.

An Aliveness that 'sees out of eyes,' is yet further down this rabbit-hold of conceptual "Oneness" that is in actuality, invoking and reifying "two-ness."

Are the eyes themselves each 'alive'...? How about the little eyelash in the corner?

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

The Immediacy Of Truth Feb 15, 2024 21:48:22 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Feb 15, 2024 21:48:22 GMT

ZD:
Yes, the hubris of humans is rather amazing. No one can explain how a single hair grows, yet people think AI can somehow replicate sentience. Too funny.

DonHelado:
If sentience, or consciousness, is mysterious, then how can you say anything beyond "I don't know" to the question of whether some entity is conscious or sentient? Do you "know" for sure that humans will never create a system that is ... like a human? I agree that some of the technical people seem oblivious and full of hubris. But is it also hubris to think you know for sure in the other direction? Ie, that it cannot happen?

Precisely.

ZD is muddling up contexts again. Relatively speaking, science can and does explain "how" a hair grows....yet, existentially speaking, Absolute speaking, from the context of "Truth"....the "how/why" questions of that sort, are realized to be misconceived.

To use the night-time dream analogy/metaphor, you don't wake up and seriously wonder how the the hair on the head of the dude who appeared in your dream, "grew." It's simply accepted that within dreams, stuff appears, and it has no "inherenet" substance/foundation beyond that appearance. While it's appearing, it's appearing....but then remains but a memory...a memory is also 'an appearnce' as it is arising in mind....important to note that.

SR reveals that bodies/persons that are sentient, is appearance....experiential content....an arising within/to the ground of awareness itself. There is no actual/fundamental/existential "some-thing/some-one" that IS aware...conscious....knowing/seeing/doing/experiencing/perceiving.

There is no fundamental/actual perceiver behind perception...the sense of being a perceiver....of engaging with other perceivers, all part and parcel of the dream.

The question of possibility of aware/conscious non-alive objects is relative only. And this is why the answer that Reefs/ZD have arrived at, (supposed via kensho/CC) that says all things/objects, from the most minute/tiny to the largest, are known for absolute certain to BE a discrete/unique perceiver/entity, is a flat out nonsense.

Objects as individualized, unique, discrete points of conscious/awareness, are relative appearance within the dream....it's an appearance that does no go away post the realization of the inherent emptiness of that appearance, but the absence that ensues does mean that there is an absence of Absolute-ness re: that appearance, and ALL appearance.

Interesting enough, ZD has asserted that ALL objects, even right down to a paper-clip or something smaller, was realized, via his Kensho/CC to BE 'alive, conscious, experiencing/perceiving.'

So if a shoe and a paperclip are supposedly "conscious/aware/perceivers/experiencers," they why does he take issue I wonder with the idea that a robot can be "conscious/aware/a perceiver/expereincer"?

The real issue is that a relative question has been asked with the misguided idea of receiving an existential answer; (Are appearing people and appearing objects alive, aware, conscious, experiencers/perceivers)....and ZD/Reefs have arrived at an erroneous answer that they believe to be "actual/existential/Absolute Truth"....which of course, is indicative of a gross misconception.

The entire world 'as alive/intelligent" is an experiential facet that many describe post SR, but it's important to be aware that that is a facet of experience....an appearance only...one of the shifts in experience/perception that many describe post SR. (informing of mind!)