|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 6, 2021 19:56:42 GMT
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 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.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 6, 2021 20:17:52 GMT
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.
Well, yes, they are currently VERY rare over on ST, what with all the LOA and mystical experience talk.
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!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 6, 2021 20:29:56 GMT
I think you've taken those terms far too literally. He's simply pointing away from conceptualization.
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.
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: 1,727
|
Post by Esponja on Jun 7, 2021 1:03:57 GMT
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. Well, yes, they are currently VERY rare over on ST, what with all the LOA and mystical experience talk. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 20, 2021 23:51:58 GMT
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 6, 2022 5:39:44 GMT
Big yup.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 6, 2022 17:19:30 GMT
A very insightful post from Sree, here;
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."
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 27, 2024 23:15:59 GMT
Nice, dude.  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 30, 2024 20:10:57 GMT
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?  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 15, 2024 21:48:22 GMT
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!)
|
|
