|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 20, 2021 17:49:06 GMT
Many fail to see the importance of the distinction between something that actually appears vs. something that one mistakingly believes is appearing, but which upon looking closer/with clarity, will see to be merely assumed....in actuality, an illusion, a delusion of mind.
Sifting seemingly demonstrates this error/falsity above. What he is denoting to be a 'power' and a 'seer' that appears is not actually something that appears, but rather, is falsely assumed, based upon the delusion of separation.
In reality, there Is no 'power'....(no 'causation') and most importantly, no 'seer/experiencer'.
A 'seer/experiencer' does not actually appear and that is very important to see.
What does appear/arise, is the sense of seeing/experiencing through the eyes of the appearing body/mind/character. But, It requires a deluded leap of mind to conclude via that appearance, that a 'seer/experiencer' per se, is appearing. An appearing 'seer/experiencer' (an entity that is seeing/experiencing) defies the Truth of absence of separation between distinct appearances/various objects of the world. There is no 'seer/experiencer' per se, that appears...just a mere sense of seeing and experiencing relative to an appearing body/mind/character.....the belief that a seer/experiencer is appearing, is an illusion/delusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 22, 2021 18:00:18 GMT
So....you are equating experience itself/the arising of appearance....awareness of perceivables, with imagined separation...?
This is a nonsense.
In the absence of imagined separation, experience continues to arise. Appearing objects, appearing feelings, senses, thoughts, continue to arise and fall, even after separation has been seen through. You are conflating 'distinction' with 'separation.' They are NOT the same.
Distinction appears if/when any-thing at all (even the most subtle of senses) is appearing. Fundamental separation however, never actually does appear....rather, it's erroneously inferred.
Again, false. When identification with body/mind ceases, perception itself does not. It's simply now clear that perception occurs absent "a perceiver."
What you seem to be positing is that where there is 'normal perception,' there IS necessarily 'an erroneously imagined perceiver.' That is simply not so.
Again, "realizing" the distinction (not separation!) between the ground of awareness vs. the phenomenal takes care of this misconception. And again, that "realization" (as all realization is) is ultimately an absence...in this case, the absence of an SVP....the absence of identification with any-thing, any sense, any idea, that appears.
The realization that all perceivables are 'empty appearance only,' illuminates all of this with crystal clarity. I'm curious Sifting, does the pointer 'all perceivables are empty appearance only' resonate with you? I know ZD in the past and now Reefs too, seems to have a problem with that. Would love to further explore the reason why, but as I think you witnessed on ST, they both refused to engage my questions re: that.
I've noticed that those who have issue with the wording of that pointer are the ones who are also conflating distinction with separation.
Ego does not have to 'die' completely or somehow be wiped out for separation to end. And....again, 'differentiation' is not the problem....erroneously imagined 'separation' IS.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 12, 2021 23:01:57 GMT
It's far more than just identification with specific stuff....it's the mistake of 'separation' period...of imagining it to be the case....it's taking the entire appearing world to be existent in it's own right vs. empty appearance only....it's a vantage point of seeing, that hinges upon a mis-take of mind.
Just because John Doe never 'existed as a separate entity,' does not mean that the appearing body/mind/character, that goes by "John Doe," is "an illusion." A body/mind character, with a name, does appear! It's "separation" that is the illusion...separation that is erroneously imagined.
The body/mind character does not exist (in it's own right)...period. That though, does not mean that it doesn't appear.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 14, 2021 1:36:15 GMT
At this point, I'm honestly wondering if someone, somehow, hi-jacked the account of the former "Reefs" poster. A personal character/self/body/mind appears, as do 'other' characters/body/minds, but there is NO "appearance of a separate self or separate characters." Separation is always only ever "imagined," and erroneously at that. Distinction on the other hand, obviously does appear, or there's be no distinguishing between body/minds, but, distinction does not equal "separation." Separation when it's imagined references the fundamental 'nature' of appearances. It never appears but is imagined to be the actuality....the fundamental Truth of all appearing things...and that is because all appearing things are mis-taken to have their own inherent, fundamental existence. Fundamental Oneness/absence of separation is the Truth. Oh man.  The very idea that anything happens TO a separate, volitional entity is screwy. Realize "separate, volitional entities" for what they are, illusion, and then it's crystal clear that even though one may have been imagining themselves to be a separate, volitional entity, they never actually were one...are not now one. All of that is based upon the fallacy of the actuality of causality....the actuality of separation. For arising thought to actually be causal to 'what you get,' separation would have to be actual. In Truth, there is but one, fluid, singular, undivided movement. Nothing appearing/arising in the dream is actually causal to anything else appearing/arising in the dream. It just looks that way. Looks can be/and are deceiving. That's "Nonduality 101". Can you really not see that Tolle's talk about a pain body, is nothing more than an acknowledgement of negative conditioning that gets carted around via thought/feeling, in tandem with imagined separation? What LOA posits is far more delusional in it's suggestion that you are a something that can manipulate/control thought and feeling for the purpose of manifesting delusion/limitation based desires. Not so. You are demonstrating the problem with using the term "real" in these conversations. The sense of suffering is an appearance only. Deep feelings of pain can and do arise/appear...and are not an illusion. And in saying what you are....you are tying feelings to a 'something/someone' THAT feels. SR/Nonduality reveals that regardless of what feeling is arising, ultimately, there is no 'thing/who/what/someone' that is the source of that feeling...that rather, all is arising to no-one...to no-thing. Just because there is no separate, volitional entity does not mean that a sense of suffering cannot still appear/arise. Clearly it does!....that's why most seekers seek. (And yes, the 'seeker' is but a sense, itself....and yet, it, as a sense, still does arise/appear, where there is seeking). Again, this really makes me wonder if someone has gotten hold of "Reef's" account. This sounds as though a child has written it...I can find all sorts of past quotes from Reefs of yesteryear that directly counter this. The very idea that suffering is nothing more than a poor choice and that there is an option that "someone" could and should take instead, is the epitome of delusion...the epitome of what it means to believe in separation, causation within the dream. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 14, 2021 2:08:06 GMT
Dude! You started out talking from the context of Nonduality and then shifted right back into dreaming, without even knowing. It's not actually a character that "does" anything...doings merely appear to be the domain of the person/character. SR means seeing through that.
And this bit, combined with "this character can do that because it practiced shifting attention away from thoughts for many years" absolutely reeks of the ego you purport to have transcended.
Mental silence is not an "attainment" of the character/body/mind. Nor is "realization" as you have suggested in the past.
This is the crux of your delusion Zendancer; You are still identified with the manifest/appearing human form.
The manifesting human form is an appearance only. It is not the source of anything else that arises in the story/dream. It just appears that way. You've yet to see through that delusion.
What we are is "________________" within/to which all appearance arises, including human forms. That's what "not separate/Oneness" means. The ground gives rise to the world. No fundamental separation between them, despite the arising distinction.
Awareness does not manifest "IN" human form...that's merely a dream-appearance. It's a delusion/illusion that needs to be seen through in order to realize the Truth.
Yes, It appears as though the appearing human form gives rise to awareness, but in actuality, awareness gives rise to the appearing human form. This is a very basic tenet of Nonduality and one that you regularly demonstrate you've yet to realize.
The fact that you continue to attribute transcendent seeing/realization to human forms, indicates that you too are still not seeing clearly.
Look! That's the place where you just circled back into the dream to take what is an empty appearance only, to be something more.
Human form does not wake up. Human form is but an empty, ephemeral appearance, having no inherent existence in it's own right. An appearance only. Not the source of awakened consciousness....not the true source of anything at all!!
All worlds are appearance only, but yes, absent the erroneous imagining of separation, the experience of the world (which amazingly, happens absent an experiencer!) is different, indeed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2021 2:20:58 GMT
At this point, I'm honestly wondering if someone, somehow, hi-jacked the account of the former "Reefs" poster. [...] Can you really not see that Tolle's talk about a pain body, is nothing more than an acknowledgement of negative conditioning that gets carted around via thought/feeling, in tandem with imagined separation? What LOA posits is far more delusional in it's suggestion that you are a something that can manipulate/control thought and feeling for the purpose of manifesting delusion/limitation based desires. [...] Again, this really makes me wonder if someone has gotten hold of "Reef's" account. This sounds as though a child has written it...I can find all sorts of past quotes from Reefs of yesteryear that directly counter this. The very idea that suffering is nothing more than a poor choice and that there is an option that "someone" could and should take instead, is the epitome of delusion...the epitome of what it means to believe in separation, causation within the dream. Haha. I thought you might respond to the pain-body posts. I'll keep my debate with Reefs on the other board. But this was pretty funny. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 14, 2021 2:31:34 GMT
At this point, I'm honestly wondering if someone, somehow, hi-jacked the account of the former "Reefs" poster. [...]  Can you really not see that Tolle's talk about a pain body, is nothing more than an acknowledgement of negative conditioning that gets carted around via thought/feeling, in tandem with imagined separation? What LOA posits is far more delusional in it's suggestion that you are a something that can manipulate/control thought and feeling for the purpose of manifesting delusion/limitation based desires. [...] Again, this really makes me wonder if someone has gotten hold of "Reef's" account. This sounds as though a child has written it...I can find all sorts of past quotes from Reefs of yesteryear that directly counter this. The very idea that suffering is nothing more than a poor choice and that there is an option that "someone" could and should take instead, is the epitome of delusion...the epitome of what it means to believe in separation, causation within the dream. Haha. I thought you might respond to the pain-body posts. I'll keep my debate with Reefs on the other board. But this was pretty funny. hyuck, yuck, yuck....  In these times, laughs are important...take 'em wherever they may come! Interestingly enough, I'm not entirely a fan of the term, but unlike when I read the book many years ago, I do understand now that Tolle was never referencing an actual entity, but rather, a conglomerate of conditionings...ideas, beliefs, etc. And I am actually kind of serious when I wonder about Reefs of yesteryear vs. Reefs now! The views are that different! |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 14, 2021 5:05:30 GMT
You speak as though seeing a physical world is somehow at odds with seeing "what is." It's not. The material, appearing world does not disappear upon seeing the fundamental Truth. It's not an either/or thing. The physical world is not apart from 'what is.'
ZD, you've been down this road of conversation so many times now on ST that surely now it should be immediately clear that you simply define 'thinking' in a far more narrow way than most others who have a broader definition.
What's interesting is that in taking that very narrow definition, you get to claim a complete absence of thinking...and thus, present this ability as though it is something very rare and special that requires diligence and training. It doesn't. Plain and simply, Focus follows interest. While it might seem to be in the person's hands,...a personal doing/attainment, it's actually not.
You referred to it as a learned, attainment.
And when it comes to whether you believe it to be special or not, you waffle back and forth. On one hand you say "this character CAN DO" a drive in total mental silence, "because it practiced for many years," then you say "anybody could learn to do it," but then waffle back and counter that completely by saying, "but very few people are sufficiently curious about what the world would look like in mental silence to spend the time necessary to find out."
Surely the practice of anything for "many years" is a somewhat special thing? Your waffling seems like false humility. You are on one hand proud of yourself for this attainment, and you want to make sure you convey it as an attainment that took years of practice, but then you back away from that, claiming anyone "could" do it, but only if they had the rare kind of curiosity that you had/have.
The end of self-referential, mental chitter-chatter is ultimately nothing more than an absence of interest. It's certainly not a personal attainment.
You continue to attribute what has absence at it's helm to the efforts of a doer/person. In short, you still identify with the character/doer. Truly seeing through separation means the end of identification with anything that appears. The character and all accompanying senses still continues to arise/appear after this seeing through, but the ultimate, actual locus of seeing is no longer mis-taken as being out of the eyes of a human being, but rather, it's now obvious that locus of seeing is and always was from beyond...a non-location.....undefinable in conceptual terms.
You still have not yet seen that the body/mind/character and all accompanying, correlated senses, are appearance only, arising dependent upon the ground from which they arise within/to.
Yes, as I said previous, you define thinking in a very narrow way. Under that definition, it's not such a rare thing at all. All sorts of activities can happen absent self-referential thinking and labelling. In fact, it's usually those activities like driving, where the activity happens pretty much by rote.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 14, 2021 20:16:51 GMT
This seems to me to be a context mix-up.
When you say "fictitious" does that mean that all appearing boundaries that delineate one object from another are "delusion/illusion"?
I'm not at all on board with this idea you (and ZD) both express that the perception of objects/boundary is an arbitrary creation of mind...imaginary.
Seems the appearance of distinct objects is being mistaken for "actual/fundamental separation."
Objects/things do appear....thus,boundaries/distinction does appear and none of that is problematic. What IS problematic (a delusion) is the imagined overlay of mind that mistakes that appearing boundary between objects for fundamental separation.
When you say all object boundaries - all things - are "actually" fictitious, you seem to me, (please note, I am asking a question here not making a firm assertion)to be denoting the experience of a unity/connection between all appearing objects as a fundamental Truth or as you'd say, as an "existential" Truth. Are you?
And if not, and if this is a relative seeing only that you're referencing, then it really isn't so that all object boundaries are "actually" fictitious/arbitrary. The seeing/experience of a common substrate does not render the appearance of bounded objects, a fiction.
A distinct lamp appears....a distinct desk appears....the boundary, distinction between them is not imagined....Distinction between them is appearing or you wouldn't be able to denote the lamp from the desk.
It's not any more relatively true or factual that the lamp and desk share a common, unifying, connecting substrate than it is that the lamp and desk appear distinctly.
If we're talking relatively, in the dream, experiential content, it's both relatively factual that there's a boundary between the lamp and desk and that there's a common substrate. Both are relatively true.
SR/seeing through separation does not render away appearing distinct objects into some nebulous appearing energetic field, (if such an experience/seeing occurs, that's an in the dream mystical experience or a mental position_ rather, it renders appearing objects as ephemeral arisings within/to the abiding ground....no separation....the appearing objects having no independent, inherent existence, rather, their fleeting appearance completely and totally dependent upon the abiding ground from which they arise.
The idea that distinction between appearing objects, collapses into a perceived, unifying substrate, is not Nonduality, it's either science or mysticism.
|
|
|
|
Post by ghostofmuttley on Oct 15, 2021 19:10:15 GMT
This seems to me to be a context mix-up. When you say "fictitious" does that mean that all appearing boundaries that delineate one object from another are "delusion/illusion"? I'm not at all on board with this idea you (and ZD) both express that the perception of objects/boundary is an arbitrary creation of mind...imaginary. Seems the appearance of distinct objects is being mistaken for "actual/fundamental separation." Objects/things do appear....thus,boundaries/distinction does appear and none of that is problematic. What IS problematic (a delusion) is the imagined overlay of mind that mistakes that appearing boundary between objects for fundamental separation. When you say all object boundaries - all things - are "actually" fictitious, you seem to me, (please note, I am asking a question here not making a firm assertion)to be denoting the experience of a unity/connection between all appearing objects as a fundamental Truth or as you'd say, as an "existential" Truth. Are you? And if not, and if this is a relative seeing only that you're referencing, then it really isn't so that all object boundaries are "actually" fictitious/arbitrary. The seeing/experience of a common substrate does not render the appearance of bounded objects, a fiction. A distinct lamp appears....a distinct desk appears....the boundary, distinction between them is not imagined....Distinction between them is appearing or you wouldn't be able to denote the lamp from the desk. It's not any more relatively true or factual that the lamp and desk share a common, unifying, connecting substrate than it is that the lamp and desk appear distinctly. If we're talking relatively, in the dream, experiential content, it's both relatively factual that there's a boundary between the lamp and desk and that there's a common substrate. Both are relatively true. SR/seeing through separation does not render away appearing distinct objects into some nebulous appearing energetic field, (if such an experience/seeing occurs, that's an in the dream mystical experience or a mental position_ rather, it renders appearing objects as ephemeral arisings within/to the abiding ground....no separation....the appearing objects having no independent, inherent existence, rather, their fleeting appearance completely and totally dependent upon the abiding ground from which they arise. The idea that distinction between appearing objects, collapses into a perceived, unifying substrate, is not Nonduality, it's either science or mysticism. No, this insight into the nature of objects isn't the realization of the existential truth.
It seems to me that your objections and disagreements with what I've written here are because of a difference in the way that we've each come to how you so often and eloquently describe as the emptiness of form. As I've explained several times, there are various altered states of consciousness that reveal the way that the mind creates object boundaries.
No, none of those boundaries are real, they really are simply creations of the process of mind. That doesn't mean that they're not engaged, that they aren't useful, and often very necessary. But, the before and after of one of these states will inevitably lead to surprise as to just how optional object-thinking and object-relating and object-feeling-perception actually is.
You can characterize it as mysticism if you'd like. It's certainly a mode of consciousness which is relatively uncommon. The scientific, intellectual shadow of these states is similar to the chemical formula for the scent of a rose, and once of these states has been entered, it can't be unseen on the exit.
|
|
