|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 6, 2021 17:38:18 GMT
In the absence of actual SR, a conceptual grasp/mind enlightenment, while nothing to sneeze at...(it generally makes for a degree of relative peace, a smoother experience perhaps), is still a far cry from actual SR/awakening. The two are not related at all.
Truly waking up "to" the dream as a dream, means seeing from beyond immersion in the story, from beyond the sense of seeing/experiencing through the eyes of a body/mind, whereas mere mind enlightenment is just a different way of looking at things, but still very much mired within the dream... within the sense of being a body/mind/person.
It's become very clear reading some of the ST conversations that the hallmark of mind-enlightenment (that is being mistaken for actual SR), is the tendency to assign great importance to the distinction between various forms of minding/thought/ideation...experience...denigrating some forms, while erroneously upholding the other as somehow 'transcendent'.
Niz's quote: "All perceivables are stains," is the perfect pointer/antidote to this, but absent the shift in seeing from within the dream, to beyond, it will merely sound like a dismissal or denigration of the phenomenal world, which it most surely is not.
In order to truly see the entire scope of "perceivables" as "perceivables," and thus see what Niz is actually pointing to with that quote, seeing has to be happening from beyond ALL perceivables.
There is simply no other way. From a position of immersion within the dream, there is simply no reference for the pointer and an absence of that reference is how we end up with folks mistakingly upholding woo-woo experiential content as though it is transcendent Truth.
Included under the umbrella of ALL perceivables;
Every and any subtle, nuanced movement of mind, however ineffable it may seem to be. Any and all 'content.' Anything at all that is 'experiential.' Anything at all that "arises" within/to the abiding and unchanging ground from which it arises.
From immersion within the dream, absent the the clarity to know there is still immersion within the dream, there are some arisings/perceivables that "seem to be" beyond the dream, and that seeming can be so compelling that the seeker becomes convinced that he's transcended the dream, when really he hasn't at all.
SR is not about seeing a 'something' that infuses/imbues appearing things/objects, it's about seeing all 'something-ness' as empty and devoid of inherent existence and as arising within/to (completely dependent upon--inseparable from) the abiding ground that gives rise to it.
It's not about the end of one kind of minding/thinking/conceptualization in favor of another, it's about seeing through ALL minding/thinking/conceptualization....seeing that it's ALL empty!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2021 18:17:58 GMT
Reminds me a bit of this here: www.searchwithin.org/download/nondual_philosophy_franklin_merrell_wolff.pdfI'll quote the section, "First Fundamental Recognition: Realization of Self, Liberation". It's a bit wordy in style I guess, but I liked it. --- begin quote --- ... In contrast with the prior insights, which retained objective elements in his own consciousness and thus fell short of genuine identification, the fundamental Realizations unequivocally transcended the subject-object or relative consciousness. Just prior to the first Realization, Wolff had been meditating upon the teachings of Shankara, particularly the discussion of Liberation. Upon meditative reflection, he realized that his efforts to attain Liberation involved a seeking after a subtle object of experience. But any new object of experience, no matter how subtle, was something other than the objectless transcendent consciousness. Thus, Liberation does not necessarily involve any new object of experience or change in the content of consciousness. To seek such a new object or experience, therefore, is a mistake. Genuine Realization, therefore, is a recognition of Nothing — but a Nothing that is absolutely Substantial and identical with the SELF. The result of this profound realization was the complete and instant cessation of expectation of having any new experience or relative form of knowledge arise. The light of consciousness then turned back upon itself, toward its source, and the pure Atman was realized as absolute fullness and as identical with himself. This Recognition was not an experience of any new content in consciousness, but a Re-Cognition of a Truth that is, was, and always will be. It is a nondual knowledge of identity that transcends space and time. Nevertheless, there were various effects experienced within the relative consciousness, that may be considered expressions of the Recognition. Because the Recognition is not the recognition of any particular effects or phenomena, they should not be confused with the Recognition itself. Some of the effects Wolff experienced were: (1) A shift in the base of reference in consciousness, transplanting the roots of identity from the relative to the transcendent, (2) a transformation of the meaning of self from a point-like principle opposed to objects of experience to a space-like identity with the entire field of consciousness and all its contents, (3) a sense of penetrating knowledge into the depths of reality, (4) a transcendence of space, time, and causality, (5) complete freedom and liberation from all bondage. Also experienced were qualities of joy, felicity, serenity, peace, and benevolence. --- end quote --- |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 6, 2021 19:58:31 GMT
Similar in some ways, yes, a few well worded pointers there....but he seems to go in and out of pointing vs. conceptualization... it reads as though the author is not himself liberated, merely trying to explain the position of one who might be...? (I'd have to read the exact pointers..the actual words of the author he's commenting upon). All good up to here.  And this here....a perfect pointer! Here, while correct that there are no new objects of experience involved, he's missing the fact that 'sense of separation....imagined SVP' are in fact 'contents of consciousness' that get seen through and are thus, thereafter, absent 'as content.' The story continues, but absent the erroneous idea/sense/imagining of being a separate someone who/that is experiencing, doing, seeing, etc. This sounds like an objectification of "the SELF"...as though there is something different/apart from "________________", designated as SELF that it is "identical to." Again...who is this "himself" that is 'identical with' something else? Identification/conceptualization can be so extremely subtle... Perhaps I'm nit-picking here, but Realization is not itself, inherently a "cognition," but rather a seeing through that leaves an absence, where previously there was cognitive knowing. SR is a seeing through of all 'identity'..all 'identification' comes to an end. It's not a swap out of identification with the phenomenal for identification with some other/non-thing. If he changes recognition to "realization/seeing through" that stands as a valid pointer. Yes, this is very clearly a misconception about what happens to 'identity' in the shift of SR. There are no longer ANY roots of identity following the seeing through of the SVP. The 'transcendent' here is clearly being conceptualized, and that is evident in the suggestion that 'roots of identity' are transplanted elsewhere in the shift. Again...this misconceived idea that there is a shift of 'identity' vs. a complete seeing through of identity. The conceptualization of where this identity shifts to, is laid bare and made obvious in this bit: "To a space-like identity with the entire field of consciousness and all its contents...." He finishes on a high note.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2021 21:42:45 GMT
Similar in some ways, yes, a few well worded pointers there....but he seems to go in and out of pointing vs. conceptualization... it reads as though the author is not himself liberated, merely trying to explain the position of one who might be...? (I'd have to read the exact pointers..the actual words of the author he's commenting upon). Yes, this is another person writing about Franklin Merrell-Wolff, who was the one with the "Realization". FMW was a teacher who died in 1985. So some of the shortcomings in the paragraph may well be from this person trying to condense and summarize a much longer book and other teachings. My sense from reading FMW's larger book is that he would agree with this. There was a section about four "blocks/obstacles" to Realization. And one was "egoism" or the sense of "I am I and not other". I don't remember reading the phrase "separate volitional person", but I think he was talking about the same thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 7, 2021 0:15:50 GMT
Similar in some ways, yes, a few well worded pointers there....but he seems to go in and out of pointing vs. conceptualization... it reads as though the author is not himself liberated, merely trying to explain the position of one who might be...? (I'd have to read the exact pointers..the actual words of the author he's commenting upon). Yes, this is another person writing about Franklin Merrell-Wolff, who was the one with the "Realization". FMW was a teacher who died in 1985. So some of the shortcomings in the paragraph may well be from this person trying to condense and summarize a much longer book and other teachings. My sense from reading FMW's larger book is that he would agree with this. There was a section about four "blocks/obstacles" to Realization. And one was "egoism" or the sense of "I am I and not other". I don't remember reading the phrase "separate volitional person", but I think he was talking about the same thing.Yeah, that is possible (he's trying to condense and summarise)... And Yes, very likely the same pointer. In seeing through the "me entity" all "you entities" are also seen through...which means perception/experience is no longer misconceived to be the domain of an appearing body/mind, as in (I am an experiencer...you are an experiencer, etc.) |
|
Esponja
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Esponja on Oct 7, 2021 4:22:40 GMT
In the absence of actual SR, a conceptual grasp/mind enlightenment, while nothing to sneeze at...(it generally makes for a degree of relative peace, a smoother experience perhaps), is still a far cry from actual SR/awakening. The two are not related at all. Truly waking up "to" the dream as a dream, means seeing from beyond immersion in the story, from beyond the sense of seeing/experiencing through the eyes of a body/mind, whereas mere mind enlightenment is just a different way of looking at things, but still very much mired within the dream... within the sense of being a body/mind/person. It's become very clear reading some of the ST conversations that the hallmark of mind-enlightenment (that is being mistaken for actual SR), is the tendency to assign great importance to the distinction between various forms of minding/thought/ideation...experience...denigrating some forms, while erroneously upholding the other as somehow 'transcendent'. Niz's quote: " All perceivables are stains," is the perfect pointer/antidote to this, but absent the shift in seeing from within the dream, to beyond, it will merely sound like a dismissal or denigration of the phenomenal world, which it most surely is not. In order to truly see the entire scope of "perceivables" as "perceivables," and thus see what Niz is actually pointing to with that quote, seeing has to be happening from beyond ALL perceivables. There is simply no other way. From a position of immersion within the dream, there is simply no reference for the pointer and an absence of that reference is how we end up with folks mistakingly upholding woo-woo experiential content as though it is transcendent Truth. Included under the umbrella of ALL perceivables; Every and any subtle, nuanced movement of mind, however ineffable it may seem to be. Any and all 'content.' Anything at all that is 'experiential.' Anything at all that "arises" within/to the abiding and unchanging ground from which it arises. From immersion within the dream, absent the the clarity to know there is still immersion within the dream, there are some arisings/perceivables that "seem to be" beyond the dream, and that seeming can be so compelling that the seeker becomes convinced that he's transcended the dream, when really he hasn't at all. SR is not about seeing a 'something' that infuses/imbues appearing things/objects, it's about seeing all 'something-ness' as empty and devoid of inherent existence and as arising within/to (completely dependent upon--inseparable from) the abiding ground that gives rise to it. It's not about the end of one kind of minding/thinking/conceptualization in favor of another, it's about seeing through ALL minding/thinking/conceptualization....seeing that it's ALL empty! Could you elaborate on this part for me please? From immersion within the dream, absent the the clarity to know there is still immersion within the dream, there are some arisings/perceivables that "seem to be" beyond the dream, and that seeming can be so compelling that the seeker becomes convinced that he's transcended the dream, when really he hasn't at all. |
|
Esponja
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Esponja on Oct 7, 2021 4:27:37 GMT
Similar in some ways, yes, a few well worded pointers there....but he seems to go in and out of pointing vs. conceptualization... it reads as though the author is not himself liberated, merely trying to explain the position of one who might be...? (I'd have to read the exact pointers..the actual words of the author he's commenting upon). All good up to here. And this here....a perfect pointer! Here, while correct that there are no new objects of experience involved, he's missing the fact that 'sense of separation....imagined SVP' are in fact 'contents of consciousness' that get seen through and are thus, thereafter, absent 'as content.' The story continues, but absent the erroneous idea/sense/imagining of being a separate someone who/that is experiencing, doing, seeing, etc. This sounds like an objectification of "the SELF"...as though there is something different/apart from "________________", designated as SELF that it is "identical to." Again...who is this "himself" that is 'identical with' something else? Identification/conceptualization can be so extremely subtle... Perhaps I'm nit-picking here, but Realization is not itself, inherently a "cognition," but rather a seeing through that leaves an absence, where previously there was cognitive knowing. SR is a seeing through of all 'identity'..all 'identification' comes to an end. It's not a swap out of identification with the phenomenal for identification with some other/non-thing. If he changes recognition to "realization/seeing through" that stands as a valid pointer. Yes, this is very clearly a misconception about what happens to 'identity' in the shift of SR. There are no longer ANY roots of identity following the seeing through of the SVP. The 'transcendent' here is clearly being conceptualized, and that is evident in the suggestion that 'roots of identity' are transplanted elsewhere in the shift. Again...this misconceived idea that there is a shift of 'identity' vs. a complete seeing through of identity. The conceptualization of where this identity shifts to, is laid bare and made obvious in this bit: "To a space-like identity with the entire field of consciousness and all its contents...." He finishes on a high note. Sailor Bob always says ‘Re-cognise’. It’s already inherently known. But no ‘re’ because that implies time.. 😚 |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 7, 2021 5:50:12 GMT
In the absence of actual SR, a conceptual grasp/mind enlightenment, while nothing to sneeze at...(it generally makes for a degree of relative peace, a smoother experience perhaps), is still a far cry from actual SR/awakening. The two are not related at all. Truly waking up "to" the dream as a dream, means seeing from beyond immersion in the story, from beyond the sense of seeing/experiencing through the eyes of a body/mind, whereas mere mind enlightenment is just a different way of looking at things, but still very much mired within the dream... within the sense of being a body/mind/person. It's become very clear reading some of the ST conversations that the hallmark of mind-enlightenment (that is being mistaken for actual SR), is the tendency to assign great importance to the distinction between various forms of minding/thought/ideation...experience...denigrating some forms, while erroneously upholding the other as somehow 'transcendent'. Niz's quote: " All perceivables are stains," is the perfect pointer/antidote to this, but absent the shift in seeing from within the dream, to beyond, it will merely sound like a dismissal or denigration of the phenomenal world, which it most surely is not. In order to truly see the entire scope of "perceivables" as "perceivables," and thus see what Niz is actually pointing to with that quote, seeing has to be happening from beyond ALL perceivables. There is simply no other way. From a position of immersion within the dream, there is simply no reference for the pointer and an absence of that reference is how we end up with folks mistakingly upholding woo-woo experiential content as though it is transcendent Truth. Included under the umbrella of ALL perceivables; Every and any subtle, nuanced movement of mind, however ineffable it may seem to be. Any and all 'content.' Anything at all that is 'experiential.' Anything at all that "arises" within/to the abiding and unchanging ground from which it arises. From immersion within the dream, absent the the clarity to know there is still immersion within the dream, there are some arisings/perceivables that "seem to be" beyond the dream, and that seeming can be so compelling that the seeker becomes convinced that he's transcended the dream, when really he hasn't at all. SR is not about seeing a 'something' that infuses/imbues appearing things/objects, it's about seeing all 'something-ness' as empty and devoid of inherent existence and as arising within/to (completely dependent upon--inseparable from) the abiding ground that gives rise to it. It's not about the end of one kind of minding/thinking/conceptualization in favor of another, it's about seeing through ALL minding/thinking/conceptualization....seeing that it's ALL empty! Could you elaborate on this part for me please? From immersion within the dream, absent the the clarity to know there is still immersion within the dream, there are some arisings/perceivables that "seem to be" beyond the dream, and that seeming can be so compelling that the seeker becomes convinced that he's transcended the dream, when really he hasn't at all. Sure. A deeply mystical experience is a good example....many come away from it believing it to be transcendent of the story/dream, a glimpse beyond, but so long as it's an experience....so long as there is content, it's not actually 'beyond the dream' at all. Intuitive knowings are another 'in the dream' experiential happening that sometimes gets conflated with transcendent of the dream. Like mystical, woo-woo experiences, it seems to be beyond, simply for the fact that it's outside of so called normal, mundane experience. |
|
Esponja
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Esponja on Oct 7, 2021 12:41:56 GMT
Could you elaborate on this part for me please? From immersion within the dream, absent the the clarity to know there is still immersion within the dream, there are some arisings/perceivables that "seem to be" beyond the dream, and that seeming can be so compelling that the seeker becomes convinced that he's transcended the dream, when really he hasn't at all. Sure. A deeply mystical experience is a good example....many come away from it believing it to be transcendent of the story/dream, a glimpse beyond, but so long as it's an experience....so long as there is content, it's not actually 'beyond the dream' at all. Intuitive knowings are another 'in the dream' experiential happening that sometimes gets conflated with transcendent of the dream. Like mystical, woo-woo experiences, it seems to be beyond, simply for the fact that it's outside of so called normal, mundane experience. Got it. Yes, you are not that which can be experienced or perceived. Leave it all as it is. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2021 13:02:59 GMT
Could you elaborate on this part for me please? From immersion within the dream, absent the the clarity to know there is still immersion within the dream, there are some arisings/perceivables that "seem to be" beyond the dream, and that seeming can be so compelling that the seeker becomes convinced that he's transcended the dream, when really he hasn't at all. Sure. A deeply mystical experience is a good example....many come away from it believing it to be transcendent of the story/dream, a glimpse beyond, but so long as it's an experience....so long as there is content, it's not actually 'beyond the dream' at all. Intuitive knowings are another 'in the dream' experiential happening that sometimes gets conflated with transcendent of the dream. Like mystical, woo-woo experiences, it seems to be beyond, simply for the fact that it's outside of so called normal, mundane experience. Can I ask... when you saw through the "separate person", did you feel something? Did you feel what you might call intense happiness, equanimity, or love? |
|
