|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 13, 2021 6:06:36 GMT
The "realization/recognizing of what's actual," IS what the pointer 'transcending' is referencing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 13, 2021 20:38:06 GMT
Discover the "real" and THAT will be seen as an erroneous idea...a delusion/illusion.
The organism taken as the source, actual creative catalyst of anything 'manifest' indicates mis-identification with form/appearance.
The organism is but an empty appearance, a manifestation itself within the dream/story, and not actually a creative catalyst to it's apparent, correlated functions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 24, 2021 5:43:21 GMT
That's not even close to 'the best ND response,'.....that's a response from a separate person trying to make excuses for why he continues to engage in spiritual practices/processes, whilst kidding himself that he's done seeking. There are certain behaviors that clearly have delusion/separation at their helm. You've made this assertion several times before...this erroneous idea that even after seeing through separation, certain interests (that are based upon the sense of separation) still continue. You're kidding yourself. This one is similar to your claim that blameful anger still arises post seeing through personal volition. How could it? Similarly, if you really are no longer intent on 'seeking/trying to become enlightened,' the impetus/interest to practice ATA-T, or to engage in any other practice/process like that, plain and simply wouldn't arise. Denial 'aint just a river in Egypt  ZD...it's hugely important where clarity is concerned to BE aware of any and all impetus towards practice/process that promise to 'lead to' enlightenment, and to be aware of the ideas/beliefs/delusions, behind such impetus/interest. Bottom line, it's only a seeker who continues to be interested in the practice of ATA-T. In actual wakefulness, there would be no need to purposefully atune attention towards anything in particular. If there's an impetus towards 'attending to the actual,' there is obviously, 'interest' there. To deny that presence of interest, is delusional.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 24, 2021 6:15:11 GMT
In wakefuleness/enlightenment, there is no longer any need or desire to direct attention towards any given direction. A strong hallmark of being awake is a natural gravitation of interest/attention upon the present. When necessary, or when interest arises, attention effortlessly also moves, absent a 'director.'
If/when there is an impetus towards directing attention to the actual, that's clearly indicative of the involvement of an SVP. Absent an SVP, there's no longer any need nor interest to corral, contain or direct attention. It goes where it goes, but mostly remains grounded in the present.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 25, 2021 18:18:44 GMT
If you are 'seeing through the eyes of Source,' (which i would equate with the shift of SR, from the vantage point of in the dream, to beyond) then there's no longer any need to actively 'practice,' appreciation, or anything else for that matter.
Seeing from beyond means a generalized acceptance, love, respect for the entirety of the unfolding dream and all it's content, regardless of liked or disliked...appreciation then, will naturally abide and underscore it all.
In seeing from beyond the dream, it all gets illuminated as fundamentally perfect, so the idea of having to consciously engage in a practice to specifically focus upon appreciation, is silly.
That said, practicing appreciation can be a good tool for when mired in the dream and seeking some relative relief/peace. Even so, a sense of appreciation itself, per se, is still not the equivalent of 'seeing through eyes of Source/seeing from beyond the dream.'
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 30, 2021 18:48:45 GMT
This post demonstrates what seems to be a rather large and important divergence in your ontology Reefs. Reefs of yesteryear was adamant that 'the impersonal perspective,' trumps the perspective by which cause/effect, paths/practices being causal to SR, is seemingly in play. You used to argue for that impersonal view as illuminating all paths/processes as illusion.
In those days, the transcendent/impersonal perspective trumped the impersonal one...These days though, you seem to give them equal credence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 30, 2021 18:54:58 GMT
It IS a good analogy when there is 'an experiencer/surfer/SVP' still being imagined into the equation. But once that constant self-person referencing, ideation/narrative is gone, so is the 'surfer/navigator,' and when that goes, there is just the ocean, ebbing and flowing...no need to navigate waves or 'align' as there is no-one there to 'be' aligned with another some-thing.
Wherever there is a sense of needing/wanting to 'align' you can bet your bottom dollar, there's an SVP in play there. Again, this is why LOA is not compatible with nonduality.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 1, 2021 20:40:23 GMT
"The actual" (Truth) is not an experience. It's not an arising/perceivable, but rather, it's the fundamentally abiding existence.... 'giving rise to' ephemerality. This must be 'realized.' An experience per se, will not/cannot reveal this as this Truth lies 'beyond' all experience...beyond the appearing, arising, perceivable, glittering world and all it's compelling things, properties and attributes, including vibrancy, aliveness, any other awe-inspiring, awe-invoking qualities.
If that is true, Zen then, is offering a red-herring. Body-knowledge is experiential knowledge. The body is an arising/appearing perceivable, therefore, you cannot trust it to relay the absolute, ultimate Truth. And, this idea that existential questions can get answered via contemplation is utterly false. If you arrive at an answer to an existential question, you've headed in the wrong direction...INTO minding instead of out of/beyond minding. Existential questions do not get answered in SR, rather, they are seen as misconceived and thus, the question itself, disappears.
If we're talking SR/awakening/Truth, the 'actual,' can only be seen via realization/seeing from beyond the realm of perceivables/appearance. What you are referencing there in seeing the indoctrination of a culture, is an 'in the story' awakening to the consensus trance, which is something entirely different than SR/awakening. Awakening to the consensus trance is what we're talking about here in the "Great Awakening" thread.
In nonduality 'the actual' does not appear....it's not of the realm of perceivables, it must be realized from beyond/prior to mind. If it's experienced, it's of mind. SR is not an experience per se, although post SR, mind and experience ARE informed. It's important though not to conflate them as so often happens.
Well yes, of course not...concepts are not realizations. You cannot conceptualize yourself into a realization. Realization lies beyond appearance and is a seeing through that if is complete, leaves an absence in it's wake. SR/awakening does not equal the grasping of a concept, rather, it means the seeing through of ALL concepts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 2, 2021 4:40:55 GMT
A path that "produces" an individual with a solid grounding in the inifinite....?  & Even if we're merely talking 'mind-enlightenment,' (which is clearly what that would equal) ultimately, the path did not actually "produce/create" that state, but merely, experientially "lead to," it. Important difference if we're talking Truth. AT What point did you head back into the realm of mind to mistakingly look for Truth there, I wonder? You used to speak as though you were seeing from beyond...but somewhere along the way, your talk very obviously changed. What you now clearly have is a conceptual idea of what "impersonal perspective" means..it's a mere idea/sense of seeing impersonally, but while still being completely caught up in the conceptual, personal realm. In any given moment, none of those labels mean anything at all...what lead up to a moment of "being awake" is entirely inconsequential to the actuality of being awake....In a given Now moment, all that really matters is: Is there wakefulness/SR or is there identification with the appearing me of the story...is Oneness primary or does separation reign? |
|
Esponja
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Esponja on Dec 2, 2021 6:06:43 GMT
If you are 'seeing through the eyes of Source,' (which i would equate with the shift of SR, from the vantage point of in the dream, to beyond) then there's no longer any need to actively 'practice,' appreciation, or anything else for that matter. Seeing from beyond means a generalized acceptance, love, respect for the entirety of the unfolding dream and all it's content, regardless of liked or disliked...appreciation then, will naturally abide and underscore it all. In seeing from beyond the dream, it all gets illuminated as fundamentally perfect, so the idea of having to consciously engage in a practice to specifically focus upon appreciation, is silly. That said, practicing appreciation can be a good tool for when mired in the dream and seeking some relative relief/peace. Even so, a sense of appreciation itself, per se, is still not the equivalent of 'seeing through eyes of Source/seeing from beyond the dream.' Yes, thought is not conscious. In the ‘trying to appreciate’ we are not appreciating. It’s in the letting go, the full acceptance where ‘love’ abides. There’s nobody deciding what is good and what is bad. It just all ‘is’. |
|
ZD...it's hugely important where clarity is concerned to BE aware of any and all impetus towards practice/process that promise to 'lead to' enlightenment, and to be aware of the ideas/beliefs/delusions, behind such impetus/interest. 
