|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 2, 2021 20:06:13 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’. Yes, perfectly put.  Acceptance/allowance is not a doing....it happens naturally in the absence of a doer...when the SVP temporarily lays down or is seen through. & Really, so long as there is clarity about that, there is nothing inherently wrong about New Age, or self help teachings such as LOA or others, essentially "hi-jacking," these pointers to try to bring them into experience for the purpose of instilling a semblance of greater relative peacefulness/contentment. It's just very odd when folks who purport themselves as being fully SR/awake, claim that self-help teachings and practices are entirely compatible with nonduality, or worse yet, something I've seen Reefs suggest, that for example, Abraham Hick's LOA teachings are compatible with nonduality...that they actually teach nonduality, which is utter and complete rubbish. Absent a sense of being a separate volitional entity, there would plain and simply be no interest in the idea of "aligning my vibration so I can manifest my desires." When there is no SVP in play, there are no "desires" (needful, strong wanting for things to be other than what they are). In the absence of separation, absence of a separate entity, those needful wants are replaced and upgraded to naturally, effortlessly arising 'intents/expectations.' When there's no longer an entity in play who is deeply judging arising circumstance, regardless of whether there is abject 'liking' of the circumstance of not, there remains a fundamental acceptance of all circumstance....a profound and clear seeing/knowing that regardless of what is temporarily appearing, ultimately, actually, all is perfect as is. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 4, 2021 20:50:17 GMT
A perfect example of how you pay lip service to the mere idea of "no path/illusion of cause/effect," but then circle right back into the dream, to claim a causal path. There is no exercise/practice/path that actually takes one beyond the mind into freedom from the illusion of separation.' The exercise/practice itself, is merely an outward appearance....the engagement in which is not an actual indicator of a sincere/earnest interest in the abiding ground above the conceptual/mind. That which most seekers are seeking is a better dream, not freedom from the dream. So long as the interest in mind/concepts/appearances continues to be predominant, all the practice in the world means nothing. And once there is an honest, sincere interest in 'beyond appearance,' it's clear that practice/exercises are not necessary. Practices and exercises give the seeker a sense of something 'to do,' as that's all he understands, but those exercises themselves are not actually causal...so long as there is a sense of importance to them, the seeker is obviously, alive and well in play. What they do offer is a sense of relative peace to the seeker....and actually, in terms of self-help/betterment of experience, that is no small thing. It's important though to acknowledge that that has nothing to do with freedom from the experiential.....it's even possible that such practices/apparent outcomes even further mire the imagined SVP into the play. Both directions are lies.  Bottom line, if you are looking 'some-where/any-where' you are 'cold' on the trail. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 4, 2021 21:07:24 GMT
The seeker cannot "DO" himself into "being present." There's either sincere interest in "being present," or there's not. Exercises/practices are nothing more than mind-games for the seeker to play to try to convince himself he's on the right path...."getting somewhere important."
The Niz quotes below addresses this perfectly:
"Once you realize that the body depends on the mind, and the mind on consciousness, and consciousness on awareness, and not the other way round, your question about waiting for self-realization till you die is answered. It is not that you must be free from the "I-am-the-body" idea first, and then realize the self. It is definitely the other way round - you cling to the false because you do not know the true. Earnestness, not perfection, is a precondition to self-realization. Virtues and powers come with realization, not before."
(Interestingly enough, that above quote also speaks to your erroneous conviction that you have absolute knowing that appearing bodies/people are alive/perceiving/experiencing).
More:
"Earnestness is not a yearning for the fruits of one's endeavours. It is an expression of an inner shift of interest away from the false, the unessential, the personal."
When that shift of interest IS the case, there is no longer any need for a formal practice. "Being present," is the default state where there has been such a shift.
"Life itself is desireless. But the false self wants to continue - pleasantly. Therefore, it is always engaged in ensuring one's continuity. Life is unafraid and free. As long as you have the idea of influencing events, liberation is not for you: the very notion of doership, of being a cause, is bondage." Niz
"Unless you make tremendous efforts, you will not be convinced that effort will take you nowhere. The self is so self-confident that unless it is totally discouraged it will not give up. Mere verbal conviction is not enough. Hard facts alone can show the absolute nothingness of the self-image." - Niz
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 4, 2021 21:17:23 GMT
That would mean no longer having any interest at all in the unfolding story. While that may be possible, it sounds like a rather hellish experience. SR does not mean an absence of caring/interest in the appearing world, it means an absence of identification with that which appears...no longer taking yourself to "be" anchored within the story. It's a shift of seeing from within the story to beyond that does not end the ups an downs of the story, but it does end attachment to the 'ride' going a specific way. All sense of needing to control the up and down movements of life, ceases.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 4, 2021 21:21:17 GMT
Indeed.
When ZD shared the story of coming into the kitchen to find his wife had plugged the garburetor 'again,' and he blamed and took her to task for it, that was a clear example of a roller-coaster dip, and possibly even further, of an SVP in play.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 4, 2021 21:40:05 GMT
 (And then, goes on to argue to his point..classic ZD  ) You are clearly one of the them! Yes, separation is an erroneous idea that arises because 'appearing distinction' is mistaken for 'fundamental separation.' That does not equal 'thing-ness' being 'imaginary,' it equals things being 'appearance only.' There is no need to see the entire world as erroneously "imagined" to be free from it. All that's required is to see it all as appearance only, arising not -separate from/within/to that which abides. Distinction is not "separation." What you are doing is denying the appearance/ephemerally arising world. So long as there is experience, there IS an appearing world. It's not the appearance of a world that needs to go, it's the mistaking of the appearing world, as something separate, something that exists in it's own right, that needs to be seen as illusion. All you are doing there is dismissing/denying an arising feeling/emotion by conceptually relegating it to "non-existent." If/when the SVP is truly absent, irritation if/when it arises, (it still can) appears fleetingly and then passes on through...no problem that requires solving....no need to deny it as non-existent in order to somehow excuse it or mitigate it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Dec 5, 2021 0:43:08 GMT
Indeed. When ZD shared the story of coming into the kitchen to find his wife had plugged the garburetor 'again,' and he blamed and took her to task for it, that was a clear example of a roller-coaster dip, and possibly even further, of an SVP in play. yes |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 12, 2021 7:51:04 GMT
Says the dude who still actively advocates for and practices LOA/deliberate creation. THAT is a far more glaring and obvious red flag in terms of denoting "transcendence of mind," or not. Transcendence of mind is really none-other than the seeing through/absence of the SVP....of ALL fundamental separation...it's the end of identification with any-one or any-thing that appears, including thoughts and feelings. (including ideas about what remains in that absence!...."suchness" is the pointiest of pointers, NOT a tangible something that can be expressed via concepts). Here's the issue with practising LOA; When you truly see that no one is driving the bus, the impetus to strap yourself into the driver's seat and take the wheel to steer the bus just no longer has anything to stand upon, thus, it ceases. Now, if Jeff Foster was suggesting to folks that they take a position of control to direct the unfolding story towards manifest,personal desires, that would be one thing, but in actuality, in the stuff you've quoted, he's pointing away from all things personal, including personal values and personal judgments that make for striving and seeking to be "a better person...having a better life." You've got some hella gall actually nit-picking over what Foster has written when most of your interest in forum conversation lately has pertained to LOA and scheduled meditation practice....the fact that you actively practice both is a clear indicator that an imagined SVP prevails. If/when true transcendence happens, the interest in practicing LOA will cease...as will the arising of need based desires for "this" to be something other than what it is. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 12, 2021 8:01:19 GMT
That's a very good way of putting it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 12, 2021 8:30:37 GMT
Passionately, poetic spiritual poetry, does not necessarily equal being a tortured soul. Fact is, for a teacher to speak of being awake is to invoke and reference what it means to be asleep....absent the darkness of slumber, the light of wakefulness has no meaning. Lately you seem obsessed with the idea that the appearing/unfolding story "needs to" conform perfectly with arising desire or something is terribly amiss. It's an idea that has an SVP at the heart of it. Absent the SVP, the fundamental perfection becomes primary and the story content becomes secondary to that. What that means is that there's no longer a someone in play who/that "needs" story content to be any particular way for peace to be. It changes everything. You mean Suzanne "Segal"?  When did you revise your opinion of her? And.....this is so important; You are mistaking the pointer "seeing through the eyes of Source," for "woo-woo/awe" which might seem to be transcendent of mind, but actually isn't. 'Seeing through the eyes of source' (What I prefer to call seeing from beyond....transcendent seeing) does not render the story content as materially perfect and in perfect conformance with personal likes/dislikes, rather, it illuminates the 'fundamental perfection' of it all, regardless of what is appearing. |
|
Bottom line, if you are looking 'some-where/any-where' you are 'cold' on the trail. 
(And then, goes on to argue to his point..classic ZD 
)
