|
Post by Figgles on Jul 6, 2022 16:44:55 GMT
Yes, this is what I've been getting at when I speak of the 2nd mountain position/seeing through of ALL mountains. Anything at all that appears must be seen as empty and devoid of inherent existence. Only then can that which fundamentally exists (existence itself) be realized as fundamental. Otherwise, we are erroneously mistaking subtle senses, otherwordly, mystic experience, etc, for the unchanging...unbounded. In short, you don't really 'know/realize' what the unbounded 'is,' until ALL experiential content has been seen to be experiential content and thus, as empty and devoid of inherent existence in it's own right. It's the dependence of appearance upon the abiding ground...that appearance is an expression of...an arising within/to that, which equal "no separation/Oneness." And, if ALL characters, including the "me character" are seen to be empty and devoid of inherent existence...if it's seen that there is not actually "an experiencer/a perceiver" there when you look at an appearing character, then the idea that it's possible to look at an appearing person and know for absolute certain that he is perceiving, becomes a clear nonsense. SR reveals that perception is not actually arising from an appearing body/character....that ultimately, there is no perceiver, no experiencer, no doer, no thinker, no seer....That "perceivers/experiencers" per se, are merely imagined into the mix. that ultimately, there is no perceiver, no experiencer, no doer, no thinker, no seer....That "perceivers/experiencers" per se, are merely imagined into the mix Like collective consciousness. Even whatever the judging happening of all of this. There’s no escape. Divine intelligence. Yup. The very idea of "a collective," when speaking about "fundamental Truth," is an entering into an erroneous context mix.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 8, 2022 3:19:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 8, 2022 4:10:42 GMT
If we're talking "Truth," (and I am), and it's so that a mind/body organism that sees and interacts remains for you, then an erroneous/false sense of self, still remains. The mind/body organism and it's apparent functions....seeing through physical eyes....interacting and taking actions, is but an empty appearance...all of it....the apparante organism is not actually doing anything...is not actually causal/catalyst to anything else that appears as correlate.
If you still take yourself to BE a mind/body organism that sees and does stuff, (and, it is VERY clear that you DO in fact take yourself to be that) then the false self is still very much in play.
Any reference for the absence of the "one that knows," what to do in each moment?...where there is simply a movement of arising impetus to action and then the unfolding of action?
It is no wonder folks like SDP are confused after conversing for years with you ZD. You are yourself, confused. Most on ST also see it I think but are simply lacking the balls to come out and say it.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 8, 2022 5:50:01 GMT
If you truly grasped what that story is pointing to, you'd fully understand why some of us have been saying that in SR, there's an absence of blameful anger.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 8, 2022 5:55:53 GMT
That's not 'being an extrovert,' that's being a selfish and uncaring husband.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2022 6:20:35 GMT
That's not 'being an extrovert,' that's being a selfish and uncaring husband. it sounds to me like you are experiencing "blameful anger" towards ZD for wanting to have a good time at a party. 😀
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 8, 2022 17:45:52 GMT
That's not 'being an extrovert,' that's being a selfish and uncaring husband. it sounds to me like you are experiencing "blameful anger" towards ZD for wanting to have a good time at a party. 😀 Nope. Just calling it as I see it. There's a difference between observing and judging a particular behavior and calling it as I see it, vs. assigning fundamental wrongness/blame to the person whose behavior I am judging. It's these kinds of subtle, nuanced distinctions that get missed unless there is true SR/awakening. From within the dream...it all looks the same, thus those nuanced distinctions seem meaningless to the unawakened. They're not.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 10, 2022 6:17:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 27, 2022 0:39:11 GMT
If the 'goal' is SR, then delving into the psyche to analyze and work with that is the equivalent of trying to analyze and improve upon the condition of the water appearing within a mirage. It's a trip back into the dream...to try to work with the dream-content in hopes to try to see it for dream-content...it just doesn't work that way though. It's just a reification of the dream content as substantive/existent in it's own right.
The advocating of psychoanalysis for those seeking SR/liberation = arriving at 2nd mountain position as a visitor and then leaping right back to 1st mountain to set up camp. Analysis/betterment of the psyche and SR are unrelated at best, at worst, the focus upon psyche as a facet of supposedly attempting to get to the absolute Truth, = a reification of the person and his psychology.
The Spira video below is gold:
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 27, 2022 0:51:03 GMT
A constant 'intent' though is the equivalent of a constant 'thought/ideation in mind.'
As such, thoughts need not per se, interrupt the activity/endeavor underway, but it is going to add another layer of minding to it.
Sure, that's possible, but why are you mentioning a 'complete absence of self-referential thought' as you are speaking of a constant 'intent' to inquire as the day's activities unfolds? A constant 'intent' to inquire, is evidence of the idea of a self on board, a person who wants to see/know something, no? Doesn't that equal "self-referential thought"?
You don't get an "intent" to inquire within for the purpose of seeing the nature of what is sensed, without the presence of a (s)elf (who has obviously not yet seen/apprehended the nature of what is sensed.)
It's important to see wibigo in these instances where it might 'seem' as though there is no self-reference.
|
|