|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 24, 2022 18:11:42 GMT
I don't recall you or anyone ever using that specific term before--a "non-relative," realization. I guess it works as it's true that the "realization" referenced in SR is always involves a shift in seeing....seeing beyond/prior to the story/dream. That said, for someone like Ina, I'd say its' also important to mention that while it is a seeing that is beyond the relative, is also includes/applies to that which relatively appears.
I think many who are confused about what Nonduality is actually saying or pointing to have trouble with that one....they mistake "beyond all appearance," to mean that the appearing world is no longer of any importance at all...that it is just sort of cast aside for some 'greater' truth that they have no reference for.
And that is anything but so. SR does not in any way negate or denigrade the appearing, relative experience and it's content, it just re-frames it all as it's now being seen from a perspective 'beyond' the fray.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 3, 2023 23:06:41 GMT
Sort of like polishing and re-building the furniture AS you're tossing it out?  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 3, 2023 23:08:18 GMT
Precisely.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 15, 2023 20:29:49 GMT
You have consistently misconstrued this pointer, at times it seems as though you are intent upon such and have no interest at all in even trying to grasp what's being pointed to.
Nonduality doesn't deny 'the experience' of a some-one/some-thing 'being here.' What it denies is the "inherent existence/abiding nature" of that experiential/apparent "some-one/some-thing."
A me character DOES appear, but it does so dependent upon that which exists/abides...it's a temporal expression of 'that'...as such, not separate from that.
There are many accounts shared that suggest that that can indeed happen; Where there is realization/seeing through and then later, down the road, identification with person-hood re-asserts itself....there is a falling back into the dream...falling back asleep...getting swept back into identification with limitation.
Adyashanti's book, "The End of Your World," speaks directly to that..the "I've got it...I've lost it" factor, that often follows an initial glimmer/glimpse. It is apparently rare that the first seeing through of personhood means a complete and abiding absence of personhood following it.
It's not about 'changing your mind afterwards,' it's about mind reinstating itself, after being put on the back-burner...or perhaps better said....it's about the person once again, taking the wheel and seemingly, steering the bus, whereas initially, after being seeing through, it had taken a back seat.
If you look at Reefs and her intense interest in and defence of LOA/deliberate creation, it appears that that's what happened. If look at all those past posts over the years....Nonduality used to be at the fore-front....at times, zero leeway given to any 'how/why' misconceived questions/stories, whereas these days, those stories reign supreme.
I think when there is that apparent 'falling back asleep,' it's pretty obvious that what appeared to be 'full awakening,' likely was not...and the grasp one had, perhaps based on a one time, true, clear 'glimpse' that quickly shifted away, was mostly conceptual.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 17, 2023 20:33:19 GMT
Nah, there ultimately is NO solution, but that's a hard pill to swallow for the seeker, indeed.
What you are prescribing there is really none other than a reification of the apparent person as the 'doer of' an absence of grasping...this is where we then have SVP's claiming to be gnani's...."personally enlightened non-persons."
It's entirely possible that even in the face of such a practice, locus of seeing might shift to beyond that erroneous sense of 'being a deliberate grasper of the act of non-grasping,' but, whether or not happens, has nothing to do with a practice that reifies the separate doer/volitional person.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 18, 2023 19:48:58 GMT
The difference between a conceptual grasp of "I am not a separate, volitional person," vs. the realization (absence of) a separate volitional person is huge.
When the seeker adopts a conceptual position of "I am not an SVP" he is doing so from a position of seeing from the eyes of the person. Whereas the SR who has realized there is no separate person, is seeing from a position that is beyond "personal eyes that see."
It's not that there is no longer an experience of seeing through eyes that see, as a body/mind, that continues on, but that experience/appearance is now couched within the greater, primary, encompassing seeing that is the ground to all of it.
Waking up, seeing through the SVP really is all about where the primary locus seeing is now happening from.
In some, there will be a shifting back and forth...at times perhaps feeling that the impersonal vantage point has been completely 'lost,' and has returned to a mired position again of seeing through the eyes of the body/mind person only....but seems that once there is direct reference, even past "memory" of that shift to beyond and the view from there, it's fair to say, the road to that shift, has been paved.
Being awake does not mean that the experience of person-hood ceases. But it does mean that it is now seen as a temporal expression of the awareness that abides and gives rise to it, vs. an existent source/ground of awareness.
To mistake yourself for an SVP is to regard the appearing me character/body/mind as the ground source to 'being aware.' This goes hand in hand with the erroneous sense of being an existent, distinct, someone/something.
Distinction is only ever an appearance arising within the unbounded. Distinction has no inherent existence....thus, all apparent things/object....and yes, persons, are absent inherent existence in their own right. They do not exist separate from the ground from which they arise.
It's from here it can be seen that while 'perceivers/experiencers' WHO are giving rise to awareness, seem to be, all of that is of the realm of perceivables arising within/to abiding awareness....the appearance of discrete, individated, distinct conscious entities/beings, is 'an appearance' arising within unbounded, abiding awareness.
This is why we cannot have "Absolute knowing" of discrete, individuated "experiencers/perceivers." The appearance of distinct, perceiving entities, is at best "appearance only," at worst, "delusion/illusion." (if anyone cared to civilly, discuss, hash out the latter, I'm more than up for it).
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 19, 2023 3:26:04 GMT
Yup. What Sifty is selling is not actually the "surrender" pointed to in Nonduality. He's advocating a position where the person reaches for an experience of being a separate person who is surrendered to whatever is happening....but true surrender only happens when the separate person is no longer in play.
It's very much the position of trying to "experience" absence/freedom/transcendence, AS a separate, volitional person. It is the imagined separate, volitional person, mistaken as 'an object that experiences,' that obscures freedom.
Teachings that reify the person as there's a prescription for that person to then "transcend itself," are the height of nonsense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 19, 2023 3:48:11 GMT
Nope. The egoic mind/SVP loves that idea though. There are no bridges from the personal to the impersonal. The person cannot 'do' it's way into the impersonal vantage point.
Nothing the person seemingly 'does' within the dream, is actually causal to (facilitating) the realized/transcendent viewpoint/shift that is SR.
You've completely mangled the meaning of the term "surrender" here. Surrender means an absence of seeking/grasping....ALL seeking/grasping!
I think you're mixed up.
True, imminent/present surrender is the absence of the person who is trying/efforting/seeking/grasping.
Where there is grasping towards anything....yes, even the end of grasping, there cannot simultaneously BE 'surrender' to what is. Grasping cannot abide alongside surrender. It's either one or the other. What you are suggesting is that there can be both an experienced separate, volitional person and the absence of the experienced separate, volitional person.
Where there is any kind of seeking/grasping, there is not surrender.
You've mistaken a relative sense/idea/experience with true transcendence of the imagined SVP/seeker who grasps. The two are worlds apart. One is merely imagined...the other involves an actual absence.
Surrender that hinges on clarity/absence, reveals that where there is grasping towards a position of non-surrender, there is a presence of an SVP.
What we are talking is the difference between relative, temporal, experiential peace vs. an abiding, unconditional peace. You can practice grasping towards an experiential peace all you like but it won't bring you any closer to abiding, unconditional peace...which has an absence as it basis.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 19, 2023 4:51:58 GMT
Surrender out of clarity will show that 'surrender-the-action' was not really surrender at all, but rather, the seeker/SVP grasping for a particular state.
It puzzles me when so called awakened teachers try to sell sure-fire methods that promise "awakening/SR." They create all sorts of practices that supposedly result in SR. All false promises. Lies.
There is nothing wrong with offering teachings/practices that offer the possibility of relative peace of states of mind that are relatively free from strife...it's perfectly fine, understandable, even for one who really is awake, to try to help those still asleep to have a better dream...a more peaceful, relative, general countenance.
There is no doing/striving of the person that causes the shift in locus of seeing that is SR..in fact, so long as there is imminent striving/trying/efforting towards a particular state other than what presently arises, there is a seeking SVP in the mix, and that's precisely what must be seen through....precisely what becomes absent in SR..
You are lying to and misleading seekers when you promise them a path/practice that causes the seeing through of separation. Far better to be honest, meet the seeker where they sit and address the person on the relative level, as a seeker...helping them to perhaps experience less angst...a greater, relative sense of ease...in short, a better...nicer dream if that's what they're after.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 19, 2023 20:26:35 GMT
Seems to me you've highjacked the term 'surrender' which in Nonduality/Truth-talk, is a pointer to an absence. It quite literally is pointing to the absence of ALL grasping...ALL seeking....ALL trying to change anything at all. Yeah, that's not what the term "surrender" generally means at all in Truth-talk. A practice of resisting interest to follow ideation....a resistance against letting mind light upon any particular idea, very much has an imagined, controlling, personal entity at it's core. Where there is that imagined, controlling entity in play, trying to control things, intending to "resist" anything at all that arises, there is most certainly in those moments, NOT "surrender"... While that may indeed seem to be so, there ultimately is no actual causation in the dream...that said, for the sake of addressing seekers where they sit, I have no problem going along with any idea/story that has a basis in appearance that tends to go hand in hand with a relative experiential increase in sense of ease/peace. However, it remains, a state of weakened attachments and identification is still not "surrender." Surrender is 'the absence' of attachment and identification...the absence of the seeker...absence of 'seeking'....'trying to control/will anything.' Except, the Truth is not an idea...it really does equal a seeing through...Truth is ultimately, an absence...not the acquiring of a new idea-belief/new knowledge. And what does a 'weakened attachment' really mean? In a given moment, there is either identification with the phenomenal, or there isn't. Absence of identification does not happen in gradients....there are no bridges from the vantage point of the SVP...in the dream view, to the view that is beyond. In any given, imminent moment, it either one or the other. And when the view has shifted to beyond, and it abides there, it includes the personal viewpoint within it, but now it's entirely absent 'identification' with the person. SR is prior to/beyond mind/intellect/ideation/conceptualization. Even a mind that has weakened attachments...less resistance to new ideas, is still mired in the realm of ideas and believes that Truth comes in the form of a newly acquired knowing...an adding of new knowledge. As we see on ST, attachments to sacred ideas continues so long as the entirety of the realm of perceivables has not fully been seen through... a failure to realize all perceivables, all apparent quality/property, all to be empty...to fully see through ALL perceivables means full transcending of the personal, separate, self-identified, erroneous viewpoint. Damn, so there's a constant question held in mind too during this 'surrender' process? Holy cow...that's an awful lot going on in a moment where supposedly there is 'surrender.' Except, when it doesn't.  There's no guarantees. And if you are really set on assigning some kind of causality, you'd do far better to focus upon the presence of sincere interest. Where there is a sincere interest towards clarity...towards inquiring into and being aware of mind content....plain and simply, that will happen, and it's that position of pure, sincere interest towards 'what's really going on,' that seemingly correlates highly with realization. You've completely skipped over what it means to live, day to day, experiencing a me character, an appearing world, awakened, Self-realized and you've landed all the way at the far end.... at what E used to reference as 'the greasy spot,' where there is plain and simply, nothing to say...nothing to talk about...nothing at all even appearing or arising in experience. 3rd mountain, full integration means the primary 'locus' of seeing, (& agreed, it really is NOT a fixed position in that sense at all...but for lack of a better word...) reigns supreme and the personal vantage point, (apparently limited, personal window of perception, which includes every facet of even the tiniest, nuanced sense... perceivable) is couched within that...secondary to that...which means, the limited, personal self, is no longer driving the bus and is no longer 'felt/experienced' to be driving the bus.This is important; many seem to think that the sense of being a person, that is in the drivers seat of life, controlling it all, still continues on post SR. It doesn't. There IS still an experiential sense at times of relatively speaking, as a person, getting into the mix, being part of a process towards a particular goal, but, there's a greater seeing/sense/knowing that trumps that and colors is...re-frames it, as an appearance within/to the awareness that gives rise to and abides it. These are of course, only words and they do not accurately capture what it means to live day to day, moment to moment "awake" to the dream/story, but words are we have here. |
|
. And thanks, Z, right back atcha.