|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 29, 2024 17:04:23 GMT
Are there actually so called "Laws of creation" or do you simply observe patterns of unfolding within your own limited experience and deem those to have "fundamental/existential" basis?
What transhumanism aims to do is to control a particular facet of human experience...to "correct" what some deem to be certain "flaws" within the story...to address bodily issues/breakdowns that generally happy with ageing and even bodily death itself. It's really not so different at all from an LOA'er who tries to control experience towards a one-ended stick, where mostly "desired/liked/wanted" things happen. Both have human, limited, mind-based judgments about the way the story unfolds, complete with ups/downs, some things personally liked, some not liked, inherent to those judgments.
Is your interest in controlling bodily health and aging of the body via control of thoughts/feelings really so very different than the transhumanist's interest in controlling the same stuff via their means? Both endeavors have a mind-based, limitation/separation based judgment at their helm. A need to "change/control" outcomes...to control experience.
Yes, sure, but step back even further and it's clear that transhumanism is a product of an SVP/separation-based beef with certain specific facets of the unfolding story....again, not really so very different than LOA/deliberate creation in the way it aims to control outcomes that are deemed to be "bad/wrong/intolerable."
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 2, 2024 18:16:47 GMT
Ah...I've been wondering where our dear friend "the DR." got off to.  Am curious, do you even give a warning anymore or just unceremoniously ban/block a member when you deem them to have breached forum rules? Believe me, I'm on board with Mel's tactics being spam-like and at times even edging up into trolling, but seems in this case, you banned first and then created the rule after? As someone who values justice, fairness, integrity above else, even though I am not a fan of Mel, I think that's kind of shitty if you gave no pre-warning before the ban. There were several on ST who seemed to be enjoying some of the convos he initiated. All that said, you and I, quelle surprise ...are in complete agreement on the ChatGPT making it's way into to a forum that at least in theory, is dedicated to the highest Truth. The interest in using it to "try" to better grasp what's being pointed to is really just another example of minding being employed when what's really required is for mind to lay down...take the back seat. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 4, 2024 19:16:38 GMT
That's odd that you're now lumping "Buddhism" directly in with Nonduality. Buddhism is not interchangeable with Nonduality...they are actually quite different if you delve in.
Again, interesting that you are positing "an experienced teacher" as a path to clarity. Do you really think an experienced teacher can actually "prevent" someone from conceptualizing what is intended to be but a pointer to the ineffable, non-conceptual Truth?
No doubt about it, it does seem as though many who read Jed McKenna's books, or Niz's or (basically pick any so called Nonduality teacher/guru) conceptualize the message and mistake that for having actually realized Oneness....but it that really something that a "good teacher" can control? (hint: realization is not the hands of the person....not even a really good teacher....and....the Truth is, there is no actual causation within the dream).
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 11, 2024 18:34:33 GMT
That is a pointer to the inherent absence of substance/existence re: anything experiential, and it's the root of most arguments amidst seekers with an interest in Truth/Nonduality.
Fwiw, those who insist on a "realized/Absolute" knowing of aliveness, vibrancy...of discrete, multiple, inherently existent experiencers/perceivers have essentially, failed to "kill the Buddha on the road."
They encountered a "something" via an experience that was transcendent of so called "normal/mundane" reality and they've mistaken the content of that for an existential Truth.
Also known as, "a CC/Kensho experience."
Bingo! If you see inherently existent, discrete, multiple experiencing/perceiving entities and regard that seeing to be "Absolute/Truth," you've done just that!...You've mistaken content....appearance...property...quality for Truth.
Yes, emptiness is but a pointer...it's not "a something"...no an idea of thing that can be captured by mind.
Or.....Alive....or unified/connected.....or even having the property of "being conscious/experiencing/perceiving." Truth defies capture by any concept...even the concept of emptiness or neti-neti....or absence. Those are but terms that point beyond/prior to all concepts...all mind or body knowings...even beyond apparent intuitive knowing.
An Absolute knowing of discrete, unique percevers/experiencers = a conceptualized pointer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 21, 2024 19:25:43 GMT
She's a good example of a person who is aging more gracefully than most, for sure. No issue there. However, it becomes problematic when you attempt to formulate an existential Truth around the fact that some people remain more youthful than others, as they age. Without a doubt, your view is that her relative absence of sharp decline is "because of/caused by" her direction of thought. In awakening/SR, those ideas about certain experiential facets (thoughts/feelings) actually being inherently causal/creative to certain other experiential facets, gets seen through and in that, existential 'answers' to questions of "how/why" does what manifests, do so, also dissolve.
At best, we can see/say there are correlations and patterns that appear....and even so long as we stick within the relative realm of things to suggest that certain facets "generally seem to" correlate with others, all good, but the moment we step into "Truth/existential" territory to insist upon "inviolable laws" that "dictate" how/why what appears in the story, does so, we've stepped into delusion/imagined separation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 8, 2024 19:07:00 GMT
While the 'approaches' to awakening/SR might indeed vary, that 'rooftop view' you speak of that is the same regardless, does not vary.
From that impersonal, realized, SR, vantage point, the supposed "kensho" aspect of SR is seen for it was...an "incomplete" view. That's what online sources other than you and ZD say about "kensho/CC" experiences...that they are but "incomplete" glimpses on the pathless path towards finally realizing the Truth. It's only you and Reefs that have upheld the CC/Kensho glimmer/glimpse as something of great importance that continues to remain of importance, even after SR.
Reefs-of-yesteryear was adamant that Self Realization left no "existent" rock standing, but now, you continually assert rocks and all other appearing things, by virtue of them essentially being noneother than "_________________" to be known for Absolute certain as existent, perceiving/experiencing entities and to keep that dream alive, you've resorted to an upgrading of "new age/in the dream" beliefs teachings to be fully on par with Nonduality tenets/teachings.
Precisely! Can you see that your own view, is 'different than,' that of those who point to the inherent emptiness of ALL phenomenal/experiential content?
You've held onto the "approach" while seeking to climb up to that roof (Kensho/CC) and you've conflated that approach with the realization of Oneness itself.
That 'roof-top view' also leaves no room at all for a continued belief in LOA/deliberate creation. It's a view that no longer supports a belief in feelings/thoughts having causality, creative power over manifest conditions and no longer supports a separate, personal 'creator' who exists within the dream.
For LOA/deliberate creation to be "inviolable LAW/actual" separation would have to be actual. It's only if separation were actual that there could be actual causality/creation within the unfolding experiential story.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 13, 2024 20:05:52 GMT
I could not agree more.   |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 15, 2024 19:00:18 GMT
Yes. ZD's assertion of Absolute knowing re: appearing people, things, objects as discrete, conscious, experiencing entities, is also supposedly from the prior to self (realized) perspective. Thus, we've got him (and you!) on one hand saying the discrete, unique, personal self is "imaginary" AND simultaneously, insisting that each apparent, discrete person, has been realized with Absolute certain knowing, to be a conscious, experiencing entity.
Those two assertions contradict each other.
You've insisted yourself that your knowing of "other perceivers" is from a seeing that is beyond/prior to appearance...you've called it a "realization." You've admitted that from the personal vantage point, indeed, there can be no certain knowing, but you say that from the realized/impersonal, it's an Absolute, realized knowing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 15, 2024 19:42:21 GMT
Well, yeah, actually you CAN, if your name is Melvin the troll who likes to stretch the truth and completely leave out certain, pertinent facts. That said, I've never claimed I'd allow any and ALL behaviors/posts on my forum or that I'd never ban or delete particular material. As it sits, Gab's rules for participation are very lax....loads of freedom so long as someone doesn't overtly troll..I give a lot of leeway and never send folks packing for simply expressing disagreement with my views, however, I DO still have rules. I initially wasn't thrilled to see Krishna/Melvin come to my forum to engage. He's the king of off-topic posting...often trolls...often brings sex and what I see to be, unnecessary perversity into conversations, derailing threads, trying to cram the square peg of religious belief into the round hole of Nonduality. I initially made what I felt to be a compromise and told him he could post on Gab if he stuck to a singular thread. He didn't. I also asked him to stop with AI postings. He didn't. I'd had a few complaints from visitors that his material was not on topic and had nothing at all to do with Truth-talk, so the decision to delete it all came pretty easy. ..I had no idea until I banned him and started perusing through the forum how extremely prolific his posting had been...constantly creating new threads for each post....and none of it as I saw it, of value to a forum mostly dedicated to Truth. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 16, 2024 4:55:45 GMT
Your mistake is in thinking that somehow the idea of a person who can align or mis-align can co-abide with a seeing through of separation. How the heck is it possible to on one hand, see through separation, but on the other, still entertain the idea that as an apparent person, you can still be out of alignment with Source? So long as there is an absence of imagined separation in play, thus, no separate, volitional person, by what means could there be an experiential sense of being "out of alignment"? The absence of imagined SVP means an absence of all sense of separation.....all sense of seeking to be something/someone other than what presently IS. Experiential alignment with Source is one of the impacts of SR. If there's an absence of sense of Oneness, then obviously, there is no SR. This is so silly that you continue to posit SR 'without' a state of feeling "aligned." If one thinks he's awake, but 'feels' out of alignment with a some-thing, THAT pretty much encapsulates what it means to experience a sense of separation. Personality continues on post SR. What you're describing are merely differences in personal expression... conditioning.....differences in how various personalities might 'display' their wakefulness....OR....not.  |
|
Am curious, do you even give a warning anymore or just unceremoniously ban/block a member when you deem them to have breached forum rules? Believe me, I'm on board with Mel's tactics being spam-like and at times even edging up into trolling, but seems in this case, you banned first and then created the rule after? As someone who values justice, fairness, integrity above else, even though I am not a fan of Mel, I think that's kind of shitty if you gave no pre-warning before the ban. There were several on ST who seemed to be enjoying some of the convos he initiated. 
