|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 6, 2022 21:02:55 GMT
When you make them synonymous, you leave no room for the difference between an imagined something that is not actually appearing (a separate entity/person for example) vs. the appearance of the me character, which does appear. The appearing me character is not being "imagined," in the same way that a separate person/existent entity is being imagined. Seeing appearances for appearance only is what's missing from your ontology....it would allow for the distinction between imagining the tree is fundamentally separate from what you are/awareness, while still denoting/acknowledging the tree as appearing dream content within the arising, unfolding dream. Relatively speaking, that dividing between objects (something btw which cannot be avoided if there's to be engagement within the dream) is not the issue....relative division between a tree and a bench that appears beneath it, does not equal "delusion/boundedness/limitation." But, if you mistake the appearing tree as being "fundamentally" existent in it's own right, which equals fundamentally divided/separate from all else, including the YOU, the awareness within which all arises/appears, that does equal delusion/imagined boundedness. You continually make the mistake ZD of conflating "fundamental Oneness," with an absence of apparent distinction. If not for apparent distinction between apparent objects, you'd be unable to even distinguish "a tree," from a "bench." And you can distinguish the two...right? Seeing a distinctly appearing tree that is relatively 'other than' the appearing, distinct bench, is not the problem...that is not the imagined "separation" that is seen through in SR. The separation that gets seen through in SR is "fundamental." Oneness per se does not make an appearance within the dream, rather, it's a reference to the fundamental nature of THIS. The tree is not fundamentally separate from the bench, but that doesn't mean that to be free you have to somehow unsee the relative distinction between tree and bench. That relative distinction remains and unproblematically abides the realization of fundamental Oneness. Interesting....so two 'different' awareness-es then?  That would equal "Separation."  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 6, 2022 21:14:35 GMT
Bingo.
Zd is very confused on this particular issue. If the tree is merely imagined...then I guess so is the thwack...so is the empty eye socket that the sharp branch cleaned out...etc. etc. Ultimately then, the entirety of anything at all that arises in experiences is imaginary...and in rendering it all as such, we leave no room at all to ferret out those facets of experience...stuff we erroneously think is making an appearance, that in actuality is only being imagined...such as separation!
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 8, 2022 19:48:20 GMT
You need to be more clear about what you mean by "thinking." I think you like using the more broad term because you are personally very proud of how you've conquered what in the past was for you, a very, very active mind, where there was a constant churning of thoughts that referenced a separate self...where not a moment passed where mind wasn't intervening to evaluate, judge, label, overthink things.
Your "silent mind," is not actually devoid of anything other than self-referential mind-chatter.
"Minding" to some degree, is present so long as there is experience happening...a world appearing...even the most subtle of a some-thing that is appearing = "mind...minding."
When put in those terms then, your constant gloating over the fact that you can 'stop thinking at will,' that you have a 'silent mind,' that you can drive completely devoid of thinking/thought/minding, really is not such a great and special feat at all.
Being awake means the cessation of all that erroneous, pointless mind chatter, namely because the "(s)elf" that was previously the center of all reference, is no longer ruling the day. The shift that is SR means the locus of seeing has moved from the personal self, to beyond, which neatly places that previously, constantly referenced personal self into the realm of appearance only. That means the end of all that self-referential, incessant mind chitter-chatter...and yeah, mind does get a whole helluva lot quieter.
And yex, that is a big thing, but it's something very different than the complete absent of thought/minding you continue to boast about.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 8, 2022 19:55:55 GMT
For many, perhaps even most as they get older, social interactions diminish. What you are describing is likely nothing more than a manifestation of loneliness.
I know in my dad's last months before he passed, where he chose to sequester himself and obey the tyrannical instructions to isolate, our phone conversations clearly became like a life-line for him....he wanted them to go on as long as possible, which was completely understandable as that was his only socialization...which meant,he'd often rehash old convos....go on about trivial things, etc.
If you weren't so busy always trying to one-up everyone in the silly, egoic, "who has the more silent mind," game you continually run in your head, a more compassionate answer might have occurred to you as you engage with those annoying chatty elders.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 10, 2022 19:09:01 GMT
This post perfectly exemplifies your constant double-speak; Can you see how you waffle back and forth there between positing your "minus thought," as being a complete absence of mentation/minding and then waffle to merely "an absence of naming, commenting/self-reference"? Which is it ZD?
The two are very different and the distinction is very important. If we're talking merely the absence of mind labelling, commenting, then your statement "that minus thought is mind-boggling because mind can't imagine awareness without thought," is flat-out wrong. It's true mind cannot imagine a complete cessation/absence of all minding, but mind CAN imagine/grasp a simple observing what appears, absent comments and chitter-chatter about it...just a direct, clean, clear experience of what is currently arising. "Direct experience," is known by mind.
Whether you recognize it or not, direct experience, ANY experience = 'mind-minding.' So long as there is some-thing arising in experience, mind is in play.
There's your contradiction again, laid out in stark black/white.
"Total" mental silence really does sound like a complete absence of mentation/minding, and if all you're really talking about is an absence of internal dialogue, that is something very different.
Still not quite sure ZD if this is indicative of deep confusion on your part or just sloppy language use. It's the same thing you do when you on one hand insist that you've realized for "Absolute certain" the "Truth" that "It's all all alive...and that every THING is having it's own unique, perception and experience....that each appearing thing is AN experiencer/perceiver," but then in your next sentence, you go on to insist that the Truth cannot be apprehended with mind and cannot be put into words...that it can only be pointed to.
You cannot have it both ways....that on one hand, the Truth clearly appears as the appearance itself, AND that it lies prior to mind....is beyond the conceptual....beyond mind's grasp.
Mind can and does very much 'grasp' onto the appearance of 'sentient, experiencing persons,' and then runs with it...that right there is the delusion central to "separation."
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 31, 2022 17:40:43 GMT
You're erroneously dividing 'minding' into two categories/forms, and are upholding one form as conducive to seeing through the illusion of separation and the other a hindrance.
All minding/mind content/dream content/experiential content (it's all one & the same!) must be transcended to realize the Truth. And the only way that happens is if/when there is a shift in locus of seeing....the place from which seeing happens, from within the dream/through the domain of the personal dream character, to beyond...devoid of any 'domain.'
You have obviously mistaken a mere shift away from the dominance of the intellectual facets of mind to that facet of mind that includes such things as intuition, body knowing, feelings, all that lies beyond the reasoning, labelling, concrete aspect of mind, as "being awake/SR."
The shift of SR is beyond mind, period. Not just beyond the reasoning/intellectual aspect of mind.
To "penetrate the illusion of the meta-reality," is to see from beyond the illusion, and that does not merely require a move from way mode of minding to another, rather, it requires transcendence of ALL mind content. I truly don't think you have actual reference for that shift, ZD.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 5, 2022 5:05:53 GMT
The idea that "it's all alive," and it's known for absolute certain that all appearing people/things are experiencing, perceiving, conscious, having their own discrete, unique experience, is also an idea. If that is left behind, then what?  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 5, 2022 5:11:43 GMT
Oh Zendancer...  If there's been a "discovery" of THIS and also that THIS is beyond the idea of choice/no-choice, then it's also crystal clear that that discovery/seeing was not actually the domain of "the human," who arises as an appearance. You are still erroneously mistaking who/what you are as seeing through the eyes of an existent human being. A shift in locus of seeing (which is SR) is what's necessary to remedy that. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 5, 2022 5:44:33 GMT
Do YOU? ZD reifies the "human" as the source of seeing/recognition of Truth. Would you say according to ZD the nature of the person is something different than the nature of "the human"?
You and a few other there, give ZD waaaay too much leeway. You support his delusions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 9, 2022 20:19:13 GMT
This in a nutshell exemplifies your delusion ZD. You mis-take the direct knowing of some-thing that appears for that which is infinite/unchanging/abiding. You are positing something conceptual/a perceivable/an appearance, (albeit primary to mind's labelling of it) as having inherent, objective existence in it's own right.
It matters not whether or not mind has jumped in to label a facet of experience or not, even that which is directly experienced = a perceivable/appearance, which means it is absent it's own inherent existence, it depends upon the infinite, abiding ground, within which it arises/appears.
Not separate does not mean zero distinction. If not for distinction, there's be no experience. Distinctions appear within that which abides, no fundamental separation between them. That's what Nonduality references. "Fundamentally One/Not two."
|
|
That would equal "Separation." 
