|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 7, 2022 4:42:26 GMT
Well, the problem is, you don't have to outright suggest that folks should chase after special experiences for the seeking mind to latch onto a desire TO have a special experience, after hearing them described in all their awesome detail... all you have to do is start talking about how awesome and special these experiences are and the seeking mind is going to want to have one.
By virtue of dedicating an entire thread to this subject on a spiritual forum, a sense of importance is assigned to those special experiences, powers, CC's etc.
While you will likely deny it, You for one have obviously assigned a degree of importance to such experiences by virtue of singling them out to talk about them as you are.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 13, 2022 18:38:09 GMT
 Says the guy that recently created an entire thread to talk about a supposed important distinction between two different kinds of 'flow.' Yes, ultimately, whatever is happening...whatever is arising as a perceivable...a state, be it anger, joy, light flow, deep flow....all of that can be said to be inherent within One, singular movement or 'flow.' It all falls under "appearance only." However, relatively speaking, particularly in the absence of realization that it's all "One movement," there can be an arising of relative resistance to what life is presenting, and that's what Gopal is referencing. While it's true that even delusion and the imagining of separation/an SVP is all 'couched within' Awareness...not separate, that does not mean that delusion does not obscure Truth and in doing so, impact state of being. The state of being when delusion is absent is not one of fundamental resistance. If/when relative resistance does arise....it arises briefly and naturally moves on through, no problem. And the term "roller-coaster" is not an invoking of imagination at all as you keep insisting. It's simply a description of the relative movement between feelings/emotions as the story unfolds. The movement between a brief arising of sadness into a feeling of peace = a roller-coaster (up and down) movement of emotions. It's not big deal....just a normal facet of experience.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 13, 2022 18:58:35 GMT
So, how is that you've supposedly realized THIS....have escaped the confines of the intellect, but are still arguing for the importance of various mind 'states'?....CC...Kensho....flow....deep flow...deeper-yet-flow?
For a guy who has apparently realized that all experiential states are "imagination only," and that imagination is what obscures the Infinite, you sure do talk about imagined stuff alot...& what's more, even argue FOR it as being inherently important to what you denote as "TR."
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 13, 2022 19:03:00 GMT
And where there IS self-reflection present...a "me" involved....does that impede/obscure "flow"? You're flip-flopping again.  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 13, 2022 19:23:36 GMT
Relatively speaking, yes. And that's the context within which 'boundaries' applies. Boundaries are how objects are defined/experienced. And there is nothing inherently 'bad/wrong' with deciphering one object/boundary from another. What cannot be found is "fundamental separation." That's what is seen through in SR/awakening. Your continued focus upon 'perceptual' boundaries/divides between objects/things, is not Nonduality....it's mysticism, at best, at worst, evidence of deep confusion...a mind in overdrive, thinking it's grasped some kind of important Truth, which is not that, at all. Conceptual/experiential, perceived, relative, unity/connection/unification between all experiential things, is not what "fundamental Oneness" is pointing to. The bolded makes it obvious you don't actually grasp the monk/Ramana stories. Those are pointing to the inseparable nature of awareness and it's content. The body, cells composing body, processes of digestion, blood clotting, skin growth, hair, bones, fighting of infection, thinking, seeing, feeling, all of that, appearance only. The fact that you continue to reference appearances as evidence of "Oneness" indicates that you are just not looking deep enough/from the proper 'place' of 'beyond.' Oneness is not found in the dream via looking AT perceivables....it's found 'beyond,' looking AT awareness and seeing that it is the ground to all it's expressions. Those expressions do not need to be seen/perceived, relatively, within the dream, as some kind of singular, connected, amalgamation (Oneness blob) but simply, as a non-separate expression of the singular, One, abiding awareness. They are appearances within/to that ground, having no inherent existence in their own right. All of the stuff that gets seen through re: appearances is not stuff that actually appears. "Separation" was but a misguided idea about the 'fundamental nature,' of it all. Similarly, Oneness is also a fundamental seeing/realization. It does not change the relative seeing of boundaries between objects. Absent relative boundary ZD, you wouldn't know the concrete mixing truck from the hole in the ground you're trying to fill. And I assure you, there is no suffering in seeing that distinction/boundary.  Yes, and all 'realization' involves a seeing that is beyond/prior to the very concept of "alive/living." |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 13, 2022 22:34:24 GMT
Yup.
If it's true as ZD says, and there are no relative ups/downs re: feelings/experience, then that means he's also negating the apparent body and all it's functions as well, and yet he constantly uses those to assert "no separation."
He's very confused it seems.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 13, 2022 22:46:40 GMT
Why do you get to talk about all sorts of relative, experiential stuff, but when someone else tries to speak about experiential facets they find interesting, you shut down them with "TMT"?
You are equally engaging in thought when you talk about a potential important distinction between so called normal 'flow states' vs. 'deep flow.' You had no problem with that, but when someone tries to speak about the experience of feelings/emotions/conditions that seemingly move from one to the next, suddenly they're lost in imagination.
You're a hypocrite to the 9th degree ZD.
Flow states...aliveness....that shoes, piles of poop, people, are all having their own, unique, individual, discrete experience?
You're not walkin' your talk dude. If your mind is constantly silent....then you wouldn't be arguing for any of that...or even talking about it.
"THIS" is all inclusive...as a pointer it does indeed point beyond the relative, BUT...big BUT, it also includes it. Polarity is part and parcel of relative, experiential content. It's really not a problem at all...it's the imaginary SVP that makes it a problem.
Polarity does not need to go away for freedom to be. Polarity as an appearance, was never the problem. Mistaking it for something fundamental...something inherently existent, was/is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 13, 2022 23:07:24 GMT
In nonduality the term "separate" is always a reference to that which is fundamentally so.
Thus, you are wrong here; No one really ever taught us that various objects and that which perceives them, are "fundamentally separate," but rather, that was erroneously inferred.
You've vilified the perception of discrete things and erroneously equated that with the mistake of 'fundamental separation.'
The conditioned consensus paradigm only takes precedence over Truth/Reality when the mistake of taking oneself to be a separate, volitional person is in play.
Learning the label for that woody thing with roots that has leaves, was never the problem. Mistaking what you were as you looked at that thing, mistaking it to be a fundamentally separate something/someone that had existence in it's own right, was.
It's not being able to differentiate a tree from a shoe and label them each that is the problem ZD. The issue is not the arising of ideas themselves, it's failing to recognizing that all the ideas....all the labels, the very experience of a world of labelled things, or even an experience of a world of unlabelled things....the experience of lets say...a 'field of aliveness,'....all of it, if it's experienced, is appearance only.
What that means is that if it's 'perceived,' it's arising dependent upon the abiding ground of awareness....(that which is unchanging, abiding, not a thing....not a what..)
You don't have to stop seeing a lamp, relatively speaking, as distinct from the desk it sits on, you just have see through the idea that the lamp/desk and that which is aware of lamp desk are "fundamentally separate."
Seeing that the lamp and desk are mere appearances, absent their own inherent, separate existence, fundamentally apart from awareness, is all that's necessary.
This silly idea you have that somehow, one must 'unsee' the relative boundary between objects, to see experiential, relative stuff as collapsed into one singular, relative 'field,' is a nonsense.
That's mysticism. Some who have seen through separation DO also have reference for that relative seeing, but it's NOT necessary for freedom/liberation. One who is truly awake does not conflate anything experiential with Truth.
Freedom/liberation from the world of things, does not depend upon the relative seeing of things to collapse.....it does depend upon seeing that a relatively 'distinct' thing is appearance only, and not fundamentally separate....not possessing inherent existence beyond it's brief, temporal, appearance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 13, 2022 23:16:59 GMT
If lines, demarcations appear, they do appear! This strange idea you have that stuff that appears within the dream/story is 'being imagined,' is inaccurate. Separation....a separate volitional entity...that is imagined!
Lines of demarcation do appear. There's no need to not see stuff that appears. It's mistaking those appearances for having independent, inherent existence in their own right...or in other words, being 'fundamentally separate' from each other and from that which is aware of them. (hint...it 'aint a thing...nor a who!)
The realization of Oneness is beyond all ideation, words, symbols, things, however, the seeing that it's all One, includes the appearing world and all it's things as well.
The world does not need to disappear for the realization of Oneness to be.
The appearing world is not the problem...never was...mistaking it as something with it's own, separate, inherent existence, apart from abiding awareness, WAS/IS.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 13, 2022 23:21:23 GMT
Is experience imagined?
If there really is no distinction at all, then there is no experience...no-thing at all that appears...no story...no dream.
You have conflated relative distinction with separation.
Fundamental separation is imaginary...a misconception....distinction is the vehicle by which there is experience at all. Abiding awareness gives rise to distinctions...that's the freakin' miracle by which there is an experience at all! Absent distinction....no-thing happens. At all. No apparent you.... no apparent me....etc, etc....
|
|
