|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 18, 2024 18:01:02 GMT
To further expound on this; Mind has difficulty with the absence inherent to SR and will do everything it can to fill in that void. SR really is a seeing through....a loss...an unknowing of that which was previously held to be True and Absolute, that leaves an absence in it's wake. That absence is to remain an absence. Mind's urge to add something known that can it call "Absolute" must be seen for what it is...where it is and in that, the absence remains as such...even though mind/experience will be impacted by SR....even though conceptualization of the realization will to some degree, happen. It's just how it is so long as mind is in play, as it will be, so long as experience IS.
Mind is not content with simply saying "reality was not what I imagined it to be." Mind will take that absence and try to fill in the blank with an additive, conceptual knowing. Where ZD goes wrong is in failing to see that's what mind has done, and in that, he is mistaking the additive, conceptual knowing that mind has substituted for the previous knowing, as a 'new' Absolute, additive knowing.
It's a common mistake. It's rare it seems for there to be a full seeing through/loss of delusion/illusion of separation along with the clarity to see those places where mind rushes in to simply swap one idea/belief with another.
The Truth that is revealed as the delusion of separation is seen through, really does defy capture with words. ZD at times acknowledges this.....the use of "_________________" is an acknowledgement of that. But oft, right on the heels of pointing to the inherent absence of conceptualization and material/additive knowledge re: Truth, he asserts his Absolute, realized knowing (which really isn't) of "alive, conscious, individuated perceiving/experiencing, existent entities," which he posits as facets of an existent, realized "alive field."
The moment we start assigning experiential properties and qualities in an attempt to describe "what" this IS, we've taken a step too far. Mind is now driving the bus.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 26, 2024 17:37:36 GMT
That which you are "fundamentally" does not manifest...does not change, rather, it abides unwaveringly, as it expresses as limited, temporal....as that which comes and goes.
Third mountain integration, "I am all of it, including that which arises and falls...including the changing/temporal/ephemeral has an unwavering realizing of that "fundamental being" at it's helm.
What you've done is glossed over the 2nd mountain realization of "no mountain"....you've gone from 1st mountain, there IS a mountain and then made a conceptual leap to 3rd mountain/full integration/full circle to a conceptual only understanding of "I am all of it." That conceptual leap still has 1st mountain identification at it's crux.
2nd mountain seeing through, which dissolves all identification with the manifest is a necessity, otherwise, "I am all of it," is rife with identification with the manifest.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 26, 2024 17:47:04 GMT
Another way of saying that no thing is actually/fundamentally separate from anything else it to say that no-thing exists inherently in it's own right...all that manifests is an expression within/to the abiding ground of Awareness, it's temporal, distinct appearance, entirely dependent upon that ground as it appears.
Seeing through the consensus trance is not the same thing as awakening to the dream, as a dream. One can be awake to the consensus trance while still being mired within the dream/fast asleep.
Waking up means the primary position of seeing is now grounded in unchanging Awareness...if awakening is abiding, that groundedness will remain unwavering despite whatever manifests in a given moment.
This is not a "state" of being, for all "states" come and go and part and parcel of that which manifests. To BE grounded in awareness as manifest reality arises is to very much include the manifest in "Isness/THIS," but that inclusion is devoid of the identification of an SVP.
In SR, the manifest is absent imagined inherent existence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 26, 2024 17:55:12 GMT
When doership is seen through, so too is "causality within the dream."
Autonomic nervous system functions do not point to beyond the manifest/beyond apparent causality within the manifest dream, they are part and parcel OF the manifest dream.
The circulating of blood, contraction of muscles, growing of teeth, etc. is all part and parcel of the dream-scape. You are using those apparent processes as "proof" that the apparent body is not the "doer." You are trying to point beyond the dream while still mistaking certain cream content to be something more.
Waking up means a shift in perspective that is completely "beyond/prior to" the dream/that which manifests...which of course then means, beyond autonomic bodily functions.
The assignation of causality to the autonomic nervous system in living beings hinges upon "relative" truth/science and is not the be conflated with Absolute Truth, which requires a vantage point beyond the relative...beyond science.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 26, 2024 18:02:15 GMT
So which is it ZD? One CAN actually choose to ask himself certain questions that will "help" penetrate the illusion of personal doership (wake up/SR) or that is just a humorous idea the person tells himself?
You are trying to have it both ways...have your cake and eat it too. On one hand, you insist there is no doership (which necessarily also means no actual causation within the dream..within experience), but then on the other, you suggest one can choose a particular line of questioning that "can help" penetrate the illusion of separation.
Inquiry towards a particular line of questioning indeed happens where the interest is there, but this idea that that line of inquiry can be causal to/can "help" penetrate the illusion of the separate person, is really no different than the idea that one can practice their way to enlightenment....you know...that idea you say is "incredibly humorous as well as poignant."
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 26, 2024 18:04:24 GMT
And yet, you are designating the "cause" of hair growth, blood cell function, etc. as being the bodily, autonomous nervous system.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 26, 2024 18:08:45 GMT
And if that is indeed something other than a mere conceptual understanding of what "Oneness" is pointing to, it will also be crystal clear that the autonomic nervous system is not actually the fundamental cause/doer behind apparent bodily functions such as the flow of blood, heart beating, cell division, etc.
You are very good at making the leap to "no existent mountain" when you're correcting another poster's conflation of relative/Absolute, but you've got a blind spot when it comes to your own conflation of the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 26, 2024 18:22:48 GMT
You're still clinging to bridges ZD, however flimsy they may be. There are no causal paths/practices to awakening...it just seems that way when you're still mired within the dream-scape. To truly see the complete absence of fundamental cause/creative catalyst/doership within the dream, seeing must happen from "beyond/prior to" the dream. There is simply no way around that.  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 26, 2024 18:30:34 GMT
A good point. The belief that acting without reflection somehow lies causal/creative to "discovering THIS/SR/awakening," flies in the face of what it means to realize "being as the ground to all that manifest."
Action that is devoid of reflection is after all, still part and parcel of "the manifest." As such, it's not actually/fundamentally causal to anything else that manifests.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 26, 2024 18:57:11 GMT
I can find hundreds of your posts ZD, where you speak about having numerous existential questions that were each, individually answered. Now, here you are asserting a singular answer to ALL existential questions.
Do you have any reference for the seeing through of ALL existential questions as misconceived?...and thus....of having the interest in those questions/answers, simply evaporate/dissolve?
|
|
