|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 8, 2024 18:32:31 GMT
I suspect Melvin is referencing specifically the visitor count on the forum, NOT the number of folks participating in discussion. I know on this forum, there's been a huge decrease in visitor count....I was up to almost 150 visitors all at once as the highest count and daily tallies were getting up close to 700 on some days, which is double what used to be a good day for gab. In looking at the IP's, there were lots of repeats....different #'s coming from same location. Now, visit #'s way lower, but IP locations not being repeated as they were before, so clearly something has gone with the way proboards is counting visitors or there was some kind of bot infiltration...? Not entirely sure, but I'm guessing is something going on with proboards in general and not unique to these two forums. Now, to get your assertion about forum participation being down 'because' the main issues have discussed repeatedly over the years. The quote you provided in no way speaks to your assertion. One who has an interest in Truth-talk does not lose interest in such simply because there's been a lot of engagement with such. The very teacher/guru you are quoting there, clearly did not lose interest in Truth-talk after many years of repeated discussion. I think ST would be a lot busier if not ruled by such iron handed mods who shut down interesting exchanges the moment they themselves get directly challenged. What do I know though...?  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 8, 2024 18:45:42 GMT
What? No "Aliveness"...? Then by what means do you know for Absolute, realized certainty that a rock "IS" alive...conscious, perceiving?
Your entire ontology....your "unified field of aliveness" hinges upon an "Absolute"..."existent"....quality/property!
Yes! Which means your "It's all ALIVE Igor!" has as it's basis, nothing more than 'an idea' about the Absolute. Ideas/conceptualizations about the Absolute are not the Truth. So by what means then can you say you know for Absolute certain that each appearing person and thing, which includes paper-clips, socks, rocks, etc, are alive... 'perceivers/experiencers'?
From a sage's perspective, there is no distinction made between THIS and the form of human. Which means, THIS is not "In" the form of a Human at all....rather, the form of a human is THIS....no separation...."THIS" is a term/pointer that is ALL inclusive, is it not? It seems sometimes you use THIS as equal to fundamental Source/Abiding Awareness, but then you go on to suggest that all that arises within experience, IS 'THIS.'
The distinction between abiding ground and it's expressions is important in that the ground abides/exists, but it's expressions do not....they depend upon that ground for their temporal appearance. However, the distinction you are making between THIS and the appearing form that you say it is "IN" only serves to reify the appearing body/mind/form/person as something separate from THIS.
If it's all "_________________", then it's misconceived to assert that "__________________" infuses itself into a temporal appearance. Ultimately, the temporal appearance IS "________________".
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 8, 2024 18:49:48 GMT
Bingo! Now ask ZD the question of his "human body," that contains/is infused with 'THIS.'
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 12, 2024 17:49:01 GMT
That would also have been inaccurate. There is no 'underlying' non-verbal truth inherent to the 'apparent' object/pipe itself. Apparent things do not need to be denied in the pointing to the singular, fundamental Oneness of abiding Awareness and that which appears within it.
You've taken the brown-bear position where temporal, experiential/relative content is denied as you point to the Truth of Oneness. Oneness does not require the dissolving or denial of the relative.
"THIS" encompasses the Absolute AND the relative.
At times you seem to completely deny the apparent object itself and then at other times, you insist upon an Absolute 'substrate' that 'infuses' itself into the object, thereby rendering the object non-apparent/no-thing, but that infused substrate itself, you assert to be existent in it's own right. This is the 3 layer-cake model/delusion. You see/experience an energetic 'substrate' that infuses all appearing objects/things and then you posit that as a fundamental, abiding Truth.
As you've recently said; The Absolute has no qualities/properties. That 'substrate' then, cannot be anything more than itself, experiential content...thus....it has no inherent existence...it's yet another arising within/to abiding Awareness.
If there were no appearing pipe/object, by what means then could you indicate the pipe as a means of pointing? The realization of ALL experiential content, of all apparent objects as 'empty appearance only/having no inherent existence in their own right,' takes care of this misconception, whereby apparent/distinguished things/objects, themselves must cease to appear in order to point to Truth.
The apparent world never was, never IS the problem. Mistaking it for having it's own separate, inherent existence IS. The relative fact of appearances appearing need not be 'corrected' for the fundamental singularity of temporal/ground to be realized.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 12, 2024 21:13:02 GMT
Now....apply that to your asserted 'realized, Absolute knowing' that rocks (& all apparent object/things) are conscious, experiencing entities.
If there's no actual coming going, (aka limitation/boundary of consciousness), by what means do you know discrete, numerous 'conscious entities' to be Absolutely so?
How is it that you have "Absolute/realized knowing" of that which you are now saying, is merely imagined?
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 13, 2024 3:43:37 GMT
All questions will "vanish"? In the past, you've very specifically asserted that in finding THAT, you received definitive answers to numerous 'existential' questions. So which is it? The questions all vanish, OR they are all answered definitively?
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 15, 2024 19:19:52 GMT
ZD IS the epitome of "mind-led." It's true, he claims not to be, but the pudding is all over ST.
His assertion about what a sage doesn't do, is a perfect example...it's a gross overstatement at best and at worst simply not true.
That does not mean "never" giving any credence at all to the hypothetical...it does not mean being devoid of clarity and understanding as to the conditionings of the body/mind/me character.
You are erroneously conflating being free, clear, unattached in mind with being ignorant and lacking awareness of the apparent character and inclinations.
Ina is correct. There's examples all throughout ST of ZD doing precisely what he says a sage 'never' does. (Giving credence to hypotheticals).
It's a nice story to tell to try whitewash the obvious to assert that it's because ZD is NOT attached to ideas that he so often demonstrates hypocrisy and contradiction, but that's all it is. The bulk of material on ST is the pudding.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 18, 2024 21:45:51 GMT
And yet, in your insistence of an Absolute, realized knowing that all things/forms/objects are alive, conscious, discretely and uniquely perceiving/experiencing entities, you prop up the 'individual' as something existent...as actual.
You can't have it both ways, on one hand, having realized that all individuation is nothing but a false imagining, but then simultaneously insist that you have realization-based, Absolute knowledge that discrete objects, paper-clips, rocks, pieces of dog poop, are 'each' alive, conscious and having their own unique perceptions/experience.
This is what I've been trying to point to for years now--all distinction is appearance only...which means, discrete, unique people/body-mind's are as well....an apparent individuated object/some-thing, has no actual substance....and that means that all those discrete, unique humans that appear in ZD's experience, are appearance only. There can be no realized, Absolute knowing that an appearance 'actually is.' (exists in it's own right).
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 18, 2024 22:08:48 GMT
Hand, arms, fingers, all of the realm of appearance. No, none are actually, fundamentally 'separate,' but by virtue of the very fact that you have reference for a something called a hand and something called an arm, the 'distinction' between them, is rather obvious.
You continue to conflate fundamental separation with apparent distinction. Distinctions are not actual/fundamental...they are appearance only...yes, mind plays a part in divvying stuff up into varying sized distinctions...the body itself is a distinction that stands out from a chair it might be sitting upon.....then there's body parts....a finger can be sub-divided into smaller distinct areas, each which you will likely have reference for.
When you use apparent objects to try to steer folks away from mistakingly assigning "fundamental separation," you're steering them right back into the dream of appearances.
A finger IS 'distinct' from an arm or you'd have no 'distinct' reference for the terms "arm" vs. "hand." There's no big sin or delusion in making distinctions. The issue that Nonduality addresses is in mistaking apparent distinction/limitation for 'actual' fundamental "separation/limitation/boundedness. "
What you fail to recognize ZD is that "an infinite unified field of being," is a some-thing....which means, you are imagining/distinguishing rather than simply pointing to an absence.
Distinction never was the problem. You are trying to dissolve distinction by amalgamating all apparent things into a singular 'field' by connecting them via mind.
Appearing distinctions don't need to be connected/unified into a singular 'field,' for there to be an absence of separation... they are appearance only--a temporal, ephemeral expression arising within/to abiding Awareness.
There's no need to connect/unify that which was never separate in the first place....that which never had inherent existence in the first place.
That 'unified field' you perceive is nothing more than a mind-based, some-thing....an amalgamation of worldly objects/distinctions, that you've smushed together to now be declared to be a 'unified field.' That is still very much a 'some-thing/mind-content.'
The realization of Oneness really does lie beyond ALL appearance....all minding....beyond all 'connections/uniting' of parts.
Making things connected/unified is a mind-based activity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 18, 2024 22:20:33 GMT
You have conflated SR with waking up to the consensus trance, which is still very much 'in the dream.' Those who are caught up in the consensus trance have indeed bought into cultural conditionings and lazy thought habits.
SR is not simply the seeing through of cultural conditionings and better thought habits. It's about a shift in 'where' primary locus of seeing is happening from.
While the SVP that was sensed/imagined to be, WAS indeed 'an illusion,' the memory of effort, itself, is not. If there's a memory of past effort arising, that's what's arising/appearing. It's only the SVP that was central to the sense of doership, that was illusory. An experience of efforting, or a memory of efforting in the past, if it's arising...IS arising...there's nothing to be gained by denying that as 'illusive.' The SVP on the other hand, must be realized as illusive.
What you're doing ZD is mixing up self-help with Nonduality. You've added a bunch of Nonduality labels to what amounts to 'becoming more conscious as a person,' which is not a bad focus at all in the absence of the shift in seeing that is SR, but it's important to grasp the distinction between self-help vs. Nonduality/SR.
|
|
