|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 13, 2022 2:45:40 GMT
Oh no,  I hope I'm not about to shit on someone you resonate with, but I found him to be all over the map....constantly shifting context, at times outright contradicting himself and also making that same mistake ZD makes where he erroneously invokes the phenomenal appearance of unity/connection to make the point of "fundamental Oneness." He is using the view of the earth from a position on high through a telescope as an example of Oneness...complete with the idea that all borders between countries, etc, are merely conceptual. Yes, that is true, the divisions between countries, the various assigned names, are just that, assigned concepts, but there are distinctions that DO still appear within the appearing earth.... and sure, it's possible to conceptually collapse all those distinction/boundaries in favor of a focus that just sees the earth/planet as One, singular thing/object/appearance... the collapse of those conceptual boundaries, which leaves just the appearance of one/undivided/unified earth planet, though, is not what "fundamental Oneness" is pointing to. To see (realize) Oneness, seeing must be happening from prior to/beyond the realm of appearance, & as he does aptly say at one point, It's isn't WHAT you see, it's the position you are seeing from (or something similar...anyway, I did nod along at that point in agreement!). It was odd that he said that, but then used the appearance of the world from a position beyond as an example of "Oneness." The collapse of apparent boundaries relative to something that appears is NOT what "No separation/Oneness" is referencing. In SR, All appearances get seen to be empty and devoid of inherent existence....empty appearance only...transient, devoid of Truth, and it's in that that Oneness is apprehended. We don't need to collapse the appearance of distinction/boundaries as they too are included in that 'emptiness'...and ultimately, in/as "Oneness." The mistake this dude and ZD make is that they think Oneness is about collapsing the way mind categorizes and draws distinctions between things that appear in the apparent world. None of that is problematic so long as it's seen that all of the appearing world and all it's things, are ephemeral arisings within/to awareness...empty, arising dependent, having no inherent existence of their own. It's all One, not only renders the distinction between Hawaii and the ocean that surrounds it as appearance only, it also renders the very appearance of the earth as a whole, appearance only. On one hand he says the wave IS the ocean, but then goes on to say that what is sitting here is NOT a Catholic, a Jew, etc, not sitting here at war with itself....'there is just unbroken, limitless, eternity in all directions'. It's a context issue I think; He's on one hand, equating the appearance of the 'sitting here person,' with the infinite, but then, denying the apparent/experiential war going in mind, the belief systems of religion, political ideas/afilliations, etc. He demonstrates why it's so important to see the totality of anything experiential, right down to the most minute, nuanced sense/feeling, as "appearance only." Absent that, mind continues to try to conceptualize the pointer of Oneness...finding evidence of Oneness IN the appearing world itself. This bit seemed really off in terms of clarity: "That is the inheritance that is looking out of your own eyes, those are the gifts that all the buddhas of the past--they worked super, super hard to unfold, unbox...to understand that. If it wasn't for the Buddhas, the rishis the roshis, the zen masters, the sufi masters, the desert fodhers, if it wasn't for those boys and girls doing their homework and then the homework of the hubbles and Albert Einsteins, the Stephen Hawkins & the Rober Penroses, all those guys doing their homework, today I wouldn't be able to (I, I mean you), sit on my mediation mat, chair or cushion and experience my infinite eternity. So, It's either 100% unbroken, full on, fully connected, there is only one Oneness here, or there isn't. There aren't two ways of sitting on your meditation cushion, that only you sit as a Buddha, as Buddha nature, the Tao, you sit as Allah, Shiva, as Self, I am that I am...." He's positing all the understandings of past sages and scientists as 'causal' to a present moment of clarity about Truth...?  You can shit on whatever you like 🤣🤣🤣🤣. I must admit when I posted it, it was because I liked the video and thought it’d be cool to post vids here (we do but not in one place). I felt more as though he was addressing those who imagine themselves to still be on a journey, sort of like Tolle. His description of the earth and boundaries can possibly help one reach a certain level of consciousness. I think Tolle helped me relatively speaking. I had a great understanding conceptually but you are right Figgles, it actually can leave a seeker seeking and more confused tbh. I agree on the Einstein, Hawkins comment, I thought the same. Now wait until I start on Betinho Massaro, what on earth happened there??? (Am normally one finger typing on my phone by the way, hence my shorter replies). He did address that, yes, and to be fair, at first as I was watching I was initially, nodding along....before I started throwing shit bombs at him... |
|
Esponja
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Esponja on Sept 13, 2022 2:59:05 GMT
This one by Richard Sylvester provides an amazing description of what it means to see through time/space....wow...wow....perfectly put. Love what he says about guilt, regret, nostalgia ceasing to arise anymore once the past has lost it's substance...now this is clarity! & "the personal story is not really a person story...it's just a story." amen...  (It's the imagined person that says it's "my" story...a personal story). Yep, that was great. Clear as day. Awareness is all. Loved how he allows for a ‘moment’ of clarity and full personality coming back as that’s been my experience. Now clarity seems more readily available. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 13, 2022 17:09:42 GMT
This one by Richard Sylvester provides an amazing description of what it means to see through time/space....wow...wow....perfectly put. Love what he says about guilt, regret, nostalgia ceasing to arise anymore once the past has lost it's substance...now this is clarity! & "the personal story is not really a person story...it's just a story." amen... (It's the imagined person that says it's "my" story...a personal story). Yep, that was great. Clear as day. Awareness is all. Loved how he allows for a ‘moment’ of clarity and full personality coming back as that’s been my experience. Now clarity seems more readily available. Yup--that's very important to understand, that clarity is always present moment and that there can still be a bit of shifting around in terms of that, in terms of present moment vantage point... perspective, as experience unfolds, without falling hopelessly back in the dream again! Specifically related to what he said about seeing the 'past' for what it is and how that impacts feelings such as regret, guilt...he also made a point of saying that sometimes it still might rise up...a sort of shadow of past conditioning...habit of mind kind of thing. Hafta say, as Nonduality speaker, really, really like him!! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2022 6:36:52 GMT
Oh no, I hope I'm not about to shit on someone you resonate with, but I found him to be all over the map....constantly shifting context, at times outright contradicting himself and also making that same mistake ZD makes where he erroneously invokes the phenomenal appearance of unity/connection to make the point of "fundamental Oneness." He is using the view of the earth from a position on high through a telescope as an example of Oneness...complete with the idea that all borders between countries, etc, are merely conceptual. Yes, that is true, the divisions between countries, the various assigned names, are just that, assigned concepts, but there are distinctions that DO still appear within the appearing earth.... and sure, it's possible to conceptually collapse all those distinction/boundaries in favor of a focus that just sees the earth/planet as One, singular thing/object/appearance... the collapse of those conceptual boundaries, which leaves just the appearance of one/undivided/unified earth planet, though, is not what "fundamental Oneness" is pointing to. To see (realize) Oneness, seeing must be happening from prior to/beyond the realm of appearance, & as he does aptly say at one point, It's isn't WHAT you see, it's the position you are seeing from (or something similar...anyway, I did nod along at that point in agreement!). It was odd that he said that, but then used the appearance of the world from a position beyond as an example of "Oneness." The collapse of apparent boundaries relative to something that appears is NOT what "No separation/Oneness" is referencing. In SR, All appearances get seen to be empty and devoid of inherent existence....empty appearance only...transient, devoid of Truth, and it's in that that Oneness is apprehended. We don't need to collapse the appearance of distinction/boundaries as they too are included in that 'emptiness'...and ultimately, in/as "Oneness." The mistake this dude and ZD make is that they think Oneness is about collapsing the way mind categorizes and draws distinctions between things that appear in the apparent world. None of that is problematic so long as it's seen that all of the appearing world and all it's things, are ephemeral arisings within/to awareness...empty, arising dependent, having no inherent existence of their own. It's all One, not only renders the distinction between Hawaii and the ocean that surrounds it as appearance only, it also renders the very appearance of the earth as a whole, appearance only. On one hand he says the wave IS the ocean, but then goes on to say that what is sitting here is NOT a Catholic, a Jew, etc, not sitting here at war with itself....'there is just unbroken, limitless, eternity in all directions'. It's a context issue I think; He's on one hand, equating the appearance of the 'sitting here person,' with the infinite, but then, denying the apparent/experiential war going in mind, the belief systems of religion, political ideas/afilliations, etc. He demonstrates why it's so important to see the totality of anything experiential, right down to the most minute, nuanced sense/feeling, as "appearance only." Absent that, mind continues to try to conceptualize the pointer of Oneness...finding evidence of Oneness IN the appearing world itself. This bit seemed really off in terms of clarity: "That is the inheritance that is looking out of your own eyes, those are the gifts that all the buddhas of the past--they worked super, super hard to unfold, unbox...to understand that. If it wasn't for the Buddhas, the rishis the roshis, the zen masters, the sufi masters, the desert fodhers, if it wasn't for those boys and girls doing their homework and then the homework of the hubbles and Albert Einsteins, the Stephen Hawkins & the Rober Penroses, all those guys doing their homework, today I wouldn't be able to (I, I mean you), sit on my mediation mat, chair or cushion and experience my infinite eternity. So, It's either 100% unbroken, full on, fully connected, there is only one Oneness here, or there isn't. There aren't two ways of sitting on your meditation cushion, that only you sit as a Buddha, as Buddha nature, the Tao, you sit as Allah, Shiva, as Self, I am that I am...." He's positing all the understandings of past sages and scientists as 'causal' to a present moment of clarity about Truth...? You probably won't like this one either where he talks about the importance of practice. |
|
Esponja
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Esponja on Sept 14, 2022 13:32:07 GMT
Oh no, I hope I'm not about to shit on someone you resonate with, but I found him to be all over the map....constantly shifting context, at times outright contradicting himself and also making that same mistake ZD makes where he erroneously invokes the phenomenal appearance of unity/connection to make the point of "fundamental Oneness." He is using the view of the earth from a position on high through a telescope as an example of Oneness...complete with the idea that all borders between countries, etc, are merely conceptual. Yes, that is true, the divisions between countries, the various assigned names, are just that, assigned concepts, but there are distinctions that DO still appear within the appearing earth.... and sure, it's possible to conceptually collapse all those distinction/boundaries in favor of a focus that just sees the earth/planet as One, singular thing/object/appearance... the collapse of those conceptual boundaries, which leaves just the appearance of one/undivided/unified earth planet, though, is not what "fundamental Oneness" is pointing to. To see (realize) Oneness, seeing must be happening from prior to/beyond the realm of appearance, & as he does aptly say at one point, It's isn't WHAT you see, it's the position you are seeing from (or something similar...anyway, I did nod along at that point in agreement!). It was odd that he said that, but then used the appearance of the world from a position beyond as an example of "Oneness." The collapse of apparent boundaries relative to something that appears is NOT what "No separation/Oneness" is referencing. In SR, All appearances get seen to be empty and devoid of inherent existence....empty appearance only...transient, devoid of Truth, and it's in that that Oneness is apprehended. We don't need to collapse the appearance of distinction/boundaries as they too are included in that 'emptiness'...and ultimately, in/as "Oneness." The mistake this dude and ZD make is that they think Oneness is about collapsing the way mind categorizes and draws distinctions between things that appear in the apparent world. None of that is problematic so long as it's seen that all of the appearing world and all it's things, are ephemeral arisings within/to awareness...empty, arising dependent, having no inherent existence of their own. It's all One, not only renders the distinction between Hawaii and the ocean that surrounds it as appearance only, it also renders the very appearance of the earth as a whole, appearance only. On one hand he says the wave IS the ocean, but then goes on to say that what is sitting here is NOT a Catholic, a Jew, etc, not sitting here at war with itself....'there is just unbroken, limitless, eternity in all directions'. It's a context issue I think; He's on one hand, equating the appearance of the 'sitting here person,' with the infinite, but then, denying the apparent/experiential war going in mind, the belief systems of religion, political ideas/afilliations, etc. He demonstrates why it's so important to see the totality of anything experiential, right down to the most minute, nuanced sense/feeling, as "appearance only." Absent that, mind continues to try to conceptualize the pointer of Oneness...finding evidence of Oneness IN the appearing world itself. This bit seemed really off in terms of clarity: "That is the inheritance that is looking out of your own eyes, those are the gifts that all the buddhas of the past--they worked super, super hard to unfold, unbox...to understand that. If it wasn't for the Buddhas, the rishis the roshis, the zen masters, the sufi masters, the desert fodhers, if it wasn't for those boys and girls doing their homework and then the homework of the hubbles and Albert Einsteins, the Stephen Hawkins & the Rober Penroses, all those guys doing their homework, today I wouldn't be able to (I, I mean you), sit on my mediation mat, chair or cushion and experience my infinite eternity. So, It's either 100% unbroken, full on, fully connected, there is only one Oneness here, or there isn't. There aren't two ways of sitting on your meditation cushion, that only you sit as a Buddha, as Buddha nature, the Tao, you sit as Allah, Shiva, as Self, I am that I am...." He's positing all the understandings of past sages and scientists as 'causal' to a present moment of clarity about Truth...? You probably won't like this one either where he talks about the importance of practice. I read somewhere: Enlightenment is an accident, spiritual practice makes you accident prone. I’ll take a look at this video later. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 14, 2022 17:00:46 GMT
Oh no, I hope I'm not about to shit on someone you resonate with, but I found him to be all over the map....constantly shifting context, at times outright contradicting himself and also making that same mistake ZD makes where he erroneously invokes the phenomenal appearance of unity/connection to make the point of "fundamental Oneness." He is using the view of the earth from a position on high through a telescope as an example of Oneness...complete with the idea that all borders between countries, etc, are merely conceptual. Yes, that is true, the divisions between countries, the various assigned names, are just that, assigned concepts, but there are distinctions that DO still appear within the appearing earth.... and sure, it's possible to conceptually collapse all those distinction/boundaries in favor of a focus that just sees the earth/planet as One, singular thing/object/appearance... the collapse of those conceptual boundaries, which leaves just the appearance of one/undivided/unified earth planet, though, is not what "fundamental Oneness" is pointing to. To see (realize) Oneness, seeing must be happening from prior to/beyond the realm of appearance, & as he does aptly say at one point, It's isn't WHAT you see, it's the position you are seeing from (or something similar...anyway, I did nod along at that point in agreement!). It was odd that he said that, but then used the appearance of the world from a position beyond as an example of "Oneness." The collapse of apparent boundaries relative to something that appears is NOT what "No separation/Oneness" is referencing. In SR, All appearances get seen to be empty and devoid of inherent existence....empty appearance only...transient, devoid of Truth, and it's in that that Oneness is apprehended. We don't need to collapse the appearance of distinction/boundaries as they too are included in that 'emptiness'...and ultimately, in/as "Oneness." The mistake this dude and ZD make is that they think Oneness is about collapsing the way mind categorizes and draws distinctions between things that appear in the apparent world. None of that is problematic so long as it's seen that all of the appearing world and all it's things, are ephemeral arisings within/to awareness...empty, arising dependent, having no inherent existence of their own. It's all One, not only renders the distinction between Hawaii and the ocean that surrounds it as appearance only, it also renders the very appearance of the earth as a whole, appearance only. On one hand he says the wave IS the ocean, but then goes on to say that what is sitting here is NOT a Catholic, a Jew, etc, not sitting here at war with itself....'there is just unbroken, limitless, eternity in all directions'. It's a context issue I think; He's on one hand, equating the appearance of the 'sitting here person,' with the infinite, but then, denying the apparent/experiential war going in mind, the belief systems of religion, political ideas/afilliations, etc. He demonstrates why it's so important to see the totality of anything experiential, right down to the most minute, nuanced sense/feeling, as "appearance only." Absent that, mind continues to try to conceptualize the pointer of Oneness...finding evidence of Oneness IN the appearing world itself. This bit seemed really off in terms of clarity: "That is the inheritance that is looking out of your own eyes, those are the gifts that all the buddhas of the past--they worked super, super hard to unfold, unbox...to understand that. If it wasn't for the Buddhas, the rishis the roshis, the zen masters, the sufi masters, the desert fodhers, if it wasn't for those boys and girls doing their homework and then the homework of the hubbles and Albert Einsteins, the Stephen Hawkins & the Rober Penroses, all those guys doing their homework, today I wouldn't be able to (I, I mean you), sit on my mediation mat, chair or cushion and experience my infinite eternity. So, It's either 100% unbroken, full on, fully connected, there is only one Oneness here, or there isn't. There aren't two ways of sitting on your meditation cushion, that only you sit as a Buddha, as Buddha nature, the Tao, you sit as Allah, Shiva, as Self, I am that I am...." He's positing all the understandings of past sages and scientists as 'causal' to a present moment of clarity about Truth...? You probably won't like this one either where he talks about the importance of practice. Yeah..... Interesting, in the Sylvester vid, he says he still does at times feel moved to meditate, but it's simply for the present moment enjoyment of doing so, not to attain or achieve something, and I'm completely on with that! |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 14, 2022 17:15:52 GMT
Oh no, I hope I'm not about to shit on someone you resonate with, but I found him to be all over the map....constantly shifting context, at times outright contradicting himself and also making that same mistake ZD makes where he erroneously invokes the phenomenal appearance of unity/connection to make the point of "fundamental Oneness." He is using the view of the earth from a position on high through a telescope as an example of Oneness...complete with the idea that all borders between countries, etc, are merely conceptual. Yes, that is true, the divisions between countries, the various assigned names, are just that, assigned concepts, but there are distinctions that DO still appear within the appearing earth.... and sure, it's possible to conceptually collapse all those distinction/boundaries in favor of a focus that just sees the earth/planet as One, singular thing/object/appearance... the collapse of those conceptual boundaries, which leaves just the appearance of one/undivided/unified earth planet, though, is not what "fundamental Oneness" is pointing to. To see (realize) Oneness, seeing must be happening from prior to/beyond the realm of appearance, & as he does aptly say at one point, It's isn't WHAT you see, it's the position you are seeing from (or something similar...anyway, I did nod along at that point in agreement!). It was odd that he said that, but then used the appearance of the world from a position beyond as an example of "Oneness." The collapse of apparent boundaries relative to something that appears is NOT what "No separation/Oneness" is referencing. In SR, All appearances get seen to be empty and devoid of inherent existence....empty appearance only...transient, devoid of Truth, and it's in that that Oneness is apprehended. We don't need to collapse the appearance of distinction/boundaries as they too are included in that 'emptiness'...and ultimately, in/as "Oneness." The mistake this dude and ZD make is that they think Oneness is about collapsing the way mind categorizes and draws distinctions between things that appear in the apparent world. None of that is problematic so long as it's seen that all of the appearing world and all it's things, are ephemeral arisings within/to awareness...empty, arising dependent, having no inherent existence of their own. It's all One, not only renders the distinction between Hawaii and the ocean that surrounds it as appearance only, it also renders the very appearance of the earth as a whole, appearance only. On one hand he says the wave IS the ocean, but then goes on to say that what is sitting here is NOT a Catholic, a Jew, etc, not sitting here at war with itself....'there is just unbroken, limitless, eternity in all directions'. It's a context issue I think; He's on one hand, equating the appearance of the 'sitting here person,' with the infinite, but then, denying the apparent/experiential war going in mind, the belief systems of religion, political ideas/afilliations, etc. He demonstrates why it's so important to see the totality of anything experiential, right down to the most minute, nuanced sense/feeling, as "appearance only." Absent that, mind continues to try to conceptualize the pointer of Oneness...finding evidence of Oneness IN the appearing world itself. This bit seemed really off in terms of clarity: "That is the inheritance that is looking out of your own eyes, those are the gifts that all the buddhas of the past--they worked super, super hard to unfold, unbox...to understand that. If it wasn't for the Buddhas, the rishis the roshis, the zen masters, the sufi masters, the desert fodhers, if it wasn't for those boys and girls doing their homework and then the homework of the hubbles and Albert Einsteins, the Stephen Hawkins & the Rober Penroses, all those guys doing their homework, today I wouldn't be able to (I, I mean you), sit on my mediation mat, chair or cushion and experience my infinite eternity. So, It's either 100% unbroken, full on, fully connected, there is only one Oneness here, or there isn't. There aren't two ways of sitting on your meditation cushion, that only you sit as a Buddha, as Buddha nature, the Tao, you sit as Allah, Shiva, as Self, I am that I am...." He's positing all the understandings of past sages and scientists as 'causal' to a present moment of clarity about Truth...? You probably won't like this one either where he talks about the importance of practice. Watched the video....lol...even worst than i thought! This guy really doesn't get it....he's clearly mistaken realization for some kind of time-bound attainment, where one can incrementally 'get closer and closer' to the Truth. And he's reifying the body/person WHO/THAT meditates as the I. He says: "So what is the Tao, who am I, what is life, what is God--the answer to all those questions is this thing that sits on the meditation cushion or meditation chair." (Again, sounds very much like something ZD would say as he speaks of 'body-knowing' as some kind of transcendent seeing...and THIS knowing itself "VIA" the body/person). Then this dude goes on to say: "Your not going to get to the heart of the matter in 5 min....there's a reason the Buddha spent years and years, there's a reason Jesus spent years practicing and ended up going into the desert for 40 days, 40 nights...he wasn't going through the drive-thru of enlightenment, he was serious...daily practice...ever deepenening, getting closer to the source where I am is coming from." Yikes!  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 14, 2022 17:22:46 GMT
You probably won't like this one either where he talks about the importance of practice. I read somewhere: Enlightenment is an accident, spiritual practice makes you accident prone.I’ll take a look at this video later. Yes, that's one way of putting it so long as "prone" is not taken in any way to = "causal to".... i think many erroneously conflate that assertion with a "prescription to meditate so you will attain SR," vs. simply a comment about a correlation between a present moment, genuine interest to quiet mind and 'look at/see' what's fundamental to it, and awakening/SR. Where there is a sincere interest to look at/see/focus upon that which lies fundamental to all experience there's pron-ness to the "accident/shift in seeing," that = abiding SR. That does not mean that meditation practice 'creates/causes' SR/awakening. |
|
Esponja
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Esponja on Sept 18, 2022 12:14:09 GMT
Ordinary and Wonderful
|
|
farmer
Full Member
Carrys Purses
Posts: 171
|
Post by farmer on Sept 18, 2022 12:50:40 GMT
I only watched a few minutes of it..so maybe it gets better (but I doubt it!) he doesn't ever say anything! nothing worth a shit anyway! what possible good could hearing that do for anyone? |
|
I hope I'm not about to shit on someone you resonate with, but I found him to be all over the map....constantly shifting context, at times outright contradicting himself and also making that same mistake ZD makes where he erroneously invokes the phenomenal appearance of unity/connection to make the point of "fundamental Oneness." 
(It's the imagined person that says it's "my" story...a personal story).
