|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 19, 2022 17:05:35 GMT
Am enjoying the exchanges on ST about transcendence and figured the discussion deserves it's own thread.
Andrew, interesting what you are asking here about the meaning of 'transcendence,' and also your saying here about "conditions," and wanted to explore that a bit;
As I see it, it's never actually an appearing condition per se that "blocks" transcendence. What transcendence IS, is a viewpoint....place (non-place) of seeing that is "beyond/prior to," ALL appearing conditions. (It's possible you may regard the shift in seeing itself as a condition...? fwiw, I obviously do not).
The transcendence IS the shift to the viewpoint of beyond. That's what SR IS....the shift in primary perspective, from within the dream...from the locus of seeing primarily being with the person and thus, all things personal, to beyond, to a viewpoint that is impersonal.
Important to note....in SR, in "transcendence," it is not either one or the other...personal vs. impersonal...transcendence of the dream abides alongside the arising of dream-content, just fine. That's what it means to be awake to the dream as the dream is unfolding. It's what makes for 'freedom' from the world, (as the world continues to appear and continues to engage interest and attention).
So from where I sit, what Sree is saying about the rose makes sense...it's all about the locus of seeing as a rose appears...seeing it from beyond the dream means the rose is regarded in a different 'light' than the rose seen from being fast asleep within the dream....and it's not the appearance itself that changes, but the fundamental knowing about what the rose (and ALL other appearing things) is....(a non-separate, dependent arising, within the unwavering ground of awareness.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 19, 2022 17:14:29 GMT
Sree, your "transcendence" is not actually transcendent of the dream/story....it's another appearance...yet another experience, within the story.
To transcend or be free from personhood does not mean denying or negating the appearance/experience of personhood.
To be free from the world, we need not deny the world, but rather, simply see the world from a position of beyond it. From that shifted locus of seeing, we're no longer bound by and to the world as we are when attention is mired within it....seemingly mired to the appearing character/body/person.
As Jac O 'Keefe said; "The freedom you look for is where you are looking from."
In Truth, all looking is from that place of freedom/transcendence, it's an illusion/delusion that indicates otherwise. That false sense that seeing is happening via the appearing person is what gets seen through in the realization of Self/awakening.
A freedom that requires you to deny friendship...relationship between the appearing me character and apparent others is not true freedom at all....it's a horrible form of bondage. Your brand of freedom requires you to deny and denigrate experiential, dream-content. The dream and it's happenings never were the problem, rather it was the erroneous ideas about it all you took to be true.
Transcendence re-frames all the conditions that the person deemed responsible for bondage, and reveals they were never the problem after all....it was always imagining yourself to be a separate person and the world a separate thing, full of other separate things that was!
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 19, 2022 17:21:12 GMT
Not necessarily...more like accepting the fundamental perfection of all transient, appearing tastes, including ones that are not so personally pleasing, such as "sour."
Turning lemons to lemonade is more the realm of the person....working with mind to try to make appearing conditions more appealing/pleasant to the person....to try to 'turn down' the sense of dislike...sweeten things up via the application of thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 21, 2022 4:49:17 GMT
That's not the transcendence referenced in Nonduality. You're simply describing a mind state...an experience that is devoid of object recognition. That's NOT the shift in vantage point that is transcendent of the dream. Transcendence of the appearing world does not hinge upon a mind state where you "can tell anymore what you are looking at."
You can look around, identify and acknowledge a whole host of appearing things and simultaneously see/know them all to be empty appearance only, having no inherent existence in their right....to be appearing within/to, dependent upon the abiding ground of awareness within which they arise and fall.
The recognition of an appearing rose was never the problem....mistaking the appearing rose as having inherent existence...as being a separately existent thing that exists 'out there,' fundamental separate, apart from Self, was.
|
|
Esponja
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Esponja on Oct 21, 2022 5:17:17 GMT
Not necessarily...more like accepting the fundamental perfection of all transient, appearing tastes, including ones that are not so personally pleasing, such as "sour." Turning lemons to lemonade is more the realm of the person....working with mind to try to make appearing conditions more appealing/pleasant to the person....to try to 'turn down' the sense of dislike...sweeten things up via the application of thought. Nothing is good nor bad but thinking makes it so. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 21, 2022 5:31:09 GMT
Not necessarily...more like accepting the fundamental perfection of all transient, appearing tastes, including ones that are not so personally pleasing, such as "sour." Turning lemons to lemonade is more the realm of the person....working with mind to try to make appearing conditions more appealing/pleasant to the person....to try to 'turn down' the sense of dislike...sweeten things up via the application of thought. Nothing is good nor bad but thinking makes it so. Exactly! |
|
Esponja
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Esponja on Oct 23, 2022 6:20:00 GMT
Sree, your "transcendence" is not actually transcendent of the dream/story....it's another appearance...yet another experience, within the story. To transcend or be free from personhood does not mean denying or negating the appearance/experience of personhood. To be free from the world, we need not deny the world, but rather, simply see the world from a position of beyond it. From that shifted locus of seeing, we're no longer bound by and to the world as we are when attention is mired within it....seemingly mired to the appearing character/body/person. As Jac O 'Keefe said; "The freedom you look for is where you are looking from." In Truth, all looking is from that place of freedom/transcendence, it's an illusion/delusion that indicates otherwise. That false sense that seeing is happening via the appearing person is what gets seen through in the realization of Self/awakening. A freedom that requires you to deny friendship...relationship between the appearing me character and apparent others is not true freedom at all....it's a horrible form of bondage. Your brand of freedom requires you to deny and denigrate experiential, dream-content. The dream and it's happenings never were the problem, rather it was the erroneous ideas about it all you took to be true. Transcendence re-frames all the conditions that the person deemed responsible for bondage, and reveals they were never the problem after all....it was always imagining yourself to be a separate person and the world a separate thing, full of other separate things that was! 👏🏼👏🏼 |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 23, 2022 18:09:10 GMT
"Duality/Nonduality" is a reference to the fundamental nature of it all....the highest/deepest Truth about existence. Fundamental duality is an illusion. Distinction and limitation, of the ilk you are describing above, are relative facets of experience, but they are appearance only....ultimately, actually, despite the fact that relative limitation appears, but that appearance has no fundamental reality to it.
In your assertion re: the actuality of duality, you are mixing contexts and conflating fundamental Truth with relative experience...you are conflating apparent distinction with fundamental separation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 23, 2022 18:47:11 GMT
The false self goes even deeper than the appearing body though. Many say they've seen through the body/person 'self,' but they still continue to imagine a "Me/I" object/thingy that is a perceiver/experiencer.
And the real crazy thing is, there's several folks on these forums who say they've seen through the personal self that apparently inhabits a body, but then they still insist that the apparent seeing/perceiving/experiencing person before them, is known for absolute certain to in fact be an experiencer/seer. (...eyes that appear to be looking back/seeing, REALLY are).
Yes. And I would say if one is still insisting that appearing people before them are known for absolute certain to be experiencers/perceivers, then the grasp of false self has only been a conceptual grasp.
The realization/seeing through of the person, includes the seeing through of the body as giving rise to awareness, which means the end of absolute knowing of appearing persons as "experiencers/perceivers."
Bodies/brains that perceive and make experiencing possible are facets of the dream and yes, even after seeing them as empty appearance, those ideas do generally persist in terms of day to day experience, however, where there is SR, the realization of it all as empty appearance only, will reign primary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 23, 2022 19:48:35 GMT
You say this, and yet you also insist that you know for absolute certain that the person standing before you, apparently gazing into your apparent eyes, is seeing/perceiving, out of/with those eyes.
|
|
