|
|
Post by Gopal on Feb 21, 2023 6:02:08 GMT
Each individual is imprinted with a unique set of characteristics that are deemed indispensable in fulfilling their respective roles in life. There is little room for doubt in this regard. However, as I expounded upon the topic of Reefs in my writing, I may have employed a touch of humor.Ah, okay...Gotcha...that's precisely what i was asking about..thanks.  Certainly, I was not deeply invested in the philosophical discussion that took place in that location. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 27, 2023 4:00:17 GMT
More likely than not, if anger were arising and you stopped to just look at/observe that anger, it would fizzle out pretty quick, perhaps even right on the spot.
Agreed. No no need to "put" distance between awareness and content, but by the very fact there of distinguishing each, you yourself ARE acknowledging a distinction between them. That's all that's necessary....nothing less, nothing more. The end of identification depends upon clarity as to that distinction. Again, distinction is NOT "fundamental separation."
You are the only one talking about "estrangement".....to simply see a distinction between that which abides....remains unchanging..unwavering vs. that which comes and goes, has a beginning and an end, does not mean holding an idea that the two are 'estranged' from one another. Ultimately, there is no separation between awareness and expression. But so long as there is expression/experiential content, there IS distinction. Absent distinction, nothing at all arising in experience.
In order to arrive at 3rd mountain position where the world is engaged absent mistaking any of it for having inherent existence, but where ultimately, the world is not separate from the awareness within which it arises, you must first see through the mountain, which means the end of identification with some-thing-ness.
The sage who says "I am all of it," is no longer identified with any-thing in particular.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 27, 2023 4:14:38 GMT
If you're genuinely interested in the contents/machinations of mind, sure you can. Doing so is what it means to live 'consciously' and aware of mind's movements...content. I'll never forget my daughter at a very young age, having just had a tantrum telling me that when she looked at her anger, she didn't feel angry any more. I had often to talked to my kids about observing their feelings...self talk, that kind of thing, and it was amazing how simple this was to them to just turn within and look...evidence of how unfettered children's mind's are early on like that. A few years later, they were not nearly as open to that kind of thing...quite sure I received more than my fair share of eye rolls... You are mistaking an ability to see the distinction between observation and the observed with fundamental division. Awareness and content are "fundamentally One," but absent distinction, there IS no content...no appearance....no perceivable...nothing at TO see/observe...just unfettered, unwavering awareness abiding as ground. That ability to "prise apart" awareness and the content of awareness, to see them as distinct, is the cornerstone of becoming conscious and aware of mind's machinations. That may not be SR/wakefulness, but to live consciously, as a person who is highly attuned and aware of mind's content, surely is the next best thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 4, 2023 5:40:50 GMT
I think you are mistaken.....I doubt anyone said specifically that "everything that is said is incorrect" because it's of the mind...I suspect the terming was more akin to "words themselves can never BE the Truth," or something similar. And it is so....words/ideas/thought can only point to the Truth and never actually capture it...and that is precisely because the realization of Truth is entirely "non-conceptual," and it's only as mind/experience is informed of that seeing through/absence that descriptions/conceptions are formed in mind.
The words "no separation/not two" are mind's way of talking about/writing about a realization/seeing through. If all one has in terms of reference for those words is a conceptual understanding, then he and the one who have a non-conceptual understanding are not even in the same ball-park in terms of their conversation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 5, 2023 18:32:31 GMT
In wakefulness, the two contexts abide simultaneously. But unless you have direct, actual reference for the shift that is SR, I know that will sound rather impossible.
In that shift, the primary 'locus' of seeing moves from within the story/dream....from seemingly being through/from the eyes of a separate, volitional person, TO 'beyond/prior to' all of that. In that shift, the person, body, his eyes, the very sense of seeing/vision through eyes, all of that, and all else, is 'out front,' of the awareness of it, and yet, ALSO, not separate from the awareness of it.
So called "ordinary life," continues on, but now it's 'framed' within that primary place of seeing...thus, the seeing through the eyes of the person, while it still happens experientially, is not framed within that higher, primary position of seeing.
To "BE" awake, is always a present NOW thing....it means that whatever is arising in experience, is by virtue of being experienced, "a distinction/expression of Awareness," but ALSO not fundamentally separate from Awareness.
Many make the mistake of denoting Abiding fundamental Awareness to be "exactly the same/zero distinction" from that which appears, but that is misconceived as absent any distinction/expression at all, there can be no-thing at all TO experience.
Experience = distinction/expression. And that's how we can have "both" contexts (appearance/fundamental awareness) simultaneous to each other.
I can engage the "experience of" actions having consequences while also being absolutely clear that "Ultimately" there is no causation within experience.
Nothing that is truly appearing needs to be denied. Fundamental Separation..volition...causation... never truly appears...it is always only erroneously inferred.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 5, 2023 20:01:55 GMT
Indeed, and it's important to see that prior to landing on "the perceivable realm is all imagined/empty of existence/Awareness awareing."
I really don't like that term "imagined" as used to describe "appearance," plain and simply because, at 2nd mountain position, (in order to truly, fully flow on through to 3rd mountain, full integration) is MUST clearly be seen, the distinction between that which IS/DOES appear, vs. that which is erroneously inferred or assumed.
Fundamental Separation itself never does appear....it's merely inferred/assumed based on the false viewpoint of an imagined, existent, entity/person. from that singular delusion, all sorts of sub-delusions are invoked....personal volition...causation....time....the basis of all those beliefs/ideas hinge upon the original, basic delusion/illusion of separation.
Distinction DOES appear...it's not "imagined" in the same way that "separation" is imagined. And yet, at 3rd mountain position, full integration, to say the entire world...all perceivables are "imagined" (if that is to denote all arising in/of mind...all perceivables....minding....Awareness expression) that is of course, obviously, apt.
I see many who try to pass themselves off as SR, who have not yet finished at 2nd mountain position; They are unable to clearly see the distinction between what truly IS, imminently appearing, vs. what is imagined. It can get tricky too, as a thought of the past/memory, can be said to be appearing, but the thing/object recalled within that memory, is merely being imagined/recalled in mind, vs. directly appearing itself, in experience.
ZD and Reefs both seem to have trouble with this....often mix up that which does imminently appear vs. that which is erroneously inferred, or that which is simply recalled in mind as an ideation/remembering of some-thing that seemingly appeared in the past vs. imminently, directly appearing/arising.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 5, 2023 20:15:17 GMT
Mmm....that word 'different' doesn't belong. Indeed, "Fundamentally" they are not three, not two...undivided/One." However, the very fact you can denote 'each' as independent in terms of an experiential facet, speaks to them being 'distinct/different.' The term 'different' is a relative term...that is synonymous with distinction...should not be used imo, to equal "not separate/One." When we use that that term or even worse, 'exactly the same,' then we get folks invoking silly ideas such as "because a tree arises not-separate, within awareness, it is therefore awareness...exactly the same, no difference at all...not distinct...and by virtue of that, I know it to be having it's own conscious, aware experience."  You just demonstrated through your reference there to 3 facets of experience that experientially, there is of course, difference/distinction. That experiential 'difference' is never the problem. What is, is mistaking appearing different/distinction FOR "fundamental/actual separation." ZD also makes this mistake....it's akin to throwing baby out with bathwater. All that's necessary for freedom is to see through fundamental separation....the appearance of difference/distinction...discrete objects/things, never was the problem!..never will be a problem. Thank God eh...? Imagine no longer being able to see any distinction at all....all those stubbed toes....scuffed noses....  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 5, 2023 20:43:29 GMT
Oneness is not really "a context," rather, it's a realization, seeing through that re-frames relative "two-ness." Post SR, life is lived with an absence of the belief/idea/sense of "fundamental separation," despite there still being relative, experiential distinction between apparent things/objects, sounds, senses, thoughts, sounds, etc.
Just because there is engagement/behaviors/actions that indicate the experience of distinct things does not equal evidence that there's fundamental separation/an SVP in play.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 5, 2023 20:46:37 GMT
Hmmm....doesn't "dual/non-dual" point to the fundamental/actual nature? In actuality then, there is no 'duality.' There is apparent distinction...but Non-duality....no separation....not-two, really does mean that despite appearing distinction, fundamentally, there is no duality/separation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 5, 2023 20:50:35 GMT
You are describing your mere 'mental conception' of what Nonduality/Oneness is. The actuality is not a sense/feeling...it's a seeing through...an absence, which of course, as experience arises, has it's experiential, mind-informed counterpart, but it's a mistake to conflate the feeling of 'unity' or even a feeling/sense of 'absence' with the actuality. This is "finger/moon" stuff, yet again.
|
|
