|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 14, 2023 21:28:09 GMT
There is no need to "unite/unify/connect" that which was never separate in the first place. In seeing that all temporal appearance, including the "me character" complete with it's seemingly unique, discrete window of perception in relation to other seemingly unique windows of perception, is arising "within/to" abiding, unwavering, unchanging ground of awareness, the erroneous idea/sense that there are "fundamentally" two things operating, dissolves.
There is no requirement to see the temporal, appearing, changing to BE 'abiding/unchanging' in order to be free. It's enough to see that the temporal/changing, is appearing upon the abiding screen of Consciousness.....a fleeting/temporal expression thereof.
So much of the argument circulates around that erroneous idea that in order for it all to fundamentally be One, no separation, there must be a way to render that which temporally appears, that which ephemerally arises and comes and goes, to "itself" BE abiding in nature.
This is why the whole question of "the nature" of a cat, a shoe, or anything else that appears, hinges upon a delusion/misconception. There is no abiding nature "within" the temporal....the temporal arises within the abiding and not the other way around.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 14, 2023 21:53:43 GMT
I'm confused....So do you agree with Tenka then that mind/body construct is somehow NOT "an impermanent appearance"?
There is no point at which an appearance (any appearance, regardless of how awe-inspiring or amazingly beautiful it may be) BECOMES abiding/permanent.
I think this is point that is chronically in contention...it's most definitely what's at the heart of the "I do know" assertion that Reefs and ZD are holding to.
Keep in mind all metaphor ultimately fails, but Satchi brought this one up recently, and imo, at the most perfect of times in the convo....An appearance on the movie screen never "becomes" specifically, the screen. It always remains an appearance, appearing upon the screen. That said, they are fundamentally One...no separation...not ultimately 'two.'
The screen abides unchanging as all the temporal, changing, coming/going drama appears.
Many are trying to do some sort of magic trick, whereby they wave a wand and the movie that appears on the screen, is suddenly not changing/temporal anymore...somehow it "becomes" abiding....unchanging.
Temporality is not a problem to be solved. Freedom does not require the dissolving of that which comes and goes...only to see as such...and as such, as fundamentally, not separate from the ground within which it arises.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 15, 2023 19:41:32 GMT
"I am THAT I am." Ever heard that one? Far too many misconstrue what's being pointed to there...they focus on "That" in a way that means "not this"...not "here"...but rather, "there/that." That's where get "I am the paperclip,"...and then the mentally contrued notion that as a paperclip, I am aware, perceiving, experiencing.
When really, what's being indicated with "I am that I am," is; I am (existence IS) the very fact that Awareness IS. Always. Whether there is content to "be aware of," of not. I am the fact that awareness IS.
I am THAT (the fact that) I am aware.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 15, 2023 19:48:30 GMT
.
Yes, ultimately, if freedom is to be, they must be, but in truly disentangling them, of course, it's then realized that fundamentally, they are One...personal arising within/to impersonal...in that the impersonal vantage point becomes primary, which means it trumps "and encompasses" the personal....the personal in the awakened is then "couched within" the over-riding, primary locus of seeing, which lies beyond it all.
My largest contention with the whole practice thing is that where there is an actual, sincere and earnest interest in directly looking/seeing, in not BS-ing oneself, there will be no requirement for a "practice plan,".... looking/inquiry will simply happen.
I see a "practice" as a pre-planned activity, that generally hinges upon merely saying you want to see something, but deep down, not really wanting that at all.
In the sincere/earnest, looking/inquiring, just happens. The highest interest in a given moment, always wins out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 15, 2023 19:59:39 GMT
Sharon, can you not see that you are invoking the very same fallacies in this line of dialogue below, as SDP is invoking?
You are clearly reifying "the past" as something inherently existent and inherently necessary to the existence of THIS...here...NOW....presence.
That, plain and simply = erroneously imagined separation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 31, 2023 5:30:07 GMT
Niz also said the same, but he did so from the position of 3rd mountain, integration, after fully seeing through the mountain in 2nd position. Tenka has not seen through the mountain and that makes his assertion of "there is nothing that you are not," a statement of identification.
Nope. Not at all. You're mischaracterizing my position. Only the erroneous imaginings are false...the delusions/illusions. Imagined separation is false..an SVP....causation within the dream....inviolable "laws" that supposedly govern how experience can unfold.....the apparent me character/person, is not. Appearances DO appear, a me character is one of those of those appearances. I don't reference appearance/perceivables as false.
All appearance is empty of it's own inherent existence...empty of Truth, but empty of Truth does not equal each appearance as it appears, being "false." The delusion/falsity lies in taking an appearance that has no inherent existence in it's own right and erroneously mistake that appearance for evidence of Absolute Truth, as ZD and Reefs do.
I actually have not heard zd saying that "it's all THIS" equals "it's all true." THIS excludes nothing....all is encompassed, which means then, the very delusion of being an SVP, is THIS. Surely neither zd nor you would say the delusion of being an SVP is 'true'?
As far as I recall, E never used that terminology..."It's all true." And there's a good reason for that.
And for what it's worth, while Reefs flip-flops like crazy and demonstrates deep confusing about what is what, I don't recall her ever using the term 'true' in quite that strange way that you are invoking it here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 31, 2023 5:36:43 GMT
In Truth/talk/Nonduality, "false" is a reference to an idea that has it's basis in delusion....separation is false. There are not degrees to the falsity as you suggest there. The realization of falsity/delusion/illusion is stark and not subject to the kind of line drawing you are suggesting there.
Either the false is seen as false or there is still separation in play. It's black and white...there is no haggling within about whether that which has been seen as false is false 'enough' to be accepted as such. It's obvious...self evident...directly seen through as erroneous.
It's shocking to me how so many of you over there are still playing around with commonly used Nonduality terminology like this...clearly conceptualizing it and immersed in deep confusion as to what's actually being pointed to/said.
|
|
|
|
Post by ghostofmuttley on Aug 31, 2023 21:50:58 GMT
Nope. Not at all. You're mischaracterizing my position. Only the erroneous imaginings are false...the delusions/illusions. Imagined separation is false..an SVP....causation within the dream....inviolable "laws" that supposedly govern how experience can unfold.....the apparent me character/person, is not. Appearances DO appear, a me character is one of those of those appearances. I don't reference appearance/perceivables as false. All appearance is empty of it's own inherent existence.. .empty of Truth, but empty of Truth does not equal each appearance as it appears, being "false." The delusion/falsity lies in taking an appearance that has no inherent existence in it's own right and erroneously mistake that appearance for evidence of Absolute Truth, as ZD and Reefs do. Dwaddler dwaddlin' up dwads much?  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 31, 2023 23:07:39 GMT
Nope. Not at all. You're mischaracterizing my position. Only the erroneous imaginings are false...the delusions/illusions. Imagined separation is false..an SVP....causation within the dream....inviolable "laws" that supposedly govern how experience can unfold.....the apparent me character/person, is not. Appearances DO appear, a me character is one of those of those appearances. I don't reference appearance/perceivables as false. All appearance is empty of it's own inherent existence.. .empty of Truth, but empty of Truth does not equal each appearance as it appears, being "false." The delusion/falsity lies in taking an appearance that has no inherent existence in it's own right and erroneously mistake that appearance for evidence of Absolute Truth, as ZD and Reefs do. Dwaddler dwaddlin' up dwads much? There is a rather huge and important distinction between the denoting of ALL experiential content as "false," vs. realizing/denoting specific delusions/illusions to be false. Are you really unable to see the difference? All experiential content = appearance only. But that which appears, is not "false." That which the SVP erroneously "thinks/imagines" is appearing, (separation) really, never truly appears....it's always ever only but a 'false idea.' This is incredibly important and I promise you, not a dwad at all; otherwise, we get Jeff-Foster's 'brown-bear' declaring that experiential content is not appearing at all....flat out denials of experiential content, because it's been erroneously declared to be "false/not experienced/appearing." A me/character "appears/arises in experience"....an SVP does not...never did...was only ever falsely imagined. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 31, 2023 23:18:10 GMT
Simplified;
In erroneously conflating "emptiness/devoidness of inherent existence in it's own right" with "false," (as you are clearly doing above) you are entering into "Brown-Bear" territory.
ALL appearance is indeed empty of inherent existence....but that does not equal appearance "is false."
That which arises in experience, IS appearing. No need to deny that appearance....no need to make that appearance somehow disappear or denigrate it order for freedom/liberation to be.
|
|
