Transcendence | Spiritualgab

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

Transcendence Jan 6, 2024 23:02:43 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jan 6, 2024 23:02:43 GMT

SDP:
Tenka doesn't even know conceptually, set aside, gnosisly, the illusory nature of (the small s) self. It boils down to that.

Precisely. I think that is more than clear to most of us, well, except ZD.

For ZD, it's enough that Tenka keeps saying "There is only what you are" and stands by that. But what ZD is failing to recognize is that absent any reference for what is being pointed to by the term "seeing through/absence of separate/volitonal person," one who from that position of obviously, still being identified with the imaginary, limited, volitional, inherently existent "me entity," who along with that, takes himself to be "everything," is merely conceptualizing "Oneness" as a large blog of connected/unified things.

Tenka's "everything" is still rife with personal, erroneous, identification.....with imagining all things, including himself as the appearing me character, to have discrete, unique, inherent existent in it's own right.

It's clear that Tenka has zero reference for the ground of abiding awareness within which/to which the appearing world and it's all apparent things, arises.

Tenka ascribes equal 'inherent existence' to the temporally appearing body/mind as he does to the ground (of which he clearly only has conceptual grasp).

Tenka has yet to apprehend the unchanging/abiding...he seems to have some reference for witnessing and has I think at times, referenced "the witness," but as some of us are aware, there is ultimately no such "thing"...a witness gets imagined into that equation in the same way that a doer/volitional entity gets imagined into all scenarios where something seems to be 'getting done.'

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

Transcendence Jan 6, 2024 23:06:49 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jan 6, 2024 23:06:49 GMT

Tenka:
And as soon as you put that into words it has to filter through your existential beliefs that reflect your conditioning of what concepts mean to you, no matter how far one want's to exclude themselves from them.

Muttley:

What existential belief? Be specific. You're mistaking a statement of absence for something that it is not.

Ask Tenka to define what he even means by "existential belief." I'd put money on the fact that he doesn't even have a definition and if he does, it's divergently different from what the term actually means.

Not only does Tenka have zero reference for what Nonduality pointers are pointing to, his relative grasp of what even the most basic terms used in these discussions is loose at best.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

Transcendence Jan 6, 2024 23:38:52 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jan 6, 2024 23:38:52 GMT

Tenka:
I have read along with peeps for 10 years on forums, the hardcore ND peeps all sing from the same hymn sheet.

The question that begs some inquiry Tenka, is "why" do you continue to read along..? Clearly, there is an interest that continues to arise, despite the shared fact of your frustrations. I extend this question to SDP as well....whether you recognize it or not, there is something niggling behind your irritation with the Nondual message/pointers....a teensy shred of intuition that suggests "maybe"....just "maybe" you don't have it all sewn up/figured up....maybe those annoying Nondualists really ARE onto something....

If you really did simply think the entire message was "bonkers," short of being a beggar for punishment,you'd likely have left and stayed away, a long time ago. Ponder that...

And the reason it seems as though all ND peeps 'sing from the same hymn sheet,' is because, a hymn that is pointing to the same Truth, regardless of specific language, is going to all be pointing to the same "thingless thing," and thus, there's bound to be some commonality of terms as mind attempts to conceptualize that ineffable Truth in order to try to talk about it.

From the illusory peep, to the dream world scenario. I just read something on another forum from this lady who declared she knows everything about Non duality and knows for certain life is a dream. I mean you just don't get this from ordinary folk.

Agreed. So called "ordinary" grasp of reality, (the one Nondual folks have realized to be delusional

), seems to be the status quo...the norm...the 'common' take in comparison to the awakened viewpoint.

Again, Tenka, why would you even 'want' to hang out for 10 yrs. with a bunch of folks you deem to be "not ordinary....abnormal...cultists....bonkers"? Somethin' 'aint adding up dude.

It's like a cult. Peeps read stuff and recite it like it's the truth.

To one who has truly apprehended what's been pointed to by that stuff they read, it's not mere "reciting" at all....it's an enthusiastic concurring....it feels like a celebration of sorts to know that what you're seeing has been apprehended and is being shared by a fellow traveller...

You can spot a N.D. peep a mile off. You ask a question against their core beliefs and it goes pear shaped pretty quickly, You're either not even here to begin with and if you are you're an illusory dream character that arises in consciousness.

The absence of separation...of a separate, inherently existent someone/person is NOT itself a 'core belief.' it's actually the seeing through/absence of a previous "core belief."

It's not normal mate. Soz, butt it ain't. This type of talk belongs in a niche club, that recites the scriptures when push comes to shove.

What I've noticed is that you are far more okay with unflattering labelling and name-calling than the "nondualists" whose forums you keep coming to (for some strange reason).

I mean I like ZD and find him highly respectful butt he doesn't know what the spirit or soul refers too, only consciousness.

If ZD truly is SR (fwiw, I don't think so) then in his apprehending that "it's ALL consciousness/All One," it matters not whether or not he has experiential reference for some other aspect of personal self that he might call "soul/spirit," as regardless, that too would fall under "temporal arising" or as some of like to say, "appearance only."

I used to pull figs up on her posts, for they weren't normal. Its was like a non duality language that you wouldn't dare speak of down the pub with your mates.

True. That's the thing about Truth-talk....unless someone demonstrates an interest in 'going there,' it's very, very unlikely I'm gonna bring it up....in the same way that you are all irritated and pissed off (and you come to these forums willingly) just imagine how pissed one is gonna get if he's sitting in a pub, zero interest at all in anything other than the sports on the screen in front of him, getting an earful about how the SVP he imagines himself to be, is a delusion/illusion.

There is defo a code here that N.D.'s speak of, the general public wouldn't have a clue what's been said.

Yup. So why do you keep talking to people who are talking in code about something you don't have a clue about?

The thing is, half of what is said, isn't known lol, and if it is, it's only a pointer what is True, that can't be conceptualised.

I am not having a rant here,

Just a laugh at a bunch of folks whom you consider to be "not normal...bonkers....cultish"?

Again, why on earth would you keep coming to a forum where the majority of of folks are bonkers?

I am not anti N.D. peeps, it's just I see through it all .

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

Transcendence Jan 7, 2024 19:57:08 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jan 7, 2024 19:57:08 GMT

Tenka:
You believe that what you are that exists can read. Correct? That is an existential belief.

How do you come away from 10 yrs. reading along on a Nonduality forum to have zero reference for "that which appears having no inherent existence in it's own right"?

I'm quite sure Laffy will tell you that "what he is that exists" does not a)involve belief of any kind (it's realized/self-evident once the SVP is gone) and b)that which abidingly exists does not possess reading skills or any other properties/qualities. A person and his reading skills is an appearance within/to that which abidingly exists, as ground to all appearance.

There is no "existent" person, who reads.