|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 13, 2023 21:34:13 GMT
It's still mind/minding. Mystical experience...Woo woo minding, might seem to be beyond/prior to mind, but it isn't.
Those for whom deep mystical experience, is rare, have a harder time seeing those kinds of experiences as falling under the umbrella of 'experience.'
Just because it's like no other experience they've had previously, they leap to an erroneous understanding that what they experienced is 'transcendent' of mind. But it isn't.
Those who are complete strangers to mystical experience tend to falsely label Kensho/CC experiences as "beyond mind/transcendent" simply because of the sharp contrast in content between so called regular experience vs. those 'special' experiences.
For folks for whom the mystical has become normalized, it's far easier to see that regardless of how 'otherworldly' an experience may be, so long as it has a beginning and an end and can be described in great detail, it is STILL very much an experience...thus, still very much OF mind/minding and not actually a transcendent seeing/realization.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 14, 2023 22:25:43 GMT
Seriously, do you even attempt to understand what it being said? E used to call this kind of crap, 'poopy pants argument.' ...& rightly so.
No one has said that they don't "believe in" others. Those are your words. Relatively speaking, 'other people' relative to 'this/me person' DO appear. It's not about belief. Appearances that appear, are appearing. No belief involved at all. That a particular appearance IS appearing, in the moment such appearance is perceived, is direct/immediate knowing/seeing.
What Nonduality is pointing to is the 'actuality/Truth' behind the relative, experiential, appearance.
Fundamentally, there are no others...there is only One thingless thing.
Correct. The realization of fundamental oneness does not mean that the experience of multiples...of a me character in relation to a you character, ceases.
Relatively speaking, they still experienced a me character relative to other characters, but the realization that all characters are merely appearance only, arising non-separately within/to the abiding ground of awareness, abided that experience, reigning primary and thus, couching that experience within that clarity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 23, 2023 2:30:28 GMT
If you knew what SR really was, you'd see why that's merely an erroneous idea held by an imagined SVP....you see behaviors that bother you and you can't marry those with your erroneous idea of what SR is.
If you realize appearance is empty, there is no way to behave that will definitively portray that realization. The appearance continues to arise/appear even after seeing that it is empty and devoid of it's own, separate, inherent existence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 23, 2023 17:50:06 GMT
This is excellent. Nice, patient explanation...It speaks perfectly to the where the seeker who has no real reference at all for Truth, sits....perfect for where Tenka seems to be situated...am curious as to how he'll take it....something like this should not be ruffling feathers, but in one who wants badly to defend mind/ego...keep it in the pic at all costs, all bets are off.  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 23, 2023 17:59:08 GMT
On a Nonduality forum, you would think that, but the way it's being used, not only by Tenka, but by ZD and Reefs as they agree along with him, it has a different meaning. For Tenka, "there is only what you are," is a reification of the separate person...a way of affirming the inherent existence of the appearing person/body/mind, as 'an extenstion' of a something that is all powerful and that extends/infuses the appearing person with it's power via 'connection/unity' between them.
Reefs of course also shares this same idea, which is of course, a nonsense in terms of Nonduality/Truth. The 'extension/connection' idea reifies fundamental separation. That which was never separate, that which arises dependent upon the ground within which it appears, does not need to/nor can be "connected/unified"....it was fundamentally never really "apart" from (other than) that which gave rise to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 23, 2023 18:06:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 23, 2023 18:11:32 GMT
So...each expression then has inherent existence in it's own right....? Not so.
All expressions/appearances are empty and devoid of their own inherent existence....they appear within/to that which abides, dependent upon, not separate from that. It's a mistake to take an expression/appearance as having inherent existence....it equals separation.
Under that view, an appearing person IS a fundamentally existent some-thing....that's precisely what the delusion of separation is.
Waking up/SR means seeing that all appearance arises, temporally, ephemerally, dependent upon that which never changes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 23, 2023 19:46:39 GMT
"One" is a non-conceptual pointer to Truth, "same" is a relative, comparitive measurement/judgment. It's misconceived to use those two terms together. "One" does not equal "the same." If not for 'distinction' there would be no-thing at all to experience....no appearing World...no appearing stuff.
"The same" is a conceptualization where only a non-conceptual pointer will do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 25, 2023 20:27:53 GMT
Ultimately, there is no "other than," which means at the level of an appearing "you"....the me that is on par with that, is the appearing me character...neither "you person/me person" then "exists" in it's own right....both are appearance arising within/to that which abides/exists.
In seeing that is transcendent of the appearing 'me character/person,' there are no things requiring 'connection,' as all is fundamentally One.
What you "essentially" are is unconditional, unlimited...the expression...the me character, all 'you' characters are appearing within/to that essence, not separate from that, but also, not ultimately 'essential' in their own right. Their appearance depends upon that which IS essential.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 25, 2023 20:33:09 GMT
"I am" is not a reference to the sense of being a personal mind/individual being, it's a reference to that which is aware of the person and aware of other persons. It's true, all appearance does ultimately (third mountain position) get included in "what i am," but it's absent identification with any of those appearing things. The "essential nature" of what I am, remains the ground of awareness.
|
|
