Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2023 3:42:52 GMT
And there, you reveal YOUR dogma/sacred beliefs which you mistake to be Truth/Gospel. The very idea of a "soujourn" rife with opportunity that CAN be wasted...that is entirely a mind-fabricated idea. One way I see is that there are two different processes/directions, that both get labeled "spirituality". First there is the is the game of adding to your spiritual resume, which is the ego adding to itself, asserting itself. In this game, people collect these fabricated ideas that you mention, because the ideas flatter the ego, or protect it from the fear of annihilation, death, weakness, etc. Sometimes the ideas aren't entirely fabricated, but the ego is still playing a game of building its defenses. The second process is the one Niz and others pointed to. People finally start to get real; some kind of earnestness and humility is breaking through. Often, but not always, it is brought forth by some kind of "suffering". For example, the death of a loved one could suddenly show someone that they were kidding themselves with their spiritual philosophy. Admitting you know nothing is good in this second process, but the "spiritual" egos playing game #1 would never want to do that. I think this direction tends toward simplicity, and less talk. It's not because reality is boring or dumb, but one is not going to resolve these issues with words, and the world is drowning in all kinds of empty talk, including millions of pages of spiritual bullshit from people playing the first game. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 4, 2023 18:53:44 GMT
And there, you reveal YOUR dogma/sacred beliefs which you mistake to be Truth/Gospel. The very idea of a "soujourn" rife with opportunity that CAN be wasted...that is entirely a mind-fabricated idea. One way I see is that there are two different processes/directions, that both get labeled "spirituality". First there is the is the game of adding to your spiritual resume, which is the ego adding to itself, asserting itself. In this game, people collect these fabricated ideas that you mention, because the ideas flatter the ego, or protect it from the fear of annihilation, death, weakness, etc. Sometimes the ideas aren't entirely fabricated, but the ego is still playing a game of building its defenses. The second process is the one Niz and others pointed to. People finally start to get real; some kind of earnestness and humility is breaking through. Often, but not always, it is brought forth by some kind of "suffering". For example, the death of a loved one could suddenly show someone that they were kidding themselves with their spiritual philosophy. Admitting you know nothing is good in this second process, but the "spiritual" egos playing game #1 would never want to do that. I think this direction tends toward simplicity, and less talk. It's not because reality is boring or dumb, but one is not going to resolve these issues with words, and the world is drowning in all kinds of empty talk, including millions of pages of spiritual bullshit from people playing the first game. Yes, in the first process/direction, there is a strong bent towards trying to make sense of life....to have existential answers to all the "how/why" questions of a mind that is searching for those answers as though it's life depends upon it. The latter, there's at least a glimmer/starting to get the suspicion at least, that perhaps the very issue is the belief that those questions can be answered Absolutely. Once there is truly a seeing that no existential question can be answered with a pat, certain, absolute addition of 'knowledge,' it may not mean that relative 'how/why' ideas never again arise, but it does mean that if one does, it's not mistaken for "Absolute Truth." In other words, the seeing through of separation is not compatible with a simultaneous "Absolute knowing" that there is a fundamentally abiding, "Law" of attraction that dictates how/why what appears, appears, etc, etc. Relative "spiritual" ideas lose all their "Absolute" substance in the full realization of what you deem there to be 'the second process.' |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 19, 2023 18:22:54 GMT
I think that's an apt assessment.
This is why I say a good litmus test to determine whether there is true sincerity and readiness for Nonduality....readiness/ripe-ness to truly "let go," to the degree necessary for awakening/seeing through, is whether one is up for serious debate about it all...whether there is interest in taking those most sacred of dearly held beliefs/ideas, and going toe-to-toe with a point of view that is contrary to those, to see if/how they hold up.
The ultimate trashing/seeing through of erroneous beliefs, delusions and illusions, is not for the feint of heart. Those who balk at direct challenge of their views are demonstrating a fear of being wrong...of having their most sacred of beliefs, demolished.
The banning/blocking of civil, yet direct challenge that been happening on ST for several years now, most certainly demonstrates the presence of that fear/anger...and yeah, very likely "childhood trauma" you reference there.
Anyone who 'thinks' they are interested in seeing through separation....in transcending the SVP and comes to a public forum to discuss, should first and foremost get clear on how they feel about direct (civil) challenge of their views. If there's any discomfort at all surrounding that, that is a huge and important red flag..pertinent fact that begs to be inquired into deeply. There is absolute Gold there if one will first admit to that fear and then dig down into what the crux of it, is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 19, 2023 18:38:33 GMT
Agree with what you're both saying there. Where there is true intent to "belittle" all of that surely applies. The issue is though that when ego gets wounded, when there is fear in play re: the potential loss of sacred beliefs, it is quite possible that "belittlement/nastiness/etc." gets erroneously read-in, where it's actually not. A fragile ego, standing in defence of sacred views, will often assume ill intent of the one challenging their views, simply by virtue of that fact of that challenge. I speak from direct experience of being on the receiving end, on that one.  I don't think anyone could have been more vigilant in terms of trying to keep queries/challenges targeted to viewpoints/post content only and devoid of personal content that I was during my last round on ST....   It was quite hilarious the degree to which I found myself tippy-toeing through the tulips....walking on eggshells as i posed questions that were pertinent to the convo...and still....  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 4, 2023 20:50:06 GMT
When the prison cell walls have been decorated up with such coveted and prized pieces of art, those very walls themselves are in a sense, coveted. Just look how tenaciously certain separation based ideas are held to on these forums....the idea of creation/creator....LOA....like attract/dictates like, THIS is alive, conscious, which means each appearing thing is having it's own experience/perception, there IS personal volition that makes it possible for the person to choose where to place attention/focus, there IS actual causation within experience.... While all of those erroneous beliefs ultimately stand as an obscuring wall of the prison, to the SVP, this goes unseen....the idea of the wall (and the priceless art that decorates it) dissolving, invokes the greatest fear that could ever befall a person who is under the misconception that she has volition and full control over future outcomes. Feels like losing everything...gaining....nothing...  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 6, 2023 0:34:40 GMT
Excellent demonstration here of "sacred beliefs/ideas" that go unseen, even in those who uphold and present themselves to be SR;
This folks, quotes by Sifty below, is what the term "mental trigger" is referencing.
This is such an immensely, stellar example of how mind spins a message--holy shit Sifty--where was there any mention at ALL of "affirmative action"?
Sifty, Inavalin is clearly interested in New age/in the dream, self-help (pre SR) type "spirituality." And inherent to that is ideas about past life agreement....all those questions about how/why our current physical make-up is as it is, and stuff about paths, reasons for being, life purpose, etc. Of course, you're aware of that...?
If it turns out, relatively, scientifically, factually speaking, certain races do have different intellectual, physical propensities, based on DNA/genetic make-up, according to many scientific studies that mostly seem to be conducted ethically and soundly...none of those findings go hand in hand with "affirmative action." Seriously, you just demosntrated your own 'hair trigger' knee-jerk reaction to the mention of this subject.
It really is okay for example that there are, scientifally, apparently, genetic pre-delictions towards males being better at some things, females at others...certain races at some, not so good at others. Just life in all it's colors.
It takes a HUGE leap of mind to equate what Inavalin has posted/asked, with "affirmative action" or.....any suggestion about how people should be treated/dealt with according to those inherent genetic differences.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 14, 2023 20:57:56 GMT
Mind and experience are indeed informed and impacted by the absence of separation, post realization, but its a mistake to try to reverse engineer SR and it's experiential impacts by suggesting that certain experiences, pre-SR, are "hints/shadows" of an essential seeing through/absence, simply because they somewhat resemble those post SR impacts.
A true seen through/realized 'absence,' does not itself 'show up/appear' within experience. You seem to be mistaking the impact upon experience with the Truth itself. It's very important not to conflate the experiential impacts of SR, with the shift in seeing/seeing through/absence, itself.
SR = a seeing that is prior to/beyond ALL experiential content.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 14, 2023 21:37:28 GMT
This idea you continue to assert Muttley, fits the bill perfectly for what is meant by a 'sacred belief.' It's clear evidence that you have not fully, completely 'seen through' the entirety of content...to see it's all empty of inherent existence.
That assertion suggests to seekers that if they just keep looking 'within' experience, perhaps they too can receive that hint, or see the shadow that will reveal where the 'not-two' pointer is pointing. That is of course a nonsense. "Oneness" does not reveal itself within experiential content, rather, it's realization hinges upon a radical shift in locus of seeing from within experience, to beyond it.
The pointer "not two" is pointing to the essence, foundation of what appears....you're not going to see that by looking 'at' what appears...
Nonduality is not a means of "connecting/unifying" distinction, rather, it's a comment on all distinction as fundamentally being One. There is no need to connect/unify, or collapse apparent distinction...it is already, essentially, fundamentally One.
The problem never WAS the appearing distinction itself, rather, it was mistaking apparent distinction for fundamental separation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 14, 2023 21:46:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 15, 2023 19:07:29 GMT
There is NO place to go that is "further" in terms of SR, being awake, seeing primarily from the shifted locus of seeing that lies ground to all transient, ephemeral appearance that comes and goes. But that does not mean there is no experiential learning, new relative insight, etc.
It's just that those insights will no longer be taken as Truth, because it's now seen that all relative knowledge is inherently empty of such.
Well, in your admittance that you are NOT SR, you are admitting that you have zero knowledge of SR. So how could you know "unequivocally" anything related to SR?
In fairness to you, ZD does indeed waffle back on forth on this one, but for the record, he does often speak of himself as a physical, human entity/organism that sees through physical eyes.
You've got it completely backwards. The one's who are 'stuck' are those who are still exploring new age, relative theories about 'how/why' life happens as it does...it's those folks who have obviously not fully seen that the very existential questions of 'how/why' are inherently misconceived.
You are right though, Reefs is confused. On one hand, deeply interested in the Seth material, A-H, LOA, deliberate creation, but on the other, trying to present herself as SR/fully awake.....I've not though, as you suggest heard Reefs reference Seth and A-H teachings as "meaningless"....care to offer a quote?
|
|
It was quite hilarious the degree to which I found myself tippy-toeing through the tulips....walking on eggshells as i posed questions that were pertinent to the convo...and still.... 