|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 2, 2023 16:48:02 GMT
Am enjoying and agreeing with Ouro's posts in this convo over on ST--the very bent towards somehow denying, ignoring, or trying to make distinction disappear, is an odd one. Distinction never was the problem....it's apparent only.....the issue has always been "fundamental separation." Careful Ouro....as it starts to become evident that your points are far more valid and that fact is starting to hit home, you may start to get accusations thrown at you that you're too much like a dog with a bone....or more likely, those countering your points, will just shut the convo down.   Very few on ST willing to take dharma combat right down to the crux of Truth....it's those blankies... The mutt is hanging by a thread right now...trying to keep the simmering pot from boiling over....the bubbles and steam are starting to reach a crescendo...a few more exchanges....and......  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 5, 2023 4:16:08 GMT
The very fact you are speaking of a tree....and the Earth, says the distinction is not 'arbitrary'. If not for the apparent distinction, there are not two apparent things to even reference. It all becomes very simple when ALL distinction is seen to be appearance only. There is no longer anything to resolve. Fundamental separation is not apparent distinction. Freedom depends upon seeing through separation. Distinction is fine. Good luck getting that to go if for some strange reason that is your intent.  |
|
|
|
Post by ghostofmuttley on Jun 5, 2023 9:11:05 GMT
The very fact you are speaking of a tree....and the Earth, says the distinction is not 'arbitrary'. If not for the apparent distinction, there are not two apparent things to even reference. It all becomes very simple when ALL distinction is seen to be appearance only. There is no longer anything to resolve. Fundamental separation is not apparent distinction. Freedom depends upon seeing through separation. Distinction is fine. Good luck getting that to go if for some strange reason that is your intent. You're not banned over there any longer, and I choose not to reply to the substance here. Can you resist the urge to paint an unflattering portrait of the hound based on this? |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 5, 2023 14:17:52 GMT
The very fact you are speaking of a tree....and the Earth, says the distinction is not 'arbitrary'. If not for the apparent distinction, there are not two apparent things to even reference. It all becomes very simple when ALL distinction is seen to be appearance only. There is no longer anything to resolve. Fundamental separation is not apparent distinction. Freedom depends upon seeing through separation. Distinction is fine. Good luck getting that to go if for some strange reason that is your intent. You're not banned over there any longer, and I choose not to reply to the substance here. Can you resist the urge to paint an unflattering portrait of the hound based on this? Were you aware of the double-bind nature of that question as you posted it? |
|
|
|
Post by ghostofmuttley on Jun 6, 2023 16:52:43 GMT
You're not banned over there any longer, and I choose not to reply to the substance here. Can you resist the urge to paint an unflattering portrait of the hound based on this? Were you aware of the double-bind nature of that question as you posted it?
Why yes. Yes I was.  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 8, 2023 15:56:23 GMT
Exactly. And currently on ST, ZD and a few others are conflating distinction with separation. There's no downside to the perception of distinction...absent distinction there is nothing at all TO experience...no content at all.
It's only ever been 'fundamental' separation that was/is the issue. As you say...it's a delusion/a mis-perception.
The glimpse the SVP gets is not the same as when the locus of seeing actually shifts to 'beyond/prior to' the personal. All the person can do is try to imagine the dissolving of separation...try to imagine seeing from beyond/prior to the person. When the person is well in play, it's far more persistent and remains present even as a sort of 'ghost' even when it 'seems' as though it's not in play.
Realization/seeing through is what's required for a true reference (even if only a glimpse) of Oneness. The best that can happen when the SVP is still in play is a conception idea of Oneness...conceptual "unity/connection"...
Yes. My newborn son grabbed his father's finger mere moments after being born, when hubs held it up in front of his face...obviously that finger registered as 'distinct' from whatever else was in his field of vision.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 28, 2023 5:33:16 GMT
What precisely do you think I 'discount'?
To see ALL appearance as empty and devoid of inherent existence/Truth is not to discount the appearance as an appearance. It is only a discounting of the appearance as having inherent existence.
To see the emptiness of the world is not to "discount" deny or in any way 'denigrate' the appearing world. That is a common fallacy/misconstruing of Nonduality pointers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 12, 2023 1:55:05 GMT
It does make sense. My last post is kind of in synch with this. As I said, just because the me character, the unfolding, related story is all "appearance only," does not mean it's impossible that it might continue on post bodily death, into some kind of "world beyond." That world, as you suggest, would also be appearance only....experiential content, arising within/to abiding Awareness. I continue to have relationship/communication with dead relatives....at times receiving guidance from "beyond," etc, etc, but I am crystal clear that none of that is "actually/fundamentally" transcendent/beyond....it's still all relative, experiential content, thus, inherently empty and devoid of inherent existence....it's still all 'story/dream-content.' As far as 'story content' goes, pretty wonderful, I must say.  ...those are relative judgments and to be fair, there are some, such as Jed McKenna, who do seem to edge up pretty close to saying that post "enlightenment" (that's what Jed calls it) life is "meaningless....superfluous." That as i see it is mistaking mind's judgments as mind is informed, post "realization/seeing through," for Truth. Why do some fall deeply, abidingly, in love with life...the world...the very fact OF experience arising post SR, whereas others, like Jed McKenna, no longer find much interest in it at all? I think it's partly because there's still a personality appearing.....complete with likes/dislikes...judgments. What's important to see is that neither the falling in love with life nor the blaze, indifferent attitude towards it all, is "Truth." The ways in which SR impacts experience, Do vary. There's still "meaning" than can be/is assigned, but it's now clear that that is based upon personal opinion/judgments and not an Absolute meaning that we can say is True and applies straight across the board as the Absolute Truth. Ina often states some very firm knowings about life purpose and such...."reasons" for why there is a personal experience, and really those kinds of ideas are fine so long as they are denoted to be opinion vs. Absolute Truth. There is no Absolute, existential answer to the relative questions of how/why/what and in the clear seeing of that, interest in those kinds of ideas usually wanes and even disappears. In a dream, anything at all can happen. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 12, 2023 1:57:49 GMT
Really well said. Agree with all you're saying here. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 18, 2024 19:02:02 GMT
The "illusion" is in taking that experiential "me" that experientially "reacts" to apparent conditions, as being "actual"...as having it's own inherent existence, as being something other than "an appearance only."
This is akin to saying there is no doer behind actions, no experiencer behind experience, (which is an expression of Truth) AND, there is also "No actions....also no experience."
You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. You are denying experience....denying appearance...denying perceivables...denying the arising, unfolding dream.
Take the movie screen analogy; What you are doing is taking the realization that all the movie drama is an appearance upon the screen and then concluding that because it's all appearing on the screen, "there is NO movie...no up/down drama/story."
There IS an unfolding movie...and that unfolding movie and it's content, so long as it's seen for what it is, and is not mistaken as having it's own inherent existence, never WAS the problem.
The up/down movement between arising feelings/emotions, never was the problem, Bill,....mistaking the apparent "me" that apparently feels those emotions for an SVP, was!
You don't need to deny the content of experience in order to transcend it. And that's precisely what you do when you insist there is no "ride." There need not be an existent "rider/me" in order to acknowledge the "movement" of feeling that is part and parcel of experience.
|
|
