|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 18, 2024 19:16:02 GMT
Muttley,It's only those facets of experience that are erroneously "imagined"...that never "actually" were appearing that need to be seen through.
An up/down movement/play between feelings/emotions IS relatively speaking, a facet of the overall human experience. There is no need to deny that "ride" nor the experiential "me" that judges conditions and likes some of them, dislikes others. None of that is a problem.
What IS a problem is mistaking that apparent "me character" for an existent "someone/something." When that happens, then those emotions/feelings will also be identified with...the imagined SVP will attempt to control that up/down movement, as it erroneously judges that very "ride/up/down movement" itself, to be "fundamentally wrong/bad."
And, what's interesting is that in your mistakingly assigning "illusion" status to that appearance, as the story unfolds, of up/down movement between feeling states, it kind of seems as though you too are judging that natural up/down movement to be "bad/wrong,"...is that so?
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 19, 2024 16:35:47 GMT
All valid, pointiest of pointers from that position of "collapse" that lies beyond all perceivables... that "greasy spot" E used to talk about.
When Gopal speaks of the up/down movement of an emotional "roller-coaster" he is speaking from a context that includes the phenomenal, unfolding story...he's speaking from a position of seeing that is beyond the phenomenal, as he's clearly able to look at 'the unfolding story and it's content,' whereby he can then, comment on that obvious, evident, experience facet (up/down movement between feeling polaries).
When you tell him there is ultimately "no ride," you are switching context to the furthermost realized absence of all distinction and refusing to engage him within the context he is speaking from.
It's classic "brown-bearism," where the ultimate, realized Truth is used to deny relative, experiential facets of experience and general experience/phenomenal realm, itself.
Seeing the dream-scape for dream-scape, does not bring a screeching halt to the dream. It does render the falsely imagined "dreamer/entity/person" though, absent. You are clearly very mixed up and this is evidenced by your mixing/jumping contexts.
I think that is one the most poignant litmus tests when it comes to where one is really at....is there context mixing and context leaping involved as one challenges and defends his position..?
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 19, 2024 16:39:48 GMT
I've a few relatively new guests/readers here, who may not have reference for Jeff Foster's "brown bear," so I will repost that video below that is well-known to most from ST;
That brown guy in the cartoon Laffy..? That's precisely what you're doing to Gopal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 19, 2024 16:58:34 GMT
Muttley, it's important to see and acknowledge that from that "greasy spot," there is no experience at all....thus, nothing at all to even talk about.
Awakening to abiding nonduality, is not about denying, negating experience. "Transcendence" after all, means seeing beyond, but also "including." Absent experience, would any of us even be interested in talking Truth? I don't think so.
That ultimate, pointiest pointer of complete absence of all appearance, all expressions of distinction, all experiential content, is not meant to serve as a denial of that which appears, nor a denial of the experiential unfolding story itself.
The most poignant aspect of that ultimate place of seeing is the undeniable, direct knowing/seeing that Awareness stands alone and does not require anything apparently phenomenal, to BE. Direct reference for that profound absence of ALL content makes it crystal clear that nothing that appears, exists inherently in it's own right.
It think it's very likely those who insist that apparent persons, objects, things, can be realized with Absolute knowing/certainty to each BE a discrete, unique perceiver/experiencer, have zero reference for Awareness absent any/all content. There is simply no way one could directly realize abiding awareness, absent content and then somehow go back to insisting that certain appearances possess inherent existence in their own right.
That realized, pointiest of pointers of "greasy spot," while important, is not something to be wielded like a weapon to deny appearance.
|
|
|
|
Post by ghostofmuttley on Apr 21, 2024 14:13:12 GMT
All valid, pointiest of pointers from that position of "collapse" that lies beyond all perceivables... that "greasy spot" E used to talk about. When Gopal speaks of the up/down movement of an emotional "roller-coaster" he is speaking from a context that includes the phenomenal, unfolding story...he's speaking from a position of seeing that is beyond the phenomenal, as he's clearly able to look at 'the unfolding story and it's content,' whereby he can then, comment on that obvious, evident, experience facet (up/down movement between feeling polaries). When you tell him there is ultimately "no ride," you are switching context to the furthermost realized absence of all distinction and refusing to engage him within the context he is speaking from. It's classic "brown-bearism," where the ultimate, realized Truth is used to deny relative, experiential facets of experience and general experience/phenomenal realm, itself. Seeing the dream-scape for dream-scape, does not bring a screeching halt to the dream. It does render the falsely imagined "dreamer/entity/person" though, absent. You are clearly very mixed up and this is evidenced by your mixing/jumping contexts. I think that is one the most poignant litmus tests when it comes to where one is really at....is there context mixing and context leaping involved as one challenges and defends his position..? Thinking back, a better pointing would have been to suggest that there is no rider, only the ride, but that even conceiving of what appears as a "ride", is too much of an abstraction. There is no denying that I am writing and you are reading this sentence.  There is no denying the verb that is THIS. Beyond that, is only ever a trick of the mind. And the brown bear is not wrong, btw, just .. sort of confused ... |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 23, 2024 6:38:43 GMT
All valid, pointiest of pointers from that position of "collapse" that lies beyond all perceivables... that "greasy spot" E used to talk about. When Gopal speaks of the up/down movement of an emotional "roller-coaster" he is speaking from a context that includes the phenomenal, unfolding story...he's speaking from a position of seeing that is beyond the phenomenal, as he's clearly able to look at 'the unfolding story and it's content,' whereby he can then, comment on that obvious, evident, experience facet (up/down movement between feeling polaries). When you tell him there is ultimately "no ride," you are switching context to the furthermost realized absence of all distinction and refusing to engage him within the context he is speaking from. It's classic "brown-bearism," where the ultimate, realized Truth is used to deny relative, experiential facets of experience and general experience/phenomenal realm, itself. Seeing the dream-scape for dream-scape, does not bring a screeching halt to the dream. It does render the falsely imagined "dreamer/entity/person" though, absent. You are clearly very mixed up and this is evidenced by your mixing/jumping contexts. I think that is one the most poignant litmus tests when it comes to where one is really at....is there context mixing and context leaping involved as one challenges and defends his position..? Thinking back, a better pointing would have been to suggest that there is no rider, only the ride, but that even conceiving of what appears as a "ride", is too much of an abstraction. "Too much" of an abstraction for "what" exactly? Again, it's important to see that conceptions and abstractions per se, are not the problem (so long as they are seen/understood to be such.) They way you phrased that, is seems as though you DO see such conceptions/abstractions as calling the up/down movement of feeling "a ride" problematic...? If so, why? The world and all it's things and facets does not need to disappear to be from it. No facet of experiential content is itself problematic. Identifying with it is. So long as it's all realized to be empty of inherent existence, there is no danger or problem with conceptions and abstractions of that type. It only becomes a problem if a particular kind of experience, that is devoid of mind's abstractions and characterizations of that type, is being upheld as superior & I don't get what that would be. There's also no validity to denying that the nature of arising feelings as the story unfolds is between polarities. The noticing and commenting about that up/down movement is entirely unproblematic. [/div][/quote] Hmmm....I disagree. The brown bear is denying that appearances appear. A tree is appearing and the brown-bear is denying that. I'd say that = "wrong." |
|
|
|
Post by ghostofmuttley on Apr 24, 2024 9:51:46 GMT
Thinking back, a better pointing would have been to suggest that there is no rider, only the ride, but that even conceiving of what appears as a "ride", is too much of an abstraction. "Too much" of an abstraction for "what" exactly? TMT Again, it's important to see tha t conceptions and abstractions per se, are not the problem (so long as they are seen/understood to be such.) They way you phrased that, is seems as though you DO see such conceptions/abstractions as calling the up/down movement of feeling "a ride" problematic...? If so, why? The world and all it's things and facets does not need to disappear to be from it. No facet of experiential content is itself problematic. Identifying with it is. So long as it's all realized to be empty of inherent existence, there is no danger or problem with conceptions and abstractions of that type. It only becomes a problem if a particular kind of experience, that is devoid of mind's abstractions and characterizations of that type, is being upheld as superior & I don't get what that would be. There's also no validity to denying that the nature of arising feelings as the story unfolds is between polarities. The noticing and commenting about that up/down movement is entirely unproblematic. . Raj's insight into his personal emotional state is significant, and, in light of his realization about inner/outer, is not entirely relative and material. He has, however, mistaken the depth of the water. The rest of what you've written is an argument with a straw-mutt. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 24, 2024 16:50:12 GMT
"Too much" of an abstraction for "what" exactly? TMT Again, it's important to see tha t conceptions and abstractions per se, are not the problem (so long as they are seen/understood to be such.) They way you phrased that, is seems as though you DO see such conceptions/abstractions as calling the up/down movement of feeling "a ride" problematic...? If so, why? The world and all it's things and facets does not need to disappear to be from it. No facet of experiential content is itself problematic. Identifying with it is. So long as it's all realized to be empty of inherent existence, there is no danger or problem with conceptions and abstractions of that type. It only becomes a problem if a particular kind of experience, that is devoid of mind's abstractions and characterizations of that type, is being upheld as superior & I don't get what that would be. There's also no validity to denying that the nature of arising feelings as the story unfolds is between polarities. The noticing and commenting about that up/down movement is entirely unproblematic. . Raj's insight into his personal emotional state is significant, and, in light of his realization about inner/outer, is not entirely relative and material. He has, however, mistaken the depth of the water. The rest of what you've written is an argument with a straw-mutt. Preaching to a choir though that is still to some degree, vilifying thought...? The reference to an experiential, up/down play between polarities of feeling is "Too much Thought" for what, exactly? Why is it "Too" much? The context of the convo is the up/down nature of experiential feeling...it necessarily involves ideas/thoughts....we are after all, talking "about" the "way" experience unfolds. |
|
|
|
Post by ghostofmuttley on Apr 25, 2024 19:32:17 GMT
TMT Preaching to the choir. Raj's insight into his personal emotional state is significant, and, in light of his realization about inner/outer, is not entirely relative and material. He has, however, mistaken the depth of the water. The rest of what you've written is an argument with a straw-mutt. Preaching to a choir though that is still to some degree, vilifying thought...? The reference to an experiential, up/down play between polarities of feeling is "Too much Thought" for what, exactly? Why is it "Too" much? The context of the convo is the up/down nature of experiential feeling...it necessarily involves ideas/thoughts....we are after all, talking "about" the "way" experience unfolds. "TMT" is not a vilification of thought .. but, ironically, you thinking of it that way .. IS a vilification of thought!  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 25, 2024 21:27:55 GMT
Preaching to a choir though that is still to some degree, vilifying thought...? The reference to an experiential, up/down play between polarities of feeling is "Too much Thought" for what, exactly? Why is it "Too" much? The context of the convo is the up/down nature of experiential feeling...it necessarily involves ideas/thoughts....we are after all, talking "about" the "way" experience unfolds. "TMT" is not a vilification of thought .. but, ironically , you thinking of it that way .. IS a vilification of thought! The denoting of "too much" equals a negative judgment of what is deemed to be excessive thought. To negatively judge something is a sort of 'vilification' (to speak ill of) no? If that word is too strong, then let's just go with "negative judgment." If I tell you you've consumed "too much" beer for example, I am negatively judging that "excess amount" of beer that I think is bad for you or in some other way, "not good." You've expressed the idea that speaking of the up/down movement of experiential feeling/emotion, as the story unfolds, to be "too much thinking." Why is it "too" much? "Too much" thought, for what exactly? There are indeed those times in Truth-talk where mind needs to take a back-seat so that conceptual grasping towards a pointer to Truth is halted, however, as I've explained, the context of a shared observation of an up/down movement, relative to experiential feelings/emotions, IS the context of conceptual seeing/understanding...thought IS very much involved and that's okay. As you see it, What's the problem with denoting the up/down (rollercoaster movement) of arising, experiential feelings within experience? Why is it "too much thinking" to express that observation? "Too much" for "what" exactly? What is the ideal you are upholding there by which you judge that particular line of thought/idea to be "too much"? |
|
There is no denying the verb that is THIS. Beyond that, is only ever a trick of the mind. And the brown bear is not wrong, btw, just .. sort of confused ...