|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 25, 2024 21:42:01 GMT
My focus upon this fwiw, is not merely for the sake of mincing words/words lawyering. It's a very important point that I'm trying to make. It's all too common in Nonduality circles for thought per se, to get an unfair "bad rap." (Does that work better than the term 'vilification'?) So long as there is awareness of mind's machinations and mind's involvement, as it arises, if/when and where it arises, thought per se, is unproblematic. It's only when conceptualization/thinking is mistaken for realized, non-conceptual seeing that there's a problem. The term "TMT" in these convos only applies in a meaningful way when we are trying to point to non-conceptual awareness and mind keeps asserting itself with a conceived notion, which of course, can only ever fall short of what is actually being pointed to. There's a couple of you on ST that use that term to squirm away from direct, pointy questions. It's used to deflect the challenge when you know your position has been upended and revealed to be shite.  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 25, 2024 22:05:55 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. Why is it "too much of an abstraction"? What's the downside to going "that far" into abstraction or as you've now denoted it as "too much thinking"? Where's the problem in observing and denoting an 'up/down' play between polarities when it comes to experienced emotions/feelings? That's the part you are not explaining. [/div][/quote] I think this is the crux of it. The brown bear IS wrong! You have to look at what he "means" by those words....not just the words/terms themselves. The brown-bear has mistaken the absence of inherent existence re: the arising world and all it's things for an absence of an apparent world...an absence of apparent things. When you negatively judge a certain degree of thought/ideation within the context of talking about the ways in which appearances arise and unfold within the story, you are erroneously conflating thought/ideation with delusion. Thoughts/ideas are only delusional when they are false...when ideas/conceptualizations are mistaken for the Truth. That which obscures Truth (fundamental separation) is not even relatively (t)rue. That's what makes separation a delusion/illusion. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 11, 2024 17:44:07 GMT
It's only a true "realization" (vs. a mere relative insight) if it's a seeing through...a seeing of what is NOT so....a subtraction of previous additive knowledge...an absence....the dissolving an illusion/delusion.
Several on ST erroneously conflate relative, conceptual/experiential insight re: dream content with "realization," which is a seeing from a position/non-position that is beyond/prior to ALL dream content.
It's important to recognize there is a very important difference, otherwise we're mistaking what is relative, appearance only--experiential content (such as a sense of unity/connectedness) for "fundamentally not-two/Oneness."
It makes sense that a seeker by virtue of still seeking and not having direct reference for "Truth" would conflate relative, experiential, conceptual insight with realization, because plain and simply, he has no reference for the distinction, having no direct reference for SR.
Seeking to understand what the pointer "Oneness/Nonduality" is referencing by using AI is a stellar example of what it means to "seek Truth in all the wrong places."
AI has no pace in a true apprehension of fundamental Oneness.
It's always best to at least try to use your own words to express your understandings about Truth. Even if you're missing the mark, doing so at least has you looking within in a sort of inquiry as you attempt to express the ultimately, unexpressable.
"What can I know for absolute certain," is the most basic question you can enter into inquiry with....and with that, an aim towards distinguishing that which remains Absolute and abiding, regardless of whatever is temporally arising....regardless of content that comes and goes.
Far too often, there's been a conceptual leap made from 1st mountain, fast asleep position, identifying with/as a some-thing/some-one that has separate existence, all the way to 3rd mountain, 'integration--I am all of it.' Without a full realization/seeing through of 2nd mountain (seeing through the mountain/all that appears) what we have is not merely a conceptual grasp of Nonduality, but a faulty idea/conception about what Nonduality is pointing to, at that. No conceptual idea can adequately/completely express what's being pointed to, but where there's been a true apprehension of Oneness, mind will be informed in a manner that reflects that true apprehension and the resulting conceptual expressions will therefore be based on that and will thus, 'ring' True.
Absent 2nd mountain seeing through, realization of the absence of inherent existence of all that arises within/the ground of abiding Awareness, there can be no actual "realization" of appearance/ground as fundamentally "One."
To hold a conception that it's all "One" (as in unified/connected) is not the same as realizing/seeing through an objective, independent reality that supposedly exists in it's own right, beyond direct awareness of it. And even those words that attempt to describe the realization/seeing through, fall short.
Only "realization" will do. And that means a profound shift in where 'you' are looking from. If it's truly the transcendent position of freedom that illuminates the Truth of Nonduality, that 'you/I/me-individual-apparent sense' will also dissolve...and there will simply remain "Awareness/aware"....no content necessary to be "aware of," in the true apprehension of that 'ground.'
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 11, 2024 18:09:28 GMT
This is not a good analogy because it focuses upon the "substance" of water and then infuses/imbues that substance "into" the fish. That's how folks get piles of poop and paper-clips that are known with Absolute certainty to be conscious, alive, discrete, unique perceiving/experiencing, existent entities.'
There is no need for that which was never separated in the first place to be "connected." Nonduality is not pointing to a "fundamental connection between" Awareness and it's expressions, it's pointing to an actual absence of any "fundamental" divide at all.
This is where it's important to grasp the distinction between relative/Absolute. All things "unified/connected" is the relative, conceptual view...the realization/seeing through renders that which appears as absent it's own inherent existence...entirely dependent upon that which abides, the ground of unchanging Awareness for it's temporal appearance/arising.
Again, in order to truly see and grasp this, only realization/a profound shift in locus of seeing, will do. You cannot imagine your way into SR/being awake via a conceptual understanding of a metaphor.
It's not the appearance of some-thing that "gives it the appearance of being separate from the existent ground," it's mind that mistakes apparent distinction for "fundamental separation."
And again, important to pay attention to the distinction between relative/appearance vs. fundamental Truth. What does it mean for a fish to swim, eat and live as if it were a "fundamentally" independent/separate being? That's only ever erroneously, falsely imagined.
Relatively speaking, a fish IS distinct from the ocean/water or you'd not even be able to designate it as "a" fish vs. "the water." We do not need to do away with apparent distinction to realize the fundamental "Oneness" inherent to all that is.
You're waffling between context here....moving from an Absolute context to relative. Fundamental separation never did/never does actually appear...it's mind that adds that overlay.
Relative context....unity....connectivity, not what Nonduality is pointing to.
Ah, this is telling!
"Separation" never is...never WAS! It's only ever, erroneously imagined. It's a mistake of mind. You are reifying "separation" here as something actual that rides along with temporal, distinction/appearance of experiential content. THAT right there IS the mistake of separation!
"Essential nature" was always abiding....it cannot go anywhere...it does not come and go if we're truly talking "fundamental/essence." Abiding Awareness as ground never "inhabits" form..."not separate" means it IS expressed as form. When you set up form as a some-thing that is "inhabited by" Awareness, you invoke separation.
Individuality is a facet of the dream--it's an appearance....an arising distinction. That I as a me character am relatively speaking, an individual that is distinct from you as an apparent individual, is NOT "an illusion." When seen as experiential content, empty and devoid of inherent existence, that distinction/appearance is entirely non-problematic. It's only when misconstrued as evidence of "fundamental" separation that it becomes so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 11, 2024 18:24:41 GMT
What is this "us/I".... within which this "life force/essence" that the form was imbued with, then makes a "return" to "Source"? (hint: SVP!)
The mistake of erroneously imagined fundamental separation is interwoven throughout that quote.
The "universe" is also an appearance, just as the apparent person is. Apprehended Truth is beyond/prior to...deeper. To apprehend the abiding ground of awareness that lies prior to all that appears is to clearly see that the entire universe is "contained within" that abiding ground and any facet of it that is perceived, completely reliant/dependent upon that abiding ground withing which it seamlessly arises and falls.
So, here we've got a "material form" that temporarily "exists" as a "vessel" that is imbued with a particular substance/essence, and then that essence is a some-thing that "is connected" to another something called "the whole."
Can you really not see the separation being invoked and reified there?
No. Nondual apprehension is the seeing/recognition that the fundamental separateness we experience was only ever based upon a mistake of mind. Fundamental separation never ever really "appeared." Rather, apparent "distinction" was mistaken for "fundamental separation."
If we are talking Truth....the viewpoint of Absolute, prior to, transcendent seeing, we are not a some-thing that is "a part of" something greater, rather we ARE...THAT. Seeing yourself as 'a part of' something greater has no place in SR/apprehension of Truth.
This view that "I am a temporary, existent something/someone" that is "connected to" Source by virtue of being an expression of Source is what used to get referenced on ST as the "free willy" stance. You want to on one hand, keep the person as existent but on the other, untether that from all encumbrance/attachment. It doesn't work that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 13, 2024 20:04:31 GMT
Why? Nonduality is not at odds with an experiential "me character" along with all related personality traits, etc, and ongoing experiential, unfolding story, that continues after the body expires. Your assertion stands as yet another example of how many seekers misconstrue what Nonduality is pointing to and then argue against that misunderstanding.
|
|
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 ...