|
Post by Figgles on Oct 15, 2023 21:40:20 GMT
I've had a couple folks message to ask what the heck "brown bear" is referencing, so figured I'd repost this old video. Brown-bear has become a term that gets used now on ST and Gab to describe what it looks like when one gets trapped within the concepts of Nonduality and thus, uses those concepts to deny/eschew material, experiential reality.
I've just been referenced as such (a brown bear) by Muttley over on ST, something which I don't really get as I generally make it my mission to be very clear as I write about Truth, that waking up does not mean the end of caring about life..about apparent others.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 16, 2023 20:12:22 GMT
The brown bear, actually, IS wrong..or better said, "deluded"...and not EVEN "half circle," as one who is using the supposedly realized "emptiness/absence of inherent existence of all perceivables," as a means to then deny and eschew experiential content, has clearly NOT had a realization at all and is merely conceptualizing Nonduality pointers.
So called "half circle," is the seeing through of inherent existence of all perceivables....it's a loss, not a gain of new knowledge, and the brown-bear has taken on new knowledge 'about' all appearances being empty and he then applies that knowledge as a judgment 'about/against' the appearing world.
The 'brown bear' video is an admonishment to those who might fall into the "advaita trap," which is gobbling up Oneness pointers and conceptualizing them, and then mis-applying those concepts in a way that denigrades/denies the phenomenal.
Indeed, following SR/awakening, life is NOT lived bouncing between two contexts...nor from purely an impersonal/Absolute context...(that's the mistake of the deluded brown-bear)....the relative is now couched within the Absolute/impersonal, and is not denied...there is no need to deny the appearing world in order to be free from it....what IS required is to see the inherent emptiness....the absence of inherent existence.
It's interesting, your own insistence that IF there was truly a void/absence of knowledge regarding Absolute knowing of the experience/perception relative to appearing people and things, then that should equal the end of engaging those people and things 'as though' they really are experiencing/perceiving, invokes the fallacies/delusions of the brown-bear.
The brown-bears motto is: If it's an empty appearance only, they it must be denied....ignored. And that's the stance you took as you made that stupid argument.
You're spot on there about the brown bear being stuck in a story.
But obviously, very much disagree that this forum is "brown bear central." Why would you say that? What have I written here that indicates a denial of the relative...a denial or denigration...an ignoring of the appearing world?
This is the same assertion that so many make against Nonduality in general as pointers to emptiness are mistaken to be a denial of the phenomenal.
It is NOT a denial of the phenomenal to point out that nothing that appears has it's own inherent existence.....it is not a denial of the phenomenal to point out that the quality of aliveness....knowledge of unique, discrete, individuated personal experience/perception re: others, can only ever be relative knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 16, 2023 23:26:26 GMT
A most excellent point. It's not even necessary to go all the way back to witnessing, per se. Simply taking a more broad/general view, even with the judging, discerning mind still active can make all the difference between getting swept up in it all, vs. remaining open and aware. And, speaking of the news and that broader vantage point whereby general patterns of behavior can be observed that do not represent an approach of integrity nor honoring of the higher value of being congruent in word and action, I'm guessing like me, you've likely observed the tendency of more main-stream outlets to label and denigrade the messages of those they disagree with in ways that really are not reflective of those messages...?...and then if/when those whom they disagree with, invite conversation to clear up that label, more often than not, that goes completely ignored...no interest on the part of the msn to discuss that label..no opportunity for the other to counter it, make their true position clear. What's your opinion of that kind of thing? I'll tell ya mine; It's representative of an overall cowardice and hypocrisy that currently reigns in society....an absence of integrity, a failure to uphold supposed said values, a failure to behave in a manner that is congruent with what one is demanding from others. Now take your recent linking to my post here on GAB, on ST, for the purpose of demonstrating what you insist is an example of "brown-bearism"....we won't talk about Reef's continuation of that with his affirmative response, because I think we all know that Reefs is NOT a person who even seems to value integrity let alone who behaves with such, but I honestly thought different of you. Can you see how your labelling of me as a brown-bear on a forum where I have no ability to respond directly to that, and then your refusal to directly discuss, converse with me here, to allow me to speak to that label/assertion is quite similar to what's going on re: various news outlets..governments and such? Seriously, if folks cannot behave with integrity on a spiritual forum, what the hell chance is there for the population at large?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 17, 2023 19:25:43 GMT
The brown bear leaves much more than that! I think it's important not to give any credence to the brown-bear position in terms of having actually realized/seen through anything at all of importance relative to Nonduality. The pointer of Oneness has no relationship to the stance of 'negating/ignoring' the appearing world that the brown-bear position takes. The person who uses Nonduality pointers (conceptualizing them, obviously) for the purpose of trying to distance and insulate himself from the facets of his world that threaten his sense of peace, is really no different at all from the person who uses concepts to try to "connect/unify" all apparent things and include himself, as a person within that, in order to feel better about life. In both cases, there is a reification of the separate person. Eschewing/denying/denigrading/ignoring that which appears has nothing to do with seeing through the delusion of separation....seeing the emptiness of inherent existence re: all appearance. I think if there is one thing worthy of stressing to the seeker, this is it....so many conceptualize Nonduality pointers and arrive at a conclusion that there is a denial of experience involved. There is not. AT all. To be free of the appearing world is not to deny any of that which appears. It really is about seeing through that which was erroneously believed to actually BE appearing, when in actuality, it never was... The seeker believer that fundamental separation really is making an appearance....really is a facet of his experience, when in reality, it was only ever imagined...and with that erroneous imagining, himself, as a separate, volitional person, was also being imagined. What is NOT being imagined, is the appearing me character...body/mind/person. All of that Does appear within/to the abiding ground of awareness. There is no need to deny any of that which appears....all that is required is to see that it arises 'within/to' Awareness....no separation....awareness abiding as ground, and appearance as ephemeral, temporal, never itself abiding/unchanging...always changing as the story unfolds.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 18, 2023 18:43:02 GMT
The brown bear position, boiled down, is one of negation and denial of appearance in favor of a focus upon (a conceptualized grasp) of "the Absolute."
Of course, if one is completely denying/ignoring the appearing world, then he has no actual realized reference for what the term Absolute is even pointing to.
Appearances DO appear.
No need to deny/ignore what appears so long as it's not mistaken for being separate/having it's own inherent existence.
It's in seeing that the appearing person/me character, along with all appearing things, including "other" appearing me characters, are not separate from the awareness within which they arise. In that, the 'separate/volition' aspect of the appearing person, dissolves/gets seen through, and is thus, absent.
At the heart of the interest/position that negates, ignores and denies the relative, which describes the brown bear position perfectly is the very same 'fear' and need to try to control things, that is at the heart of the deliberate creator/LOA seeker.
Each has adopted an in the dream stance of trying to avoid suffering. The LOA-er is doing it through trying to specifically control focus so attention only lands and fixates on "pleasant feeling/nice ideas/things," and in that, it's believed those subsequent 'mostly' nice/good feelings will 'attract/create/draw' happenings that correspond....and thus, will conform with personal judgments about how life should be, whereas the brown bear is doing it through conceptually denying the appearance of the phenomenal world and all it's things/conditions.
Both are mind-contrived positions that have nothing to do with Nonduality and both have an SVP central to them.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 19, 2023 21:05:29 GMT
Well, ultimately, we're talking about an absence...and there is no "giving up an absence." Who/what would, after all, give it up? What is there TO give up? But yes, the 'notion' that you can't make it happen, carried around as a relative idea, brought up into conversations outside of Nonduality/Truth-talk, amounts to brown-bearism at it's finest. There really is very little point in even mentioning this to one who is intent upon improving his experience 'cause it's only gonna thwart that sense of improved experience. I think self-help teachings that support seekers in their search for a better/improved experience often get a bad rap from those interested in talking about/writing about/pointing to Truth/nonduality. There's nothing wrong with a seeker acknowledging where he's at, trying to find ways to have a better dream, nor with another wanting to be a part of that experience. It is interesting though, how bent out of shape seekers often get when they are offered the advice to stick with self-help teachings because they are clearly angered by Truth-talk/Nonduality pointers, thus, obviously not truly, sincerely interested in seeing what's actually so. Anyone who is still arguing for and getting angry in Nonduality discussion, when their LOA beliefs or practice/process/causality beliefs are challenged, is obviously still more interested in relative betterment...feeling good/nice, than they are in Truth. And really, that's ok. Now if only they could see it that way.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 20, 2023 22:03:44 GMT
Back up....waaaay up. So then, practice is "necessary" for SR? You deny that waking up can/does happen at times, absent any previous practice? That's brown-bearism...a denial of experience. You're mis-using the assertion...pointer to absence of doership. That one gets dragged out in the presence of such an intense interest in just being...in an imminent, silent, meditative state...in looking 'at' being....in sitting quietly, in apprehension of unbounded awareness, that the action/behavior is not regarded as "something that I have to do." So long as there is a sense of effort, it can be said 'there is a practice.' And that there WAS in fact a sense of effort in play does not simply erase itself after the fact. If SR does occur, an effortful practice prior to it, was still an effortful practice. It's only those moments where true, sincere interest in "being/meditative state," reign, where we get to say, "there is no practice." You are obviously confusing the ultimate Truth that regardless of doings happening, there is no doer with 'no experiential doing.' Just because it's true there is ultimately 'no practicer/no SVP actually willing it to happen,' does not mean there is not still an experience of 'an effortful practice,' You don't get to deny the 'effortful practice,' just because down the road, SR happened. What gets seen through, is the "volitional practicer" who willfully, volitionally, chose to practice.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 20, 2023 22:18:37 GMT
Siftingtotruth; What you are doing, involves a very clear misconception. You are taking the pointer "there is no doer...no experiencer....no practicer," to then deny the experience of effortful practice that WAS clearly in play as the seeker sought freedom.
Yes, it's ultimately so that there is an absence of an existent 'doer/practicer,' but that does not deny the previous experience of there being one....the previous delusion at that was in play during seeking.
when you claim that following SR, it's seen there was "no practice," you're erroneously throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, there was an experiential effortful practice...what SR reveals is that the separate, existent, practicer/entity that was part and parcel of that experiential practice, was erroneously imagined.
Every action that gets taken, ultimately, has no existent 'doing entity' doing it. That's the realization. We do not need to deny the appearing action itself. The happening/experience of stuff getting done, still arises, but in SR, it's absent the sense of a separate 'doer/experiencer.'
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 18, 2024 23:28:51 GMT
This exchange is a perfect example of the "brown bear" position where one misconstrues the Nonduality pointers of "empty....dream...appearance only....absent inherent existence," as being the equivalent of "not worthy of caring about/no longer of any importance." The idea that crying after a loved one dies "should not" evoke tears and an experiential sense of loss, "IF" all experiential content has been seen to be "empty, appearance only," demonstrates a clear misconception about those pointers.
Personal values, complete with likes/dislikes, caring and interest, continue on so long as a me character/person continues to arise within experience.
What does not continue on, are a depth of personal judgments that extend to the fundamental level. Post SR, judgments only extend surface deep. The Truth of fundamental perfection "trumps" any and all surface judgments, which means feelings and emotions that come hand in hand with those judgments, have nothing anchoring them into place.....as such, they arise and ebb on through, no problem.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 18, 2024 23:41:44 GMT
Somewhere along the line, you've misconstrued Nonduality pointers of "no separate, volitional person, inherently empty of existence in it's own right, appearance only" to equal "not worthy of interest, caring, engagment....something to be ignored."
That misconception is on you. You've straw-manned the Nondual perspective and continue to argue against your own faulty viewpoint of what Nonduality is saying.
|
|