|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 19, 2024 0:10:01 GMT
If individuals ARE "existent in their own right," (vs. empty appearance arising within/to that which abides/exists), then that would be precisely what the term "separation" is referencing when used in Nonduality teachings/convos.
The term "separation" is a reference to misconstruing appearing things, ideas, feelings, (all experiential content) as having individuated, discrete inherent "substance/existence" in it's own right.
Many seekers think the idea of "it's all connected,"...or "I as a person am an extension of Source," to somehow get around that, but it doesn't. That is but a mere conceptual grasp of what "not separate" is pointing to. Only realization will do, and in that, there is a seeing through and thus, an "absence" where previous there was the presence of delusion...the presence of imaginary discretely "existent" things.
There is an abiding ground of awareness and all that is experienced, arises within/to that, as an ephemeral, temporal appearance, absent it's own inherent substance/existence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 19, 2024 0:21:02 GMT
Sweet F.A. if we're talking Truth/Absolute.  That said, there's still an experience of personhood with arising impetus to act. Where there's SR, that will not be misconstrued as "fundamentally creative/causal." A window of limited perception falls under "expressions within/to the abiding ground of awareness." The experiential sense/knowing of that apparent window, is "real" enough in the sense that as an expression, it cannot be denied, but it does not exist/abide in it's own right. It's an expression within/to that which does abide. A window of perception can only be known immediately...here, NOW, and directly. To know a window of perception is to also know present mind content/experiential content/present thought/ideation/feeling. It appears there are "other" windows of perception, but the knowing of those appearances is indirect only. All unique, individuated windows of perception, be it "my" window or "your window," are all dream-scape content. That's why there can be no "realization/seeing beyond/prior to" that somehow illuminates them as inherently eixstent in their own right. They remain of the realm of "content/the expressed." Experiences are not 'actual' in that they have 'inhernet substance/existence,' but if something is experienced, it's fair to say it IS experienced. There is nothing to gained by denying that a particular facet of experience, IS a facet of experience. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 21, 2024 23:11:56 GMT
That's your mistake. The denoting of physical reality as inherently absent existence in it's own right, is NOT "a pejorative."
Not only are the awakened/SR NOT expressing contempt or disapproval of the phenomenal in denoting it as an ephemeral, temporal expression within/to Awareness that is not separate, the realization of that inherent emptiness generally comes hand in hand with an even greater reverence and love for so called "physical reality".....for the mere fact that there even IS experience.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 12, 2024 17:53:41 GMT
Spira does a great job here of addressing what amounts to an SVP conceptualizing what he 'thinks' is the Absolute viewpoint and in that, he becomes a brown-bear who concludes that relative, personal values/judgment are devoid of relative importance....or in other words, personal values have zero relative/experiential value.  All of these kinds of misconceptions are the result of conceptualizing pointers that point away from/beyond/prior to all concepts. |
|
That said, there's still an experience of personhood with arising impetus to act. Where there's SR, that will not be misconstrued as "fundamentally creative/causal." 