|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 26, 2024 20:13:11 GMT
In some cases, that might be so. There are those who gravitate towards Nonduality teachings because they mistake what's being said. (Just as you do). Someone who is looking for a way out, might indeed take Nonduality pointers as a prescription to deny, denigrate and thus, ignore and mentally dis-associate from the world.
Nonduality is not actually denigrating the apparent world though, as you and those types of folks erroneously believe.
What does it mean to you, to "be here"? Nonduality points to that which is always "here," regardless of what may be happening in experience.....to that which abidingly exists and to that which is a temporal expression of that. Non-duality does not deny an experiential me character/self, it simply removes the erroneously assigned "separation" (inherent existence in it's own right).
What not approach these convos from a place of actually trying to grasp what's being said....or at least with an open mind that perhaps you have failed to properly grasp what's being said. You are far too cocky and certain that you know what's being said/pointed to, for one who actually has it all wrong.
Seeing the world and all it's thing as "empty and devoid of inherent existence," does not equal a belief that nothing is real...and does not equal dissociating from that world. Again, that is your misconceived grasp of what Nonduality teachings are saying.
There is no need to mentally dis-associate with that which is not identified with in the first place. That absence of identification, oddly enough, has you loving the world (in the truest sense!) more than ever....there's an absence of the depth of judgment that previously had all sorts of stuff as fundamentally wrong with the world. In liberation, the world itself becomes "lighter." The world is emptied of it's previous, erroneously assigned fundamental limitation/boundedness.
Why not?
"Absent inherent existence" does not mean absent from the realm of appearance. The world and all it's things does not disappear just because it's been realized to be empty and devoid of it's own inherent existence....just because there is liberation from it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 26, 2024 20:33:15 GMT
Wrong.
Nonduality does not "eliminate" experiential content, be it an arising idea, a sense, a state of being, a person, a thing, a condition....rather, it removes the erroneously imagined "inherent existence in it's own right", rendering the totality of experiential content, as "empty appearance only, arising within/to that which abides."
The idea of possibility of other experiential realms, or of a me character that lives on post bodily death and that returns to another body downline in the story, is not incompatible with Nonduality. What Nonduality does is illuminate those ideas as being improvable in an "Ultimate/Absolute" sense. You can speculate and attach to any of these types of ideas, but whether you recognize it or not, you will never know for Absolute certain.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 27, 2024 3:53:15 GMT
He's full of it.
Who/what is this "I" that "experiences" non-dual awareness? That is the invoking of two-ness/duality right there....a someone and a non-dual awareness that that someone/something supposedly then, "experiences."
Nondual Awareness is NOT "an experience," although, the shift in primary locus of seeing that reveals Nondual nature DOES indeed impact experience. Important though not to mistake wakefulness/SR itself for "an experience."
Experience/experiential content arises within/to Awareness, not the other way around as Kim has it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 27, 2024 17:51:49 GMT
While I DO get it that SDP does seem to be someone who assumes and surmises way past what appears, in my saying this as well as in your assessment of him as 'not being compassionate as he fills his head with ideas about others,' we're also doing the same--reporting on what appears, which is what's at the crux of him saying what he says.
It does appear as though there are many in this world I live in, who do not live through their true nature. That has nothing to do with compassion in it's most basic observation/acknowledgment.
It DOES appear as though most folks in this world are fast asleep to both the consensus trance AND the dream as a dream.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 9, 2024 19:10:41 GMT
This demonstrates either a deep misunderstnding of what's been actually be asserted....classic straw-manning. Most straw-man arguments I've found contain a bit of both--lack of understanding AND a sort of 'will-ful' twisting of what's being said to take it to a ridiculous extreme to try to make the point being asserted.
The term "identity/identification" in Truth-talk/Nonduality goes much deeper than this. You are erroneously conflating an ability to decipher/identify one person from another with "identifying with/as" apparent limitation/boundary. Satch and I had a long go-round on this issue a ways back, which really boils down to a failure to grasp a definition of a particular term.
I can identify my sister from a strange, whilst "identification with/as" an existent, separate entity, is absent.
You'd do really well Tenka, to take some time to drill down into some of these very specific terms used in Nonduality-talk, to become clear on what is actually being said...there are several terms that you are completely mangling as you attempt to follow pointers to their intended target.
Agreeing to a particular, in the moment label/idea of temporal self, such as mom, sister, etc. is not the same as mistakingly taking yourself to BE the limited/body mind that exists in it's own right, as a Source to an 'arising consciousness/awareness.' That's what "identification" is referencing in Truth-talk.
Again, An ability to recognize specific apparent distinction is NOT what's being referenced by "identification" in these convos. If you're intent on continuing to engage on ST Tenka, it really would behoove you to at least become familiar and aware of what's meant by the terms that are used in these conversations.
It's extremely arrogant to continue to engage on a spiritual forum, purely for the purpose of trying to poke holes in what's being said, while year after year, continuing to remain ignorant as to the intended meaning of specific terms used in those conversations.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 9, 2024 19:23:22 GMT
Again, you display your ignorance as to what is meant by the terms "entity"...."separation"....and "existent/separate person."
An entity by definition is that which stands on it's own...exists in it's own right. An apparent person does not fulfill that definition...it is the mistake of imagined fundamental separation that is behind the illusion of seeing entities vs. dependently arising appearing persons/characters.
I agree with what you're saying here....both ZD and Gopal seem to imply a personal God. I'd wondered if Gopal had seen through this, but recent posts of his seem to indicate otherwise.
ZD speaks from both sides of his mouth which indicates deep confusion on this issue. He points to "_______________" at times and then at others, insists upon Absolute, certain knowing of specific perceivable traits/properties/qualities of that which he says, cannot be named or contained by concepts.
That said, your own ontology has it's own issues.....inherently existent persons who are "connected" to some ambiguous "spirit" that "extends" itself into the person, thereby "connecting/unifying" the person to that Source, thereby, supposedly dissolving and taking care of the mistake of "fundamental separation." That is NOT what separation is referencing. Oneness is not a "connecting/unifying" of a sum of parts. It's a dissolving of the inherent existence of apparent, distinct parts....realizing that all apparent distinction...all apparent parts, are temporally, and dependently arising, within/to that which abides unchanging....empty expressions of distinction/transiency/seeming limitation, within that which never changes and is not limited/bound.
There is no need to "connect/unify" that which was never separate in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 14, 2024 1:53:09 GMT
There's your problem. You don't know what the term "identify/identity" is actually referencing in these convos.
"TO" identify "with/as" something is not the same as being able to "identify/discern" one thing from another.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 14, 2024 18:40:41 GMT
Lolly is suggesting much more than just that though. He's talking about inquiring with the question; What do I actually know for certain vs. what I am assuming/surmising/imagining? One must first get crystal clear on what it means to have present/immediate, direct knowing. Your knowledge for example that a body of another that you observe and declare to be "awakening from sleep," is different in an important way from your knowing that 'you' are presently "awakening from a sleep." One is direct experience, the other observable content.
Becoming clear/awakening to the consensus trance requires a strong ability to distinguish between the two, but it also goes further into those places where mind is making assumptions and surmising...imagining things, vs. presently observing them or directly experiencing. For example, the tree you saw while driving down the street a week ago, that you insist to presently "know for certain" to be there, is an assumption based upon past/memory, whereas if you look out your window and state, there is a tree, that is a direct observation.
That "un-peeled" foundation that remains when all those layers are peeled away can be known in a manner that extends beyond an initial glimmer/glimpse had in a momentary "transcendence." Because you have no reference for an abiding shift in seeing, whereby that realization remains and informs all of experience, you continue to insist that "transcendence" can only be a momentary state that comes and goes. It's not. The shift that is SR, if it is abiding, means that the primary locus of seeing, regardless of what arises in terms of experiential content, remains grounded in Awareness. Whatever is arising in terms of experiential content is then "couched within" that and that includes the sense of being an individual "me character" amidst masses of individual me characters.
Relative and Absolute viewpoints DO essential "mix" in the way you seem to be using that term, as life is lived. I'd prefer to say they co-abide/co-arise. The experiential is not at war with the transcendent viewpoint...the transcendent viewpoint informs the experiential and dissolves the previously assigned/assumed "inherent existence/separate/independent existence in it's own right" from all of it.
Experientially holding another driver (for example) responsible for an accident can co-arise with the realization that ultimately, no one is actually responsible for anything that arises within experience. You must be able to discern between relative/experiential content/dream-content vs. the actual/existent/fundamental. You continue to conflate relative truth/fact with Absolute Truth. The ability to discern plays an important part in being free. Again, distinction is not separation.
Wakefulness is not a temporal 'state of awareness.' States come and go. Wakefulness/SR abides (if it is complete). The world is indeed "returned to" following the initial shift, but because the place where primary seeing is happening, that world has now been transformed. It's not the same world it was before because it's now empty of the heavy, limiting "substance" it was previously, erroneously, falsely assigned.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 4, 2024 19:08:02 GMT
A really good questions then for you inquire into, (if in fact you DO value clarity....awareness of mind's content...what is going on within) would be: Why do I continue to log into and engage on a forum where much of the talk I find to be drivel? "People as appearance only," is a pointer. Indeed, in the wrong hands....in the mind where separation is still in play, it can be problematic. The utterance does not mean what you "think" it means. It's a pointer to fundamental Oneness and cannot be grasped by a mind that is still mired within the dream of separation. It is indeed so that the mere uttering or writing of those words does not necessarily mean there's been realization of the pointer, but the way you are painting ALL folks who use such pointers on Nonduality forums/Nonduality teaching sites, etc, as "idiots trying to sound intelligent," is...well....not very intelligent.  Of course. Have you actually found anyone on these forums saying the truth can be captured by mere "platitudes"? The Truth defies full capture by mind....it is not a some additive knowledge that can be comprehended like other wordly matters can be, but that does not mean that there is no part at all that mind plays in the "living Truth"...in the experience of living an enlightened, awakened life experience. Mind and experience ARE impacted by SR and that means an ability to talk about the shift that happened as separation was seen through...about what that means in terms of 'the way' life is now experienced. Indeed, the words per se do not fully capture the absence of separation, but they can be used to try to point to that absence. The fact that those pointers piss you off and that you paint ALL writings and utterances of them as devoid of realizational foundation, but yet you continue to come to these forums, speaks volumes. Def. something to look into if again, you DO value clarity. What's up with that? Folks usually avoid experiences that they find to be annoying, if they can. By what means can you be certain that one is a pretender vs. skilled? It "Can be" drivel in the sense there that you describe; Someone reads a few books and then adopts the persona of a guru and runs around preaching, but again, by what means is it that you can ascertain for certain that one espousing said pointers is a whack-job vs. speaking from direct realization? |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 19, 2024 17:16:57 GMT
Gurdjieff was not pointing to Oneness, he was providing a prescription for a person who wants to be more present and consciously aware. That is not what Nonduality teachings point to.
It's odd how you continue to hi-jack Nonduality terminology, pointers such as "identification...awakening," even though you continue to be told that what you write about, is NOT the awakening that Nonduality teachings are indicating.
Awakening to the consensus trance....becoming more consciously aware and present to direct, immediate experience is still "in the dream/story." Awakening to realize the dream as dream, something else entirely. It involves far more than a person who experiences having a sense of great control over his direction of attention. Awakening/SR equals a profound shift in the primary "place" from which seeing happens....part and parcel of that shift is seeing that it is not actually "a place" at all, but rather....the very ground within which all that is seen, arises.
The becoming more consciously aware as a person that is the main focus of your posts SDP, is firmly seated in the realm of self-help/psychology and should not be conflated with SR/Realizing Oneness.
|
|
. Back breaking shovelling and fence work, uprooting trees etc.