|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 14, 2024 5:13:28 GMT
The experience of suffering does indeed have chasing...seeking....grasping inherent to it....but also part and parcel of that, is an erroneously imagined separate, volitional person....along with the sense/belief that it needs/must have certain manifestations in order to be okay....not suffer.
The way experience seems to unfold on a time-line...in sequential manner, supports mind in dissecting it all up...chopping it into pieces to designate one thing as 'causal/creative' to another....but when you really realize (& I think you have) the "one singular movement" it's clear that what previously seemed to be a causal chain of events, conditions, ideas, senses, is actually one seamless "happening/manifestation."
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 14, 2024 5:23:56 GMT
The fact is, you've promoted BOTH LOA and "deliberate creation" as existential Truth. So are you now backing away from your assertions about 'deliberate creation'? You've been very clear that there is a "someome/something" in play, that can "volitionally choose" to direct thought/feelings in a direction away from a current "lowly" position on the emotional scale. That assertion equals the asserting of 'an entity that can choose/direct thought according to it's personal desires.'
But really, absent the idea that you as body/mind are an existent entity (doer) what the heck would there BE, to align or misalign with Source?
LOA very much posits a substantive/existent "me entity" that either aligns (via thought/feeling state) with manifest desires/outcomes, or not. Take away that existent entity and what is there to BE "mis-aligned" with/apart from Source?
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 14, 2024 5:35:41 GMT
The very same one who you say can "volitionally choose direction of thought, thus, who can control feeling state"...the very same one who has the need-based 'desire' for conditions to be other than what they presently are...the very same one who you say is a "deliberate creator."  "craving"?... Remove all separation, and primary and secondary 'cause/creative catalyst' disappears. You are perfectly demonstrating what I meant in my last post to Gopal about unnecessarily (and ultimately, erroneously/falsely) dividing, and to use your word above, "carving" experience apart to designate one apparent facet as causal/creative to another. Again, consider the movie screen metaphor....within the drama, you can likely denote the primary cause of what happens at the end of the movie, and in between all that drama/movie content, an apparent secondary cause...but ultimately, it's ALL the same movie appearing upon a singular screen... And...try as you might, as a seeker, unfortunately, there is nothing that you can do to "remove" the seeker....the seeker goes/is seen through in the shift in locus of seeing that is SR...as separation itself...the SVP, is seen through. That would really be something indeed if it were in the persons control to simply "REMOVE" the misidentification that equals the imagined SVP. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 14, 2024 5:38:58 GMT
Time is in the mind, space is in the mind. The law of cause and effect is also a way of thinking. - Niz
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 16, 2024 22:43:49 GMT
While I prefer to use the term "manifestation/appearance" vs. "creation" (creation invokes the idea of a creator/creative process, and those are misconceptions) you are bang on in your pointing to the "wholly encompassing nature" re: everything that appears, being encompassed within the realm of "that which manifests" and thus, "is not actually creative/causal."
Reefs continually upholds specific appearances/manifestations as though they have Absolute existence and thus, some kind of creative/catalyzing "power" to dictate future manifestation/appearance.
Literally anything at all that arises as a "perceivable"...that constitutes "content" to be "aware of," falls under that umbrella of "nothing escapes."
It's really cool Gopal that you are now seeing this and I can tell by how consistently and emphatically you continue to counter with this, that you're very clear about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 16, 2024 22:46:03 GMT
Nice pointer.  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 17, 2024 20:58:44 GMT
 You're going to quibble about that but pay no need at all to Reef's assertion of each person as an existent, actual, 'deliberate creator'? I may be wrong, but my sense is that the assignation of "ruling power" to Gopal's "God/Supreme" pointer, is but a language issue. Again, may be wrong but the way Gopal is now consistently pointing, seems to me he's no longer objectifying/conceptualizing "God." Time will tell of course as the convo unfolds...
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 17, 2024 21:39:31 GMT
The mistake lies in excluding the idea/interest/thought to engage in such an exercise....the very stumbling upon the idea of LOA...the book that suggests engaging in such a practice....the desire itself to control outcomes....ALL of that is part and parcel of 'what's happening/appearing.'
LOA singles out certain facets of experience to denote them as 'causal' when really, those facets are also part and parcel of "the" overall "manifestation."
You can single a particular facet of the experience to denote it as "causal"...it too is a temporal, ephemeral arising/appearance. Nothing within experience actually lies causal/creative to anything else. Just because a thought/idea "precedes" a particular manifestation in terms of the unfolding experience, does not therefore mean it it "fundamentally" causal/creative to that which followed sequentially.
To see that though, there must be a shift in locus of seeing to beyond/prior to. From within the dream/experience, it will very much 'seem as though' that which precedes the other, is "creating/causing/catalyzing" it. That is just a mind-derived story.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 17, 2024 21:50:11 GMT
From a position of seeing, that is prior to/beyond appearance, all of that, beginning with the reading about such a 'test,' to the performing of it, visualizing the blue feather, and then, either the appearance of a blue feather, or lack thereof, is ALL a singular, unfolding....there is nothing within that clump of correlated events, that is actually/fundamentally "causal/creative" to anything else.
While it might be fun at times to engage in and play such games....to 'think' about an object and then await it's appearance within experience, so long as there is reference for "beyond/prior to" perceivables/appearance, all of it will remain just that...apparent, which means there will be no erroneous assignation of "fundamental, inviolable LAWS" or Truth.
The moment where the interest arises to engage in 'the game,' to 'choose an object' in thought, and to then prepare to see it become manifest, is itself a manifestation/appearance. While it may seem to be 'causal/creative' to what unfolds, it's not Actually, fundamentally, causal at all....any "causation" you think you see, is part and parcel of the story/dream.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 18, 2024 21:16:51 GMT
Engaged in an interesting and open convo about the whole issue of bodily illness/condition...bodily pain, etc, and the mind's need to try to find fundamental "reasons/explanations" for that.
Ultimately, being awake means no longer searching for 'reasons,' and just simply accepting that what's imminently appearing, is what currently is. No need to try to find out 'why' or to assign any number of mind-derived theories to try to explain.
The most prevalent of explanations amid seekers is that a bodily condition, Niz/Ramana's cancer let's say, is "an indication" of something gone amiss in mind. Seekers harken back to their own experiences with bodily pain/illness and the accompanying mental resistance to that...the "emotional" pain that was heaped upon the apparent condition to conclude that illness equals emotional/mental resistance is mistaken to be necessarily part and parcel of the bodily condition. They cannot imagine peace, equanimity in the face of such an apparent condition, thus, they erroneously reverse engineer things, invoking the idea of causality within the dream, to declare that it was a lowly state of mind, a problem IN mind, that "caused/created" the disease.
The body/mind correlation is indeed something that is often the case in terms of experience...extreme nervousness comes hand in hand with tummy pain....a head aches as stressful ideas are entertained... but correlation need not be mistaken for "causation/creation." That's the mistake. An apparent experiential "causal" chain, is not the same as an actual/fundamental cause.
I think for those sages who experience something like cancer and the inherent physical pain that generally accompanies that, can be said to be receiving direct verification of what they've always known but perhaps up until that point, not in a direct/imminent way and that is the first hand knowing that mental/emotional suffering need not accompany physical pain/disease...that there can be peace and even joy, regardless of appearing physical/material conditions.
Absent actual, direct experience of disease with the absence of accompanying suffering, their knowledge that that the two are NOT in fact intrisically tied together, was 2nd hand knowledge. When observed that way, from that perspective, it could even be said that disease itself is a sort of "gift."
|
|
"craving"?... 
