|
|
Post by Figgles on May 18, 2024 3:37:20 GMT
"Your attitude determines your latitude" she says...? Only if separation is actual.
From the shifted position of seeing that is SR, it's crystal clear, attitude is but an appearance within the dream/story. Nothing that appears within the dream is actually "determining/causing" anything else that appears....it just looks that way from a position of immersion within the story.
The very idea that attitude can be managed/controlled in an ongoing manner as she prescribes, and all for the purpose of ensuring a better dream....an experience that conforms more aptly with the person's value judgments regarding how experience "should be/needs to be," hinges upon a primary, personal locus seeing.
There can be the experience of having the idea to focus upon gratitude for the purpose of "determining/creating a better experience," and so long as the interest in that focus remains high, that's what the focus will remain upon, but the moment that interest wanes, (which it inevitably will, plain and simply because arising interests are temporal, ephemeral, not stagnant, but rather, in flux...arising/falling) focus will shift to something else.
The experiential sense of "being a some-one/some-thing that is controlling focus," is compelling indeed from the vantage point of an SVP, but in SR, such control is revealed as the illusion/delusion it actually is.
Absent a desire/need to only experience "liked/wanted experiential content," there'd be no interest in controlling focus upon gratitude.
Gratitude will arise naturally and effortlessly at various junctures within experience once the SVP and it's harsh judgments of dream-content are no longer in play.
These kinds of practices erroneously get prescribed by those who have seen that an enlightened state of being comes hand in hand with gratitude. They mistakingly believe that they can reverse engineer things....have the person manipulate his feeling state into one that mirrors an absence of separation, so that material conditions will improve/mirror the SVP's desires for how they should be/need to be.
What they're missing is that it's not the gratitude of the SR, "determining/creating" desired conditions, rather, it's the absence of "need" for conditions to conform, the absence of the deep judgments of an SVP, that allow for the natural arising of gratitude/awe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 18, 2024 3:53:35 GMT
She's clearly abandoned her Nonduality roots for Self-help/New Age/LOA...likely pays better...?  |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on May 24, 2024 4:29:36 GMT
She's clearly abandoned her Nonduality roots for Self-help/New Age/LOA...likely pays better...? Consciously driving ourselves will not take us anywhere, we are already sitting in the boat and we are only able to watch. Clarity may happen while we watch and the result of that clarity will change the direction of the boat. That's all. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 24, 2024 19:00:12 GMT
She's clearly abandoned her Nonduality roots for Self-help/New Age/LOA...likely pays better...? Consciously driving ourselves will not take us anywhere, we are already sitting in the boat and we are only able to watch. Clarity may happen while we watch and the result of that clarity will change the direction of the boat. That's all. Yes, the experiential sense that we are an entity that is "driving/creating" the unfolding story and it's trajectory, while compelling and convincing as heck, is not representative of what's actually so. That said, it's also important to see that while clarity and a shift in terms of the story and it's apparent trajectory are very often correlated, there is no causation actually in play, either. The observed shift to clarity and then apparent, subsequent "change of direction of the boat," ultimately, fundamentally, "actually", one singular, indivisible movement. To say that clarity "causes/creates" the shift is to invoke fundamental division/separation. Only IF separation is actual can it be (T)rue, that one appearance in the dream lies causal to another. And to be clear, I'm not insisting that that IS your position...the way you phrased the bit about clarity "changing the direction of the boat," leaves it unsaid whether that is a statement of relative, experiential content, or whether you were asserting that as Absolute Truth. I do agree that experientially, in terms of story content, it does very much 'seem' as though clarity is a causal some-thing. It really is just an absence and when certain erroneous ideas are absent from experience, particular experiences that arise in tandem with the presence of ideas, disappear along with the erroneous ideas/minding. It's as simple as; When separation is no longer being erroneously imagined into the experience, experience that has erroneously imagined separation inherent to it, no longer arises. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 29, 2024 22:44:45 GMT
No, really, they are not precisely the same.
While both the "anti-reefs purification" and Reef's "alignment," involve attention to mind content, being a more consciously aware person, in purification, that is an end unto itself..."being clear, conscious, present and aware" is it's own reward, but with 'alignment,' there's a whole lot of other ideas in tow.
First, there's the invoking of a someone/something that can either be "in" alignment with Source, or "out of alignment" with Source....which is a reification/asserting of separation. Then there's the whole reason/intent for "getting into alignment," and that is so that you as a person, can create/manifest/cause experiential content to conform with your personal, egoic/separation based desires/ideas of how things should be...how they need to be so you can feel okay.
Purification is not being upheld for any ulterior purpose/personal gain. Purification does not assert an existent someone/something that can be so 'not pure' that it somehow no longer IS Source.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 30, 2024 18:11:32 GMT
Only if we assume every unfilled interest in winning the lottery, has a lowly, "out of alignment," vibration inherent to it. If being a deliberate creator is as easy as the LOA teachers suggest it is, (AH posit it as natural....simple...that once you get hang of it, you'll rarely fail to manifest your intended target) then with these teachings being so popular, why are lottery wins still relatively 'rare'?
The interest in and practice of "deliberate creation" can be none other than "personal context." It is only an SVP that believes in the actuality of a time-bound, "causal" creative process. And it's only an SVP that is interested in manipulating minding/feelings for the purpose of ensuring outcomes align with "personal" ideas of how life "should/needs to" unfold, so that as a person, you can feel okay.
This idea that Reefs, and now you are putting forth that says somehow LOA/deliberate creation can transcend the personal realm and become some sort of Nondual practice/teaching, is ludicrous.
The very interest in controlling the trajectory and content of the story, via controlling direction and content of thought, is entirely of the personal realm...it's an interest that has separation inherent to it.
Once separation is no longer in play, there is no impetus to control life....where interest/intent towards a particular goal arise, there's a knowing in tandem with that, that that itself, is an appearance...a manifestation that is seamlessly One with whatever it unfolds into. As a person, there is no need nor interest to try to get into the middle of that, to try to orchestrate things....that "orchestrator" is now absent...along with the personal, judgment based convictions about how life "should/needs to" be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 30, 2024 18:42:59 GMT
Why wouldn't it? How is the condition of weather, snow, sunny, rain, etc. different in nature than any other appearing condition/thing? It's ALL "manifest/appearance"? If it's existentially True that there exist an inviolable law that dictates what can/will manifest, then surely that applies to every single facet of experiential content? If "like can only attract like," and that is an inviolable, Absolute "law," and every uncontested desire, will without fail, come into manifestation so long as emotional state of being "matches" the fulfilled condition, then why would weather be any different? I'd love to hear the list of things you believe DO fall under what the personal can deliberately control, vs. what he can't along with your explanation of why that is so. Is the line between the can/cannot manifest groups, clear and definite, I wonder?.....are there other "inviolable laws" that factor in? If so, then does that mean LOA/like attracts like, is not an inviolable, existent, dictating law, after all? According to AH, (and Reefs has made it clear--this is her source for all things LOA... Loa/deliberate creation teachings, if you can desire it, it's possible to manifest it, and yeah, that includes "weather." Well, what's your answer? According to Reef's ontology, there are some appearing conditions that are objectively "negative." Thus, if/when they appear, you can know by that that you were engaging in some stinkin'thinking/resistant emotions. Her stance leaves no room for a sense of joy and peace, an emotional embracing of dead grass....chilly, windy weather, does it? Everything in Reef's ontology is divvied up into either a positive condition/happening/manifest something, or a negative one. But in SR, so much of those petty, surface judgemnts are outright gone...absent....the realization of fundamental perfection has informed experience, informed mind, and now if a particular condition IS judged, it's surface only...does not extend to the fundamentals degree. Looking on at the awakened/liberated, it may appear to an onlooker as though they hold a "want/desire" to "help"...I suggest what's really going on there is merely an outward expression of what it means for the apparent me character, to move naturally within the dream, unfettered by "should/should nots." If a request for assistance should present, the natural movement is to acquiesce to that....no resistance when an apparent need re: an apparent other, directly imminently presents. But the truly liberated/free, are not seeing anything fundamentally amiss/wrong, thus, 'want' is far too strong a word...as is 'help.' This is but another demonstration of how ZD is a mystic, awake to the consensus trance, but with no real, direct reference for what it means for separation/the SVP to be seen through/absent. It's important to note again that "Buddhism" is not "Nonduality." The very interest in practicing deliberate creation/being a deliberate creator = the presence of an imagined people-peep. If they are holding to that as an Absolute Truth, then they are operating from a misconception. At the crux of those ideas is a human mind that is trying to explain the unexplainable...is trying to answer a misconceived existential question. A far more "profound" beauty lies in the acceptance of an absence of Absolute knowing/failure to arrive at an Absolute, pat answer to those questions. Yes. And it's a misconception of that pointer if one arrives at an Absolute knowing/answer of: "God has a plan...everything happens for a reason." |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 31, 2024 4:16:43 GMT
That leaves no room for a sense of satisfaction with life that is not dependent upon experiential content. I would say the satisfaction one experiences through simply being alive and acknowledging the miracle inherent to that, is a far more "true" satisfaction than one dependent upon the continued arising of desires and the sense of moving towards their fulfillment.
It is common for arising intent to manifest into fruition of the fully intended, however, a mere intention is something quite different than a "sepration-based/need-based desire." It is so that as intentions unfold into manifest conditions, new doors open as new interests arise, but that does not equal "more desires opening."
It is actually the presence of a "desire" that tells you, separation is being erroneously imagined into the equation. Absent separation, there is simply arising interest/intent towards a particular, expected outcome. There is no grasping/craving for it, as the arising intention is itself already a partial manifestation towards that full fruition.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 31, 2024 23:46:47 GMT
Yes, what's at the crux of your point here, really is that "abundance" is a mind-set.....a particular way of looking at life that is devoid of blanket, deep judgments...that leaves room for a feeling of gratitude, even in the face of conditions that perhaps someone else might deem to be "lacking/not abundant."
You can apply this to all so called "desired" conditions/things. It is only ever personal judgment that says a particular condition is "good/bad." Which means, you cannot look to the conditions re: another's experience to know how he feels about those conditions. Thus, even if it were true that feeling state "Absolutely determines" future, manifest conditions, merely looking to another's manifest experience, is not going to tell you what his feeling state is/has been.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 31, 2024 23:52:13 GMT
A perfect example of what I said in my last post; Different strokes for different folks. Not everyone holds the same values.....not everyone applies the same judgments to apparent conditions. A perfect demonstration of how you cannot look to another's manifest conditions to determine state of being. One man's hell just might be another's heaven.  I think BK's teachings very much demonstrate that also....that there is no objective, "good/bad" we can apply across the board when it comes to experiential conditions/manifest reality. |
|
