|
Post by tenka on Mar 10, 2024 7:42:06 GMT -5
I don't know why peeps only relate the personal level to a SVP. It makes no sense to me. I believe I am an individual that isn't separate from anything. That's part of my understanding had from my transcendence. Alignment, merging or whatever word suits only reflects something that can merge, or align, so all of the above can only relate to the person. If the person only refers to a SVP and the SVP is illusory then as said before to a few members here, what is left? LOA, Karma, and processes that reflect one state over another have to have at the centre point someone that can entertain them. Kan't an individual that isn't separate from everything else hold a belief that doesn't reflect a SVP? The answer is obviously yes, but it seems that some Non Dualists can only see the person one way. That's the reason why I make a distinction between person and individual. Person implies a perspective of separation, individual does not. It's true that a lot of 'non-dualists' don't or cannot make that distinction. And that, as you have been pointing out, can lead to ridiculous arguments, I agree. I suppose it boils down to what one believes a person constitutes. If you look at the bog standard dictionary definition a person is a human being regarded as an individual. If one identifies a person as a SVP this leads one to believe there is no doer because the person is illusory. Many I dare say will say the same about the individual. There are no individuals because that reflects separation too. Therefore there is no individual doer either. There is no individual soul, no individualised spirit etc etc.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 10, 2024 10:18:33 GMT -5
My point there is the limits of "your beliefs create your reality". I related to what Brofman wrote on two levels. One is superficial, and is the difference between monkey mind (guy with the flat tire), and quiescent mind - Tzu's still minded clarity. The deeper level are the synchronicities (my direct experiences) that corroborate Brofman's interest in challenging the paradigm of objective reality ("does eating grapefruit make you gain or lose weight?"). Brofman replaces an objective machine with a subjective machine. The THIS card trumps the subjective reality card. These mechanistic and dualistic blueprints, like the one Brofman describes (subjective machine), or that the physical sciences describe (objective machine), are all shadows and hints of the existential truth (all is One, neither subjective, nor objective), which is why context dogma also has it's limitations. Yes, the Brofman model is also just one of those provisional truths, a bridge. Because state of being trumps beliefs. Even desire can trump beliefs. And in the end, the THIS card is also just a contextual device, which means the THIS card also has its limits. Yes, the limits of Advaita / Christ are evident in the need for grace and the current state of the common mind. All the fun I had with andy years ago arguing both sides from the positionless position notwithstanding, that is. Another pointer that demonstrates the limits of context is "kill the Buddha". Intellect gets a bad wrap, but mind can recognize the limits of intellect, using intellect.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 11, 2024 8:46:52 GMT -5
if you are already home, what kind of action or transformation can get you closer to home? None. All it takes is a realization that you are already home, which means there has to be a radical shift in perspective. RM argued exactly the same way, that there is no such things as SR or liberation in the sense of a transformation, and that as long as one sees it in those terms, one will remain in bondage. You cannot become what you already are. .. It's all about returning within awareness of the self and the mind which then can muddy the waters. For some as discussed by many the state of oneself for use of a better word can change like the weather in regards to mental and emotional irritation or whatever but it doesn't change a thing about what you fundamentally are. It can be argued that realising that or just being that is S.R. but where there is a change in oneself in regards to how one feels or perceives the world day by day peeps can still transform and align. It doesn't matter if one has realised what they are for at times even the masters become subjected to life as we know it which can still push their buttons. For myself I meditate daily to realign, I don't know about other's butt I don't live in a monastery, my daily life is kinda hectic. This is, I think, what SDP always insisted on, that there is a further after SR, that SR is not the end of the road. And that is correct in the sense that there is an integration period into normal everyday life post-SR. But it is not correct in the sense of having realized one's true nature, or the ultimate truth. Once you've realized Self, you've realized Self, you've passed thru the gateless gate. There are different models that explain this. There's the Arhat vs. Boddhisattva model in Buddhism, the 10 ox herding pictures in Zen, and then there's Campbell's 17 step The Hero's Journey. But in essence, these all point to a further, post-SR stage. Which means in a sense, SR is only half circle. The end of the road (which isn't an end really) is coming back to where you started, chopping wood, carrying water. The Arhat does not return to normal life, but the Bodhisattva does. It's the 10th ox herding picture where you return to the market place. (i.e. normal, ordinary life). And Campbell has 2 final stages, stage #16 'Master of the Two Worlds' (i.e. personal and impersonal, relative and absolute). It means that you can move freely between these perspectives without losing your clarity, which is what I mostly talk about. And then there is the 'Freedom to Live' stage, which is what ZD mostly talks about. If we put Campbell's model into the relative/personal vs. absolute/impersonal framework, it looks like this: You start with the SVP perspective, only knowing the relative/personal context. And you suffer. So you become a seeker and start following a path or teacher. That's 1/4 of the circle. Then you suddenly have your first spiritual experiences, a glimpse of the absolute/impersonal. That's the Crossing the Threshold stage. And now you can't go back, your head is in the tiger's mouth (the Belly of the Whale stage). So you keep progressing thru spiritual experiences and ego games and you complete the other 1/4 of the circle. Then, half circle, you see thru the SVP and realize your true nature, that's the Atonement (at-one-ment) with the Father stage. The following 1/4 of the circle is basically the post-SR 'informing of mind 'stage. And here is a decision point, to either return to return or not return. Not returning would be the Arhat path, like RM. Returning would be the Bodhisattva path, like Niz. So the last 1/4 of the circle is the integration stage, it's the road back to the market place, to the normal, ordinary life environment. And only that is coming full circle, essentially, going incognito, or as Zhuangzi liked to say, roaming freely. So, if the topic is realization, we can talk about SR as the end point. If the topic is living in the world, we have to talk about a further, the other half of the circle.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 11, 2024 8:51:15 GMT -5
That's the reason why I make a distinction between person and individual. Person implies a perspective of separation, individual does not. It's true that a lot of 'non-dualists' don't or cannot make that distinction. And that, as you have been pointing out, can lead to ridiculous arguments, I agree. I suppose it boils down to what one believes a person constitutes. If you look at the bog standard dictionary definition a person is a human being regarded as an individual. If one identifies a person as a SVP this leads one to believe there is no doer because the person is illusory. Many I dare say will say the same about the individual. There are no individuals because that reflects separation too. Therefore there is no individual doer either. There is no individual soul, no individualised spirit etc etc. Well, for starters, the P in SVP does not refer to a person in the dictionary sense. You should have noticed that by now. Individual perspective implies distinction, but not separation. Personal perspective, however, does always imply distinction and separation.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 11, 2024 8:52:57 GMT -5
Yes, the Brofman model is also just one of those provisional truths, a bridge. Because state of being trumps beliefs. Even desire can trump beliefs. And in the end, the THIS card is also just a contextual device, which means the THIS card also has its limits. Yes, the limits of Advaita / Christ are evident in the need for grace and the current state of the common mind. All the fun I had with andy years ago arguing both sides from the positionless position notwithstanding, that is. Another pointer that demonstrates the limits of context is "kill the Buddha". Intellect gets a bad wrap, but mind can recognize the limits of intellect, using intellect. Interesting connection.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 12, 2024 11:29:08 GMT -5
Yes, the limits of Advaita / Christ are evident in the need for grace and the current state of the common mind. All the fun I had with andy years ago arguing both sides from the positionless position notwithstanding, that is. Another pointer that demonstrates the limits of context is "kill the Buddha". Intellect gets a bad wrap, but mind can recognize the limits of intellect, using intellect. Interesting connection.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Mar 16, 2024 14:38:17 GMT -5
.. It's all about returning within awareness of the self and the mind which then can muddy the waters. For some as discussed by many the state of oneself for use of a better word can change like the weather in regards to mental and emotional irritation or whatever but it doesn't change a thing about what you fundamentally are. It can be argued that realising that or just being that is S.R. but where there is a change in oneself in regards to how one feels or perceives the world day by day peeps can still transform and align. It doesn't matter if one has realised what they are for at times even the masters become subjected to life as we know it which can still push their buttons. For myself I meditate daily to realign, I don't know about other's butt I don't live in a monastery, my daily life is kinda hectic. This is, I think, what SDP always insisted on, that there is a further after SR, that SR is not the end of the road. And that is correct in the sense that there is an integration period into normal everyday life post-SR. But it is not correct in the sense of having realized one's true nature, or the ultimate truth. Once you've realized Self, you've realized Self, you've passed thru the gateless gate. .. If one has an understanding of SR is the beingness of what you are beyond mind and self then integration is inevitable once returned within awareness of it. I don't think there would be much resitence regarding Once you've realized Self, you've realized Self for that is a given, it's more to the fact that because there is always a change in perception and feeling when experiencing the self and the mindful world, alignment is still part of the parcel regardless.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Mar 16, 2024 14:42:16 GMT -5
.. It's all about returning within awareness of the self and the mind which then can muddy the waters. For some as discussed by many the state of oneself for use of a better word can change like the weather in regards to mental and emotional irritation or whatever but it doesn't change a thing about what you fundamentally are. It can be argued that realising that or just being that is S.R. but where there is a change in oneself in regards to how one feels or perceives the world day by day peeps can still transform and align. It doesn't matter if one has realised what they are for at times even the masters become subjected to life as we know it which can still push their buttons. For myself I meditate daily to realign, I don't know about other's butt I don't live in a monastery, my daily life is kinda hectic. So, if the topic is realization, we can talk about SR as the end point. If the topic is living in the world, we have to talk about a further, the other half of the circle. .. I agree, butt from what I witness in regards to S.R. convo's it more to do with how one relates to the world post-realisation and what that entails when speaking about what is perceived, or whom or what is the perceiver, or the non doer or what the reality reflects etc.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Mar 16, 2024 14:46:15 GMT -5
I suppose it boils down to what one believes a person constitutes. If you look at the bog standard dictionary definition a person is a human being regarded as an individual. If one identifies a person as a SVP this leads one to believe there is no doer because the person is illusory. Many I dare say will say the same about the individual. There are no individuals because that reflects separation too. Therefore there is no individual doer either. There is no individual soul, no individualised spirit etc etc. Well, for starters, the P in SVP does not refer to a person in the dictionary sense. You should have noticed that by now. Individual perspective implies distinction, but not separation. Personal perspective, however, does always imply distinction and separation. This perhaps is part of the problemo. Peeps have different ideas of what certain key references mean and refer too. This again reflects individuality more than anything realised. These key points of understandings had it seems shape what one has supposedly realised. As said often, if you think the person relates to a separate entity of sorts that is illusory, then one can associate a realisation to that identification. Another peep whom has a different definition of what a person constitutes will say the opposite that reflects their definition. What's that say about what is realised lol. It's a crock.
|
|