|
Post by figrebirth on May 31, 2023 15:02:42 GMT -5
I think that's the whole point, realization sees behind it all. More or less, but don't try to imagine it or build a theory around it. The exact same conditioning and conditions extant in the instant prior to realization are extant in the instant afterward. The conditioning changes over time from there. And that's not to rule out the possibility of sudden and instantaneous profound transformation, either. Just observing how things can go. The 'exact' same? The mistake of separation is itself a condition.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 31, 2023 15:06:27 GMT -5
Correct. I haven't read any of the McKenna books because they sound like shock-jock stuff implying that waking up is some horrible transformative event (akin to "being skinned alive," etc). ITSW, Shiv's book, "Advaitacoholics Anonymous," appears to set up a straw man for people who are guru worshipers or people strongly attached to religious belief systems, and it ignores the simple down-to-earth path of having realizations that change one's habits of mind and lead to psychological freedom. Yes, THIS can apparently do lots of things that appear to be non-rational or non-logical. In the past I wondered if there could be a logical explanation for the "miracles" reported in various spiritual traditions. After a CC it became apparent that THIS can do anything via particular humans. I've never been interested in making anything unusual happen or manifesting anything because ordinary life seems fine just as it is. I've seen unusual things happen, and even my wife has had a non-local event occur, so I accept that THIS can manifest in many unexpected and non-logical ways. The Jed character does make it clear in his first book that he's attached to the idea that the person has to go through very negative experiences prior to "enlightenment". I've only ever read that re-enforced in the quotes from the latter books I've come across. I think the author has plain and simply, likely observed far too many folks who 'think' they're 'there,' but who have simply exchanged their shitty ideas for comfy ones....and he's likely also observed the frantic gripping grasp with which those who so badly want to believe they've 'got it,' hold on to their most sacred of beliefs...those ideas that if seen through completely, would not longer ride along as their safety blanket.
Having your safety blankie get ripped away and shredded before your very eyes, does tend to make for a 'negative experience.' Just a fact...just how it goes.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 31, 2023 15:11:07 GMT -5
There's a scene in the bible where Jesus somehow reveals his true nature to his disciples at the top of a mountain and leaves them cowering in terrified awe. The Catholics run their bible readings in a yearly cycle and this one comes up when the new recruits are just ready be baptized. Father Joe's sermon for that day was .. "we don't live on the mountain top". But what was realized/seen through on the mountaintop is left as dust, up on that mountain-top and does not remain an item in your back-pack thereafter.
Either there is a seeing through/absence or there isn't. And when there isn't, then all we have is a mere conceptual grasp. A conceptual grasp of Oneness will still allow one to believe in a fundamental "law" that dictates how/why what shows up in experience, does so.
But an actual seeing through/absence means that the very idea of an Absolute law that dictates what manifests/appears, would defy the very Truth of Oneness/no separation.
Let's take the mirage/oasis metaphor again.
Once you've seen there's no water there, the action/behavior of heading out there to fill your canteen for the purpose of quenching your thirst, ceases.
This idea that ones comes down from the top of 3rd mountain and just goes back to believing again in fundamental laws that dictate 'creation," is plain and simply, false.
Appearances appear in various patterns that intellect and other faculties of mind can take notice of.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 31, 2023 15:11:26 GMT -5
More or less, but don't try to imagine it or build a theory around it. The exact same conditioning and conditions extant in the instant prior to realization are extant in the instant afterward. The conditioning changes over time from there. And that's not to rule out the possibility of sudden and instantaneous profound transformation, either. Just observing how things can go. The 'exact' same? The mistake of separation is itself a condition. TMT
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 31, 2023 15:13:59 GMT -5
That's not what I am saying at all. All of this LOA and deliberate creation talk has to be seen in the extensions of Source context or else you will inevitably argue for separation along the way. There is no separate volitional entity that can do this or that using LOA. That may be the popular understanding of LOA, but that's nonsense and not what I am saying. There is the appearance of having free will and being able to decide this or that. But in reality, when you examine it carefully, before you become conscious of your decisions, they've already been made. Source is running the show. However, you are, we all are, extensions of Source. And ONLY in that context is there free will and can you make your own decisions and are you deliberate creator. And because of that, there's no contradiction between my talks about LOA/deliberate creation and non-duality. I think Laughter gets this, ZD probably too. Figgles still doesn't get it. She starts with the premise that these two have to be necessarily at odds. That's why I can't get thru to her. She starts with a flawed premise and it never changes. She just changes the wording. Maybe I have better luck with you now. * fingers crossed * In short: As an SVP there is no free will at all and you have no ability to create. As an extension of Source, free will is the basis of your reality and you are the creator of your own reality. I think the mistake you guys make when I talk to you about LOA and how you create your own reality is that you think that I am addressing you as an SVP. But I am not. I am addressing you you as an extension of Source, always. Or else it wouldn't make any sense and I would indeed contradicting myself when you compare what I say about LOA/deliberate creation vs. what I say about non-duality and SR. Glad we finally cleared that up. OK, thanks, no, I've never known that was your position. When you write you write a lot about context. So I've always thought you meant the LOA-A-H stuff from the context of individuation. Yea, that clears up most everything. I've brought up my problem with A-H before, that they do not distinguish between LOA from the standpoint of the small s self and True Self (I know I have a different view of True Self than you). I don't recall you addressing that from your perspective (above), seems it would have been a golden opportunity. But no mind, we're there now. They do, but they give the (s)elf inherent existence via it's "connection" to Source and then they introduce and "Inner Being" as a sort of 'link' between the two.
There is Source, which the volitional person is an extension of...and then there is the "middle layer" which is "inner being," and it's the link between impersonal Source and the person. It's a sort of 'expanded' personal entity/aspect of self that has a higher viewpoint than the person, less personal, but it still falls short of the Source level/impersonal. And even their Source/God at times is assigned personal aspects...so then it gets real wonky.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 31, 2023 15:16:19 GMT -5
The Jed character does make it clear in his first book that he's attached to the idea that the person has to go through very negative experiences prior to "enlightenment". I've only ever read that re-enforced in the quotes from the latter books I've come across. I think the author has plain and simply, likely observed far too many folks who 'think' they're 'there,' but who have simply exchanged their shitty ideas for comfy ones....and he's likely also observed the frantic gripping grasp with which those who so badly want to believe they've 'got it,' hold on to their most sacred of beliefs...those ideas that if seen through completely, would not longer ride along as their safety blanket.
Having your safety blankie get ripped away and shredded before your very eyes, does tend to make for a 'negative experience.' Just a fact...just how it goes.
Yeah, every time, always the same, right? Seems you gots some laws of yer own that yer legislatin' there.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 31, 2023 15:21:15 GMT -5
Do the same from the other side of the dialog now. Try to be objective. ... I mean I'm well aware that her questioning could be very annoying, and she's said some shit in the past. But what I read here, it sounded like a magnanimous invitation to return with a clean slate. But that's not what she got. She got blasted immediately with condescension. Now that's totally understandable, and human – if there's a past conflict, bitterness, grievance, and an entrenched pattern of one-upmanship. My point is: if that's the case, just stop pretending you're High and Enlightened and better than Average Joe, and stop projecting all the issues unto the other party.Hehe....So, You noticed, too? Thanks for saying...
& yeah, for what it's worth, I'm making a strong point to remain as civil and possible and just to address the content of the posts/expressed views themselves.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 31, 2023 15:36:10 GMT -5
I hear ya. I think in short, there is motivation to do so...and we've all likely been there to some extent. It really is quite nice on these forums when that sense of resonance with another's pov arises and there's often a tendency to wanna keep riding that fun/enjoyable wave. I think there's a pattern in play for most of us.....we will try harder to see resonance/agreement in another's post when that has to date mostly been the case...and we will likely not try near as hard to see/find that resonance, if there's been a history of disagreement or challenge.
We may not BE 'machines,' but sometimes even while full out being aware we're doing so, we behave like them. I pretty-much stand alone in my ontology here, laughter keeps poking me, telling me I am not a machine. enigma coined it a 3-layer cake. (Essentially) Self-(1), True self-(2), false self-(3). We are born as True Self, essence, actual individuality. The false self forms as conditioning, acquired and covers over and obstructs True Self, and most people live the remainder of their life through their conditioning-which-they-believe-is-their-self. The self-as-conditioning IS a machine. True Self is not a machine.So I've always misunderstood Reefs it seems, I thought he was 1/2 way there, with True Self-as-individuality-acting. He just blew that up for me. Oh well...... I can't-not-see everything, everybody through that lens. It seems to me as though your focus is upon "human adulthood" (a term coined by Jed mckenna) also known as 'becoming relatively clear/as consciously aware of what's going as possible) vs. waking up/SR.
While being awake/SR very much includes being a human adult, being a human adult, does not necessarily include being away/SR.
I say becoming the most conscious and aware 'me character' you can be, as free from conditioning via delving within and seeing where it's got us by the knackers, etc, etc, is an extremely worthy endeavor in the absence of full SR/wakefulness.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 31, 2023 15:47:05 GMT -5
Where's the attempt at 'force' towards engagment. If you feel compelled in some way to engage, that's ultimately on you, no?
In fact I'm telling you I'm fine to talk about/write about the delusion inherent in mistaking suchness for Absolute knowledge of discrete/unique perceivers/experiencers, absent any engagement at all. He could just as easily assert that you feel compelled to paint the portraits. The fact of her engagement is what it is, when/where/if it is...the idea that I am painting portraits is not...it's subjective. If you're keeping score, Reefs is way ahead in the personal jab/insult game this round.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 31, 2023 15:50:10 GMT -5
He could just as easily assert that you feel compelled to paint the portraits. The fact of her engagement is what it is, when/where/if it is...the idea that I am painting portraits is not...it's subjective. If you're keeping score, Reefs is way ahead in the personal jab/insult game this round.
And this is the way the painting perpetuates, you see? All ego all the time.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 31, 2023 15:50:37 GMT -5
I remember many moons ago ZD once suggesting that he might write something about "Spiritual Arrogance". I remember hoping he would but don't think he ever did. Maybe I just missed it. The concept of Spiritual Arrogance has crossed my mind of late and thought I'd question the bot and see what it popped out. The results... Question: In terms of non-duality, what would be examples of spiritual arrogance? ChatGPT: "In the context of non-duality, examples of spiritual arrogance can manifest in various ways. Here are a few examples: Believing One's Understanding is Superior: A person who practices non-duality might believe that their understanding of non-dual principles is superior to others. They may consider themselves more enlightened or advanced, looking down upon those who have different perspectives or interpretations. Correcting Others' Views: Someone exhibiting spiritual arrogance may constantly correct or dismiss others who have differing views or interpretations of non-dual teachings. They may feel the need to assert their own understanding as the "correct" or "authentic" one, without allowing space for diverse perspectives. Egoic Identification with Knowledge: Spiritual arrogance can manifest when a person becomes deeply identified with their knowledge of non-dual concepts. They may derive a sense of self-worth and importance from their intellectual understanding, using it as a tool to elevate themselves above others. Judgment and Criticism: Individuals displaying spiritual arrogance may harshly judge or criticize others who have not reached the same level of realization or understanding. They may see these individuals as less evolved or misguided, fostering a sense of separation and superiority. Lack of Humility and Openness: Spiritual arrogance can be characterized by a lack of humility and openness to alternative viewpoints or teachings. The person may believe they have "figured it all out" and close themselves off to new insights or perspectives, considering their own understanding as the ultimate truth. Using Spirituality for Egoic Purposes: Instead of using spiritual teachings as a means of self-transformation and genuine awakening, someone displaying spiritual arrogance may use their spiritual knowledge or practices to bolster their ego. They may seek validation or admiration from others, using spirituality as a tool for self-aggrandizement. It is important to note that these examples are not exhaustive, and spiritual arrogance can manifest in various ways depending on the individual. The essence of non-duality emphasizes humility, compassion, and the recognition of the underlying unity of all beings. True realization goes beyond egoic identifications and judgments, fostering inclusivity and openness to diverse perspectives. Chat-GP....who knew?... a great tool for passively making digs at folks without actually having to step up and put forth and own your opinions...
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 31, 2023 16:00:47 GMT -5
Suchness is reference to how the world of things is experienced post SR... to the realization of Oneness/absence of separation, the non-conceptual knowing that it's all ultimately, one seamless, undivided movement, abiding alongside the experience of and engagement with appearing, discrete, distinct things/objects/facets of experience.
Suchness is the primary, visceral knowing of essential Oneness amidst the appearance of many.
& I don't struggle with the question of perceivers at all. I've seen the question as misconceived...there's no struggling for an answer or wondering going on here.
I take issue with the idea of an Absolute answer to what can only ever be, a relative question.
In that quote, Niz is taking liberties....obviously speaking to someone who is still very mired in experience/duality. He often did that...spoke to a seeker from where the seeker sat...making at times, some very deep and wide concessions to mind. It doesn't mean what you think it means.
& here you are now, ready to completely dismiss this discussion just as we are making some headway. This is what you've done every time....ignore direct questions...insist that I simply don't get what you are saying, but all without offering explanations.
Before folks can arrive at an agreement to disagree, it's kind of nice if there's an actual understanding of what it is they are actually disagreeing on, first. figs, you're just not going to ever solve this. I can read stuff and see, oh, that's how they see me (sdp). End of story. Pointing out what you see as contradictions means nothing. Don't you see it's a problem that you keep trying? Not at all. I love having these conversations. If the one I'm engaging with doesn't, they can simply cease engagement.
I don't see any of this as very serious....it's just two characters on a forum comparing/challenging so called spiritual Truths/realizations.
It's funny because while I DO in this type of venue have a very high tolerance for clashes of mind, it's just not something that I experience or would be okay with off forum.....and fwiw, I rarely if ever bash heads with friends/family off forum, in day to day life.
These forums are an opportunity for those of us who value clarity...Truth....and I see many squandering that opportunity due to not wanting to bash heads. It should be the least of issues if Truth is the main interest. So long as folks stay civil, as impersonal as possible and try to stick to addressing the ideas presented vs. character and such, I don't understand why so many take issue with strong spiritual debate.
An opportunity to hold your highest knowings/Truths up to challenge is in my opinion, one of the best things I could experience....up there anyway.
I've always lived by the motto; The unexamined life 'aint worth living. And I'll now admit that's a bit strong, but it does speak to the high degree to which I value clarity.....wakefulness....Truth.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on May 31, 2023 16:05:15 GMT -5
If we include ALL appearing objects/things under the umbrella of "suchness" then there is no context mix. There is nothing that falls outside of 'suchness.' What if there are no objects or things in Suchness?
|
|
|
Post by sharon on May 31, 2023 16:13:23 GMT -5
Makes you wonder, do we find these animals amazing because they really are exceptional or are our expectations of them just too low? In the 1920's it was widely believed that babies couldn't feel pain and they were treated accordingly. So these experiments and 'amazing' discoveries re: the cognitive abilities of animals probably say more about our erroneous beliefs than the cognitive abilities of animals. It is widely believed that animals don't think or can't think. So we treat them accordingly. Now that we know better, how are we going to treat them? www.nonhumanrights.org/who-we-are/
|
|
|
Post by sharon on May 31, 2023 16:20:11 GMT -5
biblehub.com/matthew/17-27.htm" Pulpit CommentaryVerse 27. - Lest we should offend them; cause them to stumble. In his large charity he would not take the advantage of his position to avoid the tax. Though above the Law, he would place himself under the Law. Offence would be given by the nonpayment. His motive would be unknown and misunderstood (see on ver. 24). The people would attribute it to caprice, sectarianism, contempt of religion; they would see in it dishonour to the temple. Suspicion and animosity would be aroused; ill feeling, injurious both to themselves who encouraged it and to the cause of Christ, would weaken the effects of his acts and doctrine..." I never doubted this story, always thought it pretty cool. Yeah? Well thank you for mentioning it.. I hadn't heard it. The necessity to pay the tax, as Jesus rightly perceived, opened the possibility of where to find a coin. Peter's talent as a fisherman was inluded in the perception. This event is more about alignment than miraculous manifestation. Jesus read the situation and aligned with the right course of action.
|
|