|
Post by sharon on Jun 1, 2023 1:59:32 GMT -5
Yeah. It's a tricky pronouncement. I find a lot of what passes for nonduality is someone blue and shivering in the pool beckoning for others to jump in. "The water's fine." Sometimes tricky though too to know if what you deem to be 'blue & shivering in the pool' is truly what's going on.... That's why it's immeasurably important to ask questions.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 1, 2023 2:00:12 GMT -5
What if there are no objects or things in Suchness? Will you get some kind of pleasure raising questions? You have been asking questions since last 10 years I guess. Thanks for noticing.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 1, 2023 2:16:30 GMT -5
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.
I read the first Jed book in the early 2000's just before the second book came out. I chanced on it in a Barnes & Noble. I'll give a book about 30-40 seconds browse, it either keeps me or not. I browsed 5 minutes, 10, I was hooked. (I've read all 3 and then The Theory of..., then some of Play, A Play [liked the first play], none of The Talk books). I thoroughly enjoyed the first book (enjoyed the next 3 also). I found him closely akin to my POV, [he's] not wholly ND. I have no problem with your assessment. I'm (still) quite perplexed that ND is the be-all and end-all of the spiritual journey, as some consider it. I think Ken Wilber has a better handle on the whole picture. In a real sense it seems to be that ND makes what Wilber calls the pre-trans fallacy, that ND is in a sense a regression to a beginning state, and the way forward is an increase in consciousness. We've pretty-much beat that horse to death here, I know there is no ear for that view here. No problem. I'm here for the ride. Human adulthood is a good thing. Oh, too, I had essentially practiced spiritual autolysis for 30 years, then. I think better writing, I basically think through my fingers. Stuff comes out of my fingers that doesn't come out of my thoughts, alone. A slight handicap, but not really, I don't write about practices or experiences, anywhere, but I write from experience, for the most part, not just book-theory. So I'm pretty much immune from all the "slings and arrows". I like sharon's valley picture. I recognize most all the points of ND (the small s self can't do anything, correct, as an example, yes, it's imaginary), but I see the reasons for not-reaching the valley. There's a glass ceiling, a mirrored glass ceiling. The mirrored glass ceiling is a good metaphor. And it says a lot about the reflective nature of Mind.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 1, 2023 3:09:39 GMT -5
Appearances appear in various patterns that intellect and other faculties of mind can take notice of. Sure, but those noticed patterns themselves, remain a facet of 'what's appearing'......it's all fine up until we call it a inviolable, dictating "law."
I like the way Jed mcKenna put it re: LOA....something akin to he'd "almost" call it Truth, but cannot, because it's dream-content....but he did reference just how persistent indeed those apparent patterns can be.
What I've also noticed though about those who are really bought into LOA/deliberate creation is that they that they get very creative at "finding" and then assigning "correlation/pattern" to what is imminently arising.
Word lawyering about the word "law". Aces. Hey, you know, an impersonal portrait ain't so impersonal if everyone knows who you're referring to.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 1, 2023 3:10:39 GMT -5
Not important to see that the invoking of separation via erroneous imagining IS itself a condition and that immediately upon seeing through separation....immediately upon the disappearance of the SVP, THAT particular condition is gone? The topic of the distinction between realization and experience can be quite fascinating. But it can be meaningless noise, depending on how it's approached,
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 1, 2023 3:15:00 GMT -5
She thinks you are a female masquerading as a male. She's said so on occasion. I know. But I clarified that a long time ago already. Does she really believe that? If I recall correctly, the last expression of the "reefs is sharon" conspiracy theory was within the last year over on gab, and I think even within the last 4 months.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 1, 2023 6:13:05 GMT -5
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. Yeah, I wanted to say something. But, I also think that what you're trying to do with cross-examining him won't work. Choose your battles. We have limited time on Earth. There are other things in life to put your attention on. The confrontational techniques can be good, but they require two willing participants, with trust, friendship, and respect underneath the surface conflict. You don't appear to have that here. The terms like "non-duality", "Self Realization", etc., are out there in the wide world. People will use them to describe different kinds of states and experiences. So be it. I had some colorful conflicts here a while back, but it didn't take long to learn I was not on the same page with certain people. In those cases, it's a waste of time to try to "talk it out". It's still possible to hang out and participate some while avoiding (mostly) certain conflicts. Yes. And I wonder why figgles can't give this up. Why the persistence? ....It probably goes back to, I'm obviously right, why can't you see that I am obviously right? Maybe too, we like to be the catcher in the rye.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 1, 2023 6:23:46 GMT -5
Hmmmm .... if it turns out that others aren't in fact real perceivers, I'm afraid to say this might prove to be closer to home that you think! (I should say in advance that it is my policy to give the hornets nest a good poke and then run away ) All good. We've all got our styles on these forums....mine is a bit more like this! Excellent ... that's hilarious!
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jun 1, 2023 6:25:18 GMT -5
Question: What can we say about a member of a non-duality forum who holds them self as a shining example of being Realized, yet holds suspicions about another member's gender identity?
ChatGPT: "If a member of a non-duality forum presents themselves as a shining example of realization but holds suspicions or doubts about another member's gender identity, it can be seen as a contradiction or inconsistency in their approach to non-dual teachings.
Non-duality emphasizes the understanding that all distinctions, including gender, are ultimately illusory and do not define our true nature. It encourages a recognition of the underlying unity and interconnectedness of all things. In this context, harboring suspicions or doubts about someone's gender identity contradicts the essence of non-duality, which invites us to move beyond such dualistic distinctions.
It would be reasonable to point out this contradiction and encourage the member to reflect on the discrepancy between their professed realization and their suspicions about another member's gender identity."
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 1, 2023 6:27:39 GMT -5
I'm mostly just skimming these at the moment, but I'll answer this one for him. Back then he was mostly talking 2nd mountain stuff to a perceived 1st mountain crowd. These days he tends to work in more 3rd mountain contexts. My advice is to forget the past stuff and concentrate on what you (at least) perceive are any contradictions in the current stuff. As I see it, there are certain terms, "appearance only" being one of them...."real/not real" that when used, carry their meaning from 2nd mountain right through to 3rd mountain.
Something "not actual...absent inherent existence" at 2nd mountain, never becomes something something actual...something inherently existent at 3rd mountain.
I don't disagree with any of that. Fwiw, I wouldn't tend to work in terms of real/false either.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 1, 2023 6:43:00 GMT -5
I know. But I clarified that a long time ago already. Does she really believe that? If I recall correctly, the last expression of the "reefs is sharon" conspiracy theory was within the last year over on gab, and I think even within the last 4 months. I actually didn't want to go there, but it seems circumstances force me to address this matter anyway, because there is some moderator action required. I just haven't made up my mind yet what it will be. For those who don't know what's going on here, the chronological sequence of events: 1) Nancy: Many years ago Figgles claimed someone who knew Reefs from the Abeforum with the name Nancy contacted her and told her all kinds of personal details about Reefs. But truth is, I never knew any Nancy on the Abeforum, let alone discussed personal details there with anybody. Figgles never accepted that. 2) Sharon: Next Figgles started claiming that Sharon and Reefs are actually one and the same person, using different accounts simultaneously. She came to that conclusion because Reefs and Sharon seemed to have identical interests in music, namely dubstep. Truth is, while I like electronic music, I hate dubstep. Another similarity she noticed was the shared interest in the Seth books. Figgles even went so far to hunt down Sharon on facebook based on these two data points. However, Peter clarified that based on login details that it was virtually impossible that Sharon could actually be Reefs. Figgles never accepted that. 3) She: The next step on the escalation escalator was Figgles' claim that Reefs has been lying about his gender all along, his marital status and children, that he was actually a she instead of a he, single and had no children. I corrected her on that. Figgles never accepted that. 4) Tegan: The latest now is Reefs being a woman named Tegan who allegedly posted on reddit (?) all kinds of sad details about her sad life. And these personal details, Figgles seems to now have incorporated into her latest straw Reefs version. So this saga is getting crazier and crazier by the year and facts to the contrary don't seem to matter to Figgles. It almost seems as if she has lost control of her own story and her story has a life of its own now and actually dictates what Figgles thinks and does. Now, looking at this as a moderator, Figgles' unusual behavior poses an interesting dilemma from a game theory perspective. Because the question I need to find an answer to in order to make the next mod decision is this: Is there a rationale behind what Figgles does? Or to put it more bluntly: Is Figgles just acting crazy or is she actually crazy? The answer to that question will determine my next mod move. If she only acts crazy, then she can be reasoned with and I can rely on her word and there's a chance that she will adjust her behavior in order to fit in here. If she actually is crazy, then she cannot be reasoned with and her word I cannot rely on and there's no chance that she can adjust her behavior so that she fits in here, because she is not in control of her thoughts, words and actions. So her good will and assurances wouldn't mean anything. =========== So, open question to the forum. What do you guys think I should do? 1) Should I read Figgles the riot act again in hope that she may finally come to her senses and actually makes an effort to fit in here? 2) Or should I just ban her like any other malicious troll, because she can't be reasoned with anyway and apparently isn't in control of her own thoughts and behavior either? I am leaning towards a permanent ban, because I see zero interest on her part to fit in. It is only going to get worse from here on. She'll paint herself as an innocent victim of an evil moderator crew. Let me know what you think. I will consider all your input in my final decision. Thank you. ============
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 1, 2023 6:44:00 GMT -5
I know, some people go through a "dark night of the soul," or become suicidally distressed prior to a breakthrough, but I could probably name dozens of people for whom nothing like that that was ever the case. In most cases there was simply frustration caused by an inability to understand, and in some cases not even that. Perhaps their 'breakthrough' is still only surface deep? What I have observed is that most folks are absolute A-okay with the relinquishing of certain ideas/beliefs, but it's when they begin to get the memo that ALL of it...even the most sacred of ideas....even the most sacred seeming of experiences, is ultimately, empty, that they begin to get their hair in a knot.
And that's really what that 'dark night' business is all about....fighting tooth and nail to try to hang on to the person's most cherished notions about himself...about life.....about what is True.
Google "non duality. An evening with Paul Morgan-Somers" and see if the breakthrough he describes was only surface deep. No questions, no interest in spirituality. No problems. No struggle. No dark night of the soul. Just a guy who loved playing soccer. Age 16. Then out of the blue. Boom! There are dozens of other examples. Humans are unique and one size does not fit all.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 1, 2023 6:45:18 GMT -5
Okay, yes. "Cold" is a process. Of distinction. Called perception. *coughs* Prior to imagination. A distinction of what, from what? The process is an energy gradient, with no independent origination. The way points along the gradient are arbitrary. The process by which distinctiveness itself arises. The path it takes. I'm just saying that distinction is a natural part of the process of expression unfolding as a whole. Regardless of whether or not any extraneous mental overlay arises. Possibly a bit vague, idk. But I can't really talk in terms of boundaries when it comes to impressions, i.e distinctiveness. It might seem odd to talk about impression and distinctiveness in the same breath. But perception is an unfathomable (and predominantly subconscious) process of differentiation. A cascade from vague to acute. In terms of expression, that encompasses 'the conditioned'. So ocean as a whole, and wave-like individuated aspects.
When I'm talking about vagueness, I should probably mention that I do absolutely grok ATA, which is an alert and therefore vivid state of direct sensory perception absent mental overlay or narrative. I'm sure that's been clear anyway. But maintain that a process of distinction or differentiation is still going on in such a state, in the form of subconscious mental processing. Which is one of the reasons I tend to employ a broader conception of mind than others it seems. Although I do understand the way they use mind to point to those surface level aspects which are quiescent. .. but see that as merely the cessation of 'monkey-mind'.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 1, 2023 6:59:31 GMT -5
Sure, but those noticed patterns themselves, remain a facet of 'what's appearing'......it's all fine up until we call it a inviolable, dictating "law."
I like the way Jed mcKenna put it re: LOA....something akin to he'd "almost" call it Truth, but cannot, because it's dream-content....but he did reference just how persistent indeed those apparent patterns can be.
What I've also noticed though about those who are really bought into LOA/deliberate creation is that they that they get very creative at "finding" and then assigning "correlation/pattern" to what is imminently arising.
Word lawyering about the word "law". Aces. Hey, you know, an impersonal portrait ain't so impersonal if everyone knows who you're referring to. Correct. Basically it is just switching from being openly aggressive to being passively aggressive. There is no actual change in terms of level of aggression, only in form of aggression. Which does contribute nothing in terms of less contentious relationships. It does, however, give the (false) impression of civility.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 1, 2023 7:11:15 GMT -5
Yes, when I read your post above I just wanted to ask you if you said that maybe with Niz in mind (parabrahman and stuff, hehe). I have my disagreements with Niz' approach on this topic as well, precisely for the reasons ZD mentioned. It gives SR an almost theoretical touch. I think Steve is right in the sense that your approach to spirituality seems to be a very soft and flexible approach, and that's typical for Daoism (the so-called way of the water aka attachmentless attachment of the positionless position, hehe). A debateless debate from the positionless position with the andyful andy is about as good fun as anyone can ever maybe-might-have-haved on a spiritual forum!
|
|