|
Trust
Sept 12, 2020 9:35:31 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Sept 12, 2020 9:35:31 GMT -5
Its difficult and challlenging, that Brahman is both abuser and abused, and also all those who care for the suffering, and those who dont. This is no doubt a main reason why nonduality is unacceptable and rejected by some. I don't think so. This concept that it's all just Source doing and experiencing everything is part of many of the more 'highbrow' new age teachings, like Seth and A-H. The difference to non-duality though is that in non-duality they won't personalize/objectify Brahman and Oneness. And you seem to personalize it as well which may be the reason for the mixing of contexts, not sure.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 12, 2020 10:23:40 GMT -5
Post by amit on Sept 12, 2020 10:23:40 GMT -5
Nothing has to be done about the SVP. It is already Brahman and not seeing that is also Brahman. What is being suggested is much worse from your point of view, it is that it is the mind, which conducts the search, that has the capacity to resonate and that resonance by the mind ends the search. For reasons already mentioned, no comparison in terms of quality of experience can be known in order to compare that quality with those who are said to end the search by practise. So to limit the capacity of the mind could even be said to limit this helpful role. So when it is said that it is a problem that it may only be by the mind, that is no problem whatsoever because the mind is simply Brahman minding. That's beside the point. The point here is that there is the experience of existential suffering and the root of that experience is the SVP. Take the SVP out of the equation and that experience is gone as well. Now, what you are saying is, that's not necessary, it's enough for the SVP to understand that it's all just Brahman. To which I say, the SVP, by definition, cannot understand that all is just Brahman. So at best what you are suggesting is going to be a mind game. You can't fake this from the SVP perspective. The SVP perspective needs to be transcended. And that can only happen with a realization, not mere insights or logic. The SVP has no actual reference for what the term 'Brahman' is pointing to. It's all conjecture. It never leaves the realm of the conceptual. At least there is two clear opinions being expressed and understood. That being the case we are in danger of repeating.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 12, 2020 10:30:02 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Sept 12, 2020 10:30:02 GMT -5
That's beside the point. The point here is that there is the experience of existential suffering and the root of that experience is the SVP. Take the SVP out of the equation and that experience is gone as well. Now, what you are saying is, that's not necessary, it's enough for the SVP to understand that it's all just Brahman. To which I say, the SVP, by definition, cannot understand that all is just Brahman. So at best what you are suggesting is going to be a mind game. You can't fake this from the SVP perspective. The SVP perspective needs to be transcended. And that can only happen with a realization, not mere insights or logic. The SVP has no actual reference for what the term 'Brahman' is pointing to. It's all conjecture. It never leaves the realm of the conceptual. At least there is two clear opinions being expressed and understood. That being the case we are in danger of repeating. Well, think about it: If all is just Brahman and fine and dandy, what's the point of trust then? Why are we even having this conversation? This is where your argument becomes self-defeating, you see.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 12, 2020 10:35:12 GMT -5
Post by amit on Sept 12, 2020 10:35:12 GMT -5
Its difficult and challlenging, that Brahman is both abuser and abused, and also all those who care for the suffering, and those who dont. This is no doubt a main reason why nonduality is unacceptable and rejected by some. I don't think so. This concept that it's all just Source doing and experiencing everything is part of many of the more 'highbrow' new age teachings, like Seth and A-H. The difference to non-duality though is that in non-duality they won't personalize/objectify Brahman and Oneness. And you seem to personalize it as well which may be the reason for the mixing of contexts, not sure. The term Oneness/Brahman is not meant to indicate some sort of entity but rather that, despite the appearance of differenc, all is one. Yes suffering may continue depending on circumstances, so what is being suggested does not help with that, but there is no longer the additional suffering of feeling disconnected whilst suffering.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 12, 2020 10:40:09 GMT -5
Post by amit on Sept 12, 2020 10:40:09 GMT -5
At least there is two clear opinions being expressed and understood. That being the case we are in danger of repeating. Well, think about it: If all is just Brahman and fine and dandy, what's the point of trust then? Why are we even having this conversation? This is where your argument becomes self-defeating, you see. Suffering may continue depending on circumstances so in that sense may not be regarded as fine and dandy by some, but for those who can trust that they are already what is sought, there is no longer the additional suffering of feeling disconnected whilst suffering.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 12, 2020 11:01:57 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Sept 12, 2020 11:01:57 GMT -5
I don't think so. This concept that it's all just Source doing and experiencing everything is part of many of the more 'highbrow' new age teachings, like Seth and A-H. The difference to non-duality though is that in non-duality they won't personalize/objectify Brahman and Oneness. And you seem to personalize it as well which may be the reason for the mixing of contexts, not sure. The term Oneness/Brahman is not meant to indicate some sort of entity but rather that, despite the appearance of differenc, all is one. Yes suffering continues depending on circumstances, so what is being suggested does not help with that, but there is no longer the additional suffering of feeling disconnected whilst suffering. Yes, I know that's not your intention but you've said something in an earlier post that did exactly indicate that (at least to me). But I don't remember what post that was. So we'll drop it. Never mind. Okay, I see your point. But the feeling of disconnect is not due to an error in logic, it's due to an error in fundamental perspective which precedes logic and intellect. So this goes much deeper. That's why I keep saying trying to resolve this issue by logic alone is just window dressing. It doesn't go deep enough. Existential suffering can be explained away by intellectual means, but since the root cause of the problem is not intellectual, the problem persists and has to be explained away again and again and again. In case of a realization though, which eliminates the root cause of the existential suffering, nothing has to be explained intellectually in the first place, let alone again and again and again. The moment the root of the problem is seen for what it is, the problem disappears. No belief in Brahman/Oneness or correct logic required. Just seeing the real as real and the false as false. That's it. That simple. No more feeling of disconnect, no more existential questions, no more existential suffering. All gone in one fell swoop.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Trust
Sept 12, 2020 11:07:48 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2020 11:07:48 GMT -5
Nothing has to be done about the SVP. It is already Brahman and not seeing that is also Brahman. What is being suggested is much worse from your point of view, it is that it is the mind, which conducts the search, that has the capacity to resonate and that resonance by the mind ends the search. For reasons already mentioned, no comparison in terms of quality of experience can be known in order to compare that quality with those who are said to end the search by practise. So to limit the capacity of the mind could even be said to limit this helpful role. So when it is said that it is a problem that it may only be by the mind, that is no problem whatsoever because the mind is simply Brahman minding. That's beside the point. The point here is that there is the experience of existential suffering and the root of that experience is the SVP. Take the SVP out of the equation and that experience is gone as well. Now, what you are saying is, that's not necessary, it's enough for the SVP to understand that it's all just Brahman. To which I say, the SVP, by definition, cannot understand that all is just Brahman. So at best what you are suggesting is going to be a mind game. You can't fake this from the SVP perspective. The SVP perspective needs to be transcended. And that can only happen with a realization, not mere insights or logic. The SVP has no actual reference for what the term 'Brahman' is pointing to. It's all conjecture. It never leaves the realm of the conceptual. That's the line I like it. Yeah, seeing clearly changes the experience completely.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 12, 2020 11:14:27 GMT -5
Post by zazeniac on Sept 12, 2020 11:14:27 GMT -5
Agreed. I think we can agree that the SVP has to be seen for what it is. Which will end the search. But from my perspective, this is having it backwards. What you are describing here is basically a reverse-engineering of a realization by means of logic. Which means this is still all happening in the SVP context. But you can't see thru the SVP from within the context of the SVP. That's the futility that has to be understood by the seeker, not the futility that you are what you seek and therefore the search is futile. As UG put it, the seeker has to realize that there is no way out for the seeker. The only way out is a realization. Which means to step out of the SVP context into that larger context that allows you to see clearly what is actually the case, which the seeker cannot do, of course, because the seeker's perspective is limited to the SVP context, both go hand in hand. Which means logical conclusions (SVP context) are not going to end the search (going prior SVP context). Also worth noting that, from the SVP perspective, trusting that one is already what is sought can't stand for itself because it only makes sense in the a Brahman/oneness theory. But you can't prove the existence of Brahman/oneness from your own SVP perspective, let alone to another SVP. Which means at the end of the day, it never leaves the realm of beliefs, no matter what the conclusion, no matter how sound the logic. At the end of the logical chain always stands some kind of core belief that remains untouched/unquestioned. So my essential point here is that the seeker (SVP) can never see/understand what it means that the seeker is the sought. The seeker can only imagine/speculate what that means. It takes a realization to understand, to see that directly. This is what breaks the viscous cycle of endless conceptualization and thereby ends the search, not flawless logic. So realization has to happen first, then we can try to explain/conceptualize it (pointer) in a way the SVP can understand (logic). And then we can say things like 'one is already what is sought', because then we have an actual reference for what that actually means. Without that actual reference, it's just another theory about reality, a concept easily replaceable by yet another even 'better' concept. But the core concept, the SVP, always remains untouched if logic and thinking is the method. Mind cannot take down the fortress of mind as we used to say here. That's the also the main flaw of all spiritual practice. When ego tries to do a harakiri, what you usually get is a spiritual ego instead. It just gets more subtle, but in essence, nothing changes. That's certainly the way this character sees the issue. Batgap recently had an interview between Rick Archer and Terry Stephens. In the past Stephens had been a student of Sailor Bob (who had spent a year with Nisargadatta), and he left Bob when he thought he understood ND completely. He said, "I had a deep intellectual understanding to such a degree that there were no longer any questions. In essence he says, "I knew that Brahman is all there is." At that point he got on with his life." Twenty years later his life fell apart. His wife divorced him; his son and family disowned him; and he found himself utterly alone and in deep despair. He was such a miserable character that no one wanted to be around him. He had been a victim of child abuse and that trauma had never been resolved even though he had gone to counseling and done all kinds of other stuff to overcome it. He reached a point much like Tolle, and although he had no belief in an external interventionist God, he became so bereft of hope that he verbally said, "Either take me or save me, kill me or enlighten me, because I no longer care which you do." Amazingly, after speaking this prayer, his mind went totally silent, and it stayed totally silent for five entire months! He said that he did nothing other than sit in a chair on his porch and look at the sky. After five months, mind began to stir again, and he happened to look at a tree. It was as if he had never seen a tree before, and he marveled at what he was seeing. He looked around, and discovered that the whole world had changed and had come to life. He then got what he called "a download" from an intelligence beyond comprehension. Afterwards, the SVP had disappeared entirely, and only then did he realize that all of his prior understanding of ND had been completely intellectual. The interview is one of the more unusual interviews Rick has done because of the interaction between Rick and Terry. Rick tries to postulate all kinds of intellectual nonsense and Terry laughingly refutes it all. Terry tells Rick near the end of the interview about looking up the man who had abused him as a twelve-year old, and what happened during that confrontation, and that's a pretty amazing story as well. If nothing else, the interview reveals in startling clarity the difference between an intellectual understanding of ND and a direct realization of the truth. Thanks for this post, very hepful. I feel much like Terry Stephens where I thought I had the answers and then Reality kicked me in the teeth. Perhaps not as hard as Terry got, but hard enough. Thanks again. This site is an eye-opener. Sometimes I get down on it. It seems the same old fights are waged to the point of exhaustion and then these gems appear.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 12, 2020 11:48:05 GMT -5
Post by amit on Sept 12, 2020 11:48:05 GMT -5
The term Oneness/Brahman is not meant to indicate some sort of entity but rather that, despite the appearance of differenc, all is one. Yes suffering continues depending on circumstances, so what is being suggested does not help with that, but there is no longer the additional suffering of feeling disconnected whilst suffering. Yes, I know that's not your intention but you've said something in an earlier post that did exactly indicate that (at least to me). But I don't remember what post that was. So we'll drop it. Never mind. Okay, I see your point. But the feeling of disconnect is not due to an error in logic, it's due to an error in fundamental perspective which precedes logic and intellect. So this goes much deeper. That's why I keep saying trying to resolve this issue by logic alone is just window dressing. It doesn't go deep enough. Existential suffering can be explained away by intellectual means, but since the root cause of the problem is not intellectual, the problem persists and has to be explained away again and again and again. In case of a realization though, which eliminates the root cause of the existential suffering, nothing has to be explained intellectually in the first place, let alone again and again and again. The moment the root of the problem is seen for what it is, the problem disappears. No belief in Brahman/Oneness or correct logic required. Just seeing the real as real and the false as false. That's it. That simple. No more feeling of disconnect, no more existential questions, no more existential suffering. All gone in one fell swoop. Yes feeling disconnected is a feeling which trust that one is already Braman/Oneness can end. However that feeling itself is not disconnected, so in terms of disconnection, nothing whatsoever needs to be done, including trust. Trust may simply end the FEELING of disconnection, but not increase connection in any way, which is already total, unconditional, and unavoidable, as all is already Brahman/Oneness, so there is no root of the problem, including not seeing that.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 12, 2020 12:35:41 GMT -5
Post by zendancer on Sept 12, 2020 12:35:41 GMT -5
That's certainly the way this character sees the issue. Batgap recently had an interview between Rick Archer and Terry Stephens. In the past Stephens had been a student of Sailor Bob (who had spent a year with Nisargadatta), and he left Bob when he thought he understood ND completely. He said, "I had a deep intellectual understanding to such a degree that there were no longer any questions. In essence he says, "I knew that Brahman is all there is." At that point he got on with his life." Twenty years later his life fell apart. His wife divorced him; his son and family disowned him; and he found himself utterly alone and in deep despair. He was such a miserable character that no one wanted to be around him. He had been a victim of child abuse and that trauma had never been resolved even though he had gone to counseling and done all kinds of other stuff to overcome it. He reached a point much like Tolle, and although he had no belief in an external interventionist God, he became so bereft of hope that he verbally said, "Either take me or save me, kill me or enlighten me, because I no longer care which you do." Amazingly, after speaking this prayer, his mind went totally silent, and it stayed totally silent for five entire months! He said that he did nothing other than sit in a chair on his porch and look at the sky. After five months, mind began to stir again, and he happened to look at a tree. It was as if he had never seen a tree before, and he marveled at what he was seeing. He looked around, and discovered that the whole world had changed and had come to life. He then got what he called "a download" from an intelligence beyond comprehension. Afterwards, the SVP had disappeared entirely, and only then did he realize that all of his prior understanding of ND had been completely intellectual. The interview is one of the more unusual interviews Rick has done because of the interaction between Rick and Terry. Rick tries to postulate all kinds of intellectual nonsense and Terry laughingly refutes it all. Terry tells Rick near the end of the interview about looking up the man who had abused him as a twelve-year old, and what happened during that confrontation, and that's a pretty amazing story as well. If nothing else, the interview reveals in startling clarity the difference between an intellectual understanding of ND and a direct realization of the truth. That sounds like a fun interview. I'll see if I find the time. You are probably referring to this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=z85QA5GVqs8Yes, it's what we sometimes call mind-enlightenment, it allows one to seemingly explain everything in an intellectually very satisfying way. But that kind of understanding is only skin deep, there's no solid foundation to it, as he found out the hard way many years later. It could be said that the average person stuck in the consensus trance is moving around in a dream world, looks at a tree but can't see the tree, can't see the tree for what it actually is. And the mind-enlightened person is no different. The mind-enlightened person can't see either. The only difference is that the mind-enlightened person lives a slightly enhanced dream as compared to the average person. But in essence, both are dreaming, both can't see. Yes, that's the interview.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 13, 2020 2:41:00 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Sept 13, 2020 2:41:00 GMT -5
Yes, I know that's not your intention but you've said something in an earlier post that did exactly indicate that (at least to me). But I don't remember what post that was. So we'll drop it. Never mind. Okay, I see your point. But the feeling of disconnect is not due to an error in logic, it's due to an error in fundamental perspective which precedes logic and intellect. So this goes much deeper. That's why I keep saying trying to resolve this issue by logic alone is just window dressing. It doesn't go deep enough. Existential suffering can be explained away by intellectual means, but since the root cause of the problem is not intellectual, the problem persists and has to be explained away again and again and again. In case of a realization though, which eliminates the root cause of the existential suffering, nothing has to be explained intellectually in the first place, let alone again and again and again. The moment the root of the problem is seen for what it is, the problem disappears. No belief in Brahman/Oneness or correct logic required. Just seeing the real as real and the false as false. That's it. That simple. No more feeling of disconnect, no more existential questions, no more existential suffering. All gone in one fell swoop. Yes feeling disconnected is a feeling which trust that one is already Braman/Oneness can end. However that feeling itself is not disconnected, so in terms of disconnection, nothing whatsoever needs to be done, including trust. Trust may simply end the FEELING of disconnection, but not increase connection in any way, which is already total, unconditional, and unavoidable, as all is already Brahman/Oneness, so there is no root of the problem, including not seeing that. So we basically agree that the problem is perceptual only. Now the questions is, how to correct perception? You say, just trust. I say, take a closer look at the one who thinks he needs to trust and see if he can stand the scrutiny. You see, if you keep banging your head against the wall, the solution to trust that eventually you will get used to it and so numbed out that your head won't hurt anymore isn't really a solution. There's no guarantee for that ever to happen. It's purely wishful thinking. If, instead, you would just stop banging your head against the wall, that would solve your problem immediately, once and for all. And it doesn't require any mental workaround either. That's all I am suggesting.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 13, 2020 3:47:35 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Sept 13, 2020 3:47:35 GMT -5
Yes. The frequency of the message conveyed by the words resonates/vibrates/matches with the frequency of the seeker. This is the sense in which it is meant that the words speak for themselves. The words may be something heard or read. Agreed. Trusting that one is already what is sought ends the search by rendering it pointless for one cannot become what one already is. This is so regardless of what state one may already be in for Brahman/Oneness is all states, including the state of not realizing any of this, OR trusting. Feeling disconnected from Oneness is not disconnected. Nothing whatsoever needs to change for connection to be always total. I think we can agree that the SVP has to be seen for what it is. Which will end the search. But from my perspective, this is having it backwards. What you are describing here is basically a reverse-engineering of a realization by means of logic. Which means this is still all happening in the SVP context. But you can't see thru the SVP from within the context of the SVP. That's the futility that has to be understood by the seeker, not the futility that you are what you seek and therefore the search is futile. As UG put it, the seeker has to realize that there is no way out for the seeker. The only way out is a realization. Which means to step out of the SVP context into that larger context that allows you to see clearly what is actually the case, which the seeker cannot do, of course, because the seeker's perspective is limited to the SVP context, both go hand in hand. Which means logical conclusions (SVP context) are not going to end the search (going prior SVP context). Also worth noting that, from the SVP perspective, trusting that one is already what is sought can't stand for itself because it only makes sense in the a Brahman/oneness theory. But you can't prove the existence of Brahman/oneness from your own SVP perspective, let alone to another SVP. Which means at the end of the day, it never leaves the realm of beliefs, no matter what the conclusion, no matter how sound the logic. At the end of the logical chain always stands some kind of core belief that remains untouched/unquestioned. So my essential point here is that the seeker (SVP) can never see/understand what it means that the seeker is the sought. The seeker can only imagine/speculate what that means. It takes a realization to understand, to see that directly. This is what breaks the viscous cycle of endless conceptualization and thereby ends the search, not flawless logic. So realization has to happen first, then we can try to explain/conceptualize it (pointer) in a way the SVP can understand (logic). And then we can say things like 'one is already what is sought', because then we have an actual reference for what that actually means. Without that actual reference, it's just another theory about reality, a concept easily replaceable by yet another even 'better' concept. But the core concept, the SVP, always remains untouched if logic and thinking is the method. Mind cannot take down the fortress of mind as we used to say here. That's the also the main flaw of all spiritual practice. When ego tries to do a harakiri, what you usually get is a spiritual ego instead. It just gets more subtle, but in essence, nothing changes. An ancient metaphor is "the taste of honey". What you say here about the hypothetical seeker is true, in that it's a tautology: until they realize "where nonduality points" the potential realization is only a sort of rumor .. a description of a color they've never seen or a tone they've never heard. Even a logical mind can acknowledge this potential, for themselves. But amit's point about the search ending can be stated a different way, in terms of the search changing. The key to this distinction is whether or not the seeker is self-honest about whether oneness is more than just a rumor for them. If they're not, then, it's as you say, just another round of identity poker. But even in that instance, the orientation has changed. It's a different hand.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 13, 2020 4:13:36 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Sept 13, 2020 4:13:36 GMT -5
Agreed. I think we can agree that the SVP has to be seen for what it is. Which will end the search. But from my perspective, this is having it backwards. What you are describing here is basically a reverse-engineering of a realization by means of logic. Which means this is still all happening in the SVP context. But you can't see thru the SVP from within the context of the SVP. That's the futility that has to be understood by the seeker, not the futility that you are what you seek and therefore the search is futile. As UG put it, the seeker has to realize that there is no way out for the seeker. The only way out is a realization. Which means to step out of the SVP context into that larger context that allows you to see clearly what is actually the case, which the seeker cannot do, of course, because the seeker's perspective is limited to the SVP context, both go hand in hand. Which means logical conclusions (SVP context) are not going to end the search (going prior SVP context). Also worth noting that, from the SVP perspective, trusting that one is already what is sought can't stand for itself because it only makes sense in the a Brahman/oneness theory. But you can't prove the existence of Brahman/oneness from your own SVP perspective, let alone to another SVP. Which means at the end of the day, it never leaves the realm of beliefs, no matter what the conclusion, no matter how sound the logic. At the end of the logical chain always stands some kind of core belief that remains untouched/unquestioned. So my essential point here is that the seeker (SVP) can never see/understand what it means that the seeker is the sought. The seeker can only imagine/speculate what that means. It takes a realization to understand, to see that directly. This is what breaks the viscous cycle of endless conceptualization and thereby ends the search, not flawless logic. So realization has to happen first, then we can try to explain/conceptualize it (pointer) in a way the SVP can understand (logic). And then we can say things like 'one is already what is sought', because then we have an actual reference for what that actually means. Without that actual reference, it's just another theory about reality, a concept easily replaceable by yet another even 'better' concept. But the core concept, the SVP, always remains untouched if logic and thinking is the method. Mind cannot take down the fortress of mind as we used to say here. That's the also the main flaw of all spiritual practice. When ego tries to do a harakiri, what you usually get is a spiritual ego instead. It just gets more subtle, but in essence, nothing changes. Nothing has to be done about the SVP. It is already Brahman and not seeing that is also Brahman. What is being suggested is much worse from your point of view, it is that it is the mind, which conducts the search, that has the capacity to resonate and that resonance by the mind ends the search. For reasons already mentioned, no comparison in terms of quality of experience can be known in order to compare that quality with those who are said to end the search by practise. So to limit the capacity of the mind could even be said to limit this helpful role. So when it is said that it is a problem that it may only be by the mind, that is no problem whatsoever because the mind is simply Brahman minding. In terms of the end of the search, nothing ever is or could be "done about the SVP" because it's ultimately a moment of grace. But, the point is that there can come a time when that happens, and, in terms of a person's story, there is then a time prior to that event, and, a time after. Simply acknowledging the fact of the SVP isn't to say that the SVP is a problem, and, in one sense the SVP is no more a "problem" than a tornado or the Sun. It's just what's going on, just something that sort of happened, in the grand scheme of things. And in that sense, I agree that it's not a problem. But, from the personal perspective of the individual, the SVP obscures what you're referring to as Brahman, even to the extent that the individual's acceptance and understanding of the fact of the SVP doesn't lead directly to it's cessation. In that sense, the SVP, is, a problem.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 13, 2020 4:32:05 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Sept 13, 2020 4:32:05 GMT -5
Hi ZD. It is basically the same reply as given to Reefs, so repeated here. Nothing has to be done about the SVP. It is already Brahman and not seeing that is also Brahman. What is being suggested is much worse from your point of view, it is that it is the mind, which conducts the search, that has the capacity to resonate and that resonance by the mind ends the search. For reasons already mentioned, no comparison in terms of quality of experience can be known in order to compare that quality with those who are said to end the search by practise. So to limit the capacity of the mind could even be said to limit this helpful role. So when it is said that it is a problem that it may only be by the mind, that is no problem whatsoever because the mind is simply Brahman minding. There's a lot of suffering in the world in terms of subjective mental experience, which I think is pretty much beyond doubt. Some people suffer. From an "absolute truth" angle it may be simply Brahman "minding", but that concept doesn't do much for that particular person's suffering. I will concede that "Nothing has to be done about the SVP", in the sense that the SVP (which is by definition within the realm of symbols/thought and unaware of its own unreality) doesn't exist in reality. Still, it feels to exist for many people, and brushing that suffering off as merely another modulation of Brahman does very little to end suffering. In my opinion, the thought free state has the potential to make all of this clear. The intellectual arrangement of nondual ideas doesn't. (Save perhaps a rare few.) Depending on the individual, and their circumstances, various arrangements of the nondual ideas can lend motivation to an interest in pursuing a thought free state.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 13, 2020 4:41:22 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Sept 13, 2020 4:41:22 GMT -5
Nothing has to be done about the SVP. It is already Brahman and not seeing that is also Brahman. What is being suggested is much worse from your point of view, it is that it is the mind, which conducts the search, that has the capacity to resonate and that resonance by the mind ends the search. For reasons already mentioned, no comparison in terms of quality of experience can be known in order to compare that quality with those who are said to end the search by practise. So to limit the capacity of the mind could even be said to limit this helpful role. So when it is said that it is a problem that it may only be by the mind, that is no problem whatsoever because the mind is simply Brahman minding. That's beside the point. The point here is that there is the experience of existential suffering and the root of that experience is the SVP. Take the SVP out of the equation and that experience is gone as well. Now, what you are saying is, that's not necessary, it's enough for the SVP to understand that it's all just Brahman. To which I say, the SVP, by definition, cannot understand that all is just Brahman. So at best what you are suggesting is going to be a mind game. You can't fake this from the SVP perspective. The SVP perspective needs to be transcended. And that can only happen with a realization, not mere insights or logic. The SVP has no actual reference for what the term 'Brahman' is pointing to. It's all conjecture. It never leaves the realm of the conceptual. No actual reference, no. But, various degrees of indirect enticement of interest and attention. Most people have some sort of intuitional pull away from the existential delusion. Without that, noone would have any interest in Zen or Advaita or, whatever.
|
|