|
Trust
Sept 1, 2020 17:31:16 GMT -5
Post by inavalan on Sept 1, 2020 17:31:16 GMT -5
Actually it was amusing that you quoted a guru (in support of not trusting gurus), not the guru's quote. uh-huh .. glad to be the source of your amusement then. This led me to reflect on how I used to orient to this term, "guru". It was part comical, part contemptuous. Already told you once I've never met one in person or think of nor ever thought of anyone that way. But I've come to a point where I can understand that there are a myriad of walks of life on this as any other issue. It's true that there are no shortage of guru horror stories - and, to further the irony that amuses you, I quoted Niz on that same sentiment just last month. Be that as it may, these days, I don't begrudge nor feel any sense of superiority over someone who may have found what they were looking for from a helping hand. I'm actually quite happy for them. I also, sometimes, quote others in support of my a-s-s-e-r-t-i-o-n-s (for whatever reason this editor didn't accept that word normally spelled ??), either because I feel that they said it better, or because I feel that the intended audience values more the quoted author's opinion than mine (e.g. quoting Seth on ideas I agree with). But, I think that on this forum quoting is used (actually: overused) more like a definitive yardstick, and to show the quoter's erudition (admiratively: there are very well read posters here). We all have our beliefs and people we're looking up to, but most concepts discussed here are arbitrated based on gurus and dogmas the poster put his faith in, sometimes as much that he really believes to have found the ultimate truth.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 2, 2020 1:51:00 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Sept 2, 2020 1:51:00 GMT -5
uh-huh .. glad to be the source of your amusement then. This led me to reflect on how I used to orient to this term, "guru". It was part comical, part contemptuous. Already told you once I've never met one in person or think of nor ever thought of anyone that way. But I've come to a point where I can understand that there are a myriad of walks of life on this as any other issue. It's true that there are no shortage of guru horror stories - and, to further the irony that amuses you, I quoted Niz on that same sentiment just last month. Be that as it may, these days, I don't begrudge nor feel any sense of superiority over someone who may have found what they were looking for from a helping hand. I'm actually quite happy for them. I also, sometimes, quote others in support of my a-s-s-e-r-t-i-o-n-s (for whatever reason this editor didn't accept that word normally spelled ??), either because I feel that they said it better, or because I feel that the intended audience values more the quoted author's opinion than mine (e.g. quoting Seth on ideas I agree with). But, I think that on this forum quoting is used (actually: overused) more like a definitive yardstick, and to show the quoter's erudition (admiratively: there are very well read posters here). We all have our beliefs and people we're looking up to, but most concepts discussed here are arbitrated based on gurus and dogmas the poster put his faith in, sometimes as much that he really believes to have found the ultimate truth. It's really quite fascinating that you'd come to this conclusion given what myself and other's have written to you on the issue. I mean, the quote at the heart of this dialog now is advice to do the exact opposite, after all. And my perception of the quoting isn't so much that it's ego's preening, but rather, for the most part, a genuine shared interest. Yes, I wouldn't deny "looking up" to some, but rather than some sort of fawning or hero worship, it's more that I'm grateful for what they had to offer, and there's really noone here who advocates for abdicating inner authority. Some of what's written sounds like belief, but if anyone ever asked my advice for existential clues, the first thing I'd tell them is to put any and all beliefs at arms length.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 12, 2020 1:51:25 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Sept 12, 2020 1:51:25 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.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 12, 2020 3:18:01 GMT -5
Post by zendancer on Sept 12, 2020 3:18:01 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. 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.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 12, 2020 3:56:28 GMT -5
Post by amit on Sept 12, 2020 3:56:28 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. 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.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 12, 2020 3:59:21 GMT -5
Post by amit on Sept 12, 2020 3:59:21 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. 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.
|
|
|
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 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 5:03:53 GMT -5
Post by amit on Sept 13, 2020 5:03:53 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. 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. 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. Yes and resonance is the key. Resonance IS the event which renders All is One as more than a rumour. Before such resonance the concept may have been heard many times during the search but the vibration/frequency of the seeker may not have matched it. So the search itself (with or without practise) seems to have the capacity to evolve the frequency/vibration of the seeker. Once the resonance has occurred, (which may be the change in the search you are referring to) the head is in the Tiger's mouth, and the process (The changed search you mention) of including all as Oneness manifest proceeds to completion and the resonance is consoliated. As we can see from exchanges on this forum, including all as Oneness manifest can be a very difficult process. It reminds me of when we wanted to hide stuff from the police, the advice was to leave it on a shelf in open view when it would not be seen, but if it was hidden they got it every time:).This may be why some were reluctant to make known the Direct Approach way back when, and it seems it is very much still a factor today. Needless to say those days of risky youth are long behind me now:)
|
|