|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 21, 2021 4:43:02 GMT
Yes, and that change is 'no suffering.'
Which really means, no more imagined SVP...no more mental overlay upon an arising, appearing condition that says, "this is intolerable...this is fundamentally wrong...this should not be appearing as it is."
That is the most significant of experiential changes...it makes all others pale in comparison. Absent the SVP and that mental overlay, all conditions become fundamentally perfect.
Change soon will be reflected in your outer as well but you are foreign to that idea because you still haven't seen such a thing because you still haven't reached any kind of clarity in my opinion. You are having all ideas so far which doesn't have any power to change anything.There is nothing that needs to change once suffering ceases. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 21, 2021 4:43:55 GMT
Creating a vision board, (going out to buy a cork-board, stick-pins, cutting pics from magazines, having photos developed, drawing/painting pics to stick on the vision board) isn't what you'd call a 'technique to create your reality'?
And, the envisioning technique involved putting aside time every day to do so...the writing in journal as well. But I guess for you that is still not a 'technique'?
Can you give me an example then of what you would designate as 'a technique'?
I feel right now that you are just dismissing whatever I say in a knee-jerk fashion so you can stand upon your assertion that I have no reference for what you are talking about.
I am saying you did not use deliberate creation, and you did not. Can you give me an example of 'deliberate creation'? |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Feb 21, 2021 11:59:08 GMT
Change soon will be reflected in your outer as well but you are foreign to that idea because you still haven't seen such a thing because you still haven't reached any kind of clarity in my opinion. You are having all ideas so far which doesn't have any power to change anything.There is nothing that needs to change once suffering ceases. Why that suffering ceases when you see through the illusion of SVP? |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Feb 21, 2021 11:59:58 GMT
I am saying you did not use deliberate creation, and you did not. Can you give me an example of 'deliberate creation'? Create a feeling via affirmation or visualisation until it manifest outside . You have never done that, no? |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 21, 2021 18:26:02 GMT
There is nothing that needs to change once suffering ceases. Why that suffering ceases when you see through the illusion of SVP? Because, that's what suffering IS...the mental overlay of imagined separation....the overlay of a separate person/entity 'who' must endure life. |
|
|
|
Post by muttley on Feb 21, 2021 18:34:08 GMT
Let's explore this further. Singer is pointing to a place of awareness, i.e something beyond thoughts (which he does), he realised how ludicrous the mind is in trying to label and decide what it likes and dislikes. He's telling the seeker to figure out where that stuff comes from (it just arises from past conditioning etc). For instance, he explains in his course, that when someone was unkind to you when you were younger, perhaps they were wearing a bright yellow t-shirt, then 30 years later you are projecting onto someone on the roads who cut you up but also has a bright yellow t-shirt on, so you are triggered and without recognising all of this you are at the mercy of all of this nonsense. To recognise it and realise how amazing everything is, the illusion of control, the craziness of the mind, is to allow it all to come through you and pass instead of resisting it. He delivers his course in such a fun and eloquent way. I find it similar to many other teachings, including Tolle, who points to the ever present here and now. Just wanted to come back to this one;
When the seeker is trying to love it all, trying to surrender, accept, allow, what he's mistakingly aiming for, is to shift his personal dislike of a particular situation to a personal liking of the situation.
That's not what acceptance/allowance is....rather, there is an absence behind true surrender, acceptance, allowance, vs. a presence of personal likeing.
It's entirely possible for personal dislike of something to be arising, amidst fundamental acceptance. Included in fundamental acceptance is also the personal dislike. But where there is fundamental acceptance, judgements only extend so deep, because that which lies fundamental, (awakened awareness) is at the forefront of all of it.
It's only the deeply discordant feelings/ideas (the stuff of suffering) that have separation at their helm, such as hatred, fundamental blame, despair, misery, a sense that what is appearing/happening is 'intolerable,' that cease to arise in SR. All other feelings and responses to what is appearing remain possible.
Tolle advises to "watch the thinker", and in one memorable paragraph, he advises to pay particular attention to negative emotions. Realizing that you, personally, aren't the source of these is freeing, and can also be challenging to a conditioned sense of Western identity. Tolle never goes that far - by my recollection, at least. He never tells you the bottom line that none of what you think or feel is ultimately your personal creation.
Watching these movements, understanding the depth of the conditioning - how it's billions of years in the making and involves a scope and scale far far outside of our ability to ever really grasp the details of - this can lead to a relative freedom, and for me and many other's, much of the negativity can and does/did suddenly fall away, as it's premise is realized as false.
But, life goes on. Some people get lucky enough to get into a life situation that's free of material challenge, free of oppressive emotional influences, but far more common is for some kernel of negativity to recur despite how well off their material situation ever gets. The question of "who reacts?" is similar in this pattern of recurrence. These two patterns are directly related and intertwined. All of the insight into the nature of conditioning gives an answer to "why the reaction?", and it sheds light on the false, as false, but this question of "who reacts?" will persist because at it's core, is what you really are, which isn't relative, isn't a falsity. The why question is easy to dispose of, but the who/what question .. not so much.
It's possible for this question, "who/what reacts?" to end. At that end it's quite clear that anything the you that wants an answer to that question can do to try to answer it is futile, because you are already what you seek, and there is only ever the here and now, so there's nowhere to go looking for it, and it doesn't matter how long you search.
It's also futile to ignore the question, as it will, inevitably, recur, just as the conditioned reactions will recur.
The conditioned reactions don't go away once that question is answered. Some people imagine a state where all their problems are solved, there is no more personal reactivity, and all is simply bliss. Adyashanti described this expectation as a "perpetual orgasm", or, a "perpetugasm", if you will. 
Now, I can't say for certain that there is no perpetugasm. I mean, just because I don't experience that doesn't mean it's not like some color I haven't seen or a melody I've never heard or a flavor I've never tasted. But. I will tell you this: the conditioned reactions happen differently over time after the "who reacts?" question is done recurring - and I don't mean, as in, the question is ignored or suppressed. This change is very similar to the change that happens with the relative insight that our conditioning isn't of our making. But this is a one-way street: none of those changes in our conditioned responses to what appears to us are ultimately relevant to the end of the questioning, this end requires a moment of grace, and the answer is ultimately ineffable, and unimaginable, and is, in fact, partially obscured by any imagination of it or ideas about what life will be like after.
This end is, however, the end of suffering. Pain is unavoidable, an inevitable fact of life. This is not the case, with suffering.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 21, 2021 18:37:49 GMT
Can you give me an example of 'deliberate creation'? Create a feeling via affirmation or visualisation until it manifest outside . You have never done that, no? Of course! That is central to any and all LOA practices.
The main crux of AH teachings, pretty much any LOA teaching I've come across is that 'feeling' of anticipation, of joy, of absolute knowing your desired manifestation is on it's way, is your 'evidence' that it actually will manifest.
So, the creating of a vision board, for example, has the positive feeling of anticipation, of positive expectation, strong knowing that the manifestation is on it's way, inherent to it.
If one didn't believe/feel that the creation of a vision board didn't bring him closer to his manifest desire, he wouldn't be making a vision board.
For several years I sold a manifesting technique that came to me as I was drifting off to sleep; It entailed catching yourself in that phase between wakefulness, sleep (hypnagogic state) and in that moment, envisioning your manifest desire as if it is here, now, complete with all the positive feelings/emotions surrounding it....and then from there, allowing yourself to drift into sleep.
With any and all so called "manifestation techniques" be it creating a vision board, envisioning as if you already have it, writing it out in a journal, central to it is always the 'feeling/emotion' that the manifestation is on it's way. The LOA premise is; If that feeling is arising of the manifestation already being here, it's almost ready to appear.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 21, 2021 18:47:35 GMT
Let's explore this further. Singer is pointing to a place of awareness, i.e something beyond thoughts (which he does), he realised how ludicrous the mind is in trying to label and decide what it likes and dislikes. He's telling the seeker to figure out where that stuff comes from (it just arises from past conditioning etc). For instance, he explains in his course, that when someone was unkind to you when you were younger, perhaps they were wearing a bright yellow t-shirt, then 30 years later you are projecting onto someone on the roads who cut you up but also has a bright yellow t-shirt on, so you are triggered and without recognising all of this you are at the mercy of all of this nonsense. To recognise it and realise how amazing everything is, the illusion of control, the craziness of the mind, is to allow it all to come through you and pass instead of resisting it. He delivers his course in such a fun and eloquent way. I find it similar to many other teachings, including Tolle, who points to the ever present here and now. Tolle advises to "watch the thinker", and in one memorable paragraph, he advises to pay particular attention to negative emotions. Realizing that you, personally, aren't the source of these is freeing, and can also be challenging to a conditioned sense of Western identity. Tolle never goes that far - by my recollection, at least. He never tells you the bottom line that none of what you think or feel is ultimately your personal creation.
Watching these movements, understanding the depth of the conditioning - how it's billions of years in the making and involves a scope and scale far far outside of our ability to ever really grasp the details of - this can lead to a relative freedom, and for me and many other's, much of the negativity can and does/did suddenly fall away, as it's premise is realized as false.
But, life goes on. Some people get lucky enough to get into a life situation that's free of material challenge, free of oppressive emotional influences, but far more common is for some kernel of negativity to recur despite how well off their material situation ever gets. The question of "who reacts?" is similar in this pattern of recurrence. These two patterns are directly related and intertwined. All of the insight into the nature of conditioning gives an answer to "why the reaction?", and it sheds light on the false, as false, but this question of "who reacts?" will persist because at it's core, is what you really are, which isn't relative, isn't a falsity. The why question is easy to dispose of, but the who/what question .. not so much.
It's possible for this question, "who/what reacts?" to end. At that end it's quite clear that anything the you that wants an answer to that question can do to try to answer it is futile, because you are already what you seek, and there is only ever the here and now, so there's nowhere to go looking for it, and it doesn't matter how long you search.
It's also futile to ignore the question, as it will, inevitably, recur, just as the conditioned reactions will recur.
The conditioned reactions don't go away once that question is answered. Some people imagine a state where all their problems are solved, there is no more personal reactivity, and all is simply bliss. Adyashanti described this expectation as a "perpetual orgasm", or, a "perpetugasm", if you will.
Now, I can't say for certain that there is no perpetugasm. I mean, just because I don't experience that doesn't mean it's not like some color I haven't seen or a melody I've never heard or a flavor I've never tasted. But. I will tell you this: the conditioned reactions happen differently over time after the "who reacts?" question is done recurring - and I don't mean, as in, the question is ignored or suppressed. This change is very similar to the change that happens with the relative insight that our conditioning isn't of our making. But this is a one-way street: none of those changes in our conditioned responses to what appears to us are ultimately relevant to the end of the questioning, this end requires a moment of grace, and the answer is ultimately ineffable, and unimaginable, and is, in fact, partially obscured by any imagination of it or ideas about what life will be like after.
This end is, however, the end of suffering. Pain is unavoidable, an inevitable fact of life. This is not the case, with suffering.
Excellent point. Spent some time thinking about this the other day actually.
There are those who say not only are they free from abject suffering, but they are completely unaffected emotionally by worldly happenings...that the joy/bliss of being is a constant, not just in an underlying, fundamental, pointery way...not merely as an absence of suffering, but that actual blissful, happy feelings pervade every moment of experience.
Just because it's not my experience doesn't mean it's not possible...that said, the folks I have engaged with who claim that ongoing experiential blissful feeling didn't behave in a way that imo, reflected their claim. |
|
|
|
Post by muttley on Feb 21, 2021 19:49:50 GMT
Tolle advises to "watch the thinker", and in one memorable paragraph, he advises to pay particular attention to negative emotions. Realizing that you, personally, aren't the source of these is freeing, and can also be challenging to a conditioned sense of Western identity. Tolle never goes that far - by my recollection, at least. He never tells you the bottom line that none of what you think or feel is ultimately your personal creation.
Watching these movements, understanding the depth of the conditioning - how it's billions of years in the making and involves a scope and scale far far outside of our ability to ever really grasp the details of - this can lead to a relative freedom, and for me and many other's, much of the negativity can and does/did suddenly fall away, as it's premise is realized as false.
But, life goes on. Some people get lucky enough to get into a life situation that's free of material challenge, free of oppressive emotional influences, but far more common is for some kernel of negativity to recur despite how well off their material situation ever gets. The question of "who reacts?" is similar in this pattern of recurrence. These two patterns are directly related and intertwined. All of the insight into the nature of conditioning gives an answer to "why the reaction?", and it sheds light on the false, as false, but this question of "who reacts?" will persist because at it's core, is what you really are, which isn't relative, isn't a falsity. The why question is easy to dispose of, but the who/what question .. not so much.
It's possible for this question, "who/what reacts?" to end. At that end it's quite clear that anything the you that wants an answer to that question can do to try to answer it is futile, because you are already what you seek, and there is only ever the here and now, so there's nowhere to go looking for it, and it doesn't matter how long you search.
It's also futile to ignore the question, as it will, inevitably, recur, just as the conditioned reactions will recur.
The conditioned reactions don't go away once that question is answered. Some people imagine a state where all their problems are solved, there is no more personal reactivity, and all is simply bliss. Adyashanti described this expectation as a "perpetual orgasm", or, a "perpetugasm", if you will.
Now, I can't say for certain that there is no perpetugasm. I mean, just because I don't experience that doesn't mean it's not like some color I haven't seen or a melody I've never heard or a flavor I've never tasted. But. I will tell you this: the conditioned reactions happen differently over time after the "who reacts?" question is done recurring - and I don't mean, as in, the question is ignored or suppressed. This change is very similar to the change that happens with the relative insight that our conditioning isn't of our making. But this is a one-way street: none of those changes in our conditioned responses to what appears to us are ultimately relevant to the end of the questioning, this end requires a moment of grace, and the answer is ultimately ineffable, and unimaginable, and is, in fact, partially obscured by any imagination of it or ideas about what life will be like after.
This end is, however, the end of suffering. Pain is unavoidable, an inevitable fact of life. This is not the case, with suffering.
Excellent point. Spent some time thinking about this the other day actually.
There are those who say not only are they free from abject suffering, but they are completely unaffected emotionally by worldly happenings...that the joy/bliss of being is a constant, not just in an underlying, fundamental, pointery way...not merely as an absence of suffering, but that actual blissful, happy feelings pervade every moment of experience.
Just because it's not my experience doesn't mean it's not possible...that said, the folks I have engaged with who claim that ongoing experiential blissful feeling didn't behave in a way that imo, reflected their claim. Yeah, personally, I found E&R's stark clarity about one-ended sticks and the seesaw of the mind to be illuminating when I first encountered them. There used to be some short hand for making promises to people about the perpetugasm, but I can't remember it off the top of my head. (and it predated the coining of "perpetugasm").
As this is all relative, and based on outward signs and claims about subjective feeling states, I have to admit WIBIGO on where I'm at with it. Self-honest people like esponja and gopal have to make up their own minds about it, but the curiosity, imagination and hope for the perpetugasm are really only natural human instinct and movement of mind. Seems to me from what little I've read on the topic that truly letting go of that is uncommon and often only occurs with some sort of dramatic catalyst like a deep suffering event.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Feb 22, 2021 5:22:55 GMT
Because, suffering requires an imagined SVP. When the SVP is longer in play, no suffering. Same with blameful anger....requires an SVP...same with despair......a sense that life is intolerable....they go hand in hand with an imagined SVP. I'd go so far as to say that the experience OF blameful anger, despair, sense that life is intolerable or that something is fundamentally wrong, is the experience of 'separation.'
Who is imagining the SVP? You did not answer this question. Can you answer me? |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Feb 22, 2021 5:23:34 GMT
Who is imagining the SVP? I get stuck here too. Who 'believes' in the belief of a seperate identity. Is it another thought? It doesn't feel like it? I feel as though I have constantly been looking at it and recognise that it's not 'my thought' not 'my body' and yet the belief just seems to remain. I'd say it has less potency though. I am waiting for figgles to reply for this question. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Feb 22, 2021 5:24:49 GMT
Why that suffering ceases when you see through the illusion of SVP? Because, that's what suffering IS...the mental overlay of imagined separation....the overlay of a separate person/entity 'who' must endure life. Who is having this SVP? |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Feb 22, 2021 5:25:18 GMT
Why that suffering ceases when you see through the illusion of SVP? Because, that's what suffering IS...the mental overlay of imagined separation....the overlay of a separate person/entity 'who' must endure life. So svp is the cause of suffering then? |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Feb 22, 2021 5:28:28 GMT
Create a feeling via affirmation or visualisation until it manifest outside . You have never done that, no? Of course! That is central to any and all LOA practices.
The main crux of AH teachings, pretty much any LOA teaching I've come across is that 'feeling' of anticipation, of joy, of absolute knowing your desired manifestation is on it's way, is your 'evidence' that it actually will manifest.
So, the creating of a vision board, for example, has the positive feeling of anticipation, of positive expectation, strong knowing that the manifestation is on it's way, inherent to it.
If one didn't believe/feel that the creation of a vision board didn't bring him closer to his manifest desire, he wouldn't be making a vision board.
For several years I sold a manifesting technique that came to me as I was drifting off to sleep; It entailed catching yourself in that phase between wakefulness, sleep (hypnagogic state) and in that moment, envisioning your manifest desire as if it is here, now, complete with all the positive feelings/emotions surrounding it....and then from there, allowing yourself to drift into sleep.
With any and all so called "manifestation techniques" be it creating a vision board, envisioning as if you already have it, writing it out in a journal, central to it is always the 'feeling/emotion' that the manifestation is on it's way. The LOA premise is; If that feeling is arising of the manifestation already being here, it's almost ready to appear.
In my opinion, you did not use any technique. It's a everyday practice to hold the image of the outcome until it manifest outside. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 22, 2021 17:12:44 GMT
Because, that's what suffering IS...the mental overlay of imagined separation....the overlay of a separate person/entity 'who' must endure life. Who is having this SVP? I'm not sure what you mean. The SVP is a 'mistake of mind.' And while 'minding' can be said to arise, there is no 'who' that is actually doing the minding. |
|
