|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 8, 2018 5:07:06 GMT
Some of those who say they know that appearing others ARE in fact consciously self aware, claim that that knowing is 'a Truth realization.'
The problem with this is that actual Truth realizations do not result in the acquisition of material knowledge about stuff appearing in the story, rather, Truth realization involves the seeing through (which is actually a subtraction rather than an addition) of all material knowledge.
This means the clear seeing that what I think I know 'about' an appearance is as empty and devoid of Truth as the appearance itself...that in fact, material knowledge is itself just an appearance within the story.
In the mistaken assertion of knowing for certain that experienced others are in fact consciously self aware, 'what appears to be' is being taken for Truth....is being taken for something beyond an arising within the story.
The suggestion that one can somehow realize the inherent emptiness of all appearances, all appearing things arising within the story, and the story itself, but then go on to have another realization that reveals material knowledge about certain appearances, certain things (or even ALL appearing things) is just plain silly.
Certain knowing about an appearance, beyond that it appears, is 'material knowledge,' by virtue of the appearance that is known about, itself being 'material,' and there is no getting away from that. Truth Realizations are NOT material knowledge, rather they see through material knowledge, they take the stuffing out of material knowledge....illuminate it as nothing more than another empty appearance within the encompassing story.
A body appears along with certain actions, movements, behaviors (all themselves also, appearances with the story) that amalgamated together, create the appearance of sentience, but however compelling that appearance may be, 'sentience' never becomes anything more than an appearance....thus, there is nothing about that appearance that CAN be known, other than that, it appears.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 9, 2018 17:43:47 GMT
I'm going to pull this post of Andrew's over here from ST to discuss in tandem with my convo over there, as I think he's really layed out here where he's gone wrong in his assertion of knowing about others perceiving/being consciously self aware, and, here I have a little more lee-way from which to explore.  If by 'whole' you are referencing the entirety of 'the dream-scape' then really, all you know of that, is what you perceive. You are imagining that there is a greater, larger dream-scape/world of experience, that somehow exists beyond your perception of it. That is precisely what is addressed by all the talk about 'no objective world out there,' that 'the world arises within you,' and also by the term "Perception is creation." What exactly makes you think there is actually some 'created world' that lies beyond what you perceive, that is therefore, proving the perception of others? What you've done is to take the very compelling appearance of other perceivers as Truth. From that certain knowing then, that there are in fact other perceivers, you go on to conclude that in their limited perception, a dream-scape arises to them, which you are not privvy to, which you then use to 'prove' your assertion that the others who appear to you are in fact perceiving. It's circular logic and it just doesn't hold up. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 10, 2018 16:53:00 GMT
In terms of what can be known, there is no 'my' perception vs. 'your' perception. There is just 'perception' as it happens, immediately, presently.
The only way perception is known to be happening, is directly. It is know to be happening via observation/seeing/witnessing the arising of appearances.
Perception does not arise 'of' the appearing body/mind, rather, the appearing body/mind arises 'of' perception, thus, there's something very wonky about looking to apparent people to conclude that there 'is and has to be' actual perception taking place in conjunction with that appearance.
If not for the appearance of a body/mind before you, you would not even be thinking about the presence of perception. You are taking the appearance of a perceiving person and denoting it as Truth, simply because of the compelling nature of that appearance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 10, 2018 21:19:50 GMT
Mind/ego does not like the idea of 'not knowing.' This ongoing argument about whether or not perception can be known to be happening for the appearing other, is a testament to that.
Mind wants to know stuff...is not okay with 'emptiness'...not okay with questions designated as misconceived. It wants answers. Wants to have everything all sewn up....nice and tidy...no loose ends.
So long as there is still seeking for (or holding to) answers to misconceived questions, one is still a slave to the dream. There has to be a sincere willingness to 'let go of' the idea that every question that could ever arise has a substantive "Truthy" answer. There are simply some things about this whole experience called life that are unknowable. Making peace with that goes a long way to actually 'being' at peace.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969 
|
Post by Enigma on Oct 10, 2018 23:27:16 GMT
I'm going to pull this post of Andrew's over here from ST to discuss in tandem with my convo over there, as I think he's really layed out here where he's gone wrong in his assertion of knowing about others perceiving/being consciously self aware, and, here I have a little more lee-way from which to explore. If by 'whole' you are referencing the entirety of 'the dream-scape' then really, all you know of that, is what you perceive. You are imagining that there is a greater, larger dream-scape/world of experience, that somehow exists beyond your perception of it. That is precisely what is addressed by all the talk about 'no objective world out there,' that 'the world arises within you,' and also by the term "Perception is creation." What exactly makes you think there is actually some 'created world' that lies beyond what you perceive, that is therefore, proving the perception of others? What you've done is to take the very compelling appearance of other perceivers as Truth. From that certain knowing then, that there are in fact other perceivers, you go on to conclude that in their limited perception, a dream-scape arises to them, which you are not privvy to, which you then use to 'prove' your assertion that the others who appear to you are in fact perceiving. It's circular logic and it just doesn't hold up. Yes, it's a common approach for him to begin with the answer he wants and find a way (logic be damned!) to prove that it is correct. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 10, 2018 23:32:23 GMT
I'm going to pull this post of Andrew's over here from ST to discuss in tandem with my convo over there, as I think he's really layed out here where he's gone wrong in his assertion of knowing about others perceiving/being consciously self aware, and, here I have a little more lee-way from which to explore. If by 'whole' you are referencing the entirety of 'the dream-scape' then really, all you know of that, is what you perceive. You are imagining that there is a greater, larger dream-scape/world of experience, that somehow exists beyond your perception of it. That is precisely what is addressed by all the talk about 'no objective world out there,' that 'the world arises within you,' and also by the term "Perception is creation." What exactly makes you think there is actually some 'created world' that lies beyond what you perceive, that is therefore, proving the perception of others? What you've done is to take the very compelling appearance of other perceivers as Truth. From that certain knowing then, that there are in fact other perceivers, you go on to conclude that in their limited perception, a dream-scape arises to them, which you are not privvy to, which you then use to 'prove' your assertion that the others who appear to you are in fact perceiving. It's circular logic and it just doesn't hold up. Yes, it's a common approach for him to begin with the answer he wants and find a way ( logic be damned!) to prove that it is correct.  Exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 11, 2018 21:06:19 GMT
Andrew, (I'll say this here because it's likely against the rules of ST to say it there):
You think that in your calling out of what you see to be, 'the fallout' of the consensus trance of others, (other whom you deem to be blind to the ills you perceive within your world) you are somehow speaking from a position more 'of the light,' than they, but there is a deeper and even more encompassing trance that is the reason for your disdain for and deep resistance to the current conditions of your world.
Trying to change the world from within that trance, is futile. To truly change your world, you must first break free of the trance that has you seeing a world that "can be" unbalanced or broken.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 15, 2018 19:46:34 GMT
Okay, have been reading here AND there when able today. Then I took a break and happened upon these insights which are being discussed, where else, Here AND There. So, here we go... Jac O’keefe In the experience of deep sleep, a dreamless state prevails and effectively there is nothing happening. No world exists, there are no images, the movie is not playing. The perceiving aspect is not present, so no observing takes place. Without a perceiver, there is nothing to perceive. Yet in the total absence of experience, you exist. ~ Jac O'Keeffe What happens in deep sleep is that all awareness or consciousness disappears. Consciousness is simply not present. Consciousness is itself thought or mind, and to be conscious of anything at all involves mind. Without consciousness, there is no world, no life, no family, no work, no laughter, no memory, no emotions, no past present or future, no right and wrong. The phenomenal world is dependent on consciousness for its own existence. ~ Jac O'Keeffe There is no 'I' thought when the mind is not engaged. ~ Jac O'Keeffe When there is nothing to be observed, the observer disappears. There cannot be an observer without material to be observed, just as there cannot be a thinker without thoughts. Both the seer and what is seen, the subject and the object are contents of the mind. ~ Jac O'Keeffe Self itself is not conscious of anything as there is nothing apart from it. ~ Jac O'Keeffe If you identify with the phrase 'I want happiness' you can simply remove the 'I' that is identification with body and mind and get rid of 'want' by dropping desires. What remains? Without 'I' and 'want' happiness alone remains. It is as simple as this. ~ Jac O'Keeffe To believe, to think and to live out your life as if you were other than Absolute will create pain and pleasure in constant motion, seeking resolution and fulfilment which cannot be found in the realms of creation. Buying into ideas that you are what you think and that your concepts are reality must be totally and unequivocally dropped. ~ Jac O'Keeffe When you awaken, that which is in deep sleep remains whether you place your attention on it or not. Ironically, there is an action performed by you in taking your attention from that which is Absolute to enable identification with the world of form. To abide in your natural state requires no movement or doing on your part. People ask "what can I do to bring my awareness to the natural state?" The key is in realising that if you didn't do anything, your awareness would not have left it in the first place this morning. ~ Jac O'Keeffe Let your mind be focussed inward. Let your attention rest calmly in its natural state. Live your day in the flow that underpins every day: the flow of consciousness. Relax in the knowledge that there is a natural state that you may consciously return and sink your attention into during the day when you observe that you are operating under the laws of identification. This is not a task. If you try to achieve this and set it up as a goal, your mind is involved and you will log jam at the outset. Relax. Resting mind activity disarms gross identification. There is no 'how' to stop thinking. Simply stop getting involved in the stories of your thoughts. Stopping is not a doing, not a technique, not to be learned. Neither is it a big deal. Just be quiet, be still, and stop participating in the imaginary world created by your thoughts. ~ Jac O'Keeffe Meditation in the early morning hours can assist in keeping the mind focused inward. For many, this helps sustain your attention on remaining the perceiver of all activities for much of the day. In breaking the habit of gross identification, meditation is a most useful tool. It trains the mind to become singularly focused and keeps attention inward. Meditation in the morning curbs the habit of outward identification and can build an awareness and familiarity in consciousness of the I AM state. ~ Jac O'Keeffe Your capacity to be happy does not improve when certain conditions are in place. That is just a thought. There are no circumstances that can give you lasting happiness. Right now, remove that thought, be quiet, sit still and rest in the I AM, as observer. All your beliefs and desires are happenings in consciousness. Let them pass: there is no need to make them yours. Nothing is needed at all right now. With certainty you can know that all is well and it cannot be any other way. ~ Jac O'Keeffe Without editing your thoughts you can know that every thought that you entertain as yours is all that distracts you from enjoying deep silence within. Rest in the observing I AM and allow your awareness to sink into That which is seeing even the observer. ~ Jac O'Keeffe As you learn to observe with no attachment, peace arises. The only thing that can attempt to interfere with this is your identification with thoughts. ~ Jac O'Keeffe Your natural state is to be at peace, but mind only knows peace as a concept so it will try to create peace for you. It can even make peace a practice to keep you attached to the realms of ideas and personal beliefs. ~ Jac O'Keeffe Training the mind to be still is of great benefit, but it yields a state of mind like so many other states. Stillness of mind is an experience to be enjoyed. This kind of stillness is not what you are: this stillness is a concept and a valid experience and is relative. If something can be experienced it can only exist relatively. It is not the truth. All experiences come and go. Truth remains, unchanging and complete. Do not stop short on your inner enquiry just because your mind is still. If you can experience stillness, you will also experience agitation. All states have their opposite. Do not decide that stillness or an experience of peace is enough. There is no experience that can give you anything other than experience. Reject all such tricks that the mind presents. In sinking into that which is prior and beyond all thoughts, all states of mind, all experiences, resting in the beingness that sees but cannot be seen, it is revealed that beyond the shadow of a doubt mind itself does not exist. Mind is only a concept. ~ Jac O'Keeffe At the end of the day, you will reach a point of knowing that there is nothing to learn and nothing to experience. ~ Jac O'Keeffe Any ideas you have about this material are from your mind. Mind can fake it up to a point; it constructs the most subtle experiences. Do not stop at experiences and do not stop with any conclusion. Know that all concepts come from mind. Stay in neutral gear, no stickiness of any sort, free flow without an objective, remain totally open and watch without expectation. Whatever appears in time and space cannot last. ~ Jac O'Keeffe As you remain unattached the core essence that is you, within your beingness will come forward and will begin to unfold exquisitely. Expect this to take place and rest assured it never will. Engage a commentary from mind and it all stops again. ~ Jac O'Keeffe The moment you think you have spiritual knowledge or that you know how it works, identity is present, mind is active, and further identification is taking place. ~ Jac O'Keeffe
How does one know when mind is involved? Simply because the mental capacity always has a personal agenda. With real discovery, Silence is beyond description, the personal 'I' is nowhere, nothing can be said, there is nothing to be said. Draw no conclusions, keep quiet and observe. That which IS cannot be an idea. ~ Jac O'KeeffeWow, a whole page of excellent quotes Rowan. Thank you. I like her way of stating this stuff. Always very clear. The last two quotes I bolded, pretty much address and take care of the whole "I do know that others are experiencing by virtue of a very special experience that revealed the inherent nature of Self. You don't come away from real discovery of that which is beyond description, to then somehow have a pat answer to a question about materiality. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 23, 2018 18:02:33 GMT
Adya uses the term "manifestations of spirit," which essentially has the same meaning of "an appearance within Being." There are many ways to talk about 'expressions' OF the One thingless thing.' The important thing is to see that each, apparent individual expression, is ephemeral in nature. We cannot look to that arising idea, thing, sound, object to know the Truth about it. Rather, the Truth about each apparent object can only be seen through apprehending that which gives rise to it (Spirit, the one thingless Thing, SElf, BEing, Awareness, Consciousness) there are all sorts of terms that will do. And in that apprehension, the apparent 'thingness' of all things, gets seen through, loses all substance as the defining boundaries are themselves seen to be just a manifestation in spirit. To see the true nature of spirit, (which can only ever be apprehended as a pointer) to then apply it to a particular manifestation to imbue it with a conceptual quality/property, is to reify (make real) the very boundaries/limitations that are inherent in the appearance of individualized objects. For arguments sake, lets say Kensho always does = The realization of the nature of Self. It is generally agreed that the apprehension of that nature is not something that can be captured with words, concepts, ideas, but rather, we can only offer pointers. But you and ZD are taking those pointers and applying them to each arising expression, when you insist that your realization of the true nature of All, now has you seeing that each and every apparent thing (rocks, socks, trees, people) are all alive, conscious, experiencing, perceiving. Those terms reference more than just 'a pointer.' They are conceptual ideas that indicate very specific qualities, traits and properties. In applying those to each expression, to each object/thing, you lick a pointer and you reify, re-affirm 'thingness' itself. It's one thing to say you've realized the nature of Self to be_____________________, and to then go on to metaphorically describe that, so long as we qualify that description by also saying that this is not to be taken literally, it's just a pointer. But to then take that pointer to ascribe it to each appearing object, rather than just that which gives rise to the object, is to give a substance to the object, that it actually does not have. It really is just an arising/manifestation of Spirit, not the 'thing' is appears to be. To assign 'experiencing/perceiving' to the expression of 'person' is to take the expression as primary over that which it really is, a manifestation in/of Spirit. Far from 'alienating' everyone who agrees with you, I'd say I've piqued interest in conversing on the subject. I have after all had quite a few responses to my posts....many from those who disagree. If folks are truly alienated, then they'd simply refrain from engagement with me, wouldn't they? Seems to me they were enjoying the discussion as much as I. I have no reason anyway to think different. Why is it spiritual arrogance when folks disagree with you, and seemingly refuse to budge on what they see, but when you refuse to budge on what you see, that is not spiritual arrogance? From where I stand, the seeing of all apparent things arising in experience as devoid of Truthiness, is 'deeper' than the seeing you say you have had. It really doesn't matter 'how' you arrived at your seeing that 'it's all Alive,' be it a Kensho experience, realization, gnosis, whatever. If you were simply saying that the nature of All is _________________ and that defies capture by concept, that would be one thing. But you take what can only be a pointer and ascribe quality/property to it, to then assign that to apparent individual objects, thereby, reifying boundaries/limitation as actual. I really don't see that. Other than you, everyone who partook kept their cool. Even laughter and I engaged absent contention. Did it really? how come so many were viewing the conversations then? It's been livelier there than it's been in a very long time. I'd say there was enjoyment derived by those who engaged as well as those who just followed along. you are seeing problems where none exist. The entire issue here is Reefs, that you just cannot stand it when folks openly challenge your views. You are an extremely immature person who cannot help but feel personally affronted in the face of folks saying you are mistaken. you're a big baby. And you're a hypocrite too. you have no trouble standing your ground, repeating your own arguments and at times being a real asshole as you do it. And you ARE mistaken in this instance. You've taken a pointer, gobbled it up, and then imbued each appearing thing, with a quality, thereby, reifying apparent 'thingness.' Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/4132/world?page=8318#ixzz5UmBSKZES
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 23, 2018 18:13:37 GMT
The impersonal perspective illuminates 'thingness' itself as a mere appearance...a mere manifestation of spirit. You don't see through thingness to then go on to reify it, through ascribing specific properties/qualities to each apparent object.
Rather, you see that which is fundamental to all manifested things as _________________, which is not capturable by words/concepts. You don't then turn around to say that because you saw the nature of it all to be_____________________, that you now know for certain that the people in your experience are actually perceiving/experiencing. That is both licking a pointer AND a reification of thingness.
|
|
