|
Post by Figgles on Oct 23, 2018 18:22:46 GMT
Yes. Zd is correct when he says that the reality is NOT what you think it is.
But then he turns around to use his realization of this, to argue that because of it, he does know for certain that "People, rocks, socks are experiencing/perceiving" .
He is arguing that reality actually IS what you can 'think' about it. Experiencing/perceiving are qualities, not pointers. particularly when one is arguing for their actuality, and not designating them as 'a pointer/a metaphor.'
|
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,340
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 23, 2018 18:23:56 GMT
Not that I care much, and you may well have made the most appropriate decision for the other forum, but if you have so much still to say to Reefs, wouldn't it be best to say it to him? I doubt he comes here. I'm also confused why it seems you have been replying to me here in the last days....? Is there something going on that I don't know? If it's none of my business, that's fine.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 23, 2018 18:30:35 GMT
23 hours ago zazeniac said: No contradiction in "nothing within experience is True?"[/quote]
The stating itself is, yes, but the seeing behind the statement is transcendent of experience. You have to be 'looking at' the totality of experience vs. being immersed within it, to actually see that.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 23, 2018 18:33:46 GMT
Not that I care much, and you may well have made the most appropriate decision for the other forum, but if you have so much still to say to Reefs, wouldn't it be best to say it to him? I doubt he comes here. He revealed in his invite to me to come over to ST, that he had read it here, that I was interested in such. So not sure how often, but he does come here. He's made it pretty clear that if I do respond, I am limited in how I do so. I'd much prefer to respond to his posts freely rather than be restricted. No I haven't. This is the first day I've posted here for a few days now.
|
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,340
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 23, 2018 18:36:04 GMT
Not that I care much, and you may well have made the most appropriate decision for the other forum, but if you have so much still to say to Reefs, wouldn't it be best to say it to him? I doubt he comes here. He revealed in his invite to me to come over to ST, that he had read it here, that I was interested in such. So not sure how often, but he does come here. He's made it pretty clear that if I do respond, I am limited in how I do so. I'd much prefer to respond to his posts freely rather than be restricted. No I haven't. This is the first day I've posted here for a few days now. okay.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 23, 2018 18:43:16 GMT
Reefs has said that because of his seeing that Self is alive, he therefore knows each appearing thing to be alive and that that necessarily includes 'experiencing/perceiving.'
That said, The very fact that one is countering the assertion of not knowing with "it's all alive," says enough.
I have no reason at all to doubt that my own mystical/CC experiences are what is described by Kensho. They fit the bill perfectly in terms of how Kensho is described."Everything was drawn into one point, the sense of 'me' included, thus, 'me' disappeared, and then that point exploded and there were no boundaries of any kind...there was awe, gratitude, tears of bliss, joy. " That's precisely what I've experienced, numerous times.
I am not being given the benefit of the doubt. And that's because I did not come away ascribing Truth to the experiential component of the CC itself.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 23, 2018 18:45:05 GMT
He revealed in his invite to me to come over to ST, that he had read it here, that I was interested in such. So not sure how often, but he does come here. He's made it pretty clear that if I do respond, I am limited in how I do so. I'd much prefer to respond to his posts freely rather than be restricted. No I haven't. This is the first day I've posted here for a few days now. okay. Why is it you thought I was replying to you 'here'?
|
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,340
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 23, 2018 18:47:51 GMT
Why is it you thought I was replying to you 'here'? I scanned quickly and saw some replies to me that looked recent. I lose track of dates to an extent, so I guess those replies were less recent than I thought.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 23, 2018 18:54:14 GMT
Well that's it. I fully agree with him when he says that the apprehension of the nature of Self cannot be put into words. But he then goes on to use that apprehension to say I am wrong that it can't be known whether or not apparent people are in fact experiencing/appearing...or whether socks rocks have the properties of 'being alive' etc.
If the true nature is not what you can think about a thing, then why is he returning to 'concept/quality' to ascribe those to thingness?
He has also argued that one who has seen this 'nature' would never go on to speak of 'appearances' when really, he himself has used terms to pretty much denote the same thing (reality/the world not being what you think it is).
No doubt, I am a bit confused by what he's saying. he really does seem to me to be contradicting himself.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 23, 2018 18:56:07 GMT
Why is it you thought I was replying to you 'here'? I scanned quickly and saw some replies to me that looked recent. I lose track of dates to an extent, so I guess those replies were less recent than I thought. Okay. Fwiw, if I find a post of yours that I'm interested in responding to, I will also be replying to it here, now that I'm not engaging on that forum.
|
|