Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Nov 12, 2018 16:36:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 12, 2018 17:07:34 GMT
A revisit of one of the earliest convos on the subject of knowing/not knowing; What's really interesting to see is that initially, there was no mention at all of "Kensho" or any mystical transcendent experience at all that supposedly revealed/illuminated that everything that appears is Alive/conscious/perceiving/experiencing. That came later as he needed to make his seeing/knowing more 'special'....only something that a select few ever to get to see, if they're lucky enough to have this super-duper, ever so rare kind of mystical experience, kind of thing. Well, only a special experience could lead one to believe that 'what you are' is a conscious object. Yup.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2018 19:55:05 GMT
Oops! Guess Niz was self identified and mind enlightened too. Who knew? don't scoff! it's a serious problem!
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 12, 2018 21:40:52 GMT
And here we have it; He was in fact equating all appearances as arisings in "Consciousness" with therefore, of course, "being conscious." He absolutely attributes 'being conscious' to every arising within Consciousness, as clearly, he applies/attributes 'being conscious' to that thingless thing that I am and that gives rise to all. That's precisely where he goes wrong.And notice again, still no talk of the almight 'Kensho.' That is yet to come in the conversation. AT this point too, he was still using the argument of 'look how you treat me as though I am conscious,' as though that somehow proves a walk/talk issue or confusion. He seems to believe that a realization of absence of Truth regarding what appears, should mean the appearance is no longer engaged with at all. Ridiculous. He seems to be doing what he says others are doing; viewing it from the personal perspective without knowing it. The person is conscious, and there is only what you are, therefore others are conscious. No wonder he's rezzing with Tenka these days. Exactly. Yes, essentially that IS what he's saying "The person is conscious" and then it all flows from there...without a doubt, he's viewing from personal perspective. Indeed, right on par with the stuff Tenka is saying. Whadya think...? "Teefka....Reeka.....Teneefs..."? I'm really bad as these combined name dealies.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 12, 2018 21:55:51 GMT
Exactly. Yes, essentially that IS what he's saying "The person is conscious" and then it all flows from there...without a doubt, he's viewing from personal perspective. Indeed, right on par with the stuff Tenka is saying. Whadya think...? "Teefka....Reeka.....Teneefs..."? I'm really bad as these combined name dealies. Reeka.... ....that unmistakable stench of rollin' around in a personal viewpoint while insisting it's transcendent.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 15, 2018 16:21:12 GMT
You're struggling to choose words that support your argument. This one won't, but it's accurate; Once one sees there is no Santa Claus, he continues to have 'reference' for the idea of Santa Claus.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 22, 2018 17:22:04 GMT
Anything one can come up with to explain 'how' it is that things appear and disappear or 'why' experience is happening at all, is going to be a construct of mind.
You've come up with a nice little story about it all, I'm sure, but like all stories about reincarnation/past lives etc, it's all mind intervening due to discomfort with 'not knowing.' You need to look that discomfort square in the eye and then look beyond it.
You are currently so intently and minutely focused within the dream that you just cannot see past it.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 5, 2018 16:56:47 GMT
Reefs has repeatedly brought up this supposed 'walk/talk' issue. But, if he's going to use that kind of logic that says behavior/engagement with the people I experience must reflect what's been realized or it's not an actual realization, then surely that applies to his supposed realization as well? He says above he knows socks, rocks, chairs to be conscious, alive, and he has since added "experiencing/perceiving" to that list of attributes. And yet.......he is likely not engaging with these objects as though they are in fact conscious, experiencing/perceiving. I wonder if he apologizes to rocks, granules of sand/dirt, sidewalks as he walks upon them.....or feels compassion for the dog poop he steps in...perhaps apologizes to it as he scrapes it off his shoe...oh yeah...then there's the shoe to consider. You see Reefs? Your walk/talk argument completely falls apart when you apply it to your supposed realization.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Dec 6, 2018 0:51:35 GMT
Reefs has repeatedly brought up this supposed 'walk/talk' issue. But, if he's going to use that kind of logic that says behavior/engagement with the people I experience must reflect what's been realized or it's not an actual realization, then surely that applies to his supposed realization as well? He says above he knows socks, rocks, chairs to be conscious, alive, and he has since added "experiencing/perceiving" to that list of attributes. And yet.......he is likely not engaging with these objects as though they are in fact conscious, experiencing/perceiving. I wonder if he apologizes to rocks, granules of sand/dirt, sidewalks as he walks upon them.....or feels compassion for the dog poop he steps in...perhaps apologizes to it as he scrapes it off his shoe...oh yeah...then there's the shoe to consider. You see Reefs? Your walk/talk argument completely falls apart when you apply it to your supposed realization. Ha! Good point. That hadn't occurred to me. There's something wrong with the way oneness is being conceptualized. I feel another 'dissertation' coming on.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 6, 2018 3:44:47 GMT
Nice. Really love that last line. Amen.
|
|