|
Post by Figgles on Oct 23, 2018 21:29:03 GMT
Any known experiential quality, that IS actually a quality, I have been happy to say, is an appearance/ Again, the actuality of Being conscious, being aware, are not themselves qualities. Rather, they reference the actual foundation of all arising content. However, in looking to an appearance to say that it 'appears to be' consious, aware, those DO become qualities because we are looking to the appearance of things, to denote the presence of 'being conscious, being aware.' We are 'attributing' awareness, consciousness to an appearing thing. And the happening of perception is not a quality, nor an appearance, rather, it's a term to describe the moment 'of' appearance appearing. Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/4132/world?page=8320#ixzz5Un8lydBr
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 23, 2018 21:34:39 GMT
I totally disagree. Lip service may get paid to that idea at times by certain folks, but if that's actually been realized and that seeing does not come and go, one would not be arguing for 'brain changes' as the cause/catalyst of clarity/realization.
It's almost as though ZD sometimes 'forgets' what he has at one point supposedly, clearly seen.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 23, 2018 21:39:50 GMT
LOL...that's putting it mildly. That logic is 'got itself a brand new ripped arsehold' flawed. That was really well put. High five! And look! No one to give me a penalty for tag-teaming!
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 23, 2018 21:49:19 GMT
Where/when has E ever said a rock is 'dead'? The certain knowing of that quality would be just as lacking in Truth as the invocation of 'alive.' The not knowing we keep speaking of, really means that the appearances of dead/alive themselves have been seen to be devoid of Truth.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 23, 2018 21:53:15 GMT
From where I stand, your logic is so deeply flawed, the ideas you express and cling to, are so erroneous, that at times it's just far too much work to get into it all to actually first 'decipher' and then explain precisely where you go wrong.
You are seeing from such a divergently different vantage point that to address your 'mistakes' means at least for a bit, adopting that vantage point...and I totally get why E is not excited to do that.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 24, 2018 1:44:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 24, 2018 15:30:11 GMT
The very way you describe your CC/Kensho 'realization' indicates it is not actually a 'seeing through' of erroneous ideas about existence but rather, an adding to the pool of ideas 'about' existence.
What I am really arguing is about what actually constitutes a Truth Realization vs. what constitutes a mystical experience.
The way I define a Truth realization is that it subtracts rather than adds to the pool of knowledge about existence. Haven't you head so many nonduality teachers speak about SR being all about 'losing'? There is a very good reason they say that.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 24, 2018 15:49:26 GMT
"Andrew:I wouldn't say a rock feels pain, no, but I still wouldn't consciously kick a rock, because there is a level at which I believe all things register an intention of harm."
You seem a little confused or at the very least 'uncertain' about precisely what it is a rock knows, experiences, feels, etc. Why is that?
You've been insisting that you DO know that all expressions are conscious, alive, feel etc, and the quote above about the rock speaks directly to that (it has the ability to register intent of harm).
The very fact that you cannot say for certain precisely what's going on with the rock, that you've resorted to speculation/assumption speaks directly to this absence of knowing about expressions in experience you've been arguing so vehemently against.
If you truly DID know that a rock is conscious, is alive, perceives, feels, knows stuff, you wouldn't have to speculate about whether or not it feels pain, what degree of awareness it has, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 24, 2018 16:02:13 GMT
I've not used the term 'imaginary' to talk about this. There's a difference as I see it, between denoting 'arising appearance, arising expressions within experience' vs. out and out, 'imagining' of stuff.
Who or what would be 'imagining'? The problem with that term is that it invokes the idea of a 'someone' who is imagining stuff into appearing. That's why I wouldn't and don't use that term to talk about 'appearances.'
That's where you get your 'subject/object' issue. But that issue is non-existent when we simply speak about arisings 'within' Being. It's all One thing, fundamentally, but distinct in that one is the foundation, the other the arising appearance.
distinction co-exists just fine within Oneness.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 24, 2018 16:04:08 GMT
I agree fully. But you do understand that 'intuition' is 'experienced' right?
|
|