|
Post by Figgles on Oct 26, 2018 0:21:11 GMT
Yes, this is profoundly simple. I went through this with Tenka and Andrew early on in this 'not knowing' convo, and neither seemed able to grasp it.
And really, this plays into the whole 'you don't know the other is actually perceiving/experiencing' dealy.
If you are unable in a given moment to tell me precisely 'what' the content of my thoughts, innermost experience is, then you cannot say for certain that you DO know that I am in fact perceiving/experiencing.
Absent knowing all of the experiential content, you obviously don't actually know if the other is in fact experiencing. Certain Knowing 'of' experiencing in the person before you, would come complete with knowing of all of the content. That's how 'experiencing' is known. It's a package deal like that.
And it's important to see that actual knowing, actual certainty, beyond question, is a present moment thing vs. a blanket/conceptual, abstract sort of general knowing pertaining to apparent others.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 26, 2018 16:34:29 GMT
Lolly... excellent how you've explained this.
Yes! The 'not knowing' about the other as perceiver/experiencer, is the same. "It's the immediacy" of the real lived experience, not what we know based upon past, or imaginings of future.
Andrew,Reefs and ZD are all talking about an objective knowledge pertaining to the expressions that arise in experience to them.
To actually 'know for certain' that apparent others are experiencing, you'd have to "BE" experiencing, "What" they are experiencing in the given moment of that knowing.
Anything else is just a supposedly 'objective knowing' that only applies in a blanket way, to the totality of experience.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 26, 2018 16:58:01 GMT
Exactly. This also applies toyour description of Kensho, as resulting in a permanent realization that all things/people, all 'stuff' that is expressed within experience, is itself 'alive, sentient, experiencing, perceiving.'
You would have to know all of that, 'immediately, presently, directly,' otherwise it is just a conceptual knowing you hold onto, to apply to all of experiential content, in a blanket manner. Which makes it 'material knowledge' about experience vs. direct knowing.
Now, it remains possible that you somehow DO directly know, in each given moment that every apparent person before you is in fact experiencing, however, absent your ability to relay precisely 'what' he/she is experiencing, knowing, seeing, feeling, etc, that claim is going to fall flat. Same can be said for the rocks, one celled organisms, socks, trees, etc.
There is only one way to actually 'know' them to be 'alive/experiencing/feeling/emoting, etc, etc.' and that is direct knowing, but that direct knowing necessarily means knowing 'the content' there as well. Every miniscule aspect of it. If this knowing is in fact, absolute, certain, you should have no trouble at all explaining precisely what a rock experiences/perceives in great detail.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 26, 2018 17:09:06 GMT
The term 'juiciness' as applied to the totality of life, could indeed be said to be but a pointer. But the terms you've applied and argued for, are not. You have clearly been suggesting that via Kensho, you know for certain that each and every appearing thing, IS alive/conscious/experiencing/perceiving. Otherwise, why would you have countered the assertion "It can't be known whether the appearing person before me is actually perceiving/experiencing"?
But again, it does seem as though you are backing away from that, to now suggest you've been offering but a pointer all along. Reefs does the same.
So, what it is guys? Do you agree or disagree with the bolded statement?
I have no problem with a pointer that says there is experienced metaphorical/pointery sort of 'aliveness/juiciness/intelligence' to the totality. But I do take issue if you are saying you have realized each and every thing to 'be alive' in the way that is generally understood to mean.
You seem to keep going back and forth, between saying 'it's a pointer' to 'it's actual.' Which is it?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 26, 2018 17:14:56 GMT
In your estimation, has anyone actually argued that SR does not have any effect on everyday life experience?
Again, you seem to be backing away from the whole "kensho/CC/mystical" experience and now focusing on the 'realizational' aspects that have little to do with the experience. So why exactly is a Kensho important to have? Why and how is it actually so different from SR and all that that encompasses?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 26, 2018 21:54:04 GMT
Those lab studies, do not actually 'verify' anything, beyond the dream itself. Those studies...? All part and parcel of the dreamscape. That an amoeba is actually 'processing information' and the OBE experience, are also appearances within the dream. Gotta say ZD, I am surprised that you actually seem to believe that stuff happening from within the dream, actually tells you anything transcendent of the dream. Seems to me you used to talk about that yourself (nothing from within the dream's content can be relied upon..?) anyway, not sure. If so, seems you are going backwards in your understandings. Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/4132/world?page=8345#ixzz5V4mygK00
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 27, 2018 15:30:04 GMT
Yeah, me too. This is getting ridiculous. So now 'form' is being differentiated from appearing 'objects/things'? Seems now they are saying that the 'substrate' of all apparent objects is living/perceiving/experiencing, but the object/thing that appears, is not? But, wait a minute, doesn't their entire argument hinge upon seeing that IF that which is fundamental is Alive/conscious/experiencing/knowing, then everything that arises from/of that, must therefore also be Alive/conscious/experiencing/knowing? They seem to be defeating their own argument there. After all, we've been saying 'just because it's all arising within Awareness' does not necessarily make each apparent thing, aware. Are they now agreeing with this?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 27, 2018 16:02:47 GMT
When the label for some seeing that is being asserted to be 'a realization' has the word 'experience' right there in it, it's a little hard to look beyond that. There's a very important difference between an actual Truth realization and 'an experience.' And all the willingness in the world to look beyond the label, is not going to change that.
You guys are the one's focusing upon the 'experience part.' You talk about the special feelings that ensue (awe, gratitude, revererance), and you take what you say you saw directly (aliveness) and apply that as certain/absolute knowing TO appearing people, rocks, socks, pieces of poo.
I've said it IS possible that realization comes with, or happens within an experience, but if/when that happens, it's important to see that the realization itself is NOT an experience, and the totality of the 'experiential' part, was but mind trying to frame the realizational/seeing through part, into something that mind could chew on.
Instead, you guys are taking the experiential part, chewing away on it, and even exclaiming that the wonderful taste speaks to the Truth of it.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 28, 2018 4:26:45 GMT
Damn, E.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 28, 2018 20:40:50 GMT
You are speaking now as someone who has had a "kensho" experience. Have you? If not, I don't see how you could accurately make this claim.
And Do you treat all animals like 'innocent divine forms and expressions'? Does your eating them constitute such treatment? How about veggies....do you grow your own or buy them at the supermarket?
I find it so odd that you stand in deep judgement of practices and modes of human behavior when it comes to 'others' but don't seem to hold yourself to those same standards.
|
|