Post by Figgles on Nov 3, 2018 4:45:58 GMT
The term 'nature of appearances' has been taken by some to equal; 'the quality of appearances,' but really, that's not what the term 'nature' is referencing when there is talk about 'the nature of appearance, or the nature of experience.'
It's fair to say that in the realization of 'not two' it could be said that it's also realized that there is but one thingless thing, and I am that, and all that is experienced is that, and thus, 'the nature' of reality itself, is singularity, which means, "it's all God/Godding." Important to note though, those terms don't accurately capture the actuality of 'the nature of reality,' they are merely pointers.
What Reefs and ZD are saying is that there is MORE that can be realized about that nature than mere pointers of 'singularity'....mere 'God/Godding,' that if one is lucky enough to have a very special experience, he will come away knowing for certain the qualities of this singularity/Oneness and he can then apply that certainty to every appearing object that arises within experience.
The very reason we talk about 'the nature of appearance/experience' is to delineate between that which lies foundational, unmoving, unchanging, permanent, vs that which arises within/to that, and is in flux, is changing/ephemeral, is impermanent. The seeing that what I am is not an arising thing that changes, is impermanent, but rather, I am that which is foundational, I am permanence itself, and that all arising content is absent permanence/substance, is what it means to awaken to/within the dream.
This idea that there is a very special experience that results in a realization that illuminates the realm of appearing things, to be something more than ephemeral, that which comes and goes, that which is dependent upon Being for its' arising, flies in the face of Self realization.
One cannot realize Self and then go on to conflate the appearing world of thingness with permanence, substance, foundation. And that's precisely what's happening when Reefs and ZD argue that they have realized the "nature of Appearances" to be "aliveness, conscious awareness, experiencing, perceiving."
The nature of appearance is that it's all empty of Truth, impermanent, changing, temporal. Yes, there is no separation between appearance and Being, and at some point we can even collapse the distinction between Being and appearance to say 'I am that,' however, that does not translate into knowing each individual appearing thing to be 'alive, conscious, experiencing.'
Just because there is no separation between Being and that which arises within Being does not make them exactly 'the same.' Distinction co-exists just fine within Oneness. Distinction is NOT the same as separation.
Those who say they know this are actually the ones mixing context. The 'absence of knowing' straight across the board with regards to ALL experience, is just the result of seeing the temporal, ephemeral nature of the totality of experience.
It's fair to say that in the realization of 'not two' it could be said that it's also realized that there is but one thingless thing, and I am that, and all that is experienced is that, and thus, 'the nature' of reality itself, is singularity, which means, "it's all God/Godding." Important to note though, those terms don't accurately capture the actuality of 'the nature of reality,' they are merely pointers.
What Reefs and ZD are saying is that there is MORE that can be realized about that nature than mere pointers of 'singularity'....mere 'God/Godding,' that if one is lucky enough to have a very special experience, he will come away knowing for certain the qualities of this singularity/Oneness and he can then apply that certainty to every appearing object that arises within experience.
The very reason we talk about 'the nature of appearance/experience' is to delineate between that which lies foundational, unmoving, unchanging, permanent, vs that which arises within/to that, and is in flux, is changing/ephemeral, is impermanent. The seeing that what I am is not an arising thing that changes, is impermanent, but rather, I am that which is foundational, I am permanence itself, and that all arising content is absent permanence/substance, is what it means to awaken to/within the dream.
This idea that there is a very special experience that results in a realization that illuminates the realm of appearing things, to be something more than ephemeral, that which comes and goes, that which is dependent upon Being for its' arising, flies in the face of Self realization.
One cannot realize Self and then go on to conflate the appearing world of thingness with permanence, substance, foundation. And that's precisely what's happening when Reefs and ZD argue that they have realized the "nature of Appearances" to be "aliveness, conscious awareness, experiencing, perceiving."
The nature of appearance is that it's all empty of Truth, impermanent, changing, temporal. Yes, there is no separation between appearance and Being, and at some point we can even collapse the distinction between Being and appearance to say 'I am that,' however, that does not translate into knowing each individual appearing thing to be 'alive, conscious, experiencing.'
Just because there is no separation between Being and that which arises within Being does not make them exactly 'the same.' Distinction co-exists just fine within Oneness. Distinction is NOT the same as separation.
Those who say they know this are actually the ones mixing context. The 'absence of knowing' straight across the board with regards to ALL experience, is just the result of seeing the temporal, ephemeral nature of the totality of experience.