Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2018 5:18:55 GMT
Similarly, after seeing there is no separation, there is but One thingless thing, and I am that, we still go on to engage with the distinctions that appear within the material world. Realization that the entire world arises within that which I am, and thus, has no independent substance apart from Being, does not mean that we stop engaging with the things and objects that appear. Why should that be any different just because it's 'a sentient human' that is appearing? All that appears continues to be engaged with, as it appears to be, post SR. It wouldn't make sense to buck that current. I mean, why? There's a definite emphasis on 'real' 'substance' 'exist', all terms, BTW, that I find problematic in this context. The interest in those terms aligns with the notion that only that should embraced and the rest ignored as meaningless and useless. Once it is seen that everything is an appearance in/as what I am, that distinction loses it's meaning. There is, in fact, even less reason to reject an appearance. The confusion for them is, Since we say appearances are not conscious and also there is a possibility that the appearing person may have associated with another view point of mine, they could not understand it. They three think If one say appearance is not conscious, then how come we can say 'appearing person may have a view point associated with them'. I strongly consider this is the kind of understanding problem.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Nov 4, 2018 8:50:27 GMT
Similarly, after seeing there is no separation, there is but One thingless thing, and I am that, we still go on to engage with the distinctions that appear within the material world. Realization that the entire world arises within that which I am, and thus, has no independent substance apart from Being, does not mean that we stop engaging with the things and objects that appear. Why should that be any different just because it's 'a sentient human' that is appearing? All that appears continues to be engaged with, as it appears to be, post SR. It wouldn't make sense to buck that current. I mean, why? There's a definite emphasis on 'real' 'substance' 'exist', all terms, BTW, that I find problematic in this context. The interest in those terms aligns with the notion that only that should embraced and the rest ignored as meaningless and useless. Once it is seen that everything is an appearance in/as what I am, that distinction loses it's meaning. There is, in fact, even less reason to reject an appearance. Ain't no such thing as loneliness in the eternal and infinite ocean of impersonal awareness. Where there are, no others.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 4, 2018 16:05:08 GMT
Similarly, after seeing there is no separation, there is but One thingless thing, and I am that, we still go on to engage with the distinctions that appear within the material world. Realization that the entire world arises within that which I am, and thus, has no independent substance apart from Being, does not mean that we stop engaging with the things and objects that appear. Why should that be any different just because it's 'a sentient human' that is appearing? All that appears continues to be engaged with, as it appears to be, post SR. It wouldn't make sense to buck that current. I mean, why? There's a definite emphasis on 'real' 'substance' 'exist', all terms, BTW, that I find problematic in this context. The interest in those terms aligns with the notion that only that should embraced and the rest ignored as meaningless and useless. Once it is seen that everything is an appearance in/as what I am, that distinction loses it's meaning. There is, in fact, even less reason to reject an appearance. Agreed on the terms; I tend to only use the term 'substance' now, if I make a point to contrast it against "ephemeral/comes and goes." Otherwise, as you say, along with those other terms it can indeed get problematic. And yes, there is a notion within the interest in using those terms, that that which does not 'have substance/is real/definitely exists' should be rejected....is not worthy of loving/caring about. You're making a really important point with the bolded--Yes! that's a huge part of seeing that the totality of what appears is arising within what I am, and in that, the entire field of 'experiential content' gets leveled, and there is no longer any one 'thing' that can be said to be any more or less 'real' than anything else. When it's all leveled like that, those terms do lose their meaning, 'cause there's nothing within experience to compare against. But as you say, that seeing, rather than resulting in an absence of caring for or a rejection of that which appears, actually makes for greater acceptance/allowance of all of it. And in that lessening of judgement, the end of valuing any one appearance over another in terms of giving it more weight, or more 'substance' over another, love for it all, flows unimpeded. This ties in with this whole idea ZD and Reefs put forth that for one to truly fall in love with 'the cosmos' one must have a special experience whereby he sees the inherent qualities of aliveness/vibrancy that underlie all of it. I have found the opposite; It's in seeing the inherent absence of Truth, regarding all of it, that gives way to unimpeded love for all of it. And I daresay, that in the experience of 'the world' that unfolds after, there is even, wrapped up in that, an experiential sense of intelligence/vibrancy/aliveness that appears to pertain to the entirety of the world, the cosmos, reality as a whole. The only difference here is that I clearly see, that 'sense' is itself an experience, mind taking what is an absence and framing it within experience, as mind does. This idea that one who sees the realm of appearances as empty of Truth, must therefore be absent any awe and reverence for life in general, is based upon a misunderstanding. Awe and reverence for the totality, are experiential responses (feelings) that have their basis in the apprehension of Truth...mind's way of finding something inherent in the realization, to chew on....and nothing at all wrong with that, but again, it is important to see the difference between 'Truth realization' vs. 'experience.' It's so easy to get bamboozled by a sense of awe, grandiosity, vibrancy, aliveness, and ZD and Reefs surely aren't the first to mistakingly want to label that as Truth.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Nov 5, 2018 15:37:04 GMT
There's a definite emphasis on 'real' 'substance' 'exist', all terms, BTW, that I find problematic in this context. The interest in those terms aligns with the notion that only that should embraced and the rest ignored as meaningless and useless. Once it is seen that everything is an appearance in/as what I am, that distinction loses it's meaning. There is, in fact, even less reason to reject an appearance. The confusion for them is, Since we say appearances are not conscious and also there is a possibility that the appearing person may have associated with another view point of mine, they could not understand it. They three think If one say appearance is not conscious, then how come we can say 'appearing person may have a view point associated with them'. I strongly consider this is the kind of understanding problem. I find that all nonsense is agenda driven. Intelligent peeps with an understanding of the ontology don't really have trouble understanding what we're talking about. (Listen to them intelligently debate the most subtle spiritual nuances) On the contrary, they understand the implications all too well and are highly motivated to prove us wrong. As such, it's not a matter of conveying understanding, which is why attempting to do so, so reliably fails. For that reason, I've tried at times to convey the idea that losing one's world is actually a gain, but of course that's not where their interest is as the agenda keeps them focussed elsewhere.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Nov 5, 2018 15:41:34 GMT
There's a definite emphasis on 'real' 'substance' 'exist', all terms, BTW, that I find problematic in this context. The interest in those terms aligns with the notion that only that should embraced and the rest ignored as meaningless and useless. Once it is seen that everything is an appearance in/as what I am, that distinction loses it's meaning. There is, in fact, even less reason to reject an appearance. Ain't no such thing as loneliness in the eternal and infinite ocean of impersonal awareness. Where there are, no others. Correct! Because aloneness is a secondary illusion derived from the primary illusion of separation, both of which collapse at the same time.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Nov 5, 2018 16:11:36 GMT
There's a definite emphasis on 'real' 'substance' 'exist', all terms, BTW, that I find problematic in this context. The interest in those terms aligns with the notion that only that should embraced and the rest ignored as meaningless and useless. Once it is seen that everything is an appearance in/as what I am, that distinction loses it's meaning. There is, in fact, even less reason to reject an appearance. Agreed on the terms; I tend to only use the term 'substance' now, if I make a point to contrast it against "ephemeral/comes and goes." Otherwise, as you say, along with those other terms it can indeed get problematic. And yes, there is a notion within the interest in using those terms, that that which does not 'have substance/is real/definitely exists' should be rejected....is not worthy of loving/caring about. You're making a really important point with the bolded--Yes! that's a huge part of seeing that the totality of what appears is arising within what I am, and in that, the entire field of 'experiential content' gets leveled, and there is no longer any one 'thing' that can be said to be any more or less 'real' than anything else. When it's all leveled like that, those terms do lose their meaning, 'cause there's nothing within experience to compare against. But as you say, that seeing, rather than resulting in an absence of caring for or a rejection of that which appears, actually makes for greater acceptance/allowance of all of it. And in that lessening of judgement, the end of valuing any one appearance over another in terms of giving it more weight, or more 'substance' over another, love for it all, flows unimpeded. This ties in with this whole idea ZD and Reefs put forth that for one to truly fall in love with 'the cosmos' one must have a special experience whereby he sees the inherent qualities of aliveness/vibrancy that underlie all of it. I have found the opposite; It's in seeing the inherent absence of Truth, regarding all of it, that gives way to unimpeded love for all of it. And I daresay, that in the experience of 'the world' that unfolds after, there is even, wrapped up in that, an experiential sense of intelligence/vibrancy/aliveness that appears to pertain to the entirety of the world, the cosmos, reality as a whole. The only difference here is that I clearly see, that 'sense' is itself an experience, mind taking what is an absence and framing it within experience, as mind does. This idea that one who sees the realm of appearances as empty of Truth, must therefore be absent any awe and reverence for life in general, is based upon a misunderstanding. Awe and reverence for the totality, are experiential responses (feelings) that have their basis in the apprehension of Truth...mind's way of finding something inherent in the realization, to chew on....and nothing at all wrong with that, but again, it is important to see the difference between 'Truth realization' vs. 'experience.' It's so easy to get bamboozled by a sense of awe, grandiosity, vibrancy, aliveness, and ZD and Reefs surely aren't the first to mistakingly want to label that as Truth. High five to all of that. And to the underlined; like Peace, the fundamental nature of Love is absence; absence of judgment, absence of fear, absence of defensive boundaries, all predicated on separation. Love is always present because Oneness is always the case. It is indeed cause for celebration, and too simple to have a lot of rational, logical discussion about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2018 16:27:45 GMT
The confusion for them is, Since we say appearances are not conscious and also there is a possibility that the appearing person may have associated with another view point of mine, they could not understand it. They three think If one say appearance is not conscious, then how come we can say 'appearing person may have a view point associated with them'. I strongly consider this is the kind of understanding problem. I find that all nonsense is agenda driven. Intelligent peeps with an understanding of the ontology don't really have trouble understanding what we're talking about. (Listen to them intelligently debate the most subtle spiritual nuances) On the contrary, they understand the implications all too well and are highly motivated to prove us wrong. As such, it's not a matter of conveying understanding, which is why attempting to do so, so reliably fails. For that reason, I've tried at times to convey the idea that losing one's world is actually a gain, but of course that's not where their interest is as the agenda keeps them focussed elsewhere. Exactly
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 5, 2018 21:16:48 GMT
The confusion for them is, Since we say appearances are not conscious and also there is a possibility that the appearing person may have associated with another view point of mine, they could not understand it. They three think If one say appearance is not conscious, then how come we can say 'appearing person may have a view point associated with them'. I strongly consider this is the kind of understanding problem. I find that all nonsense is agenda driven. Intelligent peeps with an understanding of the ontology don't really have trouble understanding what we're talking about. (Listen to them intelligently debate the most subtle spiritual nuances) On the contrary, they understand the implications all too well and are highly motivated to prove us wrong. As such, it's not a matter of conveying understanding, which is why attempting to do so, so reliably fails. For that reason, I've tried at times to convey the idea that losing one's world is actually a gain, but of course that's not where their interest is as the agenda keeps them focussed elsewhere. You've nailed it.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 5, 2018 21:20:57 GMT
Ain't no such thing as loneliness in the eternal and infinite ocean of impersonal awareness. Where there are, no others. Correct! Because aloneness is a secondary illusion derived from the primary illusion of separation, both of which collapse at the same time. Yes, which is why Andrew's argument that there cannot be' only a singular view point, is misconceived.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 5, 2018 21:34:25 GMT
High five to all of that. You rebel, you. (I will only allow you 1000 more high fives before I extend a warning, so be careful there buddy ) Nice. (I mean, Kensho on steroids, High Five Bro!)
|
|