Post by Figgles on Mar 22, 2019 18:29:46 GMT
The most glaring misconception to arise within this conversation has been demonstrated by those who insist that the 'not knowing' camp is full of it, "because" if they really didn't know, they would stop engaging with the appearance, completely.
These folk obviously don't believe 'awakening to the dream' is possible, without completely ignoring the dream. Or I guess they have a different idea about what 'awakening' constitutes...?
I'm trying to understand what's behind this idea that IF an appearance is seen to be 'just an appearance,' that that necessarily means losing ALL interest in it.
They seem to be implying that life is only worth engaging IF certain things are known about the arising content. Absent that knowing, they seem to be saying, there is nothing there of value. Which translates into: What is really of value, IS the knowledge about experience, not experience/life itself.
These folk obviously don't believe 'awakening to the dream' is possible, without completely ignoring the dream. Or I guess they have a different idea about what 'awakening' constitutes...?
I'm trying to understand what's behind this idea that IF an appearance is seen to be 'just an appearance,' that that necessarily means losing ALL interest in it.
They seem to be implying that life is only worth engaging IF certain things are known about the arising content. Absent that knowing, they seem to be saying, there is nothing there of value. Which translates into: What is really of value, IS the knowledge about experience, not experience/life itself.
