|
Quotes
Mar 24, 2024 18:13:04 GMT
Post by Figgles on Mar 24, 2024 18:13:04 GMT
"I could comfortably swap characters with someone else; insert my awareness into any person, any time, any place. Is such a thing possible? Perception is the only reality, so why not? Everything is either awareness or appearance; what rules apply to awareness? What can’t appear? What can’t be dreamt? We take it for granted so we don’t appreciate the fact that our living reality is so fantastically, insanely, mindbogglingly wondrous and dreamlike that simply adding a new dimension would hardly make a noticeable impact." "If we could have some unknown and unsuspected power, the ability to transfer your consciousness into a different vessel for awhile would get my vote, but why limit it to people? A whale, a bacterium, a leaf of grass, a non-corporeal entity; whatever is aware, it seems, can host awareness. In fact, why limit it to this dreamstate venue? What better way to visit other worlds and discover new species than by transferring your consciousness into them? It makes a lot more sense than flying through space in a tin can with fire shooting out the back." -Jed McKenna I think to properly grasp the sentiment behind what McKenna is saying there, it's important to counter it with what he says below; q, it would be cool if you could succinctly explain your position. It's difficult to grasp what you're point is when you mostly only post quotes of others and don't take the time to explain if/how they support your viewpoint. Fwiw, the "experience of" stepping into the shoes of another apparent being to 'feel/see/hear' what they apparently feel, is not one I'd argue with at all...I spent many years when I was younger doing psychic/intuitive readings and very much experienced/experience at times, that kind of "apparent" direct perception of the other....of course, if we're talking Truth, such an appearance remains "appearance only" as does all experiential content. The quote you posted from Jed is a reference to experiential content...what could possibly be experienced...what could arise as appearance within/to Awareness... and the bit I posted regarding his absence of Absolute, certain knowing re: the perception of others, addresses clarity/Truth.....the question of what can and what cannot be known for Absolute certain. Anyway q, as I said above, it would be nice if you could clarity the precise point you want to make so I can directly address that instead of guessing at what your point is. Thanks.
|
|
q
Junior Member
Posts: 66
|
Quotes
Mar 25, 2024 2:39:27 GMT
Post by q on Mar 25, 2024 2:39:27 GMT
"I could comfortably swap characters with someone else; insert my awareness into any person, any time, any place. Is such a thing possible? Perception is the only reality, so why not? Everything is either awareness or appearance; what rules apply to awareness? What can’t appear? What can’t be dreamt? We take it for granted so we don’t appreciate the fact that our living reality is so fantastically, insanely, mindbogglingly wondrous and dreamlike that simply adding a new dimension would hardly make a noticeable impact." "If we could have some unknown and unsuspected power, the ability to transfer your consciousness into a different vessel for awhile would get my vote, but why limit it to people? A whale, a bacterium, a leaf of grass, a non-corporeal entity; whatever is aware, it seems, can host awareness. In fact, why limit it to this dreamstate venue? What better way to visit other worlds and discover new species than by transferring your consciousness into them? It makes a lot more sense than flying through space in a tin can with fire shooting out the back." -Jed McKenna I think to properly grasp the sentiment behind what McKenna is saying there, it's important to counter it with what he says below; q, it would be cool if you could succinctly explain your position. It's difficult to grasp what you're point is when you mostly only post quotes of others and don't take the time to explain if/how they support your viewpoint. Fwiw, the "experience of" stepping into the shoes of another apparent being to 'feel/see/hear' what they apparently feel, is not one I'd argue with at all...I spent many years when I was younger doing psychic/intuitive readings and very much experienced/experience at times, that kind of "apparent" direct perception of the other....of course, if we're talking Truth, such an appearance remains "appearance only" as does all experiential content. The quote you posted from Jed is a reference to experiential content...what could possibly be experienced...what could arise as appearance within/to Awareness... and the bit I posted regarding his absence of Absolute, certain knowing re: the perception of others, addresses clarity/Truth.....the question of what can and what cannot be known for Absolute certain. Anyway q, as I said above, it would be nice if you could clarity the precise point you want to make so I can directly address that instead of guessing at what your point is. Thanks. McKenna, like Niz, meets his audience where they are at. In your first counter-quote, he is a shock-jock, speaking to new listeners/readers. He means to break through egoic assumptions with blunt exposure to radically new ideas. And something more than that is going on there, too. I'll get to that. In the quote I posted, McKenna is clearly speaking to a more mature audience as he admits to a traditional non-dual point of view...namely, that there is one living universal awareness that inhabits all 'vessels' to the point of wondering if maybe our currently limited aspects of consciousnesses can be swapped around between those appearances. He suggests that 'a 'whale, a bacterium, a leaf of grass, a non-corporeal entity; whatever is aware, it seems, can host awareness' is already 'housing' awareness, so why not swap? He further suggests that there is a 'living reality' within/underlying the dream and we take that for granted. I was curious about your first counter-quote and looked it up for context. What I discovered was that besides hoping to break through egoic assumptions of the new listener/reader in that writing, McKenna was also subtly planting a seed of potential future understanding, as outlined in the quote I posted. He wrote: "For me, the main argument in favor of other people, other I-Am/Consciousnesses, is that infinite intelligence, which I allow myself to wink at, strongly suggests it."
|
|
|
Quotes
Mar 25, 2024 3:19:16 GMT
Post by Figgles on Mar 25, 2024 3:19:16 GMT
McKenna, like Niz, meets his audience where they are at. In your first counter-quote, he is a shock-jock, speaking to new listeners/readers. He means to break through egoic assumptions with blunt exposure to radically new ideas. And something more than that is going on there, too. I'll get to that. I disagree. Their approaches are quite different in that regard. McKenna doesn't pander to mind and holds a pretty firm position in terms of adhering to "what is actually so." In the odd instances, Where he digresses and makes concessions to mind, he makes it clear he's doing so. Nah, that's just an acknowledgement of what appears to be so. "One universal something that inhabits all bodies/vessels" is a belief/idea that is held by many non SR folk. It's the typical "New Age" belief held by pretty much all spiritual aspirants who are seeking for a "better" experience. Indeed, he is talking about the presenting experience of "entities/things/bodies" that are apparently experiencing and positing that in terms of what can "possibly" be experienced, "swapping" from the experiential "me body" to "another" some-thing/body that appears, is surely "possible"...(as in terms of what could be/can be experienced, ALL things ARE possible). Keep in mind though, that which is experienced falls under "empty appearance only," and thus, is devoid of inherent existence in it's own right...it's all "dream-stuff." But yes, in a dream, anything remains possible. The "Living reality" that underlies the dream we take for granted, is abiding Awareness. The dream-content itself only has "reality" for it's brief, temporal arising appearance. It's a temporal-reality only...NOT "abiding." I would like to change that term "counter" quote...it's not really accurate. It doesn't so much "counter" what you posted but rather, taken in tandem with that, adds context and framing. The two together make his position quite clear I think. And, I don't think there could be any argument whatsoever that what That quote is absent of is any inkling of an assertion of "Absolute, certain knowing of multiple, discrete, existent, experiencing entities." He's talking about what is/can be experienced. That's not the same as asserting the realization of existence of such. Again, q, I ask you...what is YOUR point? You've asked for mine and I've concisely served it up...but here you are, continuing to post vague quotes from others that I think are meant to counter my position, but I am not entirely sure about that. Can you please just concisely state your counter-point to what I've stated as mine so I don't have to engage in this silly dance? And....if the momentum catches and you feel like further sharing.....again, I'd like to hear why you've signed up here under different handles....what's up with that?
|
|
|
Quotes
Mar 25, 2024 3:30:53 GMT
Post by Figgles on Mar 25, 2024 3:30:53 GMT
q, herbert, (Justlikeyou, from ST, right? Rick?).....there's nothing that Mckenna said in that quote that I strongly disagree with....your take on it though, is questionable and seems to stand in support of some position beyond what you are overtly stating/asserting. What is the point you continue to defend/uphold as you continue to post here? I think if you can boil that down to one concise paragraph, that would be cool. You seeming came here with an idea in mind to defend...? It was on the heels of my taking issue with the idea that one would pursue "Transcendent" answers/insight/realized pointers via AI-Bots. Let's get to the meat & pertaters of this thing and stop muddling around in murky waters....what, specifically is the "Truth" you are trying to assert?
|
|
q
Junior Member
Posts: 66
|
Quotes
Mar 25, 2024 12:39:43 GMT
Post by q on Mar 25, 2024 12:39:43 GMT
McKenna, like Niz, meets his audience where they are at. In your first counter-quote, he is a shock-jock, speaking to new listeners/readers. He means to break through egoic assumptions with blunt exposure to radically new ideas. And something more than that is going on there, too. I'll get to that. I disagree. Their approaches are quite different in that regard. McKenna doesn't pander to mind and holds a pretty firm position in terms of adhering to "what is actually so." In the odd instances, Where he digresses and makes concessions to mind, he makes it clear he's doing so. Nah, that's just an acknowledgement of what appears to be so. "One universal something that inhabits all bodies/vessels" is a belief/idea that is held by many non SR folk. It's the typical "New Age" belief held by pretty much all spiritual aspirants who are seeking for a "better" experience. Indeed, he is talking about the presenting experience of "entities/things/bodies" that are apparently experiencing and positing that in terms of what can "possibly" be experienced, "swapping" from the experiential "me body" to "another" some-thing/body that appears, is surely "possible"...(as in terms of what could be/can be experienced, ALL things ARE possible). Keep in mind though, that which is experienced falls under "empty appearance only," and thus, is devoid of inherent existence in it's own right...it's all "dream-stuff." But yes, in a dream, anything remains possible. The "Living reality" that underlies the dream we take for granted, is abiding Awareness. The dream-content itself only has "reality" for it's brief, temporal arising appearance. It's a temporal-reality only...NOT "abiding." I would like to change that term "counter" quote...it's not really accurate. It doesn't so much "counter" what you posted but rather, taken in tandem with that, adds context and framing. The two together make his position quite clear I think. And, I don't think there could be any argument whatsoever that what That quote is absent of is any inkling of an assertion of "Absolute, certain knowing of multiple, discrete, existent, experiencing entities." He's talking about what is/can be experienced. That's not the same as asserting the realization of existence of such. Again, q, I ask you...what is YOUR point? You've asked for mine and I've concisely served it up...but here you are, continuing to post vague quotes from others that I think are meant to counter my position, but I am not entirely sure about that. Can you please just concisely state your counter-point to what I've stated as mine so I don't have to engage in this silly dance? And....if the momentum catches and you feel like further sharing.....again, I'd like to hear why you've signed up here under different handles....what's up with that? My point? Silly dance? Too late.
|
|
|
Quotes
Mar 25, 2024 19:42:31 GMT
Post by Figgles on Mar 25, 2024 19:42:31 GMT
I disagree. Their approaches are quite different in that regard. McKenna doesn't pander to mind and holds a pretty firm position in terms of adhering to "what is actually so." In the odd instances, Where he digresses and makes concessions to mind, he makes it clear he's doing so. Nah, that's just an acknowledgement of what appears to be so. "One universal something that inhabits all bodies/vessels" is a belief/idea that is held by many non SR folk. It's the typical "New Age" belief held by pretty much all spiritual aspirants who are seeking for a "better" experience. Indeed, he is talking about the presenting experience of "entities/things/bodies" that are apparently experiencing and positing that in terms of what can "possibly" be experienced, "swapping" from the experiential "me body" to "another" some-thing/body that appears, is surely "possible"...(as in terms of what could be/can be experienced, ALL things ARE possible). Keep in mind though, that which is experienced falls under "empty appearance only," and thus, is devoid of inherent existence in it's own right...it's all "dream-stuff." But yes, in a dream, anything remains possible. The "Living reality" that underlies the dream we take for granted, is abiding Awareness. The dream-content itself only has "reality" for it's brief, temporal arising appearance. It's a temporal-reality only...NOT "abiding." I would like to change that term "counter" quote...it's not really accurate. It doesn't so much "counter" what you posted but rather, taken in tandem with that, adds context and framing. The two together make his position quite clear I think. And, I don't think there could be any argument whatsoever that what That quote is absent of is any inkling of an assertion of "Absolute, certain knowing of multiple, discrete, existent, experiencing entities." He's talking about what is/can be experienced. That's not the same as asserting the realization of existence of such. Again, q, I ask you...what is YOUR point? You've asked for mine and I've concisely served it up...but here you are, continuing to post vague quotes from others that I think are meant to counter my position, but I am not entirely sure about that. Can you please just concisely state your counter-point to what I've stated as mine so I don't have to engage in this silly dance? And....if the momentum catches and you feel like further sharing.....again, I'd like to hear why you've signed up here under different handles....what's up with that? My point? Silly dance? Too late. Too late to clarify and reel in the dancing around the actual point? Why? Good discussions/debates often require a turn towards that kind of clarity...re-defining the points of contention. It's clear you don't agree with many of the points I am making, but it's not so clear what your actual position is....not clear precisely what YOU are asserting and I think that's because most of what i have to go on, is just quotes posted without you explaining your own understanding of them, and GP chats, where you share leading, erroneous questions that then get answered by a computer program that has simply gathered and summed up all available material on the internet. Is it your assertion that you have "realized/Absolute" certain knowledge that discrete, unique perceivers/experiencers exist in their own right? That there ARE existent, discrete, existent/separate entities that are giving rise to experience/perception? I asked Reefs a very concise question and shockingly got a very direct and concise answer to this question; Do you agree that SR reveals that ultimately, there is no perceiving entity/some-thing behind perception/experience, but rather, there is simply experience/perception that ultimately arises to no one?... and she responded with a clear "No"...do you agree with Reefs on that one?
|
|
q
Junior Member
Posts: 66
|
Quotes
Mar 26, 2024 12:48:36 GMT
Post by q on Mar 26, 2024 12:48:36 GMT
It's clear you don't agree with many of the points I am making, but it's not so clear what your actual position is....not clear precisely what YOU are asserting... I've mentioned before that my single-minded interest lies in understanding how someone who claims to be spiritually realized can be so entrenched in mental concepts, predictable in their reactions, and repetitive in their use of words, phrases, and concepts—like canned ham—while, on the other hand, it is generally known that a Sage comes completely empty to each moment, free from the dominance and reliance on the mind or any preconceived script or set of concepts taken, for example, from Jed McKenna's writings. They are completely spontaneous and authentic to the point that they themselves do not know what they will say or do next. Their words and actions arise from pure presence, a still mind devoid of rigid thinking or reliance on learned knowledge. Now, I don't expect you to agree with any of that because it would call into question just how spiritually realized you really are, and I seriously doubt that is a discussion you're willing to have. But it's fun to watch you in action up close."
|
|
|
Quotes
Mar 26, 2024 16:21:43 GMT
Post by Figgles on Mar 26, 2024 16:21:43 GMT
It's clear you don't agree with many of the points I am making, but it's not so clear what your actual position is....not clear precisely what YOU are asserting... I've mentioned before that my single-minded interest lies in understanding how someone who claims to be spiritually realized can be so entrenched in mental concepts, predictable in their reactions, and repetitive in their use of words, phrases, and concepts—like canned ham—while, on the other hand, it is generally known that a Sage comes completely empty to each moment, free from the dominance and reliance on the mind or any preconceived script or set of concepts taken, for example, from Jed McKenna's writings. They are completely spontaneous and authentic to the point that they themselves do not know what they will say or do next. Their words and actions arise from pure presence, a still mind devoid of rigid thinking or reliance on learned knowledge. Now, I don't expect you to agree with any of that because it would call into question just how spiritually realized you really are, and I seriously doubt that is a discussion you're willing to have. But it's fun to watch you in action up close." Your "single-minded interest"? Really? Your posts don't support that assertion. What you're doing here is just lashing out in an immature sort of tantrum...aiming for personal insult vs. actually addressing specifics of my posts. If you are that certain I have zero direct reference for SR/wakefulness, am entrenched in mental concepts and that everything I say here is reliant on mind, a preconceived script....just memorized concepts of other writers, then where is the big mystery? what's up with your supposed "single minded interest" in trying to understand what's going on? Surely it would be obvious, no? If what you say above is true, then you've made up your mind that I've nothing to offer re: Nonduality and that I'm full of shit--so why would you even continue to engage?....your walk 'aint matching your talk, dude. I'm pretty sure, Rick, you came here to jab at me 'cause you were pissed off that I was challenging your interest in Chat-bot Q & A's for discussion about Nonduality/Truth and also challenging some of your most sacred of ideas. You initially signed up as q, then for some strange reason, as Herbert, all the while unwilling to share that you are in fact, justlikeyou from ST. And the fact that I am sharing this, doesn't please you and you're feeling extra angry now, and in need lashing out. For a bit there, even though we never reached the place where your actual position was laid out clearly, we were having a reasonably decent convo....an actual exchange where the content of posts was at the forefront and the petty, personal jabs taking a backseat.
|
|
|
Quotes
Mar 26, 2024 16:32:31 GMT
Post by Figgles on Mar 26, 2024 16:32:31 GMT
I've mentioned before that my single-minded interest lies in understanding how someone who claims to be spiritually realized can be so entrenched in mental concepts, predictable in their reactions, and repetitive in their use of words, phrases, and concepts—like canned ham—while, on the other hand, it is generally known that a Sage comes completely empty to each moment, free from the dominance and reliance on the mind or any preconceived script or set of concepts taken, for example, from Jed McKenna's writings. So the singular question then that has you engaging here on Gab, with me, is this: How can one who claims to be speaking/writing from clarity/wakefulness, express in a manner that very clearly denotes she's still fast asleep? Are you really saying you don't know the answer to that question? Fire away. As I've said many times, I am up for any and all sincere questions...will not shy away from anything you could ask of me so long as the interest is sincere and genuine and posted in a respectful/civil manner. How about you Rick? I've asked you several times if your sharings here have direct realization of Truth as their basis....whether or not your words come from an awakened vantage point. You've yet to answer.
|
|
|
Quotes
Mar 26, 2024 21:08:39 GMT
Post by Figgles on Mar 26, 2024 21:08:39 GMT
“The mind cannot tell you what is real.” – Adyashanti
|
|