|
Post by Figgles on Nov 16, 2019 16:52:16 GMT
Yup. This is the crux of it.
Tenka argues from the position of the SVP. I'd venture to say, he has no realizational/transcendent reference at all.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 16, 2019 17:54:21 GMT
Yes! You've taken the pointer of Oneness and made a meal out of it. Oneness is not a reference to quality/property, rather, it's a reference to an absence. The moment we begin speaking of a presence, an energy, a quality/property, we've entered back into the realm of perceivables. The realization of Oneness = the seeing through of all perceivables.
Just as you've made a meal out of the Oneness pointer, you also are mistaking mere distinction, perceivables, appearances appearing, 'dependent upon Being,' for separation.
There is a reason why Niz uses the term 'perceivables.' While the term does indeed encompass 'thingness/objects/form/matter' it also extends beyond to include the entirety of that which is perceived, that which appears dependently, as an arising within/to Being, which of course, includes all ideas, senses, intuitions, qualities, properties, however subtle or nuanced they may be.
What is it you specifically think we are saying? "Not knowing" has absence at it's basis.
Here you are dead wrong. All knowledge pertaining to perceivables is of the personal/relative context. It's from the impersonal view that all knowings relative to perceivables is seen to be empty and devoid of Truth. Your taking of a perceivable quality as Truth indicates a gross context mix. "Not knowing" is always going to be transcendent of "knowing." It seems as though you have no reference for 'not knowing.'
Again, seeing the entire realm of 'perceivables' as empty, takes care of any kind of stuckness on 'thingness' per se. All you've done is seen through abject thingness, to arrive at a more subtle realm of perceivable....and you've mistaken that more subtle realm of perceivable as Truth. Truth lies 'beyond all perceivables.' You're still smack, dap right in the muddle of the SVP perspective, merely 'thinking' you are seeing from a transcendent viewpoint.
There is a view whereby the entirety of the phenomenal....where all perceivables, however subtle, however seemingly 'intagible,' however awe-inspiring, can be seen too as ephemeral arisings, dependently arising within/to Being.
Again, you are describing a profound mystical experience, NOT a true realization which is always a loss/seeing through. No content. You say so below:
One need not be seeing an abject 'thing' per se, if something, anything at all is perceived, (it's all alive!) we're still talking the realm of phenomenal arisings/appearances. Mind is incredibly sneaky and incredibly intent upon finding something it can hang it's hat on. A full out absence is intolerable to mind. thus, it looks for something, anything, some kind of presence of knowledge it can cling to. You've found just such knowledge.
It only does so if you objectify "point of perception," rather than simply take that term as a means to talk about perception itself. Perception, the fact that stuff, ranging from objects, things, to subtle qualities/properties, is appearing, is not itself 'a thing/object.'
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 16, 2019 18:30:45 GMT
Hint: If New Age teachings are talking about it, it's 'aint Truth/Truthin. And, important to note, I am not calling the mere 'seeing' of a 'field of aliveness' that comprises all matter/form/things/objects as 'fraudulent/delusional' per se. What's delusional is taking the seeing of such an attribute/property as "Truth." It's fine to talk about 'a field of aliveness,' quite another to assert such a field, as 'Truth.'
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 16, 2019 19:42:17 GMT
Don't forget that it was YOU who initially asserted your absolute knowing that 'socks, rocks' are conscious, experiencing/perceiving. Those of us asserting 'not knowing,' repeatedly said that the very idea of 'things perceiving' was ultimately misconceived.
No one but you attributed the experiencing/perceiving to those specific objects. It was only later that you began talking about a metaphorical/pointery sort of 'aliveness' that more generally comprised the phenomenal. Thus, when queries arose regarding the content of a shoe's experience/perception, it was specifically because of YOUR assertion that said a shoe does experience/perceive.
Important to note though, the morphing of your argument from shoes that experience/perceive to a substrate of energy/aliveness that pervades all phenomenal arisings, although it was indeed a movement, never actually left the realm of the personal, thus, never actually entered into truly transcendent seeing.
New age teachings posit the presence/appearance of an energy/liveliness that is not readily available to the human eye, as 'transcendent.' Whereas non-duality reserves the term 'transcendent' for 'beyond all appearance/perceivables.'
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 16, 2019 22:54:53 GMT
Being is not actually 'in form' although is does indeed appear that way. Rather, form, arises within/to Being.
To see that you are 'all of it,' including the body/form that appears, does not equal Being arising IN form. That's the conflation/misconception that's being made when some folks insist that 'I am the body.' That which appears, is always dependent upon Being. The sage that says 'I am the body,' is absent 'identification with' the body. That's an integral point that is being missed.
Reefs said it particularly well here:
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Nov 17, 2019 1:09:45 GMT
Hint: If New Age teachings are talking about it, it's 'aint Truth/Truthin. And, important to note, I am not calling the mere 'seeing' of a 'field of aliveness' that comprises all matter/form/things/objects as 'fraudulent/delusional' per se. What's delusional is taking the seeing of such an attribute/property as "Truth." It's fine to talk about 'a field of aliveness,' quite another to assert such a field, as 'Truth.' Yeah, what we have always argued against is the knowing that everything is conscious and perceiving, not that there is a kind of alive presence by virtue of perceivables being Consciousness itself.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 17, 2019 6:18:55 GMT
Hint: If New Age teachings are talking about it, it's 'aint Truth/Truthin. And, important to note, I am not calling the mere 'seeing' of a 'field of aliveness' that comprises all matter/form/things/objects as 'fraudulent/delusional' per se. What's delusional is taking the seeing of such an attribute/property as "Truth." It's fine to talk about 'a field of aliveness,' quite another to assert such a field, as 'Truth.' Yeah, what we have always argued against is the knowing that everything is conscious and perceiving, not that there is a kind of alive presence by virtue of perceivables being Consciousness itself. Likes same post twice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2019 14:49:04 GMT
Hint: If New Age teachings are talking about it, it's 'aint Truth/Truthin. And, important to note, I am not calling the mere 'seeing' of a 'field of aliveness' that comprises all matter/form/things/objects as 'fraudulent/delusional' per se. What's delusional is taking the seeing of such an attribute/property as "Truth." It's fine to talk about 'a field of aliveness,' quite another to assert such a field, as 'Truth.' Yeah, what we have always argued against is the knowing that everything is conscious and perceiving, not that there is a kind of alive presence by virtue of perceivables being Consciousness itself. That is one huge piece a.....
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Nov 19, 2019 0:01:29 GMT
Yeah, what we have always argued against is the knowing that everything is conscious and perceiving, not that there is a kind of alive presence by virtue of perceivables being Consciousness itself. That is one huge piece a..... He's probly thinking something similar about you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2019 20:34:50 GMT
That is one huge piece a..... He's probly thinking something similar about you. I'm not concerned.
|
|