|
Post by Figgles on Nov 5, 2019 19:18:02 GMT
Bingo with a cherry!!
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 5, 2019 19:28:07 GMT
That term 'substrate' can get problematic. It should only be used in the most pointery of ways. It can all too easy lend to a conceptualization of 'awareness,' as though it's a 'something' that then 'infuses' arising somethings with quality/property....creating a 'layer' of 'perceivable' (a field of aliveness) just beneath objects/defined things. There is no such 'thing.'
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2019 19:53:30 GMT
this war against knowledge is crazy! There is no 'war against knowledge' per se. But freedom means seeing that relative knowledge is not absolute knowledge. Relative knowings still get to stay, they are part and parcel of experience after all. It's the conflation of relative knowing with absolute knowing/seeing/realization, that has to go. what the hell is "absolute knowledge"? give me an example
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 5, 2019 20:25:43 GMT
There is no 'war against knowledge' per se. But freedom means seeing that relative knowledge is not absolute knowledge. Relative knowings still get to stay, they are part and parcel of experience after all. It's the conflation of relative knowing with absolute knowing/seeing/realization, that has to go. what the hell is "absolute knowledge"? give me an example That's the thing, there 'aint much that can be said to be known, for absolute certain. That's why many teachers suggest new seekers sit quietly with that question--'what can actually be known for certain.' In a nutshell this is it: I exist. There is experience. Appearances are appearing/disappearing within/to that which does not change. All realization/absolute knowing/seeing beyond that is an 'unseeing/unknowing/unraveling' of what mind thinks it knows for certain.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 5, 2019 21:28:02 GMT
Despite the fact that such a middle layer, an energetic field of sorts, may indeed arise in experience, (I've experienced/seen such myself) There is no ACTUAL middle 'layer' between the unchanging foundation and that which appears. That which abides never 'becomes' that which is transient. Transience is merely an appearance within/to that which abides. There is no substance or substrate that actually 'comprises' appearance. If something is seen to 'comprise' appearance, that TOO is an appearance!
And yes, you are correct, 'it's all alive,' is a reference to a "mid-layer" of something 'substantive/absolute' that lies just beneath or prior to mind's categorization/objectification of that substance.
He wrongly posits a 'something' that can be perceived (How do those rocks, socks chairs look like...) prior to the objects, that is Truthy/Absolute.
I don't deny that such a 'field' can be seen/experienced/perceived.... but like all other perceivables, it too, is empty and devoid of Truth.
Awareness is not 'comprised' of 'something' that infuses itself into appearances.
Bottom line, if its 'perceived/experienced' it's still part and parcel of the dream. It's easy to mistake a transcendent seeming experience for actual transcendence. Just because something is outside of the mundane, does not make it Truthy/Transcendent. I see auras around appearing people. But, They too are part and parcel of the dream-scape, even though the seeing of such is apparently not common to Joe consensus trance.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 5, 2019 21:58:13 GMT
I see 'intelligence/aliveness' to be different from "awareness," in that they get used to denote a quality/property OF awareness. In this particular convo anyway, that's how "aliveness" is being used.
Reefs made the mistake early on in the conversation of conflating "consciousness" (as the foundation to all arising phenomena) as itself, 'being a something that is consciously aware' and thereby, infusing the phenomenal 'with' the the quality of 'being consciously aware.'
How so? If there were an actual absolute 'field of aliveness' that pervaded and 'made up' every perceivable, then of course, even a dead body would be infused with that aliveness.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 5, 2019 22:25:22 GMT
This is a stellar example of mind refusing to relinquish the idea of 'a process' that can be grasped by mind to explain that which defies explanation.
All science, regardless of how far down the bunny hole it seems to go, regardless of how 'para' normal is it, is still 'in the dream,' as are all 'processes' all explanations as to how it is that appearances appear.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2019 1:58:56 GMT
This is a stellar example of mind refusing to relinquish the idea of 'a process' that can be grasped by mind to explain that which defies explanation. All science, regardless of how far down the bunny hole it seems to go, regardless of how 'para' normal is it, is still 'in the dream,' as are all 'processes' all explanations as to how it is that appearances appear. What is your point? If you want to call science a dream that's fine. If you want to call relationships with friends and family a dream that's fine too and if you were to be saved from drowning by a passing stranger you could call that experience a dream. Heck, you could even call what happens when you're asleep dreams. You seem to like the word dream, but it gets a bit boring every time someone describe something that is happening in life brings a retort from you that it is all a dream. We get it! π
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 6, 2019 3:00:55 GMT
This is a stellar example of mind refusing to relinquish the idea of 'a process' that can be grasped by mind to explain that which defies explanation. All science, regardless of how far down the bunny hole it seems to go, regardless of how 'para' normal is it, is still 'in the dream,' as are all 'processes' all explanations as to how it is that appearances appear. What is your point? If you want to call science a dream that's fine. If you want to call relationships with friends and family a dream that's fine too and if you were to be saved from drowning by a passing stranger you could call that experience a dream. Heck, you could even call what happens when you're asleep dreams. You seem to like the word dream, but it gets a bit boring every time someone describe something that is happening in life brings a retort from you that it is all a dream. We get it! π That you're never going to find Truth within the dream-scape. And no, obviously you and those who are conflating dream-content with Truth do NOT get it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2019 3:05:19 GMT
What is your point? If you want to call science a dream that's fine. If you want to call relationships with friends and family a dream that's fine too and if you were to be saved from drowning by a passing stranger you could call that experience a dream. Heck, you could even call what happens when you're asleep dreams. You seem to like the word dream, but it gets a bit boring every time someone describe something that is happening in life brings a retort from you that it is all a dream. We get it! π That you're never going to find Truth within the dream-scape. And no, obviously you and those who are conflating dream-content with Truth do NOT get it. The fact that you think you're going to find truth somewhere other than the dream scape obviously means you don't get it. You can only be truth or live truth which is to be in the natural state which includes the experience you call the dreamscape all as one unified reality without separation.
|
|