|
Post by Figgles on Oct 15, 2019 18:47:23 GMT
In delving deeper into the morphing "I do know appearing people are experiencing/perceiving" argument, I think I've pin-pointed the grossest mistake that the "I do know" folks are making. They have mistakingly created a class of 'perceivable' that is not 'appearance only.'
If 'it' is perceived, it is an appearance only. Empty. Nothing there than can be known beyond what appears. Nothing there to be realized.
The following quote from Reefs demonstrates this perfectly;
First of all, he makes the incorrect assumption that in saying that rocks, socks are empty, I am therefore also declaring them to be 'inanimate objects.' Not so. "Appearance only" does not equal certain knowing it is an "inanimate object."
"Appearance only/empty of Truth," means ultimately, animate/inaminate cannot be known for certain. Animation or lack thereof, is after all, itself an appearance. Also empty.
Beyond that incorrect assumption, we have Reefs positing 'something seen/perceived,' (tell me what you see!)that is prior to any of the qualities/properties that appear. In doing so, he posits some facet of a perceivable that appears 'independent of' its qualities/properties. Clearly, he is positing a perceivable that exists prior to form/matter/thingness. There is no such perceivable. All perceivables arise IN mind. They appear, they disappear.
Zd has posited the same when he speaks about 'a field' that exists prior to all perceived thingness...a some-thing that 'makes up' the world of matter. Again, if it is 'perceived,' it's a temporal arising, an appearance only. That which is fundamentally substantive does not come and go....does not appear and disappear, is not "a perceivable."
If there is some-thing that can be perceived, some-thing to look at, something that 'looks like' something/anything, regardless of whether or not 'classification' has entered in, we are still talking about 'a perceivable/an appearance.' Realization is always a seeing through/absence. Not the gaining of new knowledge.
There is no 'something' that fundamentally exists between the unchanging ground and that which appears. If you are 'seeing' something prior to your mind classifying objects as objects, (interestingly enough, I have!) that too is 'but an appearance.' Reefs and Zd, you've been wrongly taking this 'energy/aliveness/vibrancy' you have seen/experienced as a sort of 'field' prior to 'objects/thingness' for something more than just an appearance/a perceivable. It too, like all quality/property, is but 'an arising/appearance.'
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 29, 2019 16:08:27 GMT
Not only addictive, but sneaky and thus, sometimes difficult to spot.
What you've failed to see is that in your insistence upon Absolute knowing that appearing people are perceiving/experiencing, you also reveal your identification with the phenomenal.
The end of identification with the phenomenal = the end of absolute knowing about the phenomenal (other than, of course, the 'realization' that all perceivables are empty, non-separate arisings, within to that which abides).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2019 2:06:47 GMT
Not only addictive, but sneaky and thus, sometimes difficult to spot. What you've failed to see is that in your insistence upon Absolute knowing that appearing people are perceiving/experiencing, you also reveal your identification with the phenomenal. The end of identification with the phenomenal = the end of absolute knowing about the phenomenal (other than, of course, the 'realization' that all perceivables are empty, non-separate arisings, within to that which abides). Reefs's understanding power is not enough to grasp this point . Same for Tenka,Andrew! Leave these kind of folks in their own way. Don't wrestle with them. They can never grasp it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2019 3:58:17 GMT
What you've failed to see is that in your insistence upon Absolute knowing that appearing people are perceiving/experiencing, you also reveal your identification with the phenomenal. You are operating here on exactly the same premise that reef does. You are responding to other people who you think are capable of perceiving what you're saying. In fact your belief in their existence is much greater than you think it is because you don't even have the benefit of seeing them in the flesh. They are mere words on a screen and yet you believe these are people reading your posts and you identify with them as people you are conversing with. To claim otherwise is cloud cuckoo land. 😀
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 30, 2019 4:20:48 GMT
Not only addictive, but sneaky and thus, sometimes difficult to spot. What you've failed to see is that in your insistence upon Absolute knowing that appearing people are perceiving/experiencing, you also reveal your identification with the phenomenal. The end of identification with the phenomenal = the end of absolute knowing about the phenomenal (other than, of course, the 'realization' that all perceivables are empty, non-separate arisings, within to that which abides). Reefs's understanding power is not enough to grasp this point . Same for Tenka,Andrew! Leave these kind of folks in their own way. Don't wrestle with them. They can never grasp it. Yes, you are indeed describing how things are now in that regard, how they appear now, and how they have been for some time, but "Understanding power" changes in realization and in the same way we cannot even know if appearing others are even experiencing/perceiving, let alone, capable of 'realizing Truth,' we also can't know if/when realization will happen. Seeing it's all just a play of 'dream-stuff,' makes it even more clear, that truly anything is possible in terms of what experience will reveal. Reefs has gone from berating those he sees to be missing the fact that 'realization is a loss...an absence....cannot be described,' to now insisting that his in depth, blow by blow description of a CC/Kensho does in fact constitute 'a realization, in a mere matter of years, thus, all bets are off as to what his 'understanding power' might be down the road, (or even tomorrow!).
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 30, 2019 4:31:47 GMT
What you've failed to see is that in your insistence upon Absolute knowing that appearing people are perceiving/experiencing, you also reveal your identification with the phenomenal. You are operating here on exactly the same premise that reef does. You are responding to other people who you think are capable of perceiving what you're saying. In fact your belief in their existence is much greater than you think it is because you don't even have the benefit of seeing them in the flesh. They are mere words on a screen and yet you believe these are people reading your posts and you identify with them as people you are conversing with. To claim otherwise is cloud cuckoo land. 😀 Yeah, you're using an argument that Reefs has used himself, over and over during this argument. Just as the white ball hitting the red ball on a pool table is not evidence of 'actual' cause/effect/catalyst , nor is the appearance of perception/experience re: the apparent person I converse with here on forum, nor engagement with that perception, evidence of 'actual' perception/experience there. And yet, the 'play' goes on....... That right there, is the amazing part of it all. Despite the seeing of the inherent emptiness of the entire material world, all perceivables, they still continue to engage attention, invite interest. The "mansion of delights" you have spoken of, IS ever so more delightful, when it loses it's weightiness. In fact, I'd say, the 'delight' bit, won't even appear on the radar until that 'weight' is lost/seen through.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2019 4:47:34 GMT
You are operating here on exactly the same premise that reef does. You are responding to other people who you think are capable of perceiving what you're saying. In fact your belief in their existence is much greater than you think it is because you don't even have the benefit of seeing them in the flesh. They are mere words on a screen and yet you believe these are people reading your posts and you identify with them as people you are conversing with. To claim otherwise is cloud cuckoo land. 😀 Yeah, you're using an argument that Reefs has used himself, over and over during this argument. Just as the white ball hitting the red ball on a pool table is not evidence of 'actual' cause/effect/catalyst , nor is the appearance of perception/experience re: the apparent person I converse with here on forum, nor engagement with that perception, evidence of 'actual' perception/experience there. And yet, the 'play' goes on....... That right there, is the amazing part of it all. Despite the seeing of the inherent emptiness of the entire material world, all perceivables, they still continue to engage attention, invite interest. The "mansion of delights" you have spoken of, IS ever so more delightful, when it loses it's weightiness. In fact, I'd say, the 'delight' bit, won't even appear on the radar until that 'weight' is lost/seen through. Stop using the words actual and apparent. They are totally meaningless. You are deluding yourself. Actual cause and effect and non actual cause and effect. Apparent person and real person. It's complete nonsense. Your mind is playing tricks on you! You don't experience the mansion of delights because the world and your experience of it is less weighty or because it's more apparent and less actual and not identified with or you have seen through some illusion and the SVP is gone blah blah blah. You experience this mansion of delights because your true nature is bliss and that bliss permeates all experience. To be established as your true nature is very very very simple. More simple than you can imagine right now and I hope one day you discover that. And then all your questions, all your seeking, your need to express and to be understood will simply fall away and vanish forever.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 30, 2019 4:54:59 GMT
Yeah, you're using an argument that Reefs has used himself, over and over during this argument. Just as the white ball hitting the red ball on a pool table is not evidence of 'actual' cause/effect/catalyst , nor is the appearance of perception/experience re: the apparent person I converse with here on forum, nor engagement with that perception, evidence of 'actual' perception/experience there. And yet, the 'play' goes on....... That right there, is the amazing part of it all. Despite the seeing of the inherent emptiness of the entire material world, all perceivables, they still continue to engage attention, invite interest. The "mansion of delights" you have spoken of, IS ever so more delightful, when it loses it's weightiness. In fact, I'd say, the 'delight' bit, won't even appear on the radar until that 'weight' is lost/seen through. Stop using the words actual and apparent. They are totally meaningless. You are deluding yourself. Actual cause and effect and non actual cause and effect. Apparent person and real person. It's complete nonsense. Your mind is playing tricks on you! You don't experience the mansion of delights because the world and your experience of it is less weighty or because it's more apparent and less actual and not identified with or you have seen through some illusion and the SVP is gone blah blah blah. You experience this mansion of delights because your true nature is bliss and that bliss permeates all experience. To be established as your true nature is very very very simple. More simple than you can imagine right now and I hope one day you discover that. And then all your questions, all your seeking, your need to express and to be understood will simply fall away and vanish forever. It takes 'seeing/realizing' true nature, for the world to lose it's weight. Yes, true nature always IS, but so long as that goes obscured, unrealized, there is no 'mansion of delights,' more like a mansion of drudgery. Realizing "true nature' means the end of identifying with/taking yourself to be something limited/bounded that is appearing in the world. True nature needs to be realized/un-obscured for freedom to be. For the one who thinks his nature is 'limitation/boundedness,' that is not 'actual,' What he 'actually is' is unlimited/unbounded.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2019 6:51:22 GMT
What you've failed to see is that in your insistence upon Absolute knowing that appearing people are perceiving/experiencing, you also reveal your identification with the phenomenal. You are operating here on exactly the same premise that reef does. You are responding to other people who you think are capable of perceiving what you're saying. In fact your belief in their existence is much greater than you think it is because you don't even have the benefit of seeing them in the flesh. They are mere words on a screen and yet you believe these are people reading your posts and you identify with them as people you are conversing with. To claim otherwise is cloud cuckoo land. 😀Nope! Wrong! I can still converse with people whom I am not certain whether they are real. The best example for you is, you discuss with people in your nightly dream which you know you have mistaken for happening.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2019 7:04:16 GMT
You are operating here on exactly the same premise that reef does. You are responding to other people who you think are capable of perceiving what you're saying. In fact your belief in their existence is much greater than you think it is because you don't even have the benefit of seeing them in the flesh. They are mere words on a screen and yet you believe these are people reading your posts and you identify with them as people you are conversing with. To claim otherwise is cloud cuckoo land. 😀Nope! Wrong! I can still converse with people whom I am not certain whether they are real. The best example for you is, you discuss with people in your nightly dream which you know you have mistaken for happening. The difference between you and me then is that I don't even think about whether they are real or not. The thought does not arise.
|
|