|
Post by Figgles on Nov 1, 2019 19:08:53 GMT
Intellect is not involved in 'not knowing.' At all. However, intellect IS very much involved in taking an appearance to be the absolute Truth. True 'apprehension' of Oneness, does not leave beliefs in it's wake nor does it leave absolute knowings pertaining to appearances. If one comes away from what he deems to be apprehension of Oneness, with an idea in tow as to a particular quality/property of Oneness, he's clearly conceptualized Oneness. Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/5299/pettifoggery?page=742#ixzz643QX90Ng
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 1, 2019 20:03:50 GMT
But YOU have answered, saying so much more. You've given a definitive answer and explained precisely how it is you know others to be perceiving/experiencing, conscious...alive.
And yet your rebuttal to the assertion of 'not knowing,' is an assertion of knowing/answer that the rock/sock/person IS known absolutely to be conscious, perceiving, experiencing, alive....that the world is something more than just an appearance, that it has substance, a substance you know for certain to be a 'field of aliveness.'
On one hand you stress that for you there is no such question arising, but on the other, you assert your absolute knowing in the form of an answer to that question.
For those of us who don't know, there really IS no such question arising because the reason we don't know is because all appearances have been realized to be empty of Truth.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 1, 2019 20:12:29 GMT
Again, you continue to conflate absolute knowing about the appearing world, with love. Unconditional Love is not dependent upon identifying with the phenomenal....upon knowing an appearance to be something more. In fact, in identification with the phenomenal, in taking the phenomenal to have substance it does not, love's flow is impeded.
You are demonstrating here that for you, love is predicated upon knowledge about the world, upon identification with that which appears, or in other words, is 'conditional.'
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2019 11:57:01 GMT
That's the way it seems to be. I tell you a story. I know this story seems to be fun for you or you would immediately dismiss me as it's a conclusion out of experience. When daughter born,My brother-in-law came to see my new born baby and there he was narrating a story. He has two children, first one is the girl and the second one is the boy. In TamilNadu, after the few years of baby's birth we go to astrologer to write down the astrology of that new born baby. Likewise he went to write down the astrology for his son(Second child), Astrologer asked him few details, one of the main important thing inquired was the birth time of the baby, he gave the wrong time(few minutes after the baby's birth) and he is aware of that as well and he thought nothing would happen because of this little adjustment. And then astrologer after looking at the time of the baby and place where the baby born, he told my brother-in-law that this time there is no chance of birth of the boy, this time is the time of the girl baby. I am shocked. I just asked him again and again whether it really happened, My brother-in-law asserted the truth. And then he gave the correct time and astrologer has written down the correct astrology for him. The problem that I see is not in the happening, as all things are possible, but in the conclusion you derived from it; predetermination. This is assigning transcendent truth to an experience that is empty. Fallen God creates the experience from now. Next moment is triggered from this moment. But he would not be keeping something in his mind to create certain experience in the future but you say you see all things are possible but it's not possible for a Fallen God or a God who triggers the creation from this moment and also many things I have pointed out in the past. For an example, night alarm doesn't go off!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2019 11:58:16 GMT
As usual, once the danger of direct confrontation is gone, the "I do know" crowd on ST starts slinging their counter-arguments. vulnerable The assertion/seeing that It can't be known is not a 'belief.' It has the realization of the world as a dependent arising upon Being, at it's helm and thus, is the natural consequence of such. It is the 'self' though, that believes it can and does know. The belief in knowing is a natural consequence of identification with the phenomenal....identification with body/mind, the appearance of aliveness, sentience, etc. "I do know" crowd Very nice name you gave to them.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 2, 2019 16:23:24 GMT
As usual, once the danger of direct confrontation is gone, the "I do know" crowd on ST starts slinging their counter-arguments. vulnerable The assertion/seeing that It can't be known is not a 'belief.' It has the realization of the world as a dependent arising upon Being, at it's helm and thus, is the natural consequence of such. It is the 'self' though, that believes it can and does know. The belief in knowing is a natural consequence of identification with the phenomenal....identification with body/mind, the appearance of aliveness, sentience, etc. "I do know" crowd Very nice name you gave to them. Hehe....similar to the way their argument regarding their knowing keeps morphing, the name I gave them keeps morphing too. What they're missing this time is that 'not knowing' is an absence and such, it doesn't arise phenomenally as material knowing as their own knowing does. The idea that it's 'self' that 'does not know' is thus, ridiculous. The 'not knowing' that pertains to the entirety of the phenomenal world has its roots in realization, not mind/conceptualization. Whereas all knowings about the phenomenal world, such as 'appearing people are alive, sentient, perceiving, experiencing,' DO have their roots in mind/conceptualization. It has to be so. Absent the materialization/perception of the appearing person, you'd have nothing for which to point to to say, "its" alive, conscious, perceiving. In saying "its" empty of Truth though, the appearance is being acknowledged, but an independent substance, is not.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 2, 2019 21:07:17 GMT
For there to be absolute knowing that the appearing other is alive, conscious, perceiving/experiencing, there would also have to be absolute knowing that fundamental separation is actually the case.
The appearance of sentience, of feeling, experiencing on the part of the appearing other, continues to be engaged, simply because it actually does appear. Why does the realization that something is 'just an appearance' mean we should no longer be engaging with that appearance? this is the bit you never explain. Even in seeing the entire world to be an empty appearance that arises dependently upon Being, the world continues to arise/appear. There is nothing to be done about that. It's not a problem. Nor is engaging with that appearance so long as it's all been realized to be what it is; An appearance only. No independent, inherent existence in its own right.
Cause/effect is just an appearance too, one you've said in the past that you see to be 'just an appearance/not actual.' And yet, I suspect that when it comes to your behavior, you still engage with that idea....that doing this is going to result in that. The behavior in no way belies the realization that in actuality there is no causation within experience....that actual 'cause' always lies fundamental to what appears.
Same with all other appearances....the actual 'substance' always lies fundamental and is not that itself, which appears....but seeing that an appearance has no inherent substance of it's own, need not mean the end of engagement with, interest in, or caring about that appearance.
The appearing world is interesting......care provoking....lovable, even though it IS, an appearance only.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 2, 2019 21:19:18 GMT
As has been said over and over again, the question "are others perceiving?," is "misconceived." And it's not 'intellectualizing' that reveals the question to be misconceived, it's 'realization.' Specifically, the realization that all perceivables are empty arisings within/to that which is fundamental/has substance.
To ask that question is to essentially ask; Is that which an empty perceivable, itself perceiving? It's akin to asking; Can I lower my empty bucket into a dry well to quench my thirst?
Giraffe.
No one has been obsessing over a question, but indeed there has been the continued assertion that all perceivables are empty, appearance only. There is no question as to whether I can quench my thirst by lowering the bucket, if it's crystal clear, the well is absent water.
You are the one with the 'knowing,' with the 'substantive' answer to the question. My answer is: The question is misconceived. There is no substance there by which to reveal an answer, henceforce, "not known."
From where you stand, not yet seeing the inherent emptiness regarding all perceivables, you'd actually do well to sit with that question of the questioner. The context/perspective where absolute knowings arise relative to perceivables is the very same context/perspective to which 'the questioner' applies.
Absent the questioner, (which is itself, a perceivable!) all other perceivables also lose their substance. Again, once identification with perceivables ceases, all perceivables lose their substance/Truthiness.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 2, 2019 21:22:44 GMT
Yeah...what if? ?? Ideas ARE 'perceivables.' What's yer point? Surely you see that "not knowing" is an absence of ideation....?... Not the presence of some idea 'about' perceivables? You used to know the difference between realization and ideation, what happened?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 2, 2019 21:25:47 GMT
Look how much credence you are giving here to 'thinking...and knowing' stuff. You may be surprised to hear Sharon, that stubbornly fixed thought/ideation/conceptualization/knowing about the appearing world, are impediments to love, that in their absence, love shines brightest.
|
|