|
Post by Figgles on Nov 2, 2019 21:27:57 GMT
Absolute knowledge about the phenomenal world = living in your head.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 2, 2019 21:39:34 GMT
No, the ideas of 'connectivity' IS the realm of the SVP. He's still seeing separate 'stuff' that is connected, vs. fundamental Oneness. In the realization of fundamental Oneness, there are no longer separate things requiring 'connection.'
The "it's all connected" idea the SVP arrives at is a "perceived" unity, whereas "it's All One," is a realization, a seeing through/absence of the idea of separate things.
Andrew, let's be honest here; The only reference you have is for the SVP context. You surmise about what it's like to see through separation, but surmising can't even come close to the actual seeing through of separation.
The realization that all perceivables are inherently empty goes hand in hand with the seeing that the character/body-mind/person is 'an appearance only.' The seeing that the appearing other is an empty appearance, is NOT an SVP contextual seeing.
What you're missing is that your own knowing of the other as a perceiver, is but 'a belief.' You've mistaken that belief for Truth.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 3, 2019 19:07:57 GMT
Form, matter, objects (1)
Looky here.....Seth positing a distinction between form and matter that he seems to be designating as Truthy. Clearly, this is where Reefs gets his 'middle layer.'
Seth is talking 'science' there, and science is still very much 'in' the dream. Seth could split up what he terms 'molecular composition' into even teensier fragments to talk about, and it would still all remain 'in the dream,' vs. 'beyond.'
Looking back, I think it was around the time that Reef's became obsessed with the Seth teachings that he stopped talking about "appearance only," and "real = existing its own right," or in other words, when he apparently re-entered the dream to mistake it for Truth.
The Seth teachings are not Truthy but the way they are presented makes it easy for some to be fooled into thinking they are.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 5, 2019 16:53:24 GMT
No one is denying (s)elf as a mind construct, as a perceivable, as an appearance. What's being said is that (s)elf is not an entity that has inherent fundamental existence of it's own....like all other perceivbles, it arises to/within consciousness, which does have inherent fundamental existence.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 6, 2019 14:17:44 GMT
If there was a context mix, it was YOURS. You're the one who leaped in to counter the assertion of 'not knowing' with 'I do know, because it's all alive!'
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 6, 2019 14:23:35 GMT
There is no context that lies between some-thing and nothing. That's your mistake. You're caught in the trap of believing in an absolute middle layer that is not there.
The very fact that you directly countered the assertion of 'not knowing' when it came to appearing things, with a clear assertion that you did know each sock, rock, person, to in fact be experiencing, percieving, belies what you are now saying. That movement from "yes the sock is experiencing," to "i'm not talking about socks, but rather a substrate of aliveness that runs through and comprises the entire phenomenal realm, was yet another of your morphs.
If the context is no-thing-ness, we are talking about 'prior to all perceivables.' A 'field' of energy, is a perceivable. If it's perceived, it's an ephemeral, empty arising within/to that which is the unchanging ground.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Nov 6, 2019 16:06:22 GMT
There is no context that lies between some-thing and nothing. That's your mistake. You're caught in the trap of believing in an absolute middle layer that is not there. The very fact that you directly countered the assertion of 'not knowing' when it came to appearing things, with a clear assertion that you did know each sock, rock, person, to in fact be experiencing, percieving, belies what you are now saying. That movement from "yes the sock is experiencing," to "i'm not talking about socks, but rather a substrate of aliveness that runs through and comprises the entire phenomenal realm, was yet another of your morphs. If the context is no-thing-ness, we are talking about 'prior to all perceivables.' A 'field' of energy, is a perceivable. If it's perceived, it's an ephemeral, empty arising within/to that which is the unchanging ground. That's where the infamous layer cake starts. Tenka/Andy use it in the same way for the same purpose.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2019 0:32:58 GMT
There is no context that lies between some-thing and nothing. That's your mistake. You're caught in the trap of believing in an absolute middle layer that is not there. The very fact that you directly countered the assertion of 'not knowing' when it came to appearing things, with a clear assertion that you did know each sock, rock, person, to in fact be experiencing, percieving, belies what you are now saying. That movement from "yes the sock is experiencing," to "i'm not talking about socks, but rather a substrate of aliveness that runs through and comprises the entire phenomenal realm, was yet another of your morphs. If the context is no-thing-ness, we are talking about 'prior to all perceivables.' A 'field' of energy, is a perceivable. If it's perceived, it's an ephemeral, empty arising within/to that which is the unchanging ground. That's where the infamous layer cake starts. Tenka/Andy use it in the same way for the same purpose. All you have to understand here is, universe moves the way I am telling you not the way you think (Tenka would one day would understand what you are teaching). So this has to tell you something, I have seen something which you still haven't seen. That has to give the clue to you. You can never make them understand. That's the clarity is still pending for you
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 7, 2019 17:57:19 GMT
And what of that? ?? What do you believe that says about Gopal's assertion of ultimately, not actually knowing? There is no harm at all, no fall-out from assuming something, so long as it is clearly seen to be just that: An assumption. Again, just as Reefs does, you attach some strange significance to the fact that those of who say we do not know, interact with the appearance of sentience in others. What would be really, really strange, is to see that appearance of sentience, to experience the other as an experiencer, but to stand upon the absence of knowing, to refuse to engage that. There is NO HARM, no downfall, no risk of becoming lost to the story, in simply engaging an appearance as it appears. So long as it's seen to be 'an appearance only,' your short & curlies will remain free of its grasp. (You might wanna read that over a few times and perhaps invite your buddy Reefs to do so as well).
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 7, 2019 18:14:35 GMT
If 'things about' reality are discovered, you can bet the farm on the fact that despite what you think happened, "self" was indeed at the party.
The realization of Oneness is never 'the result' of any happening experientially. The very fact ZD that you think a CC/Kensho can be 'the cause' to SR, speaks clearly to the fact that your realization is incomplete at best, at worst, there was no actual seeing through.
Wow. Really? So there are varying degrees now of the power of the realization of Oneness? Over and over ZD, you keep revealing that you look to experience to gauge realization. Again; Realization is an absence...a seeing through, not an addition.
What you are failing to see is that It is very much the personal 'self' that comes back from such an 'event' to declare it 'powerful' and 'life changing.'
All 'major realizations' are subtractive. If you have a seeing through following a particular experience, that's fine so long as you don't conflate the Truth of the realization with the content of the experience. And that's clearly what you ARE doing.
There is a place for mystical, transcendent 'seeming' experiences....they can be powerful in terms of shifts in experience, but it's important not to conflate them with actual realizations that result in an absence/seeing through of knowledge.
|
|