|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 5, 2022 17:37:39 GMT
I think this issue is important enough that is deserves it's own thread.
To re-quote part of Reefs post--again, an excellent one!...I'll elaborate upon it.
"As Ramana said, both the jnani and the ajnani say "I am the body" - but they mean something very different when they say it, because one says it from the perspective of the absolute, the other says it from the perspective of the relative."
If the view is from the perspective of the absolute, it's devoid of any and all identification with anything that appears...be it body/mind/feeling/senses.....(fwiw Reefs, that also includes the sense of "aliveness.")
The self-identified, who erroneously believe they are NOT self-identified, love the pointer "I am all of it," because it supports the comfort inherent to their identification/identity.
The SR are no longer identified with any-thing, and that even includes "the ground of awareness." That's why it's said that SR is non-conceptual realization.
Thus, when the sage says: "I am the body," he is referencing Oneness/absence of separation and not the fact that he 'takes himself to be/embody' the appearing body.
From the vantage point of the SR, ALL identification with/taking oneness to be bound to/by, any-thing, is absent. The body to the sage is 'an empty appearance only,' not a 'something' that is infused with/made up of another thing/substance called "awareness," which is how many seekers take it to be.
That is precisely what was at the crux of Reef's/ZD's insistence that part and parcel of SR is the realization that all appearing things are by virtue of ultimately being none-other than consciousness/awareness, themselves, secularly, singularly, discretely, self-aware/conscious.
The sage looks at the world from the prevailing vantage point of all singularity, discrete-ness, secularlity, as empty appearance only, so he does not go looking there for Truth. That does not mean though that he's unable to see/define appearing things/objects. It's just that, Awareness is primary, as that's the ground of seeing it all.... and the world in it's entirety, is an expression of that ground. No separation between the two.
The argument that an appearing shoe (or character...body...person) IS known for certain to be experiencing, conscious, perceiving, via that realization that it's all awareness, places the discrete, singular object/thing as primary, and THEN, secondarily, and erroneously, assigns the conceptual idea of "all is awareness" to that.
It's all awareness does not = an appearing shoe 'being aware/experiencing.' That's a perfect example of conceptualizing a pointer and then erroneously dragging that attempted absolute context into the relative to erroneously apply it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2022 1:03:23 GMT
It's all awareness does not = an appearing shoe 'being aware/experiencing.' That's a perfect example of conceptualizing a pointer and then erroneously dragging that attempted absolute context into the relative to erroneously apply it. I have yet to encounter a shoe that can experience anything. But forget the shoe. Awareness isn't experiencing anything either. Awareness isn't doing anything. Remember when you responded to Gopal when he suggested that awareness is perceiving, so why consider a shoe? Everything is awareness/consciousness, but whether it has no form or it takes the form of a shoe it is not experiencing anything. So what does experience? |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 8, 2022 1:30:13 GMT
It's all awareness does not = an appearing shoe 'being aware/experiencing.' That's a perfect example of conceptualizing a pointer and then erroneously dragging that attempted absolute context into the relative to erroneously apply it. I have yet to encounter a shoe that can experience anything. But forget the shoe. At one point, Reefs and ZD argued that their CC/Kensho experiences left them with absolute, realized certainty that every appearing object/thing....people and yes, even dirty 'ol, sole-less shoes, and even paper-clips, were conscious, aware, having individualized, discrete experience and perception. Agreed. Yes, I mentioned the 'shoe' as a harken back to that old conversation. It's the reason I was warned & then eventually banned on ST....those boys don't like having their silly assertions challenged. To avoid that, they just get rid of the challengers. Inquire into that assumption. seriously. (hint: there is NO 'what' that experiences....just experience, arising/appearing to no one/no-thing). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2022 1:37:38 GMT
I have yet to encounter a shoe that can experience anything. But forget the shoe. At one point, Reefs and ZD argued that their CC/Kensho experiences left them with absolute, realized certainty that every appearing object/thing....people and yes, even dirty 'ol, sole-less shoes, and even paper-clips, were conscious, aware, having individualized, discrete experience and perception. Agreed. Yes, I mentioned the 'shoe' as a harken back to that old conversation. It's the reason I was warned & then eventually banned on ST....those boys don't like having their silly assertions challenged. To avoid that, they just get rid of the challengers. Inquire into that assumption. seriously. (hint: there is NO 'what' that experiences....just experience, arising/appearing to no one/no-thing). There was no assumption. It was a question. There is experiencing. Even saying that it is arising is already too much intellectual explanation. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 8, 2022 2:35:32 GMT
At one point, Reefs and ZD argued that their CC/Kensho experiences left them with absolute, realized certainty that every appearing object/thing....people and yes, even dirty 'ol, sole-less shoes, and even paper-clips, were conscious, aware, having individualized, discrete experience and perception. Agreed. Yes, I mentioned the 'shoe' as a harken back to that old conversation. It's the reason I was warned & then eventually banned on ST....those boys don't like having their silly assertions challenged. To avoid that, they just get rid of the challengers. Inquire into that assumption. seriously. (hint: there is NO 'what' that experiences....just experience, arising/appearing to no one/no-thing). There was no assumption. It was a question. There is experiencing. Even saying that it is arising is already too much intellectual explanation. There is "experience." "Experiencing" implies a something that is doing it. And for what it's worth, that's a far deeper into minding than it is to simply say "experience arises." I'm speaking from a position 'beyond' in that, you are speaking from a position within the dream/story. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2022 2:52:41 GMT
There was no assumption. It was a question. There is experiencing. Even saying that it is arising is already too much intellectual explanation. There is "experience." "Experiencing" implies a something that is doing it. And for what it's worth, that's a far deeper into minding than it is to simply say "experience arises." I'm speaking from a position 'beyond' in that, you are speaking from a position within the dream/story. You say there is experience arising then I say there is experiencing and then you dispute it in your ridiculous game of spiritual ego oneupmanship. For heaven's sake you're a total joke!  you really are deeply insecure aren't you? |
|
Inavalan
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,608
|
Post by Inavalan on Apr 8, 2022 3:08:53 GMT
I have yet to encounter a shoe that can experience anything. But forget the shoe. At one point, Reefs and ZD argued that their CC/Kensho experiences left them with absolute, realized certainty that every appearing object/thing....people and yes, even dirty 'ol, sole-less shoes, and even paper-clips, were conscious, aware, having individualized, discrete experience and perception. ... Inquire into that assumption. seriously. (hint: there is NO 'what' that experiences.... just experience, arising/appearing to no one/no-thing). That's because starting from the individual unit of consciousness, everything (organic and inorganic, any size, any complexity) is built as gestalts over gestalts, over gestalts, ... of consciousness. You have organs, that are made of cells, made of atoms, ... In the other direction: your family, your community, your country, the Earth, ... Each one is the physical projection of a unit of consciousness, with different levels of evolvement on an infinite scale. Consciousness' progression in the physical is instinct, emotion, intelligence, intuition. At inorganic level consciousness is bellow the instinct level. At plant kingdom level, there are some forms of consciousness that manifest rudimentary instincts, even embryonic emotions. Animals have instincts, are dominated by instincts, manifest rudimentary emotions, some have embryonic intelligence. Man is in control of his instincts, is dominated by emotions, manifests some intelligence, some men have embryonic intuition. There is a large distribution of those characteristics (bell curve) both inside each category, and among the individuals of each subcategory. So, yes: a shoe and a paperclip are gestalts of consciousness at their levels, and are made of less evolved gestalts of consciousness. It is incorrect to say that there is only experience that is experienced by nothing. There is no nothing. Everything is consciousness organized in gestalts with various levels of evolvement. Thought gives shape to consciousness ("shape" doesn't necessarily mean "form"). |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 8, 2022 4:35:06 GMT
There is "experience." "Experiencing" implies a something that is doing it. And for what it's worth, that's a far deeper into minding than it is to simply say "experience arises." I'm speaking from a position 'beyond' in that, you are speaking from a position within the dream/story. You say there is experience arising then I say there is experiencing and then you dispute it in your ridiculous game of spiritual ego oneupmanship. For heaven's sake you're a total joke! you really are deeply insecure aren't you? And yet you're the one engaging in name-calling.  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 8, 2022 4:37:44 GMT
At one point, Reefs and ZD argued that their CC/Kensho experiences left them with absolute, realized certainty that every appearing object/thing....people and yes, even dirty 'ol, sole-less shoes, and even paper-clips, were conscious, aware, having individualized, discrete experience and perception. ... Inquire into that assumption. seriously. (hint: there is NO 'what' that experiences.... just experience, arising/appearing to no one/no-thing). That's because starting from the individual unit of consciousness, everything (organic and inorganic, any size, any complexity) is built as gestalts over gestalts, over gestalts, ... of consciousness. You have organs, that are made of cells, made of atoms, ... In the other direction: your family, your community, your country, the Earth, ... Each one is the physical projection of a unit of consciousness, with different levels of evolvement on an infinite scale. Consciousness' progression in the physical is instinct, emotion, intelligence, intuition. At inorganic level consciousness is bellow the instinct level. At plant kingdom level, there are some forms of consciousness that manifest rudimentary instincts, even embryonic emotions. Animals have instincts, are dominated by instincts, manifest rudimentary emotions, some have embryonic intelligence. Man is in control of his instincts, is dominated by emotions, manifests some intelligence, some men have embryonic intuition. There is a large distribution of those characteristics (bell curve) both inside each category, and among the individuals of each subcategory. So, yes: a shoe and a paperclip are gestalts of consciousness at their levels, and are made of less evolved gestalts of consciousness. It is incorrect to say that there is only experience that is experienced by nothing. There is no nothing. Everything is consciousness organized in gestalts with various levels of evolvement. Thought gives shape to consciousness ("shape" doesn't necessarily mean "form"). That's backwards. All you speak of there is an in the story view. Truth lies beyond the story. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 8, 2022 4:49:06 GMT
There is "experience." "Experiencing" implies a something that is doing it. And for what it's worth, that's a far deeper into minding than it is to simply say "experience arises." I'm speaking from a position 'beyond' in that, you are speaking from a position within the dream/story. You say there is experience arising then I say there is experiencing and then you dispute it in your ridiculous game of spiritual ego oneupmanship. For heaven's sake you're a total joke! you really are deeply insecure aren't you? It's true, relatively speaking, even the sagiest of sages are likely at some point to speak of "experiencing." But we are not relatively speaking here.....this forum is dedicated to Truth-talk and as such, there's a very strong focus here in pointing away from falsity, TO Truth, and that means pointing out those subtle ways mind infers an erroneous separate entity. You spoke yesterday about your view that separation was either present as an overt thought or it wasn't at all present, and I countered that by explaining that the SVP is so much more than a presently arising, overt, obvious thought, that mind's mistake of separation runs wide and deep and has structure to it that easily goes unnoticed even if/when the SVP goes looking for it. That sense of "experiencing," (which then invokes an "experiencer,") is one facet of that structure. If we're talking Truth and pointing away from falsity, it's important to point out those subtle mistakes of mind/imaginings....they seem innocent enough and I know you think my pointing out of the difference between 'experience arising' vs. 'experiencing' is pointless, but really, if you're at all interested in seeing beyond the dream, it's not at all. Again, I think you'd do well to pay some attention to mind's content....to really look at what's going on and then the overlay of imagination that gets heaped upon that. "Experiencing" is itself an arising sense, and it's erroneous in that it invokes an entity 'who/that' experiences. All that is really know is that there is "experience" and it's ultimately arising to no-one/no-thing. |
|
you really are deeply insecure aren't you?
