|
Post by Figgles on Apr 28, 2023 20:27:31 GMT
Another example of Niz speaking to a seeker, where he sits. All sorts of quotes of his that clearly put this one and others like it in their place....that trump it. The self-identified absolutely love these types of quotes as they seemingly 'preserve' the apparent person and all his most sacred of ideas and experiences. "There are no individuals" - that preserves the individual? What I specifically said was it "seemingly" preserves the apparent person and his most sacred ideas. But to one who still identifies with/as the appearing me person, the 'separate individual me' is obviously part and parcel of that apparent body/mind/person. Niz clearly there does make a distinction between what he terms 'the individual' (which for him, obvious denotes fundamental separation...which of course, is a delusion/illusion) and apparent, unique body/minds. If gobbled up by the seeking mind, a quote like that one, preserves 'the apparent person and his most sacred ideas,' (such as the idea of knowing for Absolute certain that ALL apparent body/minds are alive, experiencers/perceivers, having their own unique experience....) The problem is, the seeker has no reference yet for the distinction Niz is making between "the separate individual" vs. "apparently distinct body/minds." It's definitely NOT one of Niz's better quotes by any means, imo. In all honesty, I'm not a fan of that kind of pandering to mind/contextual bending in Truth-talk/Nonduality as it just all too often leaves the door open for mind/the imagined person to wander in, sit down and make himself comfy on the SVP couch.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 28, 2023 22:10:34 GMT
The entire "issue" collapses in the seeing that ALL content is "dream-stuff," (empty and devoid of it's own inherent existence--NOT separately existent in it's own right--arises/appears dependent upon the ONE and ONLY, singular awareness, which abides it all).
That singularly known, directly, imminently apprehended ground of unbounded awareness, never "becomes" unlimited or unbounded.....all limitation, all boundedness....all distinction, is "apparent" only. There is no need to explain the hows/whys of an empty appearance that apparently/seemingly contradicts the realized Truth of Oneness/no separation/absence of actual limitation.
All limitation/boundedness is an empty appearance only. There is no actual/fundamental limitation. That includes the appearance of multiple, distinct, bounded/limited viewpoints....multiple perceivers.
It is a context mix to begin from a context of no separation/Oneness, to then ask about apparent multiple "objects/things/entities, that seemingly give rise to awareness."
Multiple perceivers are a facet of the dream that becomes a non-issue once ALL appearance is seen to be empty and devoid of inherent existence. As a facet of the dreamscape, that appearance continues to be engaged, but that engagement is couched in a greater, primary seeing/realization that it is just that; dream-content....a facet of the dream/story.
The Truth of ultimate boundlessness, limitlessness, prevails. Awareness is never actually 'divided.' Awareness abides the appearance of division/distinction/multiple sentient beings.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 28, 2023 22:27:41 GMT
You are contradicting yourself ZD. A realization that has every arising/appearing individual, unique, distinct set of eyes you see, to for Absolute certain, have awareness looking out of each set, equals a realization that separation is actual. If all boundaries are imaginary only, (which goes further than merely saying all boundaries are apparent, btw) would therefore mean that there is no 'each unique set' of eyes at all...that that's just an erroneous imagining. If 'each unique set' of eyes is imaginary, how then can the Infinite BE 'looking out of them'? Do you see the problem here? You collapse 'individuated, unique set of eyes' as 'not actual,' but you then reify 'individual, unique set of eyes,' in your assertion that THIS is looking out of every one of them. It's the same when you say that 'thingness' is merely being erroneously imagined, but then insist that each thing/object, right down to a singular paper-clip and rock, have each been realized to be conscious, alive, perceiving, experiencing...each having it's own unique experience. It's a nonsense. You are deeply confused on this issue. Of course there are no "actual/fundamental" boundaries...that would equal actual "separation." However, experientially, boundaries DO appear. To deny that and to insist that all boundaries are merely imagined, is to deny the appearance of distinction between objects...the very distinction that allows you to say 'here is a paperclip and there is a rock.' (Those objects you say are merely imaginary, but somehow you still know them each to be an experiencer/perceiver.) That right there dude, IS you applying intellect! You keep mixing contents. You say all boundaries are merely imagined, but what is 'the form of a singular human,' if not an 'apparent boundary' between that and another 'form of a different, single human.' No boundaries is of the context of the fundamental....Truth....apparent boundaries are of the context of relative appearance. Apparent boundaries do not need to go away in order for the Truth of 'no fundamental boundaries,' to remain as Truth. The fundamental Truth abides the apparent even while the apparent continues to appear.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 28, 2023 22:33:05 GMT
That is key.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 27, 2023 17:57:08 GMT
Precisely! The question is an entirely relative one....asked from the position of impersonal seeing, the Absolute, from the position of undivided Awareness, the question is completely misconceived, as from that position, it's crystal clear, there is an absence of "a perceiving" entity, all perceiving entities....perceiving entities merely 'seem' to be the case while mired in the dream/story.
Ultimately, perception/perceiving happens, absent an object/some-thing/some-one THAT is a perceiver. Same for a doer, thinker, seer...etc...Bots that are experienced as intelligently answering questions AND people that are experienced as being ground source/as giving rise to perception...as being 'doers, seers, thinkers,' all of that, part and parcel of the dream-scape.
To ask existential questions about dream-content, to try to arrive at an Absolute True answer to such a question, is entirely misconceived.
Relative questions should not be dragged into the realm of the Absolute and visa-versa.
The position of seeing that is mired in the dream, is where the question of "actual" individual perceivers originates. The position of seeing that is beyond/prior to, is where that question gets seen as misconceived.
The question is misconceived from the position of seeing there is no fundamental separation....that Awareness, as abiding ground gives rise to all appearance. Both 'perceiving people' and 'seemingly intellilgent bots,' all fall under dream-content. Thus, to try to speak about the difference between a conscious, perceiving person and an AI-bot, involves an erroneous context flip--a misconception.
You've just very nicely explained why the conversation can only ever be 'relative'...of the 'experiential/content context.'
& That's just it; To "talk about the difference," from the vantage point of beyond/prior to, is to simply acknowledge the "apparent" difference...not an "actual/fundamental" difference. Fundamentally, BOTH the apparently perceiving/conscious person and the bot, are both 'appearance only/experiential content'.....of the 'relative' realm/context.
The discussion about bots perhaps becoming conscious 'like' people are conscious, has it's roots in the relative context and there it must stay...otherwise, misconception...erroneous context flipping enters in.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 27, 2023 18:05:31 GMT
It takes some real clarity to see this! Reefs has not yet and that's why she continues to drag the conversation about "perceivers," from the relative context, where it belongs, where it's all fine and dandy, into the Absolute context, where plain and simply there is no some-thing THAT perceives/is a perceiver.
Perceiving entities can never be something more than dream-content. To try to drag that experience....that apparent facet of experience into the Absolute, to arrive at an Absolute answer, is to grossly mix contexts...there is a huge misconception in play where that is going on.
Impersonal seeing reveals that "the person that is a perceiving entity" is part and parcel of content.....a facet of arising experience that remains relative. To even pose the question of whether or not it is "actual" is to erroneously mix contexts.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 31, 2023 17:25:38 GMT
This video serves as the perfect example of how unless there is a shift in locus of seeing, even with a relatively silent mind....quietly and intently looking 'at' the experience of being conscious...the sense of being....awareness of being conscious, the obvious will go unseen. The author insists she is looking at the most 'fundamental' level of consciousness, but it's clear she's not at all..she's still mistaking certain dream content, ideas/theories/beliefs/relative facts, to be indicative of transcendent, fundamental Truth....completely missing that all of experiential content, arises within/to the ground of consciousness/awareness..she's still looking to content as evidence of consciousness, to try to ferret out 'what' consciousness is and who/what possesses the property/quality of being conscious....edges up close, but then completely glosses over the Truth that the quality of being conscious is not the same as the ground that gives rise to all senses, even that most basic one of 'being a something that is conscious.' When I have more time, I'm going to take it section by section to address the delusions/misconceptions as they arise....some real gold there in terms of pointing away from falsity to Truth...almost on par with the Reefs/ZD material...(very similar misconceptions actually!!)
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 3, 2023 21:11:14 GMT
If we are talking Truth/Transcendent seeing, all perceivables are absent substance!
In singling out thoughts like that, distinct from other arising appearance, to declare them as having no 'substance,' you are indicating other stuff that arises within percpetion as then, having substance, no?
This is the problem with singling certain experiential content out from others to declare it more or less "real, substantive, actual" and believing this is the end all and be all, as ZD seems to.....from the vantage point of prior to/beyond mind, ALL OF IT is absent inherent substance/existence in it's own right...ALL OF It...be it an arising thought, a feeling, a subtle sense, a tingle, an intuition, a rock, a sock, a perceived circumstance, a perceived condition....ALL OF IT...is an empty perceivable, arising within/to the abiding ground of awareness, completely dependent upon such for it's temporal appearance.
I think this is the core issue with ZD's ontology; He singles out certain experiential content as "actual" and categorizes the rest as "imagination only," and he's erroneously conflated those insights with "SR/realization/being awake."
The ability to see the difference between what's directly appearing in it's most raw 'form/presentation' vs. mind's judgements about it all, is indeed important in terms of being more consciously aware of mind's machinations....being clear about what in blazes is going on, but it's important not to conflate that relative clarity with the seeing from beyond/prior to ALL perceivables, that = SR/wakefulness.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 16, 2023 19:51:50 GMT
"Experience" may continue....appearances "may" continue, (if we're talking Truth, we don't actually know for certain!) but it requires a leap of mind to arrive at "creation," simply via observing the seeming, arising/falling of appearance.
If there is creation then inherent to that is some sort of "a" creator, no?
If we see through the idea of a 'creator'...then where oh where is 'creation'?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 22, 2023 3:54:29 GMT
By what means do you "know" this?
It's an assumptive knowing only. At best, arrived at as an intuitive 'ideation' about what's going on.
(T)ruth on the other hand, is not assumptive. It's clearly self-evident right here, right now, imminently and starkly obvious...undeniable.
That which is imminently "SO' can be directly seen simply by looking absent the obscuring filter of the SVP. Absent that, the Truth of 'what is/THIS' shines brightly.
|
|