|
Post by Figgles on Aug 8, 2022 20:32:48 GMT
An empty appearance only does not stop being an empty appearance, dependent upon the ground form which it arises as it's also realized to be none-other than Self. The two go hand in hand. To see appearance as arising dependent upon the abiding, unchanging ground, as an expression of it, is to see the appearance ultimately IS noneother than that. An empty expression of Self, arising non-separate from Self, never becomes something more than an empty expression.
Empty expressions are all divine in nature....that does not though make them 'full of live....giving rise to perception/experience.'
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 8, 2022 20:36:54 GMT
Self includes changing, (and it does not change the changing to the abiding.)
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 8, 2022 20:42:43 GMT
The entirety of perceivables can be viewed from the witness position...every little tiny nuanced sense...just noticed as it arises/appears. The witness itself can ultimately be seen for it what it is too....just a position of seeing that is outside of the perceivable realm in the sense that from that vantage point, the entire realm of perceivables can be observed....the witness position offers nothing in the way of judgment that would be the case the moment the 'me character' position of seeing came into play.
It's just a position of seeing and if there is clarity, any idea of "a conceptually substantive, existing thing called A witness," will be seen through as a perceivable the moment it might arise.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 8, 2022 20:45:54 GMT
Yes, huge difference between taking yourself to be "a witness," vs. simply adopting a witness position of looking/seeing, dispassionately and without invoking a 'someone/something' into play.
Ultimately, there is no "witness" per se, but just "witnessing," as a position of seeing.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 8, 2022 21:34:19 GMT
Damn...I dunno...but seemed to me that prior to Muttley getting involved and sniping away at the person behind the content, both you are Satchi were a doing pretty nice job of just debating the content without getting unnecessarily personal.
Muttley, I think there's a few of us reading along who would appreciate it if you'd stop trying to turn one poster against the other by illuminating the personal shit!
Reefs...where's your mod gavel now?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 8, 2022 21:39:40 GMT
A question that 'can't' be resolved = a misconceived question. And I think in his own way, Gopal is saying that the question of other perceivers, is ultimately, unanswerable....thus, "misconceived."
There is just no-thing there within either the fundamental level or the experiential level "beyond/prior to" an appearing person/thing that tells you anything more than THAT the appearance/perceivable, is appearing....and that it's empty and devoid of it's own inherent existence...borrowing it's temporary appearance from that which abides.
There are indeed mystical experiences, theories, drug unduced, Ken Show induced experiences that seem to indicate there is something more to a shoe or a dirt-lump than what might immediately meet the eye, but so long as that is also 'experientially perceived,' it's still story/dream-stuff...cannot be relied upon for/as ultimate Truth.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 8, 2022 21:43:46 GMT
Yes, I think both of you are being very civil and polite and this is one of those debates where there is potential (as i see it anyway) for resolve. Andrew is quite clear that the "me character" is as much an appearance (or at least equal in a sense) as "you character." That's not a bad basis for possible deeper consensus methinks. He sees the diff between the solipsistic view that says 'there is only MY mind," which posits the me character as an existent thing vs. the Nondual view where the me character is also something that appears and has no inherent existence...I think anyway. I'll keep reading.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 8, 2022 21:47:26 GMT
Pointers dude...pointers....
We have to come up with some kind of words we agree upon to talk about this stuff.
No, personal/impersonal are NOT opposites. Persons/personal are 'couched within' impersonal seeing...impersonal viewpoint.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 8, 2022 21:52:41 GMT
Very cool. I love hearing that. Regardless, it means quality of experience has changed in a better way....you are someone who is different from most I've encountered over my life, in your ability to deeply care and extend kindness, so I would always wish nothing other than that for you.
But, if it is so that you are absolutely certain (you know it to be an absolute Truth) that appearing cats/people (and other things..?) are experiencing/perceiving entities, then that is what separation IS. It would mean that an appearing cat, just as the appearing me character, has inherent existence in it's own right...that it is the ground to arising perception/experience...an entity unto itself.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 8, 2022 21:55:21 GMT
Very nicely put. Where the heck was this sagely & sober Satchi dude when we were arguing? (I get it....just say thank you Figgles for the Dharma battle extra-ordinaire!...and yeah, I AM grateful for the fun. )
|
|