|
Post by Figgles on Jul 16, 2022 20:10:24 GMT
The so called "repercussions" of the seeing that all perceivables arise empty, dependent upon the ground of awareness within which they arise, are not going unnoticed at all! The problem is, you have no reference at all for what is being pointed to, thus, what you believe to be the repercussions and what they actually are, are not the same.
Seeing the inherent emptiness of all perceivables, (including appearing people) does not mean for ever more "ignoring" or refusing to engage with them. The entire world is empty of it's own inherent existence....empty of inherent ground, and yet, the world continues to appear and in that, continues to engage interest and interaction.
Oh stop is Tenka with your professed 'worry' and 'rational minded person,' jab.... All you're aiming for there is insult because the fact that folks disagree with you, makes you angry...it's just a lash-out on your part. Quit being a baby.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 17, 2022 0:44:47 GMT
The problem is with your erroneous idea that personal/impersonal = "circuits" that open and close. That's one of the poorest descriptors/explanations I've ever heard, used to talk about locus of seeing.
It's not "implausible" at all that there can be seeing from "beyond" the personal, as the personal experience is simultaneously couched within that.
Your issue with 'both simultaneously' has your own misunderstanding about impersonal/person at it's root. Once there's the shift that IS SR, the locus of seeing is no longer mistaken to be through the eyes of the appearing me character....there is always an ultimate viewpoint/ground of awareness that lies beyond, within which the character and all it's related senses, feelings, thoughts, ideas, body/mind, etc, arise, couched within it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2022 1:33:59 GMT
That is perfectly put and the fact that you are able to express such clarity has me highly suspecting that you've just been fucking with me all this time in your arguments about "no distinction between the ground appearance." You obviously DO have clear reference for that distinction. So long as something is appearing....there is distinction...and yes, distinction is NOT separation. I'm sure we'll have time to discuss that. What often appears to be a disagreement is just a disagreement about the way concepts are presented but here's an answer I gave to Andrew on ST. I'll quote it here. Andrew: The word 'appearance' may be the problem here, and I'm pretty darn sure that you haven't been keen on the word 'appearance' on the other forum. Sometimes the word 'appearance' is used in such way that even weirdly ends up objectifying 'the appearance'. Satch: I will emphatically say that I am the source and the source is me. But I'm glad you brought up the point about appearance. It's true that I very often push back against using the word appearance but only when I see it being used to deny individuality. It always comes back to this. I am both impersonal and personal simultaneously. They have to be spoken about together and if they are, appearance is quite legitimate within the context of that expressed individuality but if I see individuality being suppressed by calling it an illusion I won't want to go along with the appearance only story. I feel I need to compensate to preserve the balance of both values.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 17, 2022 1:41:00 GMT
That is perfectly put and the fact that you are able to express such clarity has me highly suspecting that you've just been fucking with me all this time in your arguments about "no distinction between the ground appearance." You obviously DO have clear reference for that distinction. So long as something is appearing....there is distinction...and yes, distinction is NOT separation. I'm sure we'll have time to discuss that. What often appears to be a disagreement is just a disagreement about the way concepts are presented but here's an answer I gave to Andrew on ST. I'll quote it here. Andrew: The word 'appearance' may be the problem here, and I'm pretty darn sure that you haven't been keen on the word 'appearance' on the other forum. Sometimes the word 'appearance' is used in such way that even weirdly ends up objectifying 'the appearance'. Satch: I will emphatically say that I am the source and the source is me. But I'm glad you brought up the point about appearance. It's true that I very often push back against using the word appearance but only when I see it being used to deny individuality. It always comes back to this. I am both impersonal and personal simultaneously. They have to be spoken about together and if they are, appearance is quite legitimate within the context of that expressed individuality but if I see individuality being suppressed by calling it an illusion I won't want to go along with the appearance only story. I feel I need to compensate to preserve the balance of both values. Yes, I read that quote of yours earlier today on ST, and overall, quite liked it. Just want to mention though, in case you have me looped up with the suppressors; I am not, nor have I been one to 'suppress individuality' I've always said that individuals....discrete, distinct people/characters, DO appear.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2022 1:45:51 GMT
I'm sure we'll have time to discuss that. What often appears to be a disagreement is just a disagreement about the way concepts are presented but here's an answer I gave to Andrew on ST. I'll quote it here. Andrew: The word 'appearance' may be the problem here, and I'm pretty darn sure that you haven't been keen on the word 'appearance' on the other forum. Sometimes the word 'appearance' is used in such way that even weirdly ends up objectifying 'the appearance'. Satch: I will emphatically say that I am the source and the source is me. But I'm glad you brought up the point about appearance. It's true that I very often push back against using the word appearance but only when I see it being used to deny individuality. It always comes back to this. I am both impersonal and personal simultaneously. They have to be spoken about together and if they are, appearance is quite legitimate within the context of that expressed individuality but if I see individuality being suppressed by calling it an illusion I won't want to go along with the appearance only story. I feel I need to compensate to preserve the balance of both values. Yes, I read that quote of yours earlier today on ST, and overall, quite liked it. Just want to mention though, in case you have me looped up with the suppressors; I am not, nor have I been one to 'suppress individuality' I've always said that individuals....discrete, distinct people/characters, DO appear. I think what we need to do is to press the reset button and agree on some basic truths. What's interesting is the way I've been forced to respond to others who I don't often converse with and it's turned out a little bit differently to the way I respond to you. And you'll notice that Tenka is in state of shock about a satch he doesn't recognize. 😆 It's a pity you're not still in the forum. But I understand why because interactions with reefs can start off ok but there comes a certain point where he's pushed into a corner and then he becomes disparaging.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 17, 2022 3:48:35 GMT
Yes, I read that quote of yours earlier today on ST, and overall, quite liked it. Just want to mention though, in case you have me looped up with the suppressors; I am not, nor have I been one to 'suppress individuality' I've always said that individuals....discrete, distinct people/characters, DO appear. I think what we need to do is to press the reset button and agree on some basic truths. What's interesting is the way I've been forced to respond to others who I don't often converse with and it's turned out a little bit differently to the way I respond to you. And you'll notice that Tenka is in state of shock about a satch he doesn't recognize. 😆 No doubt, there is a funny thing that happens as we go deeply into the same conversation, over and over again...patterns and grooves arise and the words we use get repetitive & sometimes what it takes is someone else to enter the conversation to ruffle up those a bit and create a bit of freshness.... and then new ways of explaining arise and sometimes it reveals that there's agreement after all. Yeah, Tenka is not enjoying someone whom he believed to be an ally, is now not on board with what he's sayin.' I get it. He thought he was talking to a satsquatch and turns out, you're a yeti! Yeah, I'd sign up again and join in if I could. I think the option to unban me and allow me back was discussed at one point...from what I heard it wasn't actually Reefs who denied me, it was Zendancer who made the final decision to keep me banned. It just all seems so silly...particularly when you consider it's a goddammed Nonduality forum! Oh well.....I will carry on here with my mostly one-way convos!
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 17, 2022 4:01:53 GMT
Well put. ZD has a habit of invoking a middle layer that he imagines to be in between the relative and absolute and he considers that to be "Truth." And I highly doubt every kid in the class offered up the exact same answer as he says they did. Very unlikely, knowing kids as I do.
Koans are cool for loosening up the rigidity of mind....and in terms of relative betterment of experience, the 'body-knowing' ZD references has it's place but when it comes to SR, that too gets put in it's place...it's seen as a perceivable/appearance only and thus, not reliable for absolute knowing/Truth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2022 4:06:58 GMT
I think what we need to do is to press the reset button and agree on some basic truths. What's interesting is the way I've been forced to respond to others who I don't often converse with and it's turned out a little bit differently to the way I respond to you. And you'll notice that Tenka is in state of shock about a satch he doesn't recognize. 😆 No doubt, there is a funny thing that happens as we go deeply into the same conversation, over and over again...patterns and grooves arise and the words we use get repetitive & sometimes what it takes is someone else to enter the conversation to ruffle up those a bit and create a bit of freshness.... and then new ways of explaining arise and sometimes it reveals that there's agreement after all. Yeah, Tenka is not enjoying someone whom he believed to be an ally, is now not on board with what he's sayin.' I get it. He thought he was talking to a satsquatch and turns out, you're a yeti! Yeah, I'd sign up again and join in if I could. I think the option to unban me and allow me back was discussed at one point...from what I heard it wasn't actually Reefs who denied me, it was Zendancer who made the final decision to keep me banned. It just all seems so silly...particularly when you consider it's a goddammed Nonduality forum! Oh well.....I will carry on here with my mostly one-way convos! my original login is still permanently banned so I just signed up under a different username and email. Satch instead of satchitananda. They know it's me and nothing has been said. ZD is really protective and prickly about what he believes. He just wants to be comfortable in his interactions with other people.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 17, 2022 4:07:34 GMT
You can tell folks, say, whatever you want but your posts/sharings speak for themselves. You seem to be stuck in the relative, imagining it to be 'beyond.' It 'aint.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 17, 2022 4:12:52 GMT
No doubt, there is a funny thing that happens as we go deeply into the same conversation, over and over again...patterns and grooves arise and the words we use get repetitive & sometimes what it takes is someone else to enter the conversation to ruffle up those a bit and create a bit of freshness.... and then new ways of explaining arise and sometimes it reveals that there's agreement after all. Yeah, Tenka is not enjoying someone whom he believed to be an ally, is now not on board with what he's sayin.' I get it. He thought he was talking to a satsquatch and turns out, you're a yeti! Yeah, I'd sign up again and join in if I could. I think the option to unban me and allow me back was discussed at one point...from what I heard it wasn't actually Reefs who denied me, it was Zendancer who made the final decision to keep me banned. It just all seems so silly...particularly when you consider it's a goddammed Nonduality forum! Oh well.....I will carry on here with my mostly one-way convos! my original login is still permanently banned so I just signed up under a different username and email. Satch instead of satchitananda. They know it's me and nothing has been said. ZD is really protective and prickly about what he believes. He just wants to be comfortable in his interactions with other people. Oh yeah, you got banned too!...I forgot. Yeah, you're spot on about ZD. He does not like contention or challenge at all. I just don't get that.....as I see it, "dharma combat" is an integral facet of any Nonduality forum...if you're not up for holding your understandings up to the light of deep scrutiny, what are they worth?.....but hey, different strokes... . I might have to bone up on how to create another email address. My current one is the only one I've ever used. Hubs and I share...all our emails come to same address....
|
|