|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 4, 2023 18:01:11 GMT
To posit this as an existential question in an attempt to arrive at an Absolute answer, really is the equivalent of asking:
Is the ineffable actually effable? It the non-conceptual actually conceptual? Is an appearance actually an inherently existent some-thing.
It's a complete an utter nonsense. A gross misconception that illuminates the presence of delusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 4, 2023 18:15:08 GMT
For the past however many years we've been having this convo, you HAVE been doing just that! Talking about it directly, saying WHAT it is!!! You've just described the issue to a T. Aliveness is a term that describes a quality/property and non-duality is pointing beyond all attribute...beyond all quality...all property to that which cannot be captured conceptually, either by word or by mind. Behind SR lies a seeing through/absence, and it's only in that absence that non-conceptual Truth shines thru as it's now unobscured, free of delusion. This is has been the issue from the get-go, as you jumped into the conversation to assert; Of course is can be known if appearing people and paperclips are experiencing/perceiving....are, experiencers/perceivers....it can be realized that it's all alive, and every-thing is conscious, every-thing, every-object is having it's own discrete experience...it's own perception".....you have been pointer licking to the 9th degree, Teegs. Remember how nasty you used to get as you took folks to task for "pointer licking" back in the day?  In fact, I think you were actually the one who originally coined the term 'pointer licking.' To talk about the phenomenal world as 'alive/vibrant/conscious/intelligent' following SR/waking up, is to describe the experiential change...the way the world kind of 'lights up' post SR. That is something entirely different though than 'realizing' that it's all alive, conscious, each and every discretely appearing thing, having it's own experience. "Things/object//people" who "are having" AN experience, is of the relative, personal context only. The moment we leap to impersonal, all of that, Is now recognized as appearance only...a lovely, beautiful, important, relevant experience/appearance for sure...but still nevertheless, experiential content...thereby, ultimately, empty. There's no need to know anything more than it IS appearing as it is...beautiful, engaging....interest...love provoking. Freedom means being okay with an absence of Absolute knowledge regarding the phenomenal. Try as you might, you're never going to milk Truth/Absolute answers out of the relative. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 4, 2023 22:30:56 GMT
Gee...ya don't say....  ...never heard you mention that all before ZD...  That there IS the apt word. It's an "insight." A mystical experiential gleaning. It's NOT "a realization/seeing through." It's still very much "in the dream" and while it might seem to be a transcendent, prior to/beyond seeing, it's plain and simply, not. Do you understand though why he thought you were merely stating what you deemed to be a 'logical condlusion'?...hint: It has to do the word "because." ....the whole universe is alive BECAUSE we are alive. You are stating the fact that 'we are alive,' and using that to conclude that "therefore" the whole Universe is alive. Don't blame E for simply going on what you said. You did a crappy job.  And, what you're not seeing yet, is that as much as it's an erroneous idea to Absolutely know the universe to be dead, it's also just as erroneous to Absolute know the universe to 'be alive.' Both of those are qualities/properties....themselves, appearance only. They do not apply to the ineffable...non-conceptual. The problem is ZD that just like Reefs, you keep waffling between asserting an Absolute knowing of "aliveness, perceiver, experiencer," and then insisting that you are only pointing...and that you are not in fact referencing the "aliveness" that is known within experience as a quality/property. You cannot have it both ways, that on one hand, you are merely pointing and then on the other, insist on a particular quality/property term. How do I know you are asserting a quality when you use the term 'alive'? It's because you counter it with 'dead.' |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 27, 2023 18:41:42 GMT
Do not conflate the apparent, limited, personal window of perception, nor any of the perceived content with primordial awareness/the abiding ground of awareness/consciousness.
The abiding ground of awareness exists absent any content at all to BE aware of, whereas, the apparent limited window of personal perception, is only imminently, directly known to be, when perceivables are arising/appearing. There is no perception absent a perceivable.
Thus, that apparent, limited, personal window of perception can itself aptly be described as "an arising within/to abiding awareness/primordial awareness."
To experience the unfolding dream/story as "being alive," is a valid descriptor of how life changes post SR, but it's not itself a realization.
"Aliveness" is a quality/property that is viscerally felt and like all things 'felt,' it is but an appearance arising within/to awareness and not to be conflated with a realized knowing.
Aliveness does not inherently exist. Awareness exists/abides and gives rise to a sense of aliveness.
|
|
In fact, I think you were actually the one who originally coined the term 'pointer licking.' 
...never heard you mention that all before ZD... 
