|
Post by Figgles on May 13, 2024 5:12:01 GMT
An Absolute certain knowing of discrete, unique, individuated, existent entities, (perceivers/experiencers) contradicts fundamental Oneness. A realization of discrete, multiple, existent entities would be a realization of existent separation/limitation/boundary. The presence of Absolute knowing re: the existence of an appearance, is the reification of that appearance as an actual, separate some-thing. It would if that was what was being pointed to, but it ain't.So, you are not asserting Absolute knowing of discrete, unique perceivers/experiencers? So what is it then, that IS being asserted? Oh, that is a stellar reason, within a dharma-debate, not to try to "disabuse" someone of their fallacy. Heck yeah, the moment it's clear a seeker is "Deeply invested in fallacy," that's the directive to drop the whole convo.
|
|
|
Quotes
May 13, 2024 5:06:33 GMT
Post by Figgles on May 13, 2024 5:06:33 GMT
Your mind is clamped shut like a venus flytrap on a few unflattering opinions like this one that you have about a few dudes "realization status". Maybe, one day, you'll .. let it go. Not today. Aces. ZD's reaction when she first appeared last time on ST made me laugh out loud. It was very much akin to a man suddenly running for the hills with his pants on fire. It was as innocent as it was hilarious, even as it made a point about futility...one that I'm starting to agree with. Seems there really are hell-bent she-devil characters made by God to be avoided in this movie. Oh, My, Gawd!!!... how terrifying!!! Some woman, civilly challenging your spiritual viewpoints!!
|
|
|
Quotes
May 13, 2024 5:03:24 GMT
Post by Figgles on May 13, 2024 5:03:24 GMT
It's also more than okay, considering we are in fact engaging on a Nonduality "discussion" forum that is dedicated to ferreting out Truth, to continue communicating, conversing, even debating. Unless and until the ENTIRE gamut of perceivables has been seen through, awakening is not yet complete. That includes all sacred ideas. Your mind is clamped shut like a venus flytrap on a few unflattering opinions like this one that you have about a few dudes "realization status". Maybe, one day, you'll .. let it go. Not today. Aces. How the heck did you get that out of what I said?
|
|
|
Quotes
May 12, 2024 21:54:01 GMT
Post by Figgles on May 12, 2024 21:54:01 GMT
What point, exactly do you think I domatically insisting upon there? Did you not notice the question mark at the end of the post? I was asking if you don't recall being pissed off "even if only a little" back then, when your "then" still erroneous views were being challenged. .. and there you go again .. see? .. we disagree on the idea of the "shadows" .. it's ok to let it go .. It's also more than okay, considering we are in fact engaging on a Nonduality "discussion" forum that is dedicated to ferreting out Truth, to continue communicating, conversing, even debating. Unless and until the ENTIRE gamut of perceivables has been seen through, awakening is not yet complete. That includes all sacred ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 12, 2024 20:37:55 GMT
An Absolute certain knowing of discrete, unique, individuated, existent entities, (perceivers/experiencers) contradicts fundamental Oneness.
A realization of discrete, multiple, existent entities would be a realization of existent separation/limitation/boundary.
The presence of Absolute knowing re: the existence of an appearance, is the reification of that appearance as an actual, separate some-thing.
|
|
|
Quotes
May 12, 2024 20:31:04 GMT
Post by Figgles on May 12, 2024 20:31:04 GMT
I think if you're gonna take issue, this particular one, with it's characterization of sought for/yet imminently unfound Truth, making you "miserable," per se. But clearly in some cases, that is so. yes, this one is more to the point. The only issue I have is that it is relating one particular type of path in such a way that it suggests it's the only path.Sure, I get that. Agree with all you are saying there. Well put.
|
|
|
Quotes
May 12, 2024 20:24:40 GMT
Post by Figgles on May 12, 2024 20:24:40 GMT
I think it's a very important point for the seeker to contemplate; that IF anger at the person who challenges your views should arise, it's very likely not really the person per se that is pissing off, but rather, egoic SVP, is rearing up to what it regards to be a threat to itself.
|
|
|
Quotes
May 12, 2024 20:22:29 GMT
Post by Figgles on May 12, 2024 20:22:29 GMT
The so called "shadows of the truth" may have hit as beautiful, but can you sincerely say that having your views re: those incomplete seeing/insights challenged, didn't piss ya off...even a little? Your dogmatic insistence on this point, and the smug tie-in to your emptiness poetry has long since ceased to annoy me, but that's just a sort of conditioning, like callouses on a hand. What point, exactly do you think I domatically insisting upon there? Did you not notice the question mark at the end of the post? I was asking if you don't recall being pissed off "even if only a little" back then, when your "then" still erroneous views were being challenged.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 12, 2024 19:27:19 GMT
ChatGPT: "From a non-dual perspective, the statement is generally considered false. Non-duality emphasizes the interconnectedness and unity of consciousness, where individual identities and experiences are seen as manifestations within the larger field of universal awareness. Knowing someone as an experiencer or perceiver doesn't necessarily entail knowing the specifics of their immediate experiences, as these experiences are shaped by individual perspectives, conditioning, and the dynamic nature of consciousness. Non-duality invites a shift from focusing solely on individual experiences to recognizing the underlying unity that transcends personal identifications and limitations of knowing. Herbert, this propensity you have for seeking existential/fundamental answers from ChatGPT is about as misguided as it gets. If somehow you were able to see the complete and utter folly in seeking Truth from a computer program, that alone might start the sand-castle a-crumbling down. The very idea that a machine could provide non-conceptual clarity within a dharma discussion/debate itself, demonstrates a looking/seeing that is entirely in the wrong direction....completely mired still, within the dream-scape. Instead of posing your questions to ChatGPT, why not get real quiet and inquire within, using those questions as a point of inquiry/meditation?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 12, 2024 18:55:29 GMT
To know for certain, even relatively speaking, THAT Figgles is an experiencer/perceiver, would also necessarily entail knowing for certain "what" figgles is imminently experiencing. That's just how it goes. Why would I need to know the details of your life to know that you, like me, and everyone else, exist presently as an expression of universal consciousness whose ground of being is the same one Absolute? "exist presently"? I've been using the term "exist" in this convo to be mean, "existent in it's own right." The term "inherent existence in it's own right" means fundamentally substantive...the ground to all...that ground "abides/unchanging." The real question we're quibbling over has always been "Do you know for Absolute certain that other appearing people are perceivers/experiencers." You say yes, do you not? Certain knowledge of perception/experience is always imminent and direct and along with that knowing is necessarily, also the content of perception/experience. To know perception is happening it to also know the perceivable. Do you really need a computer to tell you the answer to that? Just look. Your supposed "certain knowing" that I am experiencing/perceiving is an assumed knowing, based upon my responses to you. Isn't that entirely different than your own direct/imminent knowing that perception/experience is arising? Figgles apparent sentience, is part and parcel of your perception. (And yes, inherent to my saying this to, there is an assumptive, relative knowing that you ARE reading my words... ..that knowing though, is devoid of Absoluteness.) Experientially, relatively, My responses, my apparent perceptions/experiences can only ever BE "an appearance" within your mind-scape. You don't have direct/imminent reference for Figgles sentience/perceptions/experiences. Relatively speaking, as the story goes, yes, it's not false to say "i know that person walking down the street is experiencing /perceiving," but that knowing is assumptive in comparison to the direct/imminent knowing you have of your own perception/experience. No, that's the conceptual version. And it makes sense that ChatGPT would spew that out as it's a rather rampant mistake made by seekers to conflate conceptual/experiential "connectivity" with "fundamental singularity." There's an awful lot of BS being spewed over the internet re: Nonduality, by seekers who erroneously think they've "got it." That one doesn't even make sense. Inquire into this; By what means do you know in a given moment that perception is happening re: the Rick character? Is there anything within your experiential content per se or is the imminent, direct, self-evident knowing built into the perceiving itself? And in that perceiving, notice how there is a "something" however subtle a sense of arising feeling it may be, that is "a perceivable." Absent an observable/imminently known perceivable, there is no actual knowing of perception. Now look at your knowing of "my" perception/experiencing. What's it based upon? It does more than that. It doesn't just "invite" a shift away from individual experiences, it reveals the very idea of "other" upon which the idea of multiple, discrete individuals and their unique experiences hinges upon, to be fundamentally a delusion/illusion. The "Absolute knowing" of discrete, unique, individual perceivers/experiencers is a reification of fundamental "otherness/multiple existences." That's what "separation" references and that what the realization of Nonduality dispels. Individuated, existent entities = a delusion. YOUR statement is one of personal belief. You "assume" the "other" is perceiving/experiencing based upon the appearance of such. There is no personal belief inherent to the seeing through of fundamental separation/discrete objects/thing/persons having their own inherent existence. All object/things and yes, even people, all arise dependent upon the abiding ground of awareness. You as a person and your experience of that and all other people, arise "within/to" Awareness. The seeker still believes that awareness arises within the person. That's the delusion that gets seen though in the shift that is SR.
|
|