|
Post by Figgles on May 11, 2024 4:51:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 11, 2024 4:49:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 11, 2024 3:05:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 11, 2024 3:01:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 11, 2024 2:58:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 11, 2024 2:47:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 11, 2024 2:35:54 GMT
If "It" is still a something that is perceivable, observable, another step back/prior to must be taken.Another step, back/prior to must be taken...by whom? Who or what is it that must take another step back? That instruction to "take a step back," is of course, a concession to mind...to the imagined separate entity...limited viewpoint...(s)elf identified person. At that juncture, there is still, after all, an SVP in play....an existent entity is being imagined in the experience of the "me character." Inevitably, Nonduality as it addresses the seeker, is filled with those types of concessions as there is not yet a direct reference for "absence of existent entity/absence of SVP." The shift from the imagined position of seeing via the eyes of a person to beyond/prior to, is not actually a "step taken" by a someone at all, and in a true and abiding shift to "beyond" that Truth will easily and effortlessly reveal itself. If one should find himself confused or confounded by the instruction to "step back," best to think of it as a mere shift in from seeing is happening from. Feet/shoes/stepping really NOT necessary at all.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 11, 2024 2:29:34 GMT
Hey, by the way Rick, for the life of me I can't figure out what your avatar pic is....carrots...wienies...? Can you explain? Ok. Carrots.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 10, 2024 21:58:26 GMT
Soooo, what you are asserting here ZD, is intelligence as fundamental and "awareness" relative to that "intelligence" as a property of "it." You then posit that property of "being aware/sentient" as a fundamental/substantive property/quality/aspect of Isness.
There is separation woven all throughout that assertion.
Intelligence, aliveness, sentience, are all observable "properties/qualities." they are perceivables, whereas, "Fundamental Awareness/abiding ground," really is just bare-bones, essential "Awareness/Consciousness." It is not a 'some-thing' that is subject to "having qualities/properties." Wherever qualities and properties are perceived, be it via intuition or any other experiential 'sense,' that can only ever be a facet of experience.... the mind-informing aspect of SR, that comes hand in hand with transcendent seeing/realization, does impact experience, and experiencing a world that is unified, seamless, alive, intelligent, is often how that impact gets described.
Plain and simply you are conflating that which is ultimately beyond description and capture by mind with that which can be described and captured by mind, because it IS a facet of experience/a perceivable/an appearance.
Awareness as ground can and does stand alone. That 'ground' has no ascribed quality/property. The moment a quality/property is ascribed is the moment minding enters in....the moment a perceivable arises/appears.
The conversation about the possibility or lack thereof of AI becoming sentient is entirely an "in the dream" convo. To bring Nonduality into the convo is erroneously mix contexts.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 10, 2024 21:24:20 GMT
I've recently been exploring different/new ways to try to point to the seeing through of 2nd mountain and the integration of that realization (3rd mountain).
Sometimes a mere change in language/terms can make the difference between a pointer hitting home, or not.
I think this way of talking about Truth, is conceptually graspable even prior to yet having seen through "the mountain," so long as there's sincerity/honesty;
Bottom line, if "It" can be observed, looked at, seen, witnessed, then it's not "primordial/fundamental." To apprehend Truth, it's that ground, fundamental some-nothing, that must be unveiled.
From a solely personal viewpoint, it seems as though the person, via physical eyes is "the perceiver/source of seeing/observing." But, it's quite easy to see, if a step back/prior to that is successfully taken, that the person as observer, can also itself, "be observed." Which means, the person, as observer, is itself, also, but 'a perceivable.'
What is it that perceives, sees, observes, the person and it's apparent perceptions?
If "It" is still a something that is perceivable, observable, another step back/prior to must be taken.
When seeing is from that primordial, fundamental place/non-place, prior to/beyond ALL perceivables, it becomes very clear it is not itself "a something perceived/observed" but rather, it is simply awareness itself, aware "of" that which appears within/to "it." It's all essentially one, but it never becomes True that the abiding "becomes" limited/bound/temporal. That's why it is said that distinction, limitation/boundary is apparent only...and that actual limitation can only ever be an illusion/delusion.
With that apprehension, it can then be seen that awareness as ground, does not shift or change and that it can and does stand alone, absent any/all perceivables. Whereas perceivables/appearance, for the duration of it's temporal arising, is entirely dependent upon that abiding ground.
There can be Awareness absent distinction/appearance, but no distinction/appearance absent the abiding ground of awareness within which it arises.
|
|