muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Jan 9, 2020 7:10:29 GMT
Referring to object boundaries as imaginary isn't the way I prefer to write about them but I rezz with the extremity of the view. In a very real sense, all form - all form -- really is .. a dream. Yes, I don't disagree that interconnectedness isn't "Oneness", and didn't imply otherwise.
Totally agree, all form IS a dream....or as I prefer to say, "dream-stuff." But, To you, does 'dream-stuff' = 'imaginary'? For me there is an important distinction between the two. For ZD, the boundaries that define one object from the next, are imaginary, but a 'perceived, experienced,substance that unifies all form, all appearing objects, that he asserts to actually BE....the 'field of aliveness,' he sees and experiences prior to the appearing thing/object,(in his mind)is not. He's confused. Despite how it seems, both are dream-content. In short, That all form is 'dream-stuff' does not equal all form is imagined. ya'd have to take that up with him directly.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Jan 9, 2020 7:11:28 GMT
Sometimes interconnctedness is what is imagined. Especially if it's the only way to moosh stuff into One. [/b] It can require a lot of imagination to erase the boundaries between the parts in your car, or even the organs in your body. OTOH, one can have the experience of no-boundaries, which I can relate to, and we call that unity.[/quote] Yes! And seems to me, in ZD's post, these two contexts are being conflated. Even when there's an experience of unity, one does not fail to see the appearance of distinct objects. And those appearing distinct objects are not 'imagined,' rather, distinct objects are appearing. So long as they are not 'imagined' to be fundamentally separate, actually separate, no problemo. [/quote] Yes, the experience I have now and then is one in which all of nature draws near to me in a kind of embrace. This is the result of spontaneously dropping the boundaries of imaginary separation between myself and the rest of nature, but they aren't mental distinctions but rather emotional boundaries. Those same boundaries are dropped between myself and Marie, and I call that Love. And yet the boundary between her body and mine most definitely does not dissolve. There is no unity. There is no need for it.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Jan 9, 2020 7:16:29 GMT
Referring to object boundaries as imaginary isn't the way I prefer to write about them but I rezz with the extremity of the view. In a very real sense, all form - all form -- really is .. a dream.
Yes, I don't disagree that interconnectedness isn't "Oneness", and didn't imply otherwise.
It is, and that understanding leads to oneness via Consciousness. If one is chasing unity by erasing boundaries, the goal is unity via a mooshing process, and there's no particular interest in the dream aspect. Perhaps. If anything, erasing boundaries and expanding my sense of self was something that I did unconsciously over the decades. It's why I rezz with lots of new agey stuff. It's yet another path dealio, 'cause I see it as having led to a more accident prone state of body/mind. But yeah, the dream metaphor wasn't anything I was even aware of during that time. My take on "The Matrix" was that it was a metaphor of someone realizing that devoting their life to making money as a corporate drone was a misuse of that life. Went totally over my head at the time. My image of "enlightenment" could be defined by a comic strip that I wasn't very interested in.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Jan 9, 2020 7:22:06 GMT
It is, and that understanding leads to oneness via Consciousness. If one is chasing unity by erasing boundaries, the goal is unity via a mooshing process, and there's no particular interest in the dream aspect. There's a whole lota oneness mooshing goin on there!
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Jan 9, 2020 7:25:51 GMT
Totally agree, all form IS a dream....or as I prefer to say, "dream-stuff." But, To you, does 'dream-stuff' = 'imaginary'? For me there is an important distinction between the two. For ZD, the boundaries that define one object from the next, are imaginary, but a 'perceived, experienced,substance that unifies all form, all appearing objects, that he asserts to actually BE....the 'field of aliveness,' he sees and experiences prior to the appearing thing/object,(in his mind)is not. He's confused. Despite how it seems, both are dream-content. In short, That all form is 'dream-stuff' does not equal all form is imagined. ya'd have to take that up with him directly. No telling how he would respond to that particular conclusion, but if all imagined boundaries that define objects are removed, seems like objects are no longer imagined.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 9, 2020 7:30:46 GMT
Do you see that everything you're talking about there, is in the dream, 'dream-stuff'...appearance only? When you're still fast asleep, a focus upon the quality of thought, the quantity of thought and the content of thought might indeed be important in terms of relative peace, however, once awake, the entire gamut of thought, regardless, is seen to be appearance only....part and parcel of the dream-scape. It's not denied or ignored, but no longer is one looking 'to' thought, either it's presence or it's absence to designate how far along the path one is.
Have you though ZD, ever had a realization where the entire cosmos itself, was seen to be an appearance within/to consciousness? Organic/inorganic are both in the dream properties.
"Truly" (Truthfully/fundamentally) there are no boundaries.
But you are still looking towards experience, towards perceivables, to decipher what is True and that's the wrong place to find Truth. You've mixed contexts when you ask; Is there a 'true' boundary between organic and inorganic? You're not ever going to find out the Truth by looking deeper into what comprises rocks and cells. Both are appearance only. Ephemeral arisings within/to that which abides.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 9, 2020 7:33:58 GMT
ya'd have to take that up with him directly. No telling how he would respond to that particular conclusion, but if all imagined boundaries that define objects are removed, seems like objects are no longer imagined. Yup. And hence, we have folks grabbing the milk carton, absent any recognition whatsoever of milk.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 9, 2020 7:43:56 GMT
If we're speaking in that context, then there is also no 'layer of raw perception.'
Things DO appear, and yet they are appearance only. Same goes for a perceived 'raw layer.'
"All perceivables are stains." Niz
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Jan 9, 2020 7:46:28 GMT
No telling how he would respond to that particular conclusion, but if all imagined boundaries that define objects are removed, seems like objects are no longer imagined. Yup. And hence, we have folks grabbing the milk carton, absent any recognition whatsoever of milk. Like Reefs who doesn't see milk but still manages to pick it up and bring it home?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 9, 2020 7:52:46 GMT
Yup. And hence, we have folks grabbing the milk carton, absent any recognition whatsoever of milk. Like Reefs who doesn't see milk but still manages to pick it up and bring it home?
|
|