|
Post by Figgles on Jan 10, 2020 6:29:21 GMT
The problem you are having grasping this, centers around you taking one specific, singular appearance, to focus upon. The 'not knowing' that has been spoken of, pertains to the entire realm of perceivables, not just appearing people, apparent sentience, but the entirety of experiential content. All of it, appearance only....dream-content...story content. (take your pick of what metaphor you prefer...none is perfect by any means.)
The story content in it's entirety, people included, is seen to be appearance only, nothing within the story can convey the Truth of the matter. Apparent sentience of appearing people is but one facet within that entire realm of appearance. Despite having been realized to be devoid of Truth, the story still compels and engages. How could it not? Fwiw, this body/mind is also a facet of that realm of 'appearance only.' All of that, arises ephemerally within/to that which abides.
To say that there are no consequences to seeing all appearances to be devoid of Truth is essentially the same as saying there is no consequence to seeing through separation. In seeking Truth in what appears, one is obviously still fast asleep. Thus, We're talking freedom...awakening....the realization of Self. Do you regard that to be of any importance?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2020 6:37:12 GMT
All of that, arises ephemerally within/to that which abides. You now have 3 characters in your story. All of that is character 1 It arises to that which is character 2 And that character abides in something else which is character 3.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 10, 2020 6:41:33 GMT
Again, for me, it's not about 'real or not' (I don't use the term 'real') it's about seeing that all perceivables are 'appearance only.' (appearances arising dependent upon the abiding ground).
I don't. And if you really do think that, somehow you've missed my point. I do not question whether appearing people are real. I 'know' (have realized) that ALL perceivables, everything that arises in experience, is 'appearance only.' And I've realized all appearances to be devoid of independent substance (Truth) as they arise dependent upon that which abides.
I've never advocated 'post moment discussions' regarding this. If there's been a realization regarding appearance, there are no remaining questions, doubts, surmising. No need for discussion.
Am I to take your own discussion about this here and now as evidence that you regard post moment discussion to be critical to the realizations you are referencing?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 10, 2020 6:43:08 GMT
All of that, arises ephemerally within/to that which abides. You now have 3 characters in your story. All of that is character 1 It arises to that which is character 2 And that character abides in something else which is character 3. You are taking pointers and creating characters out of them. Too much minding. When will the annihilation be complete?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2020 6:48:10 GMT
Am I to take your own discussion about this here and now as evidence that you regard post moment discussion to be critical to the realizations you are referencing? No and that's because I'm the master and you are the student.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 10, 2020 7:06:08 GMT
When the entirety of the perceivable world has been seen to be an appearance only, arising within consciousness, then any one thing that appears is as 'real' or 'not real' as any other.
It's the wrong word. I prefer the term 'actual' as the way it's used in nonduality conversations, it references 'fundamental/absolute Truth.'
Again, you are focusing upon one singular appearance here and failing to see that it's the 'entirety' of the realm of perceivables/appearances that gets realized to be devoid of Truth. There is no need to keep up a mental position of reminding myself that I'm absent absolute knowing regarding appearing people, because there's been a blanket realization regarding the entire realm of perceivables. The entirety is now akin to a story. No one thing is singled out in the way you are suggesting, but yes, appearing people are indeed a facet of that story.
And just as one does not have to remind himself not to identify with the appearing body/mind once identification with the material has ceased, one also does not need to continually remind himself that the world is an ephemeral arising within/to consciousness. Once it's clearly seen/realized, it cannot be unseen. It's just 'how it is' now.
The appearance of sentience is so compelling, it would be very strange indeed to purposefully buck that current. However, just because a particular appearance compels engagement with it, does not make it the absolute Truth. The problem is you have no reference for the 'realization' of the world as an 'appearance only,' thus, your default position is to take what I am saying to be a 'mental position.' It's not. It's a realization.
The 'real life consequence' is indeed there, and of far more importance than you realize, but it is also far more general and all encompassing, as the realization is much more encompassing. It does not just pertain to appearing people, but to all appearances, all things, all non-things that are perceived...the phenomenal world in it's entirety.
Absent the realization and absent any reference for what Niz means when he says: "all perceivables are stains," you're just not gonna get it.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 10, 2020 7:08:16 GMT
Am I to take your own discussion about this here and now as evidence that you regard post moment discussion to be critical to the realizations you are referencing? No and that's because I'm the master and you are the student.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2020 7:15:37 GMT
Absent the realization and absent any reference for what Niz means when he says: "all perceivables are stains," you're just not gonna get it. Stop quoting Nisargadatta. You don't have the maturity or ripeness to be able to understand him. He is not for you at this time.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Jan 10, 2020 9:43:55 GMT
The reason it gets airtime is because it's quite significant, and the reason it's significant is because it reflects an absence of existential falsity. If we're talking about the same thing here, (seeing beyond perceivable things/objects to some sort of perceived, unified substrate), it really does not actually reflect an absence of existential falsity at all. That would require getting the heck outta the dream to see the entirety of dream content, including a perceived, unified substrate, for what it is. The 'world' one sees while on an acid trip, while relatively speaking seems to be transcendent of the everyday world, is actually not transcendent at all. So long as you are perceiving something, anything at all, in terms of a manifest reality, you're still 'in' the dream. If we're talking about awakening to the Truth, those experiences have no special significance at all, any more than any other experience, other than that they are 'special' and thus, mind may be even more reticent than usual to let them go, to lay them on the fire. Precisely, what understanding? If it's other than objects/things perceived are appearance only, it's 'in the dream' stuff, no? The idea that objects/things cannot be perceived/recognized absent a consensus regarding that object, I don't agree with at all. One need not have a name for an object to recognize/perceive 'something' appearing. I'm not sure how the 'noun' stuff ties in with my post, but will say "Consensus" is itself just an appearance within the dream....it can't even be known for certain if there are in fact other points of view that are actually in agreement. Consensus anyway would only apply to labels that are assigned to objects....and Labels, names, words, are not necessary to recognize 'something' that is appearing. It certainly seems to be an understanding about objects that we don't share, in any event.
This is a well worn point of disagreement between the two of us. Yes, I say that a person who's managed to get to the simple sanity of human adulthood and is open to questioning their nature and the nature of reality is under the influence of less existential falsity than say, a teenager obsessing about what their peers think of them and lost in a material dream of the future, or someone so cut off from their own sense of being that they commit violent acts, or someone petrified of death because of illness. SR is binary, but the existential delusion is a matter of degree.
As far as your point about perception and naming, it misses the meaning, which isn't a matter of fine distinctions: your objective descriptions of the perception are after-the-fact. They're also abstract, so can only ever be a shadow of the experience as it happened. Chasing this notion with intellect is a pointless philosophical endeavor.
As far as the significance of those experiences, reefs used to like to make the point that the spiritual traditions from which we know about nonduality today have a dismal track record if you rate them by how often they lead someone to the existential truth. That's true, but it has a flip-side : the advice to get present to the here and now is about as direct as one can get, and where that can lead has less pain and drama than a "dark night of the soul". The advice to get internally still and silent, and direct sustained attention either inward or outward, has the potential to lead to the types of experiences and unconventional understandings that you say are insignificant.
What would you tell someone who came to this site to sincerely ask for advice? What if instead of wasting time and energy with snide remarks about how much you have to learn, and how much more enlightened than you they were, what if they instead asked you flat out what they should do to realize the existential truth, and they were genuinely interested in your response? What would you say to them?
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Jan 10, 2020 16:03:57 GMT
The problem you are having grasping this, centers around you taking one specific, singular appearance, to focus upon. The 'not knowing' that has been spoken of, pertains to the entire realm of perceivables, not just appearing people, apparent sentience, but the entirety of experiential content. All of it, appearance only....dream-content...story content. (take your pick of what metaphor you prefer...none is perfect by any means.) The story content in it's entirety, people included, is seen to be appearance only, nothing within the story can convey the Truth of the matter. Apparent sentience of appearing people is but one facet within that entire realm of appearance. Despite having been realized to be devoid of Truth, the story still compels and engages. How could it not? Fwiw, this body/mind is also a facet of that realm of 'appearance only.' All of that, arises ephemerally within/to that which abides. To say that there are no consequences to seeing all appearances to be devoid of Truth is essentially the same as saying there is no consequence to seeing through separation. In seeking Truth in what appears, one is obviously still fast asleep. Thus, We're talking freedom...awakening....the realization of Self. Do you regard that to be of any importance? Yes, the realization need not have practical applications in terms of self improvement/life experience before it is accepted as true. It is not a 'mental position only' just because others are not being looked at suspiciously as perhaps not 'real', whatever that means. Embodying that truth has consequences on a more profound level.
|
|