Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Nov 6, 2018 1:13:14 GMT
Correct! Because aloneness is a secondary illusion derived from the primary illusion of separation, both of which collapse at the same time. Yes, which is why Andrew's argument that there cannot be' only a singular view point, is misconceived. His 'infinite perceivers' argument was possibly the worst flawful logic I've heard from him.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Nov 6, 2018 1:16:27 GMT
High five to all of that. You rebel, you. (I will only allow you 1000 more high fives before I extend a warning, so be careful there buddy ) Nice. (I mean, Kensho on steroids, High Five Bro!) Or in his case, high four.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 6, 2018 2:24:23 GMT
Yes, which is why Andrew's argument that there cannot be' only a singular view point, is misconceived. His 'infinite perceivers' argument was possibly the worst flawful logic I've heard from him. It was bad.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 6, 2018 2:25:55 GMT
You rebel, you. (I will only allow you 1000 more high fives before I extend a warning, so be careful there buddy ) Nice. (I mean, Kensho on steroids, High Five Bro!) Or in his case, high four. OMG! WTF??
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Nov 6, 2018 15:30:51 GMT
His 'infinite perceivers' argument was possibly the worst flawful logic I've heard from him. It was bad. Perfect.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 6, 2018 17:29:14 GMT
Exactly.
I think what this reveals is that for Andrew, 'impersonal creation' hinges upon 'multiple viewpoints,' which I think therefore means, he is conflating 'impersonal' with 'collective.'
I really am seeing as conversations with him evolve, that he really doesn't have any kind of 'transcendent' reference at all.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 6, 2018 17:42:31 GMT
You see, there is value to these conversations that go on and on...over time, certain 'nuggets' get revealed.
All along, it's YOU who has been 'personalizing' perceiving/creation, and point of perception. Perception itself is not 'personal'...personal doesn't enter in until an SVP get imagined into the equation. perception itself is not 'personal.'
And....The idea of 'the only' perceiver, goes out the window in the face of singular perception point. If there is but "One" then there is No other...no 'only.'
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 6, 2018 18:08:30 GMT
Holy cow. You apparently just cannot fathom that there is no 'thing/object' that IS conscious..?
This is truly incredible to me that you've been conversing about nonduality for all this time, and still have not grasped that there is no 'what' that is conscious...that 'conscious awareness' does not arise of an object/thing.
While it might get said that a human being IS conscious, even amongst those who are not SR, the idea that 'conscious awareness' is not actually sourced within the body, can be grasped.
AT best we can say that conscious awareness 'corresponds' or is 'associated with' an appearance, but SR reveals that that which appears arises 'within' conscious awareness, not the other way around.
The reason E could say from the personal/relative context, "I as a human being am conscious" is because the appearing E character, body/mind is directly 'associated with' Existence/Being. That association is immediate, direct, visceral, unquestionable.
The mistake most make though is in taking that 'association' for something more, and 'identifying' with the character, body/mind. That is, they wrongly assume conscious awareness to be tied to the body/mind, to be dependently arising "of" the body/mind, when in actuality, the body/mind arises dependent upon conscious awareness.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 6, 2018 18:27:31 GMT
Yes.
The 'truth' of what's going on, is absent ideas 'about' it, ideas such as the qualities of the 'whats.' Your insistence that your Kensho left you with a realization that the entirety, and therefore each object/thing presenting in a given moment is in fact, "Alive, conscious, vibrant, etc." would earn you a good thwack.
The discovery of the infinite, does not leave one hell-bent on specific terms that describe it's 'qualities.' The moment you assign certain quality to 'the infinite' you've licked a pointer.
The apprehension of 'the infinite' does not leave one knowing for certain that each object/thing I encounter in a given moment is this or that. Anything more than "It is" would be a step into minding and thus, deserving of a thwack.
I think the reason Zd you are having so much trouble with this, is that you've glorified your woo-woo experiences....you've identified with them in that you conflate them with and you credit them with, your SR status. You give good lip service to the idea that 'no one gets enlightened,' but you still very much grasp tightly to your personal mystical experiences as well as your SR status. Just look at how you recall every single date, time, specifics of each CC/kensho experience...as you re-tell your 'stories' over and over again in great detail.
Those details are really not important at all, nor are the dates. That kind of emphasis upon the experiential can be very misleading to seekers....leaving them in search of a special experience vs. looking 'at' experience as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 6, 2018 18:31:17 GMT
Well done.
|
|