(I will only allow you 1000 more high fives before I extend a warning, so be careful there buddy )
And to the underlined; like Peace, the fundamental nature of Love is absence; absence of judgment, absence of fear, absence of defensive boundaries, all predicated on separation. Love is always present because Oneness is always the case. It is indeed cause for celebration, and too simple to have a lot of rational, logical discussion about.
(I mean, Kensho on steroids, High Five Bro!)
Or in his case, high four.
"To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man."
Andrew: Basically agree here, but if 'the personal' isn't the key level at which creation is creating, then creation and perception would have to go beyond 'the personal' (i.e goes beyond the individuated mind/segmented perspective).
I mean, when you guys have said that yours might be the only perspective/individuated mind, it is saying that creation/perception is 'personal' i.e that birds flying, gravity, moons are being created solely in your personal perspective. But based on other things you have said (including what you said here), I know you don't consider that a possibility. I'm pretty sure Gopal does consider this a possibility, and I suspect that relates to why he repeatedly asks you about bird flying, alligators swimming, gravity etc.
Enigma:Even if there is only one POP, (which I find unlikely in the extreme) creation still happens impersonally.
Andrew: Then you DO consider it a possibility that the totality is appearing in just your POP? This goes against what you previously said to me, so could you clarify please? If creation=perception and there is JUST your POP, how could creation be happening impersonally? Creation can be said to be happening impersonally if there is NO personal perceiver/creator. But in your model, you might be the ONLY perceiver/creator. Would also appreciate some clarity on this please?
(Or if Laughter understands you well, perhaps he could explain it).
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.'
Andrew:This adds more confusion. Are you saying that where there is a POP, that the individual IS, or is NOT, conscious?
Holy cow. You apparently just cannot fathom that there is no 'thing/object' that IS conscious..?
Please be clear. What is conscious? There's only 2 choices that I can see. Either Consciousness is conscious or appearances are 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.
If appearances are conscious, then which appearances are conscious? You argued that a paperclip is definitely NOT conscious, does this mean that you know humans ARE conscious? Do you know the 'Enigma' human to be conscious? If so, what makes him conscious, and Marie not necessarily conscious?
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.
Zendancer: FWIW, Zen avoids the whole "foundation" or "appearances" thingy by challenging people to stay silently focused upon "what is." A typical Zen dialogue might go something like this:
ZM: Is this (holds up a glass of water) a glass of water or not a glass of water? Monk: (takes the glass of water, has a drink, and hands it back) ZM: Was that drink of water real or unreal? Monk: (takes another drink of water and hands it back) ZM: What is this? (snaps fingers) Monk: (snaps fingers) ZM: What is it that confronts me? Monk: (smiles and waves) ZM: On the ST forum Tenka and other posters have been arguing about the substance of reality. Which posters are correct? Monk: Would you like to join me for a cup of tea? ZM: Yes, thank you. IOW, intellection, speculation, and judgment about what's happening is eschewed in favor of directly seeing, understanding, and responding to the truth of what's going on. What's the advantage of this? Well, it keeps things simple, and combined with meditation it usually leads to a relatively silent mind and many significant existential realizations. Self inquiry can have the same effect, but I suspect that silence, alone, is all that's really necessary for discovering the Infinite.
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.
No, not a dwad: the distinction is between an explanation for the appearance of objectivity based on the assumption of an objective reality, or based on a subjective consensus. Subjective consensus only need involve the assumption of a shared commonality between perspectives, but the shared commonality need not be a reality existing independently, outside of the perspectives. Also, the idea of objective reality implies not only an independent existence of that reality outside of the perspectives, but also, that the reality of the perspectives arises within and as dependent upon that outside objective reality, which is usually defined in terms of the senses, and taken to be material in nature. Objective appearances based on the potential for subjective consensus don't involve any of those characteristics:
(1) a reality independent of the subjective perspectives (2) an inner/outer boundary between the subjective perspectives and that reality (3) that the reality is defined by the senses (4) that the perspectives arise within and as dependent upon that reality
I can understand how it might seem like a dwad to you, but there is a substantial modern culture of philosophy that tries to account for the metaphysical result of the collapse of the material assumption, and this is one of the ways they go about that. Also, mushin is action with a quiescent mind, regardless of belief. Also, it's possible to question and suspend all belief in an objective reality, especially while seeking, but still engage with physical appearances and the appearance of other people, in terms that appear to be objective.